Rising Sun warbirds

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

If the 39th FS was in the 8FG, youll find they did well until they replaced thier -39s with -38s. Read the earlier post about Buzz Wagner and the sweep he led over Port Morsby, I'm thinking this was the sweep you're talking about...
 
I've been doing some thinking and I don't believe it would be possible to have 2 CGs.

Let's assume for a second that it is hypothetically possible for an aircraft to have two CGs. If that were the case, then there would be a point in the aircraft exactly half-way between the two CGs around which the aircraft would be perfectly balanced. What do you suppose we would call that point? The center of gravity.

An aircraft's center of gravity might change due to weapon of fuel load (the P-51 had some stability problems due to a changing CG as the fuel in the fuselage tank was burned off) but I don't see how a plane could have two CGs at the same time.
 

The -39 could be really unstable and it was because of the position of the engine and the discharge of armament. Bell engineers established two CG points because of this, data about this was posted in an earlier thread, I suggest you look in the archives and this is explained in detail. One CG established a lateral CG, the other established a vertical CG. Just because you have the two CG points together, it didn't mean things were going to remain that way and that was definitely the case with the -39. As a matter of fact the two were rarely together when the aircraft was loaded. The GC "envelope" for both CGs was very narrow. Pilots had a song about the P-39 (also posted on an earlier thread).

"Don't give a P-39, the one with the engine behind

She'll tumble and roll, and make make a big hole

God, don't give me a P-39!"
 
Well, here's another verse...

"Don't give me a P-38, the props they counter-rotate.
She's scattered and sittin from Burma to Britain
Don't give me a P-38."

The most memorable quote I recall about the P-39 was one pilot who said he'd rather have a truck: it was faster and had a higher ceiling.
 
I could understand the Corsair. But I consider the P-47 inferior. P-38 would out-turn, out-range, out-climb, dive with, and out run every P-47 except the M.
 
Lightning Guy said:
I could understand the Corsair. But I consider the P-47 inferior. P-38 would out-turn, out-range, out-climb, dive with, and out run every P-47 except the M.
Click to expand...

I concur more or less.

The Corsair -4 was almost equal with a P-38L. The P-38 could still out accelerate, out range and fly higher. The corsair had an extra hard point (they had the same 4,000lb rating but the F4U was easier to cheat with) and could land on a carrier, in every other catagory they were essentialy equal. Had more performance been needed in WWII the P-38K was available for production.

I would trade a P-38 for a Corsair only if I were going Navy.

wmaxt
 
P-38 would also out-gun, out-dive, and out-turn the Corsair. Top speed and climb between the F4U-4 and the P-38L were practically a dead heat.
 
Also witht the P-38, you get the reliability of two engines. id feel much more secure flying with two, even though they were inline, and the radial of the corsair could take more punishment from battle damage.
 
Ill agree with you but of the 3 aircraft I just happen to like the P-47 better. I like the way it looks so stubby and mean. Mostly though I like the fact that it was just a great all around aircraft. So were the P-38 and the Corsair. All three obviously had there areas where they would out do the other and all three are top notch aircraft.
 
Agreed. Though the P-47 has alot going for it. Rugged as can be, eight 12.7mm machine guns in the wings, and with the bubble canopy it really came into its own. The P-38 had four 12.7mm machine guns, but they were clustered around a 20mm cannon, and were centralized in the nose, and with that firepower, could saw through and enemy aircraft. The corsaid had six 12.7mm machine guns in the wings, giving adequate firepower, and the P-38 and corsair could aslo take punishment. But the P-38 requires you to be a good shot, and isnt as manouverable, and the corair has only six, compared to eight wing guns.
 
Yeah, simplified for the ground crew, but what about the pilots? you needed to be a much better shot. Same arguement for the 109s, when the armament was concentrated in the nose, made it hardy for rookies to hit what they wanted.
 
carpenoctem1689 said:
Yeah, simplified for the ground crew, but what about the pilots? you needed to be a much better shot. Same arguement for the 109s, when the armament was concentrated in the nose, made it hardy for rookies to hit what they wanted.
Click to expand...

Nope, like anything else it was a matter of training and natural ability. You had P-38 pilots like Tom Lynch, Gerald Johnson, Jack Jones, Bob Westbrook and Robert DeHaven who flew P-39s and P-40s with success and then continued with the P-38. If anything their gunnery skills got better when they started flying the P-38. I had a neighbor, Col. Mike Alba, who flew P-38s and P-51s in Europe and he said the -38 was a way better gun platform.....

In 1944 when Dick Bong returned stateside he underwent gunnery training. By that time tactics were refined and in Bong's own words "my scored would of been double had I had this training in 1943." When he returned to the Pacific in late 1944 he was knocking down several planes at a time and retuning to base with ammunition left over.....
 
Having zero convergence meant that they had a concentrated stream of bullets going out several hundred yards. There was no issue of only a few hitting the target due to dispersal.
 
Maybe so, but Richard Bong himself claimed that he had poor gunnery skills. His way to solve that? He got as close as possible before firing. He admits he was a poor shot, but he still managed to down 40 enemy airplanes, almost all of them with the P-38. Having the guns directly in front was proven to make it better for gunners. Wing guns make it more difficult as you have to worry about convergence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Warbirds Over Pearl Harbor
Replies
6
Views
936
Tkdog
T
The Sunderland - aka 'The Flying Porcupine'... where were the extra guns?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
8K
WATU
W
W
Short Sunderland Mk IV WW2 1944/5
Replies
3
Views
1K
nortoi
N
J
WWII goggles that also worked as sunglasses?
Replies
6
Views
4K
airminded88
W
Effects of Ernst Udet not rising in the Luftwaffe?
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
wiking85
W
Menu
Log in
Register