drgondog
Major
True but a.) weighed 400 pounds more and b.) needed twice the radiator surface area to cool it.
Can we whisper 'unrecoverable aft cg issues' after ammo gone?
Can we whisper 'unrecoverable aft cg issues' after ammo gone?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
".. Only the P-38 and P-63 survived the war with Allisons as the powerplant of choice for US Fighters."
And the Twin Mustang ...
The Merlin was the powerplant of choice for the Twin Mustang. The switch to Allisons was forced by Rolls-Royce insisting that once the war ended their royalty payments be resumed.
Major CG issues re-locating 1600 pounds from behind cockpit to in front. Total re-design almost with no common parts.
Why was the P-39 so zippy at low altitudes on limited power?
Because it was small
Why didn't they fit bigger superchargers, inter-coolers and larger engines in the P-39?
Because it was small
Simple really.
To be fair, there were Merlins that were roughly sized as P-39's V-1710 (complete with supercharger), and required no inter-coolers. Made in the USA, never the less.
True but a.) weighed 400 pounds more and b.) needed twice the radiator surface area to cool it.
Can we whisper 'unrecoverable aft cg issues' after ammo gone?
"... Neutered how?
And if not neutered when would it have entered large scale squadron service?"
The USAAF had no engagements that in any way replicated the totality of the Eastern Front where the Soviets were able to utilize the P-39 as an under 11,000 ' down to the deck dogfighter, supporting Sturmoviks .... but, that said, during Guadalcanal, the P-39 was an effective fire support platform over land and sea. The 20 mm canon from the British rejects and later the 37 mm Olds canon, were good at barge busting. The AC was less vulnerable to ground fire than the P-40 due to the engine location. Range wa less an issue in this theatre, and the idea of accepting that the P-39 was not ever going to be a high altitude interceptor and hence getting on with using the AC for its strengths, seems obvious to me. It was a flawed concept in 1941-42 but by 1944 the Q model was very good and the P-63 took the best and made it better. The Soviets certainly benefitted, and those American who mastered the P-39, like Chuck Yeager, knew it had sass.
MM
Well, considering that the original turbo installation didn't work for sour apples and after the NACA issued a report AFTER testing it in a full sized wind tunnel that offered little hope of it EVER reaching the predicted performance one wonders how it was "Neutered".
There were 939 P-39s delivered by the end of 1941, if they had waited to solve the turbo problems (if they could be fixed) how many hundreds of fewer P-39s would have been available in the spring/summer of 1942?
AS near as can be figured out the CLAIMED 390mph at 20,000ft and fast climb were not only never achieved but never attempted. Not only were there chronic cooling problems with the XP-39 but there was a problem with the original drive shaft and the early flights were restricted to 2600 engine RPM, not the full 3000rpm until AFTER the plane came back from the wind tunnel.
Can you neuter something that was impotent to begin with?
Wuzak - I was referring the the 1650-3 (and associated changes to cooling system) when i flipped out the 400 pound comment. IIRC it was closer to 350 for just the engine comparison...
and their Zeros have had two-speed superchargers
I guess about like this