What if the P-39...

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

What if the engine powering the P-39 was powered by an engine 15% stronger? As in, a 1350 hp powerplant?
Click to expand...

As long as You don´t encounter high mach numbers (>.7), which isn´t the case here, You may rely on the following equitation:
Doubling the power increases the speed by 50% (all other factors beeing equal).
For the 1200 hp powered original P-39Q would this mean that a 1350 hp powerplant with comparable altitude loss figures and identic weight should add some 3.125% speed. So The P-39Qmod should go 388mp/h instead of 376 mp/h max at best altitude (close enough).
Naturally, the weight would increase as would the cooling needs. Therefore, You would expect something around 385 mp/h max. Some exhoust designs do add thrust relative to speed, so such a device would push the plane closer to 390 mp/h, respectively.
The acceleration would be better as would be powerload and climb rate as well.
 
delcyros said:
I also think that the YVa-23 is excellent altough a domestic US cannon in the area of 25mm should work best. Perhaps remove the big gun for 3-4 fuselage mounted 15mm high velocity Cal.60´s?
Click to expand...

soviets tried VYa for LaGG-3, some samples flown (as wel as some with Taubin's 23mm MP-6), but recoil power was too high for conventional fighter. it could be coped only by heavier Ilyushin-2.
 
If my memory serves(and a quick check in Google to make sure I'm not way off base) the Russians used the P-39 quite effectively as an air superiority fighter on the Eastern Front. How can an aircraft produce several dozen Russian aces if the plane can hardly fly? It would be interesting to see the win/lose ratio of the Russian P-39s as opposed to other front line Russian fighters.

Seems the P-39, as it was, held it's own!

Chris
Images and Illustrations at
http://www.printroom.com/pro/ShepArtStudio
 
Since some of you sound like you know what you are talking about, how does changing the wing to laminar (as the P-63) change the performance? Less drag and smoother air flow around the wings? Is the fuel capacity affected?
 
imho soviets were provided with kingcobra under condition not to use them in europe. so the only kills of kigcobra are two unidentified ki-27 or ki-43 mad by soviet 17IAP on 1945-08-15.
therefore it would be hard to find combat experience with kingcobra.
 

Really? Join the club...I'm still working out my kinks and issues, and trying to make a believable story, but it won't be hitting any shelves now or maybe ever (it is online, so hurrah for me).



Why would they not use them in Europe? After all that was where they were primarily fighting, and the Russians liked to throw everything at the Germans that were retreating. Also, the P63 was a good ground attack platform, so it is quite reasonable that even if the Russains were not supposed to use the P63 on the European front, they likely did. Also, the first deliveries and use of the P63 by the Russians is in the later part of 1944, when the German Army on the Earstern front still had pleanty of fight in them.
 
Really? Join the club...I'm still working out my kinks and issues, and trying to make a believable story, but it won't be hitting any shelves now or maybe ever (it is online, so hurrah for me).
Click to expand...

Same here guy, I'm gonna publish it on Sffworld.com! Good luck. Email me sometime and maybe we can get together to exchange information and ideas.


There's a lot to say about the Buffalo, but there's two main points to make.

1: The Finns solved many problems that troubled the Buffalo in the first place... something which the British and Americans never bothered to do. One thing which I found interesting is the fact that, even though the intended engine for the Buffalo (and many were made with such) a 1200hp Wright Cyclone engine... but the ones that the Finns used had an underpowered 950hp engine, and they still used it admirably!

2: The Finns had better tactics and less able opposition... the USMC was fighting one of the finest air forces in the world during World War 2 and they had modern, up-to-date aircraft at that time, and they used incorrect tactics and were caught at a disadvantage to boot! (hence the reason why the Buffalo got such an undeserved reputation). The Finns not only got their stuff put together, but they also were against inferior Soviet pilots flying second-line aircraft (most fighters thrown against the Finns weren't the latest in the Soviet inventory).
 
Yup, all 48 of those outdated Hurricanes they took down.....obsolete secondrate aircraft... yes they took down a bunch of older and slower stuff too. Tactics, training, and fighting for your own home have more to do with winning than just horsepower, firepower and turn radius!

Soviet pilot training did leave a bit to be desired (Fly or I'll shoot you is not good for moral) as seen by the German aces running up three figure counts against them!

Chris
Images and Illustrations at
http://www.printroom.com/pro/ShepArtStudio
 
Marshall_Stack said:
how does changing the wing to laminar (as the P-63) change the performance? Less drag and smoother air flow around the wings? Is the fuel capacity affected?
Click to expand...


Laminar flow wings do generally add a lot of space in the wings for fuel buncerage. You may recalculate the hp safings of the aerodynamic cleanings done for the P-63 in comparison to our P-39Q (simplified):
-----------P63---------------------P39Q
weight: 6375lbs-10500lbs-----------5680lbs - 7651 lbs
speed:410 mp/h @ 25000ft.---------376 mp/h @ 25000 ft.
power: 1325 hp max.----------------1200 hp max

You will notice the 10.4% power increase of the P-63. Just add those power to the P-39Q would translate to 386 mp/h (average) speed at given altitude. But there still is a speed difference of 24 mp/h! This difference should reasonably be credited to airframe cleaning, laminar flow wings and exhoust power designs.
It would require 6.22% speed increase or 24.87% power increase for the P-39Q with a P63 powerplant to reach 410 mp/h. This would require a powerplant doing some 1655 hp or in other words, the netto aerodynamic safings of the P-63 in comparison to our P-39Q are equal to ~330 hp power! That´s a lot. The actual powersafing is even greater as weight also increased a lot.
 
I read about how the P-39 is such a dag above 12,000 or so feet, but how come this criticism comes up such more on this airplane than the P-40? They have similar engines and I would think the P-39 would be lighter. Is it because the P-40 has bigger wings and therefore more lift?
 
Something to think about folks.

The P-39 was a classic example of the military adding and then changing requirements on a contractor. The XP-39 performed well and showed great promise until some genius decided for the aircraft to have a "multi-role" mission. The contractor (Bell) catered to the need of the customer and eventually created this alleged dog that couldn't get out of its own way. At the same time you have the Russians who made great use of the aircraft and even Chuck Yeager was an advocate for this aircraft stating it was his favorite WW2 fighter. The P-39 actually had a very touchy center of gravity making it quite unstable in some situations but at the same time this is a highly desirable characteristic for a fighter, providing you have a pilot who knows how to tame her. Just like anything else, when you had well trained pilots that training could mean the difference. Case in point (and I'll repeat myself on this) the 39th FS was doing quite well over New Guinea with the P-39, the squadron had at least a 2 to 1 kill ratio over their opponents during the late summer of 1942. When the P-38 came along it drove up the kill rate considerably. Tom Lynch, Buzz Wagner and about a dozen more became aces in this dog, months before the P-38 was on the scene. So much for the P-39 for being the ultimate dog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What if the Bugatti 100p became a fighter?
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
GTX
Pinball P-39s
Replies
2
Views
614
fubar57
M
Alternate Approach to the P-38 Compressibility Problem
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
Aeroweanie
What Constituted A Mission
Replies
1
Views
744
Acree
A
Regarding the true combat performance of the P-38 (and other advanced US fighters) in the PTO from 1942-44
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
13K
beers
Menu
Log in
Register