Hey guy, it takes more than a "handed propeller" to create a counter rotating airplane. If that's all you do, you're going to have permanent reverse thrust on one side. The prop doesn't determine the engine's direction of rotation.
Cheers,
Wes
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hey guy, it takes more than a "handed propeller" to create a counter rotating airplane. If that's all you do, you're going to have permanent reverse thrust on one side. The prop doesn't determine the engine's direction of rotation.Lockheed just refitted the undelivered British order with turbos and handed propellers and they became P-38Fs.
As far as I can see there was no "cancelling" of contracts they were just re assigned as Lend Lease and sent to wherever needed which is why some ended up operated in the far east with British equipment on board.Hey guy, it takes more than a "handed propeller" to create a counter rotating airplane. If that's all you do, you're going to have permanent reverse thrust on one side. The prop doesn't determine the engine's direction of rotation.
Cheers,
Wes
I saw it (good post), now imagine you are the fresh faced bunch of pilots presented with your new steeds and one has a different tail to the others? Imagine you are the clients contract manager and you notice that this cut down version was the one tested?
My experience of stuff like that is that after a while it cracks and falls out, I imagine that test aircraft looked very sad by the time they finished with it in UK.Not sure if I am more worried about the modified tail or the 20+ coats of paint sealing up everything or the plastic wood
View attachment 488406
filling around the cockpit
...
Lockheed just refitted the undelivered British order with turbos and handed propellers and they became P-38Fs.
Great post, the proof of that particular pudding is the Mustang Mk I (P51A) bigger and heavier than the P39 but faster, it actually did do 400MPH with and Allison engine, and the P51B bigger and heavier than the Spitfire but faster at all altitudes on the same engine. Rates of climb may have been slightly lower but not seriously behind.
Oh yes, I think Mr. Shortround detailed it pretty good right out of the book. They had other P-400s but Bell modified this one and got 393mph out of it then the others were going 370mph or so. Actually met the contract for speed. But it was only one plane.So the aircraft on the performance test was unique?
Great post, the proof of that particular pudding is the Mustang Mk I (P51A) bigger and heavier than the P39 but faster, it actually did do 400MPH with and Allison engine, and the P51B bigger and heavier than the Spitfire but faster at all altitudes on the same engine. Rates of climb may have been slightly lower but not seriously behind.
Yep, 400mph at 16000'.
The Lockheed P-38 by Warren M. Bodie. Big book with lots of pictures. Does have a detailed manufacturing schedule though.What is source for this?
Obviously I'm not smart enough to make this up, are you telling me that you never heard any of this before? Honest?Can you stop banging on about this, at the time the P39s were on the way to UK, the UK had loaded 40 Hurricane MkIIs and 550 mechanics/pilots to defend Murmansk. In total 3,000 Hurricanes and 1,400 Spitfires were sent. British and Canadian tanks shipped to Russia totalled over 5,000 and were first used in November 1941 on the Volga. The contract for 675 fighters is absolutely utterly insignificant in terms of cost. The significance really was they were available and crated up and of far more use to the USA and the Russians than they were to the British.
Glad you asked. Weight wasn't the important part, it was the drag of the external gunpods that reduced top (and all) speeds.Well this is very interesting....
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39M-3_42-4706_FS-M-19-1511-A.pdf
View attachment 488329
View attachment 488325
The two externally mounted caliber .50 wing guns, their fairing, brackets, and equivalent weight of ammunition were removed. Additional ballast was installed to compensate for this removal....
View attachment 488331
Difference in speed was 12.5 mph for this particular aircraft, with and without gun pods. But at least we can see that the speed of the P-39Q WITHOUT the wing guns was 13.5 mph SLOWER at the critical altitude of our one and only P-39N test aircraft . But to be fair the P-39Q was ballasted for the additional weight of the guns and ammo, and it weighed almost 600 pounds more than the P-39N at take-off. What do you gentlemen make of this?
I thought the difference between the Mustang I and IA was the IA was a later order specifying cannon etc the passing of the lease lend act, The Mustang Mk II was with the better engine.(my bold)
The Mustang I was XP-51, Mustang Ia was P-51 (4 cannons, many times also cameras on the P-51; still no drop tanks), Mustang II was P-51A (1943, better engine, 415 mph, 4 HMGs, drop tanks facility).
Mustang II joined RAF in June 1943, 1st combat was in September of 1943.
I have never heard of the British trying to get out of the contract in order to change from cash to lend lease and/or specifying things to reduce the performance in order to do so.Obviously I'm not smart enough to make this up, are you telling me that you never heard any of this before? Honest?
The Lockheed P-38 by Warren M. Bodie. Big book with lots of pictures. Does have a detailed manufacturing schedule though.
I have heard all sorts of conspiracy theories before, as I have told you twice before the tin pot contract for 675 underperforming aircraft didn't amount to a bag of beans, there was 1.5 million tons of shipping lost in the "first happy time" which was around this period. Since the USA, UK and Russia were all at war they moved what they had to where it would be most useful. Note the British didn't receive all the Mustang Mk1 or Mk1As they ordered either, were they "weaselling" out of that contract too?Obviously I'm not smart enough to make this up, are you telling me that you never heard any of this before? Honest?
Bingo! so it was possible with all the specified equipment, without woodfiller and twenty coats of paint. The British requests were in no way unreasonable or unattainable, just that Bell couldn't do it when they said they could.Yep, 400mph at 16000'.
Interesting, do you have a link to the thread where he posted that? I'd like to look at how he added that up - but it is not too far from what I would have expected from reading both books myself. I'm guessing about three-quarters of those losses are all early model P-40s - Tomahawk and Kittyhawk Mark 1, probably at least half of them from the South African squadrons, vs. 109F and G. You can also add ~ 100 shot down MC 202s (guessing the total) to that number as they were fighting the DAF in the same air battles.
S