This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'd cancel the P-39 and go forward with the XP-40Q, hands down.
I've ready plenty of historical pilot comments to effect that P-40 had few bad flying habits. Comments concerning P-39 flight characteristics tended to state the opposite.
Inexperienced pilots prefer predictable and safe over theoretical performance values.
Would that roll advantage hold true if the P-39's wing guns (and associated ammunition) were removed?In the vertical, yes. In the horizontal, maybe not. The P-40 variants over all could out roll and out turn the P-39 variants. The P-39 had a speed and acceleration advantage though.
The more notable examples of problems with the P-39 spinning seem to be shifting loadouts and pilots with experience in one configuration having trouble in another. (mostly with nose-light loadings having problems -I'm not sure if the 20 mm armed versions were any better or worse)If you flew the P-39 within limits there were no issues. I believe both aircraft eventually had similar attrition rates especially when operated by training squadrons. The P-39 got a lot of bad press because of a customer who continually changed their mind about how they wanted to operate this aircraft and then deployed the aircraft in roles it wasn’t intended to fulfill to begin with. It takes a lot to stall/ spin and aircraft, even one with a sensitive center of gravity. If one knew what he was doing the P-39 could be flown aggressively, the soviets more than proved this.
I've been thinking more about the more dramatic revisions suggested to the Bf 109 over in the Ki 100 thread, and realized there might be some more realistic context to the 'early war P-40Q' suggestion. The engine was obviously a no-go and you'd be pretty much limited to the existing V-1710 and V-1650 powerplants the P-40 already used (and turbocharger implementation is potentially iffy too) but that doesn't mean the basic airframe couldn't be more dramatically improved in a number of areas the P-40Q later was. Curtiss seemed to spin their wheels a lot with the engineering employed on the XP-46 and XP-60 projects without much solid results and this somewhat reminds me of the issues with the Me 209 and 309 developments.I'd cancel the P-39 and go forward with the XP-40Q, hands down.
It was more a funtion of the aileron travel. The USA had a problem with specs. We only wanted our fighters to roll and pitvh so fast, and the rest of thw world was unconstrrained. If you go look at the epscs, the US fighters MET the specs for roll. If they had rolled as well as the Fw 190, for instance, they would not have been accepted for service, and would have been thought of as too quick in roll.'
It wasn't that we couldn't make a good-rolling fighter ... we never specified one to be developed in the first palce. Naval aircraft in particular had a lot of spec on slow-speed handling that affected their design.