Planes that are simultaneously both the most over rated and the most under rated. (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

"A big difference in the tests were the M was tested with drop tank sway braces and the N was not. These sway braces were horribly inefficient and likely were the reason for the speed difference (and some climb) between the M and N. "

How does the P-39 get its good range without the fuel from the drop tank?
 
Obviously needed the drop tank with only 120 gal internal, but also needed to clean up those sway braces. Work them down to 4 braces instead of 8, then cover each side with a wrap to smooth the airflow. This was done on later P-63s. Preferably eliminate them altogether with a wrap around fairing that gave a smooth juncture between the tank and the plane and provided it's own internal sway bracing that fell away with the tank when dropped leaving only the shackle. Bell developed and tested these and they improved speed by 18mph with the tank attached, then when dropped the speed improved about 10-15mph over a P-39 with the exposed shackles. A relatively simple solution that wasn't normally used.
 
pinehilljoe said:
this is an interesting thread. If the P-39 was that much better than the P-47, why did the US send half (4719) the 39 production to the Soviets and only 203 out of 15,000 P-47s?
Click to expand...

Regarding the P-47.
Soviet decision makers were not interested. Why so - it could become another interesting thread, but will be off topic here.
 
P-39 Expert said:
Would love to know why, especially since it will be off topic.
Click to expand...
Just briefly since I really would like to avoid off topic...
As far as I remember there were no niche assigned for P-47 except PVO (Air Defence) and VMF (Navy). The latter was interested initially due to the long range only, then they "discovered" P-47's capabilities as a fighter bomber, but it was too late to make any impact in WWII.
The impression of stakeholders could be summarised by the quote from one of post war books of Mark Gallay "...stable...comfortable - yet not a fighter... ideally suited for a simple flight along the route without manoeuvring...".
We can just speculate now whether it was oversight or vested interests but why P-47 was not seriously considered in CAS role.
IMHO, missed opportunity. Subject that US could meet demand, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
878
Ivan1GFP
I
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
796
DerAdlerIstGelandet
S
Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
5K
z42
Z
Airwar Over Europe?
Replies
2
Views
572
Canaus
C
Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary
15 16 17
Replies
326
Views
16K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Menu
Log in
Register