Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not in that P-39 manual and again it is cautioned.
No, you're wrong - research stalling configurations and types, more than just putting the stick forward.
Don't know what you're talking about on that one
This is where your understanding falls short. Stalls and spins are parts of the same elephant. In fact a spin is basically a steady state partial stall; one wing firmly stalled while the other is still flying. That's what gives it the corkscrew motion, like a descending maple seed. Spins occur when one wing stalls before the other, usually as a result of a yawing motion, or a slipping or skidding condition as the critical AoA is approached. In this case the advancing wing experiences a slight increase in airspeed and reduction in AoA, while the retreating wing loses airspeed and its AoA goes critical, stalling the airflow, losing lift, and dramatically increasing drag. Retreating wing is dragged back and down, advancing wing gains airspeed and lift, rising up and over the top, while the windshield fills up with trees that start to go round and round and get bigger quickly. So there you are in a fully developed spin without ever fully stalling your airplane.
I know that "any configuration" means just that. Why are you trying to disagree with an official performance test conducted by the NACA for the AAF? It's right there in black and white. That's all new material, only posted to the wwiiaircraft site in 2012. You persist in quoting 75 year old heresay when you have the actual report right there.
Because it's not as simple as what you're trying to make it. You don't even understand that there are different types of stalls and configurations and that manual is not addressing those configurations and you continue to NOT under stand the bigger picture either by ignorance or stubbornness - typical armchair response.
We are/ were having a grown up discussion but its YOU who continually tries to second guess some of us who have flown and worked on aircraft, some of these folks are former military pilots and ATPs who have hundreds if not thousands of hours flying. Your "hands on" aviation experience??????
The primary role of the P-39 in the AAF from 1943 forward was advanced combat training. One would expect more accidents from pilot trainees than graduate combat pilots who had moved on to P-38s, P-47s and P-51s. Also consider the average length of each mission by type. Those P-39s held 120 gallons internal, some only 88 gallons. If they average 108 gallons each and burn 100gallons/hour then they are making 92,600 takeoffs/landings per 100000hours. A P-38 or P-40 held 150gal per engine, meaning 1.5hrs per flight or 66,670 takeoffs/landings per 100000hrs. A P-51 held 265gal or 2.65hrs per flight or 37,750 takeoffs/landings. P-47s held 305gal and burned an average of, say 150gph or 2 hours per flight. They averaged 50000 takeoffs/landings per 100000hrs. A P-39 would then make 1.4 times as many takeoffs/landings than a P-38 or P-40, 2.5 times as many as a P-51 and 1.9 times as many as a P-47. A P-38 would have 195 accidents per takeoff/landing, a P-40 would have 263 accidents per TO/L, a P-51 would have 262 per TO/L and the P-47 would have 241 accidents per TO/L. All pretty close to the P-39 with 245. All about the same, really. And the P-39 was being flown by trainees while the other models were being flown by graduate pilots. Just another way to look at it.
If taking off and landing is an issue with your tricycle undercart advanced trainer you need to take a look at your basic training aircraft and methods. What on earth makes you think all training missions used full tanks and ran them to empty?
