FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And could you imagine on the P-39 with the engine located so far aft!
What do you think of the bell p-39 was it a good dogfighter
- Thread starter stalkervision
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As I said before I just would not like sitting on a drive shaft like that.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep! - And after firing the cannon, the cockpit filled up with smoke - Fun! 
Lovely you really have to enjoy that.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Oh don't give me a P-39.
The one with the engine behind.
It will tumble and roll.
It will dig a big hole.
Oh don't give me a P-39.
The one with the engine behind.
It will tumble and roll.
It will dig a big hole.
Oh don't give me a P-39.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Maybe not, but they look damn good 8)
Personal tast my friend. I never really liked the looks of it.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
me neither.....
cheddar cheese
Major General
Then why did the Russians like them so much? 
DAVIDICUS said:Adler said, "As I said before I just would not like sitting on a drive shaft like that."
You're just not used to having a big shaft between your legs.
Wouldn't you like to know
Vahe Demirjian
Banned
The P-39 wasn't always a good USAAF dogfighter because the lack of turbosupercharger prevented it from flying at higher altitudes where it could challenge Bf 109s and Fw 190s, but the P-39 was popular among Soviet airmen as a ground attack aircraft.
fubar57
General
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
Except its main use by the USSR was air-to-air, not ground attack.
Shortround6
Major General
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story................journalism 101.
Joe Broady
Airman 1st Class
- 105
- May 30, 2019
I have a hard time believing any P-39 lacked a supercharger.
The Feb 2020 Flight Journal mentions the Nov 1942 flight tests of Koga's Zero vs. its American contemporaries. Against the P-39D, "In a formation takeoff climbing to 5,000 feet, the Zero was at 4,000 feet when the Airacobra reached 5,000 feet... starting from 220 mph level at 10,000, the Airacobra again accelerated markedly away from the Zero... Climbing from 15,000 to 20,000 feet, the Zero took immediate advantage and walked away from the Airacobra... On a straight climb from takeoff to 25,000 feet, the Airacobra maintained the advantage until 14,800 feet and from then on the Zero pulled ahead reaching 25,000 feet five minutes ahead of the Airacobra."
Test pilot Corky Meyer says, "the Zero kept performing for every flight while both the Allison and Packard engines couldn't keep up, even with the optimum maintenance of flight testing."
It had an Allison engine with a single speed, single stage supercharger. What they left off was a turbo charger like the P38 had
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Old post and that should have been "turbocharger."
From wiki - I don't feel like pulling up all the references.
"The production P-39 retained a single-stage, single-speed supercharger with a critical altitude (above which performance declined) of about 12,000 feet (3,660 m). As a result, the aircraft was simpler to produce and maintain. However, the deletion of the turbo destroyed any chance that the P-39 could serve as a medium-high altitude front-line fighter. When deficiencies were noticed in 1940 and 1941, the lack of a turbo made it nearly impossible to improve upon the Airacobra's performance. The removal of the turbocharger and its drag inducing inlet cured the drag problem but reduced performance overall. In later years, Kelsey expressed regret at not being present to override the decision to eliminate the turbo."
