What if the P-39...

[mad_max]

You'll find out the Ruskies eliminated the wing guns on the P-39, took out some of the
armour plate also. Doing this they lightened the airframe and took weight from the
wings. THey also over reved and over boosted the Allison..they had a pretty bad engine
life with them, but at the altitudes of the air war in the Eastern Front it was a decent aircraft
when flown like this.

One of the big problems with CG is you had to burn (i think) the front tank first or
the CG was not good..esp after firing off the guns.

I think this about somes it up.

 

[Glider]

One of the big problems with CG is you had to burn (i think) the front tank first or
the CG was not good..esp after firing off the guns.

I think this about somes it up.

Re the CG problems I always wondered about what happened after firing the guns since I took this photo, with apologies to those who have seen it before

 

[Tony Williams]

As I understand it, the P-39 handled better with a full ammo load -when it was used up, the plane became nose-light and that adversely affected the handling.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[mad_max]

Well did some reading in my Russian books and I was partly right. LOL

They had a tank behind the pilot like the P-51 and they'd burn it first. Just as Tony stated
it really screwed up the CG when ammo was shot off and the fuse. tank was full.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-39 actually had a lateral and vertical center of gravity - I've only seen this in helicopters - fitting that it was a Bell product!

 

[Marshall_Stack]

I asked this question earlier but got no response. I'm trying again....

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?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I asked this question earlier but got no response. I'm trying again....

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?

There's a number of reasons but primarily was because of the supercharger or lack thereof.

 

[delcyros]

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?

I think but am not sure that a reason may be credited to the tendency of the P-39 to spin, while the P-40 was more gentle and generally didn´t stalled that violently. It´s not only the wing design itselfe but also the position of the wing in comparison the the effective fuselage axes (You will note that planes like the A6M and Ki-43 have much weight concentrated in the front with a wing following directly while the P-39 has a "balanced" weight distribution with a mid fuselage mounted wing. I am not sure how far this effects the stall behavior but I read once that this may improve the allowed aof under certain circumstances. However, the wingdesign itself still is the major aspect.