Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Since the Hellcat was considered the unquestioned master of the Japanese planes, the P-39N should have been able to handle Zeros like the Hellcat. Zeros were 330-340mph planes, Hellcats and P-39Ns were 40-50mph faster at all altitudes.
P-39 was not superior to the Spitfire IX or Merlin P-51, I have never stated this. Those had two STAGE engines for high altitude performance.
The F4U and Hellcat had two stage mechanical R-2800s. The P-39N substantially outclimbed both the Corsair and Hellcat. Those planes and the P-47 (those operational in 1943) climbed about the same as the FW190, a little under 3000fpm initially and around 1800fpm at 20000' with a service ceiling of 37000'. The N climbed at near 4000fpm initially and 2650fpm at 20000' with a service ceiling of 38500'. The N was faster under 15000' and a little slower at 25000', 375mph vs about 390mph for the Corsair which was faster than the Hellcat. Hard to believe the N had a higher ceiling than Corsairs and Hellcats.
Since the Hellcat was considered the unquestioned master of the Japanese planes, the P-39N should have been able to handle Zeros like the Hellcat. Zeros were 330-340mph planes, Hellcats and P-39Ns were 40-50mph faster at all altitudes.
You bring so much criticism from others because you wander astray with value judgments about other aircraft that simply aren't based on facts.In order to spin a plane must first stall. According to the training films and other sources the P-39 had excellent stall characteristics with plenty of warning and no wing drop. I wouldn't recommend spinning one, but you had to get into substantial trouble before that happened.
Regarding the fuselage tank, I read a pilot's comments that it was a court martial offense to use the fuselage tank before exhausting the drop tanks. Any usage of the fuselage tank prior to exhausting the drop tanks meant a loss of range if the drop tanks had to be dropped before they were empty. Use your fuselage tank before your drop tanks and you have one third less internal fuel after they are dropped.
Both the FW190 and the P-47 wings were too small. Both were known as sleds and the FW190 had real stall problems and the resulting spin was quite an experience with control reversal.
There were a lot of propeller comparisons in wwiiaircraftperformance for the P-47, but again did any of these props actually get used before 1944? The P-47D-10 test on Oct 11 1943 said it used the STANDARD Curtiss 12'2" propeller that had been used on all the production P-47s to date. One thing that I don't like about wwiiaircraft is all the experimental testing with different propellers and exotic fuels that never got into use before the Luftwaffe was defeated in March 1944. So a lot of information is on that site about planes that never saw the light of day, or if they did it was too late to have a meaningful impact on the war. Oh well.
Many evaluations of the P-39 contradict that statement about stalls. and speaking about control reversal. On the P-39 with wing guns and full ammo loads the proper spin recovery use of ailerons was opposite the proper use of ailerons without or with light load of ammo.In order to spin a plane must first stall. According to the training films and other sources the P-39 had excellent stall characteristics with plenty of warning and no wing drop. I wouldn't recommend spinning one, but you had to get into substantial trouble before that happened.
Regarding the fuselage tank, I read a pilot's comments that it was a court martial offense to use the fuselage tank before exhausting the drop tanks. Any usage of the fuselage tank prior to exhausting the drop tanks meant a loss of range if the drop tanks had to be dropped before they were empty. Use your fuselage tank before your drop tanks and you have one third less internal fuel after they are dropped.
Both the FW190 and the P-47 wings were too small. Both were known as sleds and the FW190 had real stall problems and the resulting spin was quite an experience with control reversal.
There were a lot of propeller comparisons in wwiiaircraftperformance for the P-47, but again did any of these props actually get used before 1944? The P-47D-10 test on Oct 11 1943 said it used the STANDARD Curtiss 12'2" propeller that had been used on all the production P-47s to date. One thing that I don't like about wwiiaircraft is all the experimental testing with different propellers and exotic fuels that never got into use before the Luftwaffe was defeated in March 1944. So a lot of information is on that site about planes that never saw the light of day, or if they did it was too late to have a meaningful impact on the war. Oh well.
The P-39N substantially outclimbed both the Corsair and Hellcat. Those planes and the P-47 (those operational in 1943) climbed about the same as the FW190, a little under 3000fpm initially and around 1800fpm at 20000' with a service ceiling of 37000'.
I am afraid this statement doesn't pass the smell test ...... the Soviets had a shopping list of things they wanted from the USA and their commissionaires roamed the country ... inspecting factories and mostly getting what they wanted.
What didn't they get? 4-engined bombers ... the USA, GB and Commonwealth needed all such bombers for their 2-Front war ... which the Soviets were NOT fighting.
They received P-47s. They received state-of-the-art radar and communications equipment. They received machine tools. They received trucks, tanks, DUCKs. Food. Food. And more Food. Everything they received was what was being used by the Americans themselves.
And what the Soviets didn't received honorably .. they took by subterfuge ... aka Los Alamos project.
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/documents/index.htm
Wasn't a "stripper" N. Test was at combat weight with AVERAGE fuel. Add 360# back (60 gals, half fuel) and you get 7634# Gross weight of P-39N was 7650#. This was done to get the average weight for this flight. WEP only used below 16000', above the critical altitude WEP not available, by definition. The climb figures on the Oct 17, '42 test were at military power, no WEP. These were faster climb rates up to 25000' than any P-38F/G, P-40, P-47, P-51, Corsair, Hellcat, Wildcat, FW190, Me109, Zero, Oscar in combat in 1943. Not faster than the Spitfire IX or P-51B (December).You are relying on that stripper N (or at the least low fuel) using WEP power for your performance figures. OK I will concede that this N, which shows up sometime in the middle of 1943 in combat theaters, could handle a Zero, IF the Zeros were delivered to the close vicinity of the P-39s airbase.
SEE:http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39FOIC.pdf
P-39Q FLight operation chart for P-39Q with 87 gallons of fuel and weight between 7200-7600lbs using the same engine as the N (?)
The Small tank P-39s couldn't go anywhere and get back. Even with a drop tank you are restricted to around 100 miles or less over Europe.
In the Pacific you can go a bit further (lower cruising speeds work) but base protection interceptor is a rather limited role for plane thousands of miles from home.
More general purpose planes were wanted for the investment in logistics and ground crew.
You can put a spin on anything, the B 29 was the most expensive military project ever done at the time, who gives such things away, by the hundred? The USA wanted more mosquitos themselves but the fact is everyone wanted mosquitos at one stage. When you look at all that Russia actually was given completely free of charge their complaints are a bit OTT.Well, the Soviets just did not get ALL what they wanted. Request lists included B-17, B-24, B-29, Mosquitto, late Spitfire, P-61, etc. They wanted to have H2S radars, Nordon sights and much more. Hence the keynote of Soviet (and much of Russian language post-Soviet) historical literature: "they gave us left-overs, they kept the best for themselves, it was not fair!".
I'm trying to limit the planes to those that were fighting in 1943.Hi P-39 Expert,
While I agree that the P-39N had an excellent rate of climb, I would add that the P-47 didn't climb nearly as well as the Corsair or Hellcat until the advent of 100/150 fuels and the paddle blade propeller. The F4U-1 and F6F-3/5 easily had initial climb rates ranging between 3,000 - 3,600fpm (depending on power settings and use of water injection), while a P-47 wouldn't normally touch 3,000fpm unless it was running at the highest combat boost levels and sporting a paddle prop.
You can put a spin on anything, the B 29 was the most expensive military project ever done at the time, who gives such things away, by the hundred? The USA wanted more mosquitos themselves but the fact is everyone wanted mosquitos at one stage. When you look at all that Russia actually was given completely free of charge their complaints are a bit OTT.
I worked briefly in Russia and got the complaints first hand.I was ironic. Let me put one more smiley to emphasize that..
Wasn't a "stripper" N. Test was at combat weight with AVERAGE fuel. Add 360# back (60 gals, half fuel) and you get 7634# Gross weight of P-39N was 7650#. This was done to get the average weight for this flight. WEP only used below 16000', above the critical altitude WEP not available, by definition. The climb figures on the Oct 17, '42 test were at military power, no WEP. These were faster climb rates up to 25000' than any P-38F/G, P-40, P-47, P-51, Corsair, Hellcat, Wildcat, FW190, Me109, Zero, Oscar in combat in 1943. Not faster than the Spitfire IX or P-51B (December).
Your P-39Q operations chart clearly shows internal capacity of 86 gallons. The Russians requested the reduction since that's apparently all they needed since they seldom flew with drop tanks. N (and all older P-39s) originally had the full 120 gallon internal capacity. Normal combat P-39N carried a 110gallon drop tank. That's 120 internal plus 110 drop=230gals and drop tanks of 156 gallons and 175 gallons were also available.
I'm trying to limit the planes to those that were fighting in 1943.
Whoa! Bell had to have been playing "Disingenuous" here. The idea that the possibility of aft CG stability issues never entered their minds, considering the unconventional layout of their bird begs credibility. And then to build a wing with no washout, thus guaranteeing a buffetless, violent stall? And whoever thought of not including the entire range of CG scenarios in flight testing?However with the P39 the reports of tumbling and flat spins were actually not believed by Bell, only when they did tests with no ammunition were they believed. Now this means that the plane had not been fully tested before entering service, having no ammunition is a normal condition on a combat plane.
I understand that is what you were doing, but to lump all R-2800 engined fighters flying in 1943 as having similar initial climb rates is simply incorrect. Both Navy fighters could comfortably reach 3,000 fpm, but this was not the case with Thunderbolt as it struggled in the climb before the paddle prop was introduced and even then it still couldn't match the Corsair or Hellcat.I'm trying to limit the planes to those that were fighting in 1943.
I agree, I am by no means well read on the subject, but I am much better read than I was a week ago. There are documented statements of poor stall performance. Handling or stability problems with ammunition expended are also documented which had to be brought to Bells attention. The one mission flown by the RAF was straffing barges near Dunkerque, the pilots I would suspect returned with no ammunition in a completely different plane to the one they took off in. I have no access to any flight reports but I strongly suspect the British tested the P 39 without ammunition/ballast and said "you must be joking" Additionally, wing washout causes drag, and is a price worth paying in the compromises made. All the P39s rivals would have gone faster with no washout.Whoa! Bell had to have been playing "Disingenuous" here. The idea that the possibility of aft CG stability issues never entered their minds, considering the unconventional layout of their bird begs credibility. And then to build a wing with no washout, thus guaranteeing a buffetless, violent stall? And whoever thought of not including the entire range of CG scenarios in flight testing?
IIUC, the purpose of the midships engine was to minimize polar moment of inertia and enhance agility. Any kindergartner can forsee that this will likely result in very light stick force gradients and a "twitchy" machine prone to over controlling and PIOs unless compensated for in the flight control linkages. Add that to the wobbly aft CG and the sharp stall characteristics, and you've got a tailor made "lieutenant loser". (The unintended Lomcevak is a free of charge fringe benefit! People pay good money at amusement parks across the land to experience thrills like that.)
It's hard to believe Bell would not have been aware of this, or that they would knowingly foist such a deathtrap on the government.
I've read here and there in dark ages of prehistory that USAAC Wright Pat forced a number of changes on Bell Aircraft to comply with some high ranking infantry officer in Procurement's concept of "improvements". IIRC, this included reducing the wing area to "go faster, like a GeeBee", adding a heavy radio behind the cockpit to talk to ground troops, and removing some bobweights from the elevator linkage and some other (don't remember) weight from the nose section.
Since we seem to have a P-39 expert in our midst, maybe he can enlighten us on this. Fact or fiction? And if fiction, any idea where that story came from?
Cheers,
Wes
AMEN!!I would suggest it would be a very dangerous beast as a tail dragger.