Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
Those who were there called it the "Kokoda Track".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A possibility, which I have not checked out, is that the P-39 had a higher wing loading and perhaps not as good RAM. P-39s seem to have peak power a bit lower than P-40s in fight tests. Look for where the intake pressure drops off in both level speed and climbing. The cockpit canopy may had disturbed airflow and/or the intake scoop was not as good as the P-40 duct?For reasons I don't understand, the P-39s of all types seemed to have more trouble both climbing to altitude and flying at altitude than the P-40s did, in spite of their having nearly identical mid-altitude rated engines and P-39 having a better initial climb rate, at least on paper.
The location of the P-39's intake was terrible. It seems to me that the intake on the side or underneath the fuselage would have been a much better decision.The cockpit canopy may had disturbed airflow and/or the intake scoop was not as good as the P-40 duct?