What do you think of the bell p-39 was it a good dogfighter

FLYBOYJ said:

When its bad is when you have a politician getting involved in an aircraft's development or procurement and they know nothing about aircraft, engineering, the military or anything mechanical!

We had a senator here named Pat Schroeder. She made a comment about Stealth Technology - "Well I don't know whats good about it, I also don't know whats bad about it." My God! This woman was deciding what equipment the US military would purchase, it sounded like she was deciding a shoe purchase!

Click to expand...

Yes I remember her. sums her up perfectly.

I highly doubt Yeager loved the P-39...

FLYBOYJ said:

When its bad is when you have a politician getting involved in an aircraft's development or procurement and they know nothing about aircraft, engineering, the military or anything mechanical!

We had a senator here named Pat Schroeder. She made a comment about Stealth Technology - "Well I don't know whats good about it, I also don't know whats bad about it." My God! This woman was deciding what equipment the US military would purchase, it sounded like she was deciding a shoe purchase!

Click to expand...

Don't forget that some of those some of those ignorant politicians wear uniforms -- the problems with the navy's A-12, the JSF, and the DD-1000 programs were coming from the Pentagon, not Capitol Hill. A politician who's admitting ignorance is much less problematic than one who makes decisions thinking he is the expert. For a non-defense area, see the Florida legislature and the Kansas School Board.

swampyankee said:

A politician who's admitting ignorance is much less problematic than one who makes decisions thinking he is the expert.

Click to expand...

Agree 100% but these situations are far and few. When Pat Schroeder made those comments she was pandering to both sides of the aisle. Dianne Feinstein from California did the same thing, while embracing the anti-military left she supported the B-2 program as it brought thousands of jobs to California.

grampi said:

I highly doubt Yeager loved the P-39...

Click to expand...

Yeager did like the P-39 but never flew one in combat...Chuck Yeager - WW2 Mustang ace who later broke the sound barrier

"Assigned to the 363rd Fighter Squadron, of the 357th Fighter Group, he moved up to P-39s with the squadron at Tonopah, Nevada. Unlike many other pilots, he always liked the P-39 (which probably would have been a decent airplane if it had had a turbocharger). Here at Tonopah, he first developed the fighter pilot's detached attitude toward death, even getting angry at those he thought had died needlessly or through lack of skill. During the ruthless weeding-out process at Tonopah, the pilots worked as hard at playing as they did at flying."

Because a pilot may like an aircraft, it doesn't mean that it would be their first choice to go into combat. I say this as I have read about two RAF pilots who preferred the Mk IX/XVI as the Griffin engine versions took more effort to control due to the increase in weight. However I would bet a penny to a pound that if told they were going into combat, that the would take the Mk XIV

Glider said:

Because a pilot may like an aircraft, it doesn't mean that it would be their first choice to go into combat. I say this as I have read about two RAF pilots who preferred the Mk IX/XVI as the Griffin engine versions took more effort to control due to the increase in weight. However I would bet a penny to a pound that if told they were going into combat, that the would take the Mk XIV

Click to expand...

I think I'd prefer a Spitfire IX/XVI with 150 grade fuel, better range, climb, acceleration, maybe slower though.

Kevin J said:

I think I'd prefer a Spitfire IX/XVI with 150 grade fuel, better range, climb, acceleration, maybe slower though.

Click to expand...

That is problemo nr uno: in any army one does not get to choose. Here... this is your ride to fame or death. We do not care. Just filling seats.
Now the ball starts rolling when there are
:A no seats
:B seats are shot in abandance from the sky
Problem with war is you have to plan in advance of conflict. So many conflicting parties are there to muddle up the decisions best made.

Hello Gentlemen,

I believe there has been a lot of discussion here that has mis-characterized the Airacobra.

This are my opinions, but I believe there is plenty of evidence to back them up if anyone would care to debate.
Was the Airacobra a good Dogfighter?
I believe it was.... Within the limits of its performance: Only at low and medium altitudes.
It didn't have very good roll performance and its harmony of controls wasn't particularly good.
It's elevators was very sensitive, probably too sensitive and it was easy to stall if not careful.
The rudder was also quite effective.
Ailerons were a bit heavy and maximum roll rate was not particularly high.

As for the balance of the aircraft, the CoG range seems to be acceptable from about 24.5% to 30% MAC which is not a particularly narrow margin.
The Aft CG limit is calculated with zero fuel and ammunition, so is not a likely situation. MAC is 80.64 inches.
Pilot reports say that aerobatics with CoG near the aft end of the range are dangerous and the aircraft may be unpredictable at the stall and stall may come with no warning.

The Airacobra flew pretty well and predictably as long as the CoG was reasonably far forward.
The problem was that just about all of its disposable loads were AHEAD of CG and CG gradually moved aft as the loads were expended.
The most important load was the ammunition for the .50 cal cowl MG - normally 200 rounds (124 pounds)
The next most important was the ammunition for the 37 mm cannon - 30 rounds (60 pounds)
Wing Gun ammunition was slightly ahead of the CG.
Even Fuel was about 1-2 inches ahead of the CG.

The Pilot sat several inches ahead of the CG and as we know, pilots come in various weights.

See the P-39Q Weight & Balance Chart. (I suspect the CoG for the earlier P-39s was 1-2 inches further aft)

As for Armour, although the locations were the same for nearly all models of the Airacobra, the thicknesses and sometimes the materials differed.
This was probably to account for the differences in weight of the equipment installed in different models of Airacobra.

Attached is a diagram of the locations of armour on the Airacobra.
Last chart details the weights of the pieces of armour installed in each variant of the Airacobra.

As for removing armour, I am fairly certain that the Soviets did this on their Lend-Lease Airacobra's. I was reading a report recently which described spin testing that was conducted on Airacobra's in various load conditions. In 4 of the 5 aircraft tested, the oil tank armour was removed at least during the test.

- Ivan.

Ivan - excellent information.

I'e mentioned this several times - the P-39 was very unique as it had a vertical and horizontal weight and balance calculation. This is rare for fixed wing aircraft, very common on helicopters.

Kevin J said:

I think I'd prefer a Spitfire IX/XVI with 150 grade fuel, better range, climb, acceleration, maybe slower though.

Click to expand...

Mk XIV was faster, climbed better*, dived better, better acceleration and had, essentially, the same handling as a IX/XVI.

After all, you could always give the XIV 150 octane fuel.

*The IX with 150 grade fuel, Merlin 66 and +25psi boost may have climbed better at low altitude than the XIV with PN 100/130 fuel at +18psi boost.

FLYBOYJ said:

Ivan - excellent information.

I'e mentioned this several times - the P-39 was very unique as it had a vertical and horizontal weight and balance calculation. This is rare for fixed wing aircraft, very common on helicopters.

Click to expand...

Hello FLYBOYJ,

Thanks.
In what I was describing about the Soviets, I forgot to mention that they also normally deleted all the wing armament.
The wing guns for a P-39Q are at station 134.
The ammunition for the wing guns is at station 133.
From my calculations by deleting all disposable loads from the fully loaded weight, the CG of the equipped aircraft with a typical pilot on board would be at about station 135.88 but that does not take into account some things like coolant and engine or reduction gear oil quantities.

From a Russian manual on the P-39D, it appears that they also used 250 rounds instead of 200 rounds in each cowl gun which lessens the biggest disposable load problem and shifts the CG forward.

- Ivan.