Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
An interesting question - the shoot down occurred near Janville as 15 Stukas were caught sneaking in at dusk 100' off the deck.
The Area Patrol was between 10 and 15K and following RTB, dropped to the deck for strafing when the 357FS called the Ju-87s rallied the two squadrons in for the shoot. Went out in a direct line from Janville so nowhere near Normandy.
His first combat mission was at 0251 to 0851 on an Area Patrol just east of the Beachhead - dropping down to shoot stuff up behind German lines near Caen... so this one possible
The P-39Q was burdened with the gondola underwing guns which cost about 15mph top speed and affected climb/ceiling also. Basically the same plane as the N except for the wing guns. Hard to compare the two planes, but the Russians removed the wing guns in both making them both the same plane.What troubles me about those figures is the P-39s apparent extreme sensitivity to power and and weight.
The P-39Q used the same engine and prop as the P-39N and yet the addition of 557lbs knocked 500fpm off the climb at 15,000ft, 430 fpm off at 20,000 and 370fpm off at 25,000.
Also note that the P-63, although it had about 1000lbs more weight, may have had around 1300hp at 15,000ft and 1200hp at 20,000ft.
Those P-39N figures are in an official document but I suspect you would be very hard pressed to get them in the field.
Our Navy Flying Club T-34 was placarded against spins, although at Pensacola they were spun every day. It's just that the civilian type certificate for the T-34B was test flown by the California Forest Department for use as a firefighting air tanker leader, and they didn't see any need to do all the spin testing for their purposes. So the FAA (CAA) issued the certificate with that restriction. There was no aerodynamic or structural reason why it couldn't do them, as I discovered when I pushed it a little too hard in a steep turn and found myself in a spin. It spun nicely and recovered instantly when asked.Having limits on spins is not the same as being FORBIDDEN to perform one!
Can you point to one single P-39 performance fact from these official tests that you have "discounted". And there were 10 different P-39 models so there are a lot of facts. My story about the British and the P-400 differs from conventional history and I obviously cannot prove that, but it does make sense and other authors have presented this view. I did not make this up.What's this "we" stuff???But I do agree it's been a real hoot discounting your facts one by one. Can you at least try to stick to one set of facts from now on, please???
I discount all of them showing that it was of any use at all. Trying to sell an aircraft 2 years behind the game in power and down a cul-de sac in airframe design. Your story about the P-400 is a conspiracy theory with nothing for it and much against it, they should have been called P356 for a start.Can you point to one single P-39 performance fact from these official tests that you have "discounted". And there were 10 different P-39 models so there are a lot of facts. My story about the British and the P-400 differs from conventional history and I obviously cannot prove that, but it does make sense and other authors have presented this view. I did not make this up.
Ties in nicely with P-39 production, I have the basis of a new conspiracy theory.Simple, the war started Dec 7th 1941 and the air war ended March of 1944
Looking at the Q-1 Operating manual, it is interesting to note that Only 'clean' was any data prepared for long range cruise up to 20K - nothing at 25 KThe P-39Q was burdened with the gondola underwing guns which cost about 15mph top speed and affected climb/ceiling also. Basically the same plane as the N except for the wing guns. Hard to compare the two planes, but the Russians removed the wing guns in both making them both the same plane.
The max altitude for Cruise tables with 75 gallon external tank is 15K.
Can you point to one single P-39 performance fact from these official tests that you have "discounted". And there were 10 different P-39 models so there are a lot of facts. My story about the British and the P-400 differs from conventional history and I obviously cannot prove that, but it does make sense and other authors have presented this view. I did not make this up.
My story about the British and the P-400 differs from conventional history and I obviously cannot prove that
Can you point to one single P-39 performance fact from these official tests that you have "discounted".
It should also be remembered that the Hurricanes tanks were not able to be completely self sealing and in any case were vulnerable, Hurricane pilots paid a heavy price for it, but not buying and using Hurricane wasn't an option in 1940. Self sealing tanks were not a silly British whim. I don't know what equipment was on the P-39 at the time but things like IFF equipment weighed 40lbs.You can find people who claim the earth is flat too.
It ONLY makes sense if you can find actual weight charts that support it. Or memos/memorandum that discus it.
Existing weight data available to the general public does not support this view.
The British were buying NO fighter aircraft without self sealing tanks and armor/BP glass unless for use as trainers at this time (summer of 1940) and strangely enough the USAAF was following suit. NO aircraft without self sealing tanks and armor/BP glass would be categorized as combat capable. Curtiss, Bell, Douglas, Grumman, Brewster and Boeing all got caught by this (and maybe some others).
Blaming the British sounds like sour grapes or trying to cover up that the P-39 was overweight from the day it rolled out the door as the XP-39.
Adding a cabin heater should not turn a world beater into a dog.
Any sales agent worth his salary/commission should have been able to at least estimate any performance penalties from extra equipment and have written in suitable adjustments to the performance penalty/cancellations sections of the contract.
The P-39Q was burdened with the gondola underwing guns which cost about 15mph top speed and affected climb/ceiling also. Basically the same plane as the N except for the wing guns. Hard to compare the two planes, but the Russians removed the wing guns in both making them both the same plane.
Every pilots manual for an American WWII fighter had a warning not to snap roll or spin that airplane....
I don't know about the USA but in UK from 1917 the ethos of training changed from avoiding dangerous flying events to practicing them in a controlled way.I guess the Hellcat was the exception to this cardinal rule, huh? So will you finally admit that you were completely wrong when you made this outlandish statement? It's ok, we won't hold it against you....
Excerpt from AN 01-85FB-1 Page 38 (Grumman F6F-3/5 Pilot's Handbook - 1 May 1946):
View attachment 487702
That of course depends on the pilot being able to correct the spin before 3 turns and on aircraft like the P-39 whether it is possible at all, after all, a test pilot couldn't manage it.Pilots manual for the P-40F & L prohibits spins of more than 3 turns, or any spins with baggage, auxiliary fuel or any other overload.
I don't know about US training but if you cant do a snap roll in training what do you do if the guy you want to shoot down does? Setting height, speed or load limits isn't the same as a prohibition.Strangely P-40Es were allowed to snap roll at speeds up to 175IAS. Same 3 turn limit on spins