Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"But probably the tricicle undercarriage, that required this markedly nose-up attitude was one of the reasons responsible for the bad handling of P-39 at low speeds."
You don't go to a nose high attitude until you flare, and that is a few feet above the runway. You are trying to stall it at that point.
Keep in mind a few salient points, first these were older P-39s with the lower rated engine and way too much weight. With the ever present drop tank their combat ceiling (altitude above which any plane will climb at only 1000fpm or less) was about 18000'. The Bettys came in at between 18000' and 22000' with their Zero escort at about 24000'. These older P-39s (D,F,K,L) could have easily been modified in the field by simply removing the 4 x .30 wing guns along with their mounts, chargers heaters and ammunition boxes (and of course the ammo itself which was the heaviest component) and these planes would climb with the P-38s that, by the way, were not even available until very late in the year. And those Jap raids were frequently intercepted by those P-39s, no radar and extra weight included.
Second, the Japanese pilots were among the best in the world being Navy carrier pilots with experience in China. Our kids at PM were all fresh out of flying school with no experience except for Buzz Wagner who supposedly got off the ground at Pearl Harbor. Most experts consider pilot quality to be more important than plane quality all other factors being equal. Theirs were much much better at this point in the war.
Third,we didn't have effective radar until after August 1942 so the raids were largely unopposed. These raids could come at any time from Lae only 200 miles away and their Zero escort didn't even need drop tanks. Later at Guadalcanal the Jap raids came from much farther away so they almost always came at noon making them very predictable.
Fourth, we were tremendously outnumbered. Japanese had functioning bases all along the NG coast backed up by their huge base at Rabaul. Their maintenance facilities were functional. Our maintenance/supply early on at Moresby consisted mainly of pulling a functional part off of one of the many wrecks at the end of the runway. By the time the P-38 appeared in the theater attrition at Moresby, Coral Sea, Midway and the first three months of Guadalcanal had seriously reduced the Japanese Navy pilot quality and our pilots were much better trained than in April '42.
The fact that the green outnumbered American kids kept the Japanese out of Moresby was a real tribute to their courage and tenacity. Lighter equipped P-39s and functioning radar would have made the job a lot easier. The later arriving Lightnings benefited from better pilots, declining Jap pilots, functioning radar and much more efficient maintenance.
From what I have read on this thread you are desperately trying to remember how many rounds of ammunition are still in the nose at that point."But probably the tricicle undercarriage, that required this markedly nose-up attitude was one of the reasons responsible for the bad handling of P-39 at low speeds."
You don't go to a nose high attitude until you flare, and that is a few feet above the runway. You are trying to stall it at that point.
At the first flight with a Typhoon, Clostermann nearly destroyed the plane as he tought that the big wings of the Tiffy had a lot of lift...
A friend got to fly an F-106 simulator, and got the plane to stall at 35,000 AGL. The instructor said he did well; it only took 50,000 ft to recover.Ever see an airshow acro plane do a Lomcevak? You just described it to a tee. I'm told the word is Czech and is (mis)translated as "crazy mixed-up headache". Having ridden through a couple in a Pitts, I can vouch for the accuracy of the term. The ultimate sensation of hostageness. You ever notice that nobody does them at low altitude at airshows (or anywhere else)? Takes a few seconds to uncage your eyeballs afterward.
Days of future passed! That sort of behaviour, an inverted oscillatory spin with the nose whipsawing up and down and the rotation rate and bank angle fluctuating randomly and not synchronously, became pretty common in the jet age. IIRC, spin in the F4J was described as: "random oscillations around all three axis with buffeting, a high rate of descent, and probable dual flameout". IIRC, recovery was: "average fluctuations of AOA needle to determine if positive or negative stall, average turn needle to determine direction of rotation, apply appropriate stick and rudder for type of spin. Deploy RAT if flameout occurs. If control not regained passing 10,000 AGL, EJECT."
I knew a crew who missed that last directive by a thousand feet, stopping rotation by 9,000 and still augered in. They managed to achieve a level pitch attitude passing through 1,000, but at some phenomenal G load and an impossible sink rate, and the plane snapped inverted in the midst of the ejection sequence.
Cheers,
Wes
View: https://youtu.be/hLeYWkx2Jlg
If you watch at this video the Instructor do insist that landing in P-39 must be done on the main undercarriage, keeping the nose well up to the end ( from 33'.00 circa). As all airplanes with tricycle landing gear must do, of course.
But probably the tricicle undercarriage, that required this markedly nose-up attitude was one of the reasons responsible for the bad handling of P-39 at low speeds.
The combination of nose-up, CG aft, ammunition expended, no wash-out in the wings, inertia coupling due to the position of the engine and possibly other incidental factors like a little bit to slow landing speed ("..be careful not coming too fast" says the Instructor at 32.00...), some unfavourable wind conditions, a jerky handling of the stick from a inexperienced Pilot, could have led very easily to a nasty situation.
Thank you. But he was at Moresby with the first two squadrons.Wagner was not at Pearl Harbor. He was the commanding officer of the 17th Pursuit Squadron in the Philippines before being evacuated to Australia.
P-39N in production between December '42 and April '44 was faster and climbed faster at all altitudes than the Spitfire V. The Spitfire IX was superior in speed and climb to the P-39N and entered full series production about the same time. The comparison I'm making is between the P-39N and the German fighters. Everyone else seems to have me in an argument over the Spitfire.To, summarise, the P-39N introduced in 1943 gave performance similar to the Spitfire V of 1941, in some areas better and others worse, and inferior to the Spitfire IX in 1942?
Many P-39Ns were delivered with less fuel capacity than the Spitfire V, though some had more and others could be fitted with extra tankage in the field, but how many were?
Oh, the P-39 drove like a limousine on the ground, which must have been comforting to the pilots struggling to reach an altitude where they could engage the enemy aircraft sent to bomb the shit out of the airfield.
P-39N in production between December '42 and April '44 was faster and climbed faster at all altitudes than the Spitfire V. The Spitfire IX was superior in speed and climb to the P-39N and entered full series production about the same time. The comparison I'm making is between the P-39N and the German fighters. Everyone else seems to have me in an argument over the Spitfire.
Regarding fuel, the P-39N carried 120 internal and the Spitfire carried 100 US gallons. During N production the Russians requested that we start deleting the wing guns from the factory and reducing internal fuel capacity. The N and Q gradually reduced capacity to as little as 86 gallons. The wing guns stayed until the late Q models. Apparently less fuel and no wing armament worked for them.
This is the crux of the whole discussion and what is slowly driving me nutz. The P 39N was in Production in December 1942 and the Spitfire mk IX was in squadron service during the previous summer. Would you replace Spitfire Mk Vs with P39-Ns or Mk IXs? and it isn't just a question of speed and rate of climb, it is also a question of serviceability, safety and loss rates. The P-39 was dangerous, relative to all other US fighters to its own pilots, even in training, I posted the stats and you made no comment. Using semantic tricks like "full series production" is not impressive, the fact is that the Mk IX was in production in mid 1942, there is a limit to how quickly any new type can be introduced and in terms of logistics switching all factories over when you don't have all the parts just means losing months of production. The Mk V may have been outclassed in 1942 but it was better than nothing.P-39N in production between December '42 and April '44 was faster and climbed faster at all altitudes than the Spitfire V. The Spitfire IX was superior in speed and climb to the P-39N and entered full series production about the same time. The comparison I'm making is between the P-39N and the German fighters. Everyone else seems to have me in an argument over the Spitfire.
QUOTE] .
NOT telling him when to stall the plane!! Telling him how high his forward "bicycle" main gear wheel is off the ground. The object here is to "roll it on" so the plane touches with zero sink rate and is flying level in ground effect with its forward main wheel lightly touching the runway as the wheel spins up. Then as the plane gradually slows the pilot can ease the nose upward until the rear main lightly rolls on. THERE IS NO STALL INVOLVED. It's like a taildragger pilot making a wheel landing, or a floatplane touching down.U-2, the trickiest plane to land, has a "chase-car" with a another U-2 Pilot inside, telling his Colleague when to stall the plane.
The P-39 quite likely was that exception. Ever try to transition a Cessna 180 pilot into a Mooney 231? Probably quite similar to AT-6 into P-39. Here's why. (drgondog, jump in if I'm wrong). The C-180 (and the AT-6) is a fairly powerful, but somewhat draggy tail dragger with predictable balanced control response and typical taildragger landing behaviour. The Mooney (and the P-39) is sleek and slippery with a nose-high tricycle gear, controls that are much lighter and more sensitive in pitch than in the other axis, a higher approach speed than other similar aircraft, and a low wing with flaps set deep in ground effect in touchdown configuration.In general, pilots report that tricycle gear aircraft are much easier to land. I would be very surprised were the P-39 was an exception.
It wasn't the "green young American" P-39 pilots that kept the IJA out of Port Moresby, it was the not-so-green, but even younger Aussie Marines fighting an outnumbered and unsupported desperate defensive action against the Japanese in the stinking jungles of the Owen Stanley Mountains. If the Japanese had broken through that, all the skimpy assets available in Oz at the time could not have kept them out of Port Moresby. Let's not be patting ourselves too much on the back, here. Grunts on the ground carried the day.They were not green, and they weren't solely American. in fact the majority of defenders, including air assets were Australian