Bombers speed was closer to 180mph. Actually, you are flying further than the bombers if you are weaving.
Post the FOIC for the P-39N.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Okay, lets see what a P-39N would do. 120 gals internal plus a drop tank of 110 gals = 230 gals. Takeoff and climb to 5000' reserve is 20 gals so now we're down to 210 gals available. A P-39N burned 62gph at 25000' at 2600rpm max continuous power so we have a theoretical 3.4 hours to escort those bombers. Reduce that by 15 minutes combat and a 20 minute landing reserve so now we have 2.8 hours of actual escort time. We're flying faster than the bombers (230mph) so we're weaving to keep from getting ahead of them. So really we're covering the same ground as the bombers but flying faster. The bombers will cover 640 miles in that 2.8 hours and we're going out AND back so our roughly estimated combat radius is about 320 miles. About 50 miles less than a Thunderbolt with drop tanks. If we can cruise at less than 2600rpm maximum cruise (not recommended over Europe) then we can go farther. All hail the mighty Thunderbolt.
I Was Waiting for someone to mention this, nicely donePlease refer to and answer Drgondog's post on a similar subject. Prior to logging on to this forum I couldn't have asked the question I did, it is from reading posts like his that I have learned something.
There is much more to it than just taking off. One escort plane was part of squadron and a group of circa 600 that need to form up and rendezvous first with each other and then with the bomb group.
It is not only Drgondog's posts but others too. For example, Bill Runnels longest mission he said was 11 1/2 hours. The P 51 was considered a miracle because it could complete 6 hr missions. That huge difference in time plus the huge difference in speed of a fighter and bomber meant wave after wave of escorts handing over to each other, all of which needs fuel and all of which needs a contingency to avoid the FUBAR of a bomb group over Germany with no escort. Oh and did I mention the Bombers didn't have a "target" (sometimes listed by Stona), they had a list in case the priority target was obscured. No escort ever set course for the target, on many missions only about 20% even went there.See drgondog's post #652, there isn't much he doesn't know about this subject and has been extremely helpful ( and continues to be so ) and extremely patient ( I can attest to that ). When he lays out a scenario like he did in that post you can take it to the bank as they say.
.
Or just keep on repeating what William Green and the rest say about the P-39.
Tell me again how great a dogfighter the Hellcas was.
If we can cruise at less than 2600rpm maximum cruise (not recommended over Europe) then we can go farther. All hail the mighty Thunderbolt.
Compare the N to the Typhoon. About the same speed but N climbs a lot faster.
Milosh - where did you find that particular Chart? Is has several errors but the format is one I will put in my new book about the P-51B
The K and L had engines rated at 1325hp for take-off NOT WEP although they were down to 1150hp at 12,000ft.
The 1200hp engines in the M, N and Q did NOT have 100hp more at all altitudes. They didn't have at the lower altitudes.
They had around 50hp more than the old engines in the Ds and Fs. below 12,000ft.
They had 125hp less than the K and L below a few thousand feet an NO, use of WEP does not make up for that.
The old engines were allowed to use 1490hp up to 4300ft
The K & L engines could make 1580hp up to 2500ft.
Both engines then tapered off to 1150hp at 12,000ft.
The "super" engine was allowed 1410hp up to 9600ft.
I have no idea how you get 100hp better at all altitudes out of that.
yes they were better at higher altitudes.
I did a little number crunching and taking a P-39Q with 87 gallon tanks and taking out the wing .50s and replacing them the four .30 cal armament gives you a take-off weight of 7411lbs with full fuel, oil, ammo and pilot. Getting down under 7300lbs is going to take some effort.
AS far as the P-39 vs early P-47 as an escort fighter, ROFLMAO.
In the writing stage - Timeline complete for all the details and sources. Most data collected for Performance Comparisons, most photos gathered by still looking for FW 190 A-2 through A-7 with various armament mods, Ditto for Bf 109G-1 through G-6. Tables complete, sourcing side view elevations - a year awayHow far along are you with it? I would love to buy a copy when it finally is in print.
You're exaggerating a little, all I'm saying is that the P-39 wasn't as bad as you thought. Was competitive with most planes (especially in 1943) except for the Spitfire IX and the Merlin P-51 (Dec '43) and they had two stage engines. Got it's bad reputation in '42 because it was overloaded by the AAF (British with the P-400 contract actually) and didn't have oxygen at Guadalcanal. AAF gave up on it just as the P-38 was about to enter combat (late '42). Problem was the P-39N was starting production and with the 9.6 geared engine was a MUCH better plane. They shuttled them off to training command and the Russians who loved them and demanded more. And the early Lightnings (F/G) and Thunderbolts (B/C) were not as great as advertised until vastly improved models came basically after the Luftwaffe was done. That's what I think anyway.So let me see if I have this straight. You believe the N model of the Airacobra to be better dogfighter than the Hellcat, a better escort fighter than the Thunderbolt, and a better ground attack machine than the Typhoon. And even though the authorities knew this to be true you want us to believe that they still decided to keep the crappy planes and give the great P-39N to the French, Italians and Russians. Maybe it's you who thinks that we're the morons here....
My source is the P-39Q Pilots Manual, google it. At 25000' the P-39Q burned 62 gallons per hour at 2600rpm (maximum cruise power aka maximum continuous power), the highest cruising power available at that altitude. Full power at 25000' would cost you about 71gph. My estimate was prepared just like the manual says to plan a mission. I stand by those figures.
Changing the goal posts?The chart below may help. Looks like just about 100hp difference at every altitude.
The chart below may help. Looks like just about 100hp difference at every altitude.
You're exaggerating a little, all I'm saying is that the P-39 wasn't as bad as you thought. Was competitive with most planes (especially in 1943) except for the Spitfire IX and the Merlin P-51 (Dec '43) and they had two stage engines. Got it's bad reputation in '42 because it was overloaded by the AAF (British with the P-400 contract actually) and didn't have oxygen at Guadalcanal. AAF gave up on it just as the P-38 was about to enter combat (late '42). Problem was the P-39N was starting production and with the 9.6 geared engine was a MUCH better plane. They shuttled them off to training command and the Russians who loved them and demanded more. And the early Lightnings (F/G) and Thunderbolts (B/C) were not as great as advertised until vastly improved models came basically after the Luftwaffe was done. That's what I think anyway.
You're exaggerating a little, all I'm saying is that the P-39 wasn't as bad as you thought. Was competitive with most planes (especially in 1943) except for the Spitfire IX and the Merlin P-51 (Dec '43) and they had two stage engines. Got it's bad reputation in '42 because it was overloaded by the AAF (British with the P-400 contract actually) and didn't have oxygen at Guadalcanal. AAF gave up on it just as the P-38 was about to enter combat (late '42). Problem was the P-39N was starting production and with the 9.6 geared engine was a MUCH better plane. They shuttled them off to training command and the Russians who loved them and demanded more. And the early Lightnings (F/G) and Thunderbolts (B/C) were not as great as advertised until vastly improved models came basically after the Luftwaffe was done. That's what I think anyway.
Not really. The P39N was clearly a better aircraft than the P39D. But so what, the Typhoon was a lot better than the Hurricane, the Spit IX better than the Spit V, the P47 better than the P40 and P43 Lancer, the 109F better than the 109EYou're exaggerating a little, all I'm saying is that the P-39 wasn't as bad as you thought.
Wrong again, as a GA aircraft the P39 was almost useless, it didn't carry much of a payload, couldn't carry it very far and had a number of worrying defects in it's weight. As a fighter in 1943, the Typhoon gave it a run for its money and the Typhoon's biggest fans wouldn't claim it was a great fighterWas competitive with most planes except for the Spitfire IX and the Merlin P-51 (Dec '43) and they had two stage engines.
Total bull unless you want to fight in a plane that was a match for the Zero and KI43 in fragility with no armour, self sealing fuel tank and no radio (if you had your way). Pilots flying for you would have Voodoo dolls with your effigy on them.Got it's bad reputation in '42 because it was overloaded by the AAF (British with the P-400 contract actually) and didn't have oxygen at Guadalcanal.
The AAF gave up on them because they had little range, no payload, were fragile and much better aircraft such as the P47D were close to production, or in production as the P51 or available e.g. Spit IX/VIII plus of course the 109 was all over the P39AAF gave up on it just as the P-38 was about to enter combat (late '42). Problem was the P-39N was starting production and with the 9.6 geared engine was a MUCH better plane. They shuttled them off to training command and the Russians who loved them and demanded more.
I would take a P47 over the P39 any day, and so did the USAAFAnd the early Lightnings (F/G) and Thunderbolts (B/C) were not as great as advertised until vastly improved models came basically after the Luftwaffe was done. That's what I think anyway.