XP-39 and the Claims
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I know in the other thread that my comment about my Uncle Jimmy's sentiments about the P-39 were laughed off, but let's recap:
A USAAC trained pilot, who would have gladly and willingly taken on the Empire of Japan in his P-36 said that "your life is not worth a plugged nickel in a P-39" has to have some gravity.
This was coming from a veteran Army pilot who was at Pearl Harbor on 7 December and later flew a P-38 in the PTO for the duration.
I'll take his word as gospel because he actually FLEW a P-39 - so unless you've actually trained/flown a P-39, sit down and shut the eff up.
A USAAC trained pilot, who would have gladly and willingly taken on the Empire of Japan in his P-36 said that "your life is not worth a plugged nickel in a P-39" has to have some gravity.
This was coming from a veteran Army pilot who was at Pearl Harbor on 7 December and later flew a P-38 in the PTO for the duration.
I'll take his word as gospel because he actually FLEW a P-39 - so unless you've actually trained/flown a P-39, sit down and shut the eff up.
buffnut453
Captain
But not if the groundhogs have nose armor. Plus anything less than a 50 cal is useless from an armament perspective....at least according to one person on this thread.
Interesting. Looks like nobody even bothered to paint over the flight test photogrammetry "targets" on this one. "Rode hard and put away wet."
That's okay. Right next to the .45 Kentucky in the cabinet there's a .50 cal Hawken, and I can always borrow my neighbor's .58 cal 1861 Springfield Rifle Musket or his .69 cal Brown Bess. (When my shoulder's not hurting too badly, that is!)But not if the groundhogs have nose armor. Plus anything less than a 50 cal is useless from an armament perspective....at least according to one person on this thread.
What most nonfliers and some pilots don't understand is the huge gulf in response time between the pilot who is deliberately provoking a stall and and the unwary one who gets "ambushed" by a stall when he/she least expects it. With no behavioral or systemic warning of an impending stall, especially in a plane capable of "spectacular" departures, the "prompt" recovery specified by the test pilot may not be "prompt" enough to save the day.
"Don't give me a Pee Thirty Nine!"
Interesting information on the above aircraft on Wikipedia: <i>Bell Airacobra I AH574</i>
It seems one reason the RAF weren't too fond of the P-39 was due to the length of its take-off run.
KUWULL!!
Brown loved it as a runabout, even after being used for deck landings. Warning to viewers, Please don't try this at home on your own P-39.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Right, Eric Brown and Chuck Yeager liked it. What did they know?
Shortround6
Major General
Let me see, test pilot with thousands of hours in more planes than another pilot likes P-39 as personal runabout.
Part of his career is assessing various aircraft for carrier landings (near stall)
Yep, sure sounds like a ringing endorsement for giving the P-39 to low time pilots to me.
I do like this part of the story though.
"
In March 1946, a visiting Bell Test pilot visited the Test establishment to oversee Laminar Flow experiments being conducted with Bell P-63 Kingcobras.
Just for a laugh I asked him to test my old Bell Airacobra, which I had been using for so many hops around the country. He took off, did one very quick circuit, and came back ashed-faced. 'I have never,' he said, 'flown in an aeroplane in such an advanced state of decay. This machine should be scrapped forthwith.' So, on 28th March, I went up for a last aerobatic session in her, then bade a sentimental farewell. The last laugh was on me.
AH574 was duly scrapped shortly afterward,[4] and Brown was later given a Fieseler Storch as a replacement"What pilots with exceptional natural skills and/or thousands of hours of flight experience can/will tolerate in a plane might be way different than what is safe or desirable for run of mill pilots in the last stages of training or early deployment.
They may have both liked flying the P-39 (I'm sure we all would), but neither pilot actually flew combat in it, or would have ever wanted to do so. If I recall, Yeager flew P-51Ds, Brown - Grumman Wildcats.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Wasn't the Bell test pilot commenting on that individual plane's "state of decay?" Brown's P-400 likely was worn out, it was one of the oldest P-39 models still flying, and doing test work at that. Planes do wear out.
More than most in aviation they knew how to fly. Brown was noted to be exceptional at landing on carriers while training, 2,271 carrier landings with one crash, arrester hook didn't deploy, not noticed by deck crew. He loved the P-39 because for his use, hopping between airfields the tricycle landing gear meant he didn't need guiding in and out of places as you do with a tail dragger. Buying a Jimi Hendrix guitar doesn't give you the ability to play it with one hand while changing a string with the other Yeager and Brown were special aviators, if you need their ability to fly a plane in a training school you wipe out 99% of students at least.
Brown also briefly flew Spitfires I believe from Wiki Following the loss of Audacity, Brown resumed operational flying, being seconded to Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) squadrons flying escort operations to USAAF Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers over France. His job was to train them in deck-landing techniques, though the training took place on airfields.[Note 1] As a form of quid pro quo he joined them on fighter operations.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Their jobs were often evaluating airplanes. They both liked the P-39.
Shortround6
Major General
Could very well be true, but you brought in Brown as an example of experts who "liked" the P-39.
Even with his expertise he didn't realize how far from "normal" his particular P-39 was.
Not a real dig against Brown, He didn't really have anything to compare it to.
And that is point of the whole argument. Context, just saying a pilot liked a plane doesn't tell us what they liked about, or what they didn't like, It doesn't tell us what planes they were comparing it to or why.
Even with his expertise he didn't realize how far from "normal" his particular P-39 was.
Not a real dig against Brown, He didn't really have anything to compare it to.
And that is point of the whole argument. Context, just saying a pilot liked a plane doesn't tell us what they liked about, or what they didn't like, It doesn't tell us what planes they were comparing it to or why.
It's the never ending story...
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
In case you missed it (apparently you have), here's a quote by a REAL pilot that I've grown to respect greatly, and pay close attention to the areas I've highlighted:
Apropos of nothing, I remember my instructor demonstrating a stall (first time for me) in a Cessna 150, he started the nose up and I could hear the engine start to labor a bit, knew what was coming but man, that physical feeling of your stomach in your mouth so to speak. Yeah, scared the sh!t out of me.
- Status
