wuzak
Captain
Would several climb tests at military power be undertaken starting at different altitudes, to see the climb response when already in the air?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In actual Practice, the time to climb test was at maximum power available by the 'book' - and does not understate anything. That specific test was performed to get an idea what the airplane could be expected to do for the weight and balance conditions cited in the test.
The primary reason was to gauge interception capability and often flown in AAF 'Fighter Condition' of reduced fuel and ammo and no external stores.
The P-38 is considered to have excellent range. It held 150gal/engine internal. The P-39 held 120. After deducting the Reserve (for T/O and climb to 5000') of 25gal for the P-38 and 16 gal for the P-39 the useable fuel for both planes was 125 for the P-38 and 104 for the P-39. 21 whole gallons. The P-38 had a 165 gallon drop tank/engine and the P-39 had drop tanks of 75gal, 110, 158 and 175gal available. Range could have been increased to P-38 levels if needed.
Sorry, but I'm not going away. I'll keep giving you the facts as long as you want to listen.
Hey now, let's not go casting aspersions on the Buff... them's fightin' words.I agree. But to promote your favorite plane I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't pick an avatar with the Oscar shooting down the Buffalo, now would you?Even though it happened on occasion, through no fault of the pilot or aircraft involved....
P-39Q at 222mph IAS at 20,000ft is turning 2600rpm and burning 60 gallons an hour 3.07mpg
.
Hey now, let's not go casting aspersions on the Buff... them's fightin' words.
Any aircraft that's just taken off and struggling for speed and altitude is a sitting duck for anything already airborne.Actually I read an article by a pilot who flew Spit V's in the Med. On his first flight just after takeoff he got intercepted by a P-39 and got "shot down" multiple times while he was trying to build up some airspeed.
Of course, if he had been flying a Clipped and Cropped Spitfire V it might have been a different story.
I love that P-39 artwork partially because it reminds me so much of a cover from a "Men's" magazine I saw in the 60's Very similar kind of a painting, a P-39 pilot opening the door and entering his airplane as enemy aircraft approach in the sky. Except that also scrambling into their Airacobras in the background were a bunch of beautiful scantily clad women.
Every "fact" presented is a masterpiece of omission. Range always the one with the most fuel, power always at the highest rating regardless of time. Rate of climb for the lightest etc etc. There is a flat out denial of any stall spin characteristics even though "aircraftperformance" has a report saying it should never be spun or snap rolled. The plane gave no warning of stall (in the manual) and had a landing speed of 100-110 MPH, how do you do a wheels up landing? The performance quoted by S/R of the D model is abysmal. The P39 was not an equal of the Spitfire MkV in most respects indeed hardly better than a Hurricane in most. It wasn't an equal of the F4F let alone later US fighters. It was a pup, not as good as any front line allied fighter in 1942 but better than some Soviet fighters which is why it was given to the Russians.We like facts a lot around here. And now that it's quite apparent the P-39N-1 tested on 17 October 1942 had the reduced fuel capacity, how will your "facts" change to suit your flimsy arguments? And listening is a two way street, are you willing to listen to the facts as well?
I like the conclusions to the test on the P39, a bit odd for a single engine combat plane. combat
1. The P-39 should not be spun intentionally under any circumstances.
2. The P-39 should not be snap rolled as the roll usually ends in a spin.
3. The best spin recovery is to simultaneously apply opposite rudder and neutralize the stick.
4. Power should be cut immediately if a power on spin is entered.
5. Care must be excercised during the recovery to prevent an accelerated stall and re-enty into the spin.
6. The wing tip spin chute does not aid recovery of the P-39Q from a flat spin.
Reading the report, the pilot bailed out as a result of 6
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39Q_Spin.pdf
Incredibly it was used as a training aircraft, I don't know what sort of training though.An Italian pilot recalls: "... I owe my life to the fact that I never let myself try to do acrobatics with the P-39 ."
I can't find the link anymore, unfortunately.
Climb with tank is not shown on P-39N test, so I don't know for sure.So what was the climb performance and air speed while climbing with 110 external tank?
I just now noticed that your avatar photo is a Brewster Buffalo. Supposedly the Finns soundly whipped the Russians with that plane until they had to finally capitulate.Perhaps not...but, then again, an aircraft getting caught on the ground has nothing to do with the performance of the aircraft and everything to do with the intelligence, early warning and C3 capabilities.
This shows 18 minutes to 25,000 ftClimb with tank is not shown on P-39N test, so I don't know for sure.
Incredibly it was used as a training aircraft, I don't know what sort of training though.
Would several climb tests at military power be undertaken starting at different altitudes, to see the climb response when already in the air?
Pilots who survived were certainly outstanding Pilots.
I was thinking of the many aspects of training, some like navigation and take off landing procedures are quite undemanding on the aircraft but I just don't see how you can train for combat with no risk of stall or spin.Pilots who survived were certainly outstanding Pilots.
The test program for these planes was exhausting. Many flights at the different altitudes meticulously recorded by the pilots and the array of test equipment installed in the test plane. They didn't depend on the plane's instruments but used additional test equipment. Undoubtedly they did test climb at all altitudes and both at max power and max continuous power, but the graph shows a continuous climb from sea level up to the ceiling. Hope this helps.Would several climb tests at military power be undertaken starting at different altitudes, to see the climb response when already in the air?