Shores seems to have found more data since he wrote those, because the P-40F losses definitely doesn't match the data in MAW II and III
S
SHOULD the P39 have been able to handle the Zero? Was it training or performance?
- Thread starter pinsog
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Shores seems to have found more data since he wrote those, because the P-40F losses definitely doesn't match the data in MAW II and III
S
Shortround6
Major General
Gee, Bell never had a 390mph prototype, regardless of whether or not it had guns.
The XP-39B first flew on Nov 25th 1939 and belly landed on Jan 6th 1940, repaired and flown some more it crashes after 28 total hours.
The First YP-38 flies in Sept 13th 1940, also unarmed and around 3 month after the French and British order. One day after first flight of YP-38 the US orders 623 AIrcobras with wing guns and leak proof tanks.
Armed YP-38 makes 368mph? with 1090hp.
at 6592 lbs. Please note plane in picture has no guns
who thought an extra 60hp was going to add over 20mph to the plane? especially with extra weight and extra equipment?
WHy did Bell build that one-off special and devote all that time to the drag reduction measures and special paint?
ANd it's the British fault the production machines could not come close to the contract speed?
Last edited:
what are the data of MAW II&III?
I haven't added it all up yet but I'll try to this weekend. Like I said already though so far it looks like P-40F came out ahead, at least the US units.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Hey P-39 man, why haven't you voted yet?
Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?
Or have you finally succumbed to the avalanche of facts and voted for something other than the P-39?
And you seriously should consider joining in the conversation as well because the Airacobra is sorely missing it's fan base over there...
Last edited:
In all this much seems to hang on what the British did or didn't, should and shouldn't have believed. Well the Spitfire was about 30MPH faster than the Hurricane so engine power isn't proof of performance. By the time the P-39 arrived the Spitfire MkV was in service with the MkI an Mk II already retired from front line service. For example, along with NAA paying a lot of attention to cooling drag and also low drag wing profiles the method of construction and attention to joints probably meant that Bells filling and painting only achieved what NAA did on every aircraft. This is not unreasonable to expect, there were efforts to do the same on the Spitfire with different rivets etc, but its harder to do when production has started. Things like the Mosquito and P51, FW190 was what most would reasonably expect of a new aircraft in 1941.
Shortround6
Major General
For me part of the problem is claiming the XP-39 flew at 390mph in April of 1939.
This is around 60mph faster than the XP-40.
It is almost 30mph faster than MK I Spit with wooden prop and the SPit won't get even a two pitch prop for several more months.
The only non-race plane in the world that fast is the P-38 using two engine with turbos.
Now with new evidence (or actually LACK of evidence/documentation) it is very unlikely the XP-39 ever came anywhere near that.
So basically the Bell sales team was still going by engineering estimates (and wind tunnel data) and darn little flight testing when marketing the P-39 to the French and British. However the 390mph speed had been announced in a number of magazines of the time.
in fact a Feb 1940 issue of flight magazine describes the P-39 as a 400mph plus machine
bell aircraft | 1940 | 0526 | Flight Archive
with a picture of the XP-39B.
Granted in war time a bit of exaggeration was good propaganda.
This is around 60mph faster than the XP-40.
It is almost 30mph faster than MK I Spit with wooden prop and the SPit won't get even a two pitch prop for several more months.
The only non-race plane in the world that fast is the P-38 using two engine with turbos.
Now with new evidence (or actually LACK of evidence/documentation) it is very unlikely the XP-39 ever came anywhere near that.
So basically the Bell sales team was still going by engineering estimates (and wind tunnel data) and darn little flight testing when marketing the P-39 to the French and British. However the 390mph speed had been announced in a number of magazines of the time.
in fact a Feb 1940 issue of flight magazine describes the P-39 as a 400mph plus machine
bell aircraft | 1940 | 0526 | Flight Archive
with a picture of the XP-39B.
Granted in war time a bit of exaggeration was good propaganda.
I agree S/R but I don't think it is unreasonable for it to be believed, bearing in mind the rate of progress at the time.
Shortround6
Major General
Well, the British took the Bell figures on faith, got burned and now we have people blaming the British for not wanting to buy/take delivery of the planes that wouldn't meet the contract specifications.
I don't even believe they did. The British were disappointed with the performance but the test says it could be used at low level. The USA stopped shipments of many types because it wanted planes for themselves, with the invasion of Russia, the Russians they desperately wanted planes. Cancelling the contract is the easiest way to sort things out on paper especially since a lot of them were crated up and could be shipped anywhere. Since Russia's need would obviously be long term the British couldn't rely on it being supplied so took none (Just my opinion)
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I said it earlier in this thread but I will say it again.
North American promised a better P-40 and man did they ever deliver!
Bell promised a 400 MPH interceptor and to quote John Wayne "I've been promised a posse, which I figure will be looong on promise and short on posse."
Spin it any way you want, the P-39 had nothing to offer in the ETO for either the 8th and 9th AF or the RAF.
North American promised a better P-40 and man did they ever deliver!
Bell promised a 400 MPH interceptor and to quote John Wayne "I've been promised a posse, which I figure will be looong on promise and short on posse."
Spin it any way you want, the P-39 had nothing to offer in the ETO for either the 8th and 9th AF or the RAF.
buffnut453
Captain
Frankly, I think it's time to wind this thread down. We've asked multiple times for evidence of the British "weaseling out of the contract" but all we got in response was "What would you do if you could get the planes for free?" The implausible timelines and overall lack of performance have been discussed ad nauseum and yet we get dragged back to selective opposition airframes and a small subset of performance metrics. In short, we're going nowhere...in fact it's gotten so bad people are repeating info already posted on an entirely separate "P-40 vs Me109" thread. I think it's time I took up knitting, tiddly winks, bus ticket collecting or under-water basket-weaving (full combat version, of course!).
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Well, the original Q was whether the P-39 could handle the Zero.
I think we agree that the P-39D/F/P-400 of 1942 lacked the necessary attributes to overcome the disadvantages of inexperienced pilots, lack of sufficient warning to scramble to intercept altitude, insufficient range, lack of spare parts, lack of coordination within air force, etc. In mid 1943, when the improved performance of the P-39N came available, it was hampered by a lack of opposition because the P-38s had "moved the fight out of the combat radius of shorter ranged fighters."
I think we agree that the P-39D/F/P-400 of 1942 lacked the necessary attributes to overcome the disadvantages of inexperienced pilots, lack of sufficient warning to scramble to intercept altitude, insufficient range, lack of spare parts, lack of coordination within air force, etc. In mid 1943, when the improved performance of the P-39N came available, it was hampered by a lack of opposition because the P-38s had "moved the fight out of the combat radius of shorter ranged fighters."
TSK! TSK! Never say "plastic wood" or "Bondo" within earshot of an airplane!! In mech school we were reprimanded if either of those words were heard. "Airflow smoothing compound" is the professional and approved terminology. If the dirty words were heard by the wrong people you could be asked for the PMA number and official documentation approving its use.plastic wood
filling around the cockpit
Cheers,
Wes
I'm with buffnut and Greg Boeser. Let's call it a day. It's been entertaining and educational, but it's degenerating into a Lufberry orbitting around the same repeated arguments. I think any possible convincing has already happened, so what's to gain?
Cheers,
Wes
Cheers,
Wes
More or less so but one can add that at least with V Fighter Command P-39 had its brief period of glory in the summer of 1943, according to John Stanaway in his part of Osprey's P-39 Aces between Feb and Aug 1943 P-39 pilots claimed more than 40 of the 50 kills credited to USAAF units between these months. What they in reality exactly achieved, I cannot check but definitely they gave some bloody noses to the Japanese in Aug 1943.
Juha
fubar57
General
In agreement but you just know it will be dragged and kicked until we all agree that the P-39N was the best aircraft there ever was
Sorry, I just can't stretch my credulity that far. You know, my dad worked at Bell Niagara in '44 and '45 and he never had anything good to say about the place. He had two part time jobs; afternoons he worked for the government as a DCAS inspector, and evenings he worked for Bell as a roving security patrol. A "double agent" if you will. His comments reminded me of my brief stint at Eastern Airlines: hate and discontent the order of the day. "Do onto others before they can do onto you!"
Cheers,
Wes
P-39 burning at Alghero Airport for a landing accident, 1944.
Another landing accident at Alghero Airport. Pilot arrived short after the engine lost all his oil a few miles from the airport.
The Pilot, on the wing, is fulfilling the accident form...
One question remains: why P-39 (apparently) performed so well with Red Army "in an air-air role" and was so frankly hated by U.S., British, Italian and (possibly, I have no information) French Pilots?
Some answers have been given, but not completely explanatory, by my personal point of view.
Some answers have been given, but not completely explanatory, by my personal point of view.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
