XP-39 and the Claims

[P-39 Expert]

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. I believe it's exactly as simple as I'm making it: the report (not a manual) investigated stalls in the landing configuration with gear and flaps down, landing approach with gear and flaps down, climbing with gear and flaps up, cruising with gear and flaps up, gliding with gear and flaps up and takeoff emergency. In any condition at any time after the stall occurred recovery could be effected promptly by applying down elevator. There was no warning but recovery was prompt and easy.

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?????? I have no hands on experience. How many P-39s have you flown?

No - you're creating your own firestorm by some of your own assumptions and refusing to listen to real world experience. If this is too overwhelming for you I can suggest one thing.... Hardly a firestorm, just immature insults by some members. I have never insulted anyone on this board or ever told anyone that they didn't know what they were talking about.

View attachment 615657

Are you asking me to leave or banning me from the forum? For pointing out information that people on here obviously did not know?


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??????

No - you're creating your own firestorm by some of your own assumptions and refusing to listen to real world experience. If this is too overwhelming for you I can suggest one thing....

View attachment 615657

See above.

 

[Shortround6]

This is turning into the Lancaster as an Atom Bomber thread. Pretty soon they'll be hanging a Fat Man under a P-39, claiming it has no detrimental impact on its aerodynamics because a turret's been removed and flying it from Okinawa to successfully bomb Nagasaki... Anything I missed?

Yep, the return flight with a rescued nurse in skimpy clothing sitting on the pilots lap

 

[fubar57]

[QUOTE="nuuumannn, post: 1625029, member: 44325"... Anything I missed?[/QUOTE]

 

[buffnut453]

Please don't lock this thread....if we can't get in, who will look after the groundhogs? I'm worried about those little critters.

 

[gumbyk]

See above.

That is hardly an exhaustive list of configurations. Straight and level or turning? How many G's? Accelerated or not?

Most aircraft will behave differently in an accelerated stall than with a slow approach.

 

[glennasher]

Please don't lock this thread....if we can't get in, who will look after the groundhogs? I'm worried about those little critters.

Looking after groundhogs is easy, I use a .17 or .22 Hornet, or a .221 Fireball, or a .204 Ruger, but I've also used 6mm Remington, .308 Winchester, and the ever popular .223 and .22/250s. I've even used the .22 and .17 rimfires, which add stalking skills and patience to the mix. Groundhogs are fun.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe it's exactly as simple as I'm making it: the report (not a manual) investigated stalls in the landing configuration with gear and flaps down, landing approach with gear and flaps down, climbing with gear and flaps up, cruising with gear and flaps up, gliding with gear and flaps up and takeoff emergency. In any condition at any time after the stall occurred recovery could be effected promptly by applying down elevator. There was no warning but recovery was prompt and easy.

My whole reference was what I posted from the manual (Post 397) but considering you want to ignore that and use other references that are now more detailed, I'll play -

now you're refencing configurations but lacking the stall type (because you don't now how to identify them by their proper nomenclature) and I can tell you it's a little more complicated by "applying down elevator." What are you feet doing? Are you straight and level? Pitch attitude? Speed? - I see no mention of bank angle.

No stall warning is a horrible trait to have on any aircraft!

I have no hands on experience. How many P-39s have you flown?

None - but since I've flown and maintained a number of general aviation aircraft (Commercial Pilot, CFII A&P/IA) gliders, helicopters and several high performance jets and warbirds I think that puts me about 10000 times more experienced about flying aircraft than you can ever dream of being!

AND THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE ON HERE WITH WAY MORE AVIATION EXPERIENCE THAN ME ATTEMPING TO "SHOW YOU THE WAY" TO NO AVAIL!

Are you asking me to leave or banning me from the forum? For pointing out information that people on here obviously did not know?

No I'm not going to ban you and if you want to stay around, it's up to you. You're the one on here butt-hurt and complaining about some members who have on more than one occasion shown your armchair aviation education attempting to point out WRONG or incomplete information.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That is hardly an exhaustive list of configurations. Straight and level or turning? How many G's? Accelerated or not?

Most aircraft will behave differently in an accelerated stall than with a slow approach.

Exactly! And if our friend would care to listen, maybe we can teach him something (like the way we taught him weight and balance )

 

[P-39 Expert]

Exactly! And if our friend would care to listen, maybe we can teach him something (like the way we taught him weight and balance )

You made up that little chart, really good info. Otherwise not much new. You sure are quick to assume somebody doesn't know something.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You made up that little chart, really good info. Otherwise not much new. You sure are quick to assume somebody doesn't know something.

Because by some of your statements to me and others on here it's evident when you don't know something and trying to fake it!

I've had no issues saying when you're right but will continue to point out when you point out wrong or incomplete information.

 

[gumbyk]

Because by some of your statements to me and others on here it's evident when you don't know something!

I don't think anyone has said you don't know something. However, you don't have the experience in order to be able to put that knowledge into some sort of context.
Context is everything.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Because by some of your statements to me and others on here it's evident when you don't know something!

You made up that little chart, really good info. Otherwise not much new. You sure are quick to assume somebody doesn't know something.

And by the way - Greg made that chart

 

[pbehn]

No stall warning is a horrible trait to have on any aircraft!

I have no idea why this is difficult to understand, our whole lives is built on warnings. Imagine if things didn't bend just broke, dogs didn't bark they just bit you. Imagine arguing that cars with no lights, no horn, a silent engine on roads with no signs wouldn't be a problem.

 

[GregP]

Hi P-39 Expert,

We recently had a thread with over 100 pages of posts, almost all of which were by you or exclusively directed at you, so Flyboyj getting a bit upset didn't exactly happen in a "quick" fashion. He was far slower to get "upset" than many other members.

Just to make it plain, the entire forum is very tired of hearing about how great the P-39 was. Its war record didn't reflect that in US service, it didn't have the range or altitude capability to do the job the US needed in most theaters, and it had a few rather bad characteristics. The fataility rate was high. No amount of analysis will change that or excuse it.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Looking after groundhogs is easy, I use a .17 or .22 Hornet, or a .221 Fireball, or a .204 Ruger, but I've also used 6mm Remington, .308 Winchester, and the ever popular .223 and .22/250s. I've even used the .22 and .17 rimfires, which add stalking skills and patience to the mix. Groundhogs are fun.

Want some real fun? Try a .45 call roundball flintlock Kentucky with 1 in 66 twist! Lots of stalking and patience goes with the territory, but you'll also have to guess which way the critter will jump when the pan flashes, as he'll already be in motion when your ball gets there. Not for the instant gratification crowd, but a real kick when you do score.

 

[nuuumannn]

I'm worried about those little critters.

You needn't be. If past evidence is anything to go by, those sneaky wee varmints get around of their own volition.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Yet again, you're going an awfully long way here and you are not proving anything, except to tell me that I don't understand something. Please keep insulting me, it's always appreciated. Your example is applicable to any WWII fighter plane, including those with abysmal stalling characteristics.

Nothing needs proving. These are known facts to anyone who has the background, the training, and the need or desire to know and understand them. They exist whether you accept and acknowledge them or not. They are more easily absorbed by someone who has hands on experience in flight, but they aren't rocket science, and can be comprehended by anyone willing to make the effort.
As for "any WWII fighter plane", no other fighter of the time had as low a polar inertia as the P39. No other plane had as high a percentage concentration of its mass amidships as the P39, making it the least resistant to rotation in a stall situation of all of them. No other fighter (except possibly the Merlin Mustang in some cases) did as much flirting with its aft CG limit. Both of these features (low polar inertia and aft CG) are stability detractors, increasing both the probability and the severity of a departure in a stall situation. Add to that, the "light" touch on the controls and the jerky overcontrolling of a panicked inept pilot, and you've got a potential deathtrap. Not the type of "honest flying airplane" to instill confidence in nugget aviators and their instructors.
And when calculating accident rates in advanced fighter training, bear in mind that few syllabus flights are longer than two hours (except cross country navigation flights), regardless of aircraft tankage. Most average from 1 to 1 1/2 hours. Longer than that tends to become counterproductive in terms of learning curve.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"In any condition at any time after the stall occurred recovery could be effected promptly by applying down elevator. There was no warning but recovery was prompt and easy."

Departure stall, full power, gear and flaps down, 25 degree pitch then 45 degree bank angle to the left.

Who thinks recovery will be "prompt and easy" if no stall warning is exhibited?

OK - I'm done...

 

[Glider]

...doesn't make all that much noise; just a sort of a "whump" (unless you're real close to ground zero). I've heard that sound five times, which is five times too many. One time, I even mistook it for the closing of the baggage door on a nearby Twin Otter.

I stand corrected, but we can agree on the sirens

 

[Glider]

See above.

Which part of:-

If you stall with little or no warning at low altitude, then there is an excellent chance you will hit the ground before you can recover.

Do you not understand?