special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,718
- May 13, 2018
I suspect Brown's P-39 was even more aft CG with the tail hook which is still visible in the photo in the weeds.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've read several books about and by Yeager.Right, Eric Brown and Chuck Yeager liked it. What did they know?
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!"
Brown landed and took off a carrier in a P-39 it was never used for carrier operations. Brown frequently flew below the "book" stall speed, which is for competent pilots not exceptional ones. His next "mount" was a Storch which although a tail dragger was similar to a P-39 in all around visibility on the ground. Yaeger said words to the effect " I would have no problem going into combat in a P-39" well he wouldnt, he had the skill and awareness to keep himself alive, the top German aces managed to keep themselves alive when others didnt when outnumbered 6-1 by the end of the war that was more due to their ability than that of their aircraft because new pilots didnt last a single mission in many cases.Their jobs were often evaluating airplanes. They both liked the P-39.
That's as I remember it, I believe he worked for Bell at the time.I've read several books about and by Yeager.
He did say he liked , or would take on anybody in a P-39, but he added a qualifier to those statements you always leave out, BELOW 5000 FEET.
I don't know about Germany, but in UK pilots weren't actually taught to fly in the present day sense until 1916, it was widely thought that a spin was impossible to recover from, those who did, did so by pure luck or innate skill. Actually teaching flying and not just take off circle and land started in 1916 with The Gosport System. When pilots are teaching themselves you need a very forgiving plane to let them do it. https://www.historiccroydonairport.org.uk/the-gosport-system-robert-smith-barry-and-pilot-training/This may be a little off subject, but that happens a lot on this forum.
Last night I was reading a book I had just got about WW1 Pfalz aircraft.
It said the reason the Fokker DVII was so favored over the Pfalz or about any other then current aircraft was it had a stall that was gentle, with plenty of warning buffet before the stall.
That enabled even pilots without a lot of experience to fly it close to it's limits.
That's why they called it the aircraft that made good pilots out of mediocre pilots, and great pilots out of good ones.
Stall warning is a very important aspect of any aircraft's qualifications.
That's as I remember it, I believe he worked for Bell at the time.
The first time the bottom falls out and your seat tilts forward and your stomach bumps your diaphragm, it's an attention getter, especially if you're a "feet solidly planted on Mother Earth" sort of person. I had some experience with gymnastics, high jumping, ski jumping, trampoline, sailing, and SCUBA diving before flying, so I was somewhat prepared for the sensation, but it still made an impression! After the first demonstration the instructor turned the plane over to me for the rest of the flight, then we worked on slow flight maneuvering, keeping the stall horn blowing at the same pitch (love those Cessna graduated pitch stall horns!) while perfecting aileron-rudder coordination, keeping the ball centered, and observing and internalizing the visual cues of even small amounts of yaw as the nose crept along the horizon. After a half hour of this, my instructor, a Master Chief Aviation Machinists Mate, (and former Naval Aviation Pilot [enlisted], before blood pressure took him off flight status and the standing offer of a commission expired)* said I could execute a stall on my own whenever I felt ready. My first one was straight ahead, real gentle, dull, boring, and an example of instructional technique was established I've tried to live up to ever since, in the air, in the water, and on the range.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.
The first time the bottom falls out and your seat tilts forward and your stomach bumps your diaphragm, it's an attention getter, especially if you're a "feet solidly planted on Mother Earth" sort of person. I had some experience with gymnastics, high jumping, ski jumping, trampoline, sailing, and SCUBA diving before flying, so I was somewhat prepared for the sensation, but it still made an impression! After the first demonstration the instructor turned the plane over to me for the rest of the flight, then we worked on slow flight maneuvering, keeping the stall horn blowing at the same pitch (love those Cessna graduated pitch stall horns!) while perfecting aileron-rudder coordination, keeping the ball centered, and observing and internalizing the visual cues of even small amounts of yaw as the nose crept along the horizon. After a half hour of this, my instructor, a Master Chief Aviation Machinists Mate, (and former Naval Aviation Pilot [enlisted], before blood pressure took him off flight status and the standing offer of a commission expired) said I could execute a stall on my own whenever I felt ready. My first one was straight ahead, real gentle, dull, boring, and an example of instructional technique was established I've tried to live up to ever since, in the air, in the water, and on the range.
Brown liked it "as a runabout"Their jobs were often evaluating airplanes. They both liked the P-39.
Thanks for your opinion on what Chuck Yeager thought. Yeager's exact quote was that he "would gladly fly that little plane off to war anytime" and this was well after WWII when he was in his 60s. He also said "Those people never flew a P-39" when asked about tumbling and other supposed handling problems.One more thing to say about Yeager (maybe Brown, can't say). When Chuck Yeager was trining to be combat pilot, he went through the various stages of flying in a primary trainer (like a Fairchild PT-19/23/26), basic trainer (like a Vultee BT-13/15), an advanced trainer (like a North American AT-6/SNJ), and a lead-In fighter trainer (like a weary P-39 or P-40, neither of which were ever the best fighters in whatever theater they were in ... unles they were the ONLY fighters around).
In Yeager's case, he trained on the P-39. The P-39 was, by far, the most powerful airplane he had flown to date, and he naturally loved in, especially since he survived it. Once he had flown other, better, first-line fighters, I seriously doubt he would have chosen the P-39 for a fighter mission over a P-47 / P-51. Now, to go out for a spin in a staion hack as local transportation, maybe he WOULD have chosen a P-39, I don't know. His autobiography says he flew a Soviet P-39 in an aerobatic display once disguised as a Soviet female pilot. None of that implies he though the P-39 was a first-line fighter or that he would have chosen it for a mission or missions. It just says he liked it. My bet is he never or rarely flew it with no ammunition in it. If he did, he was VERY aware of the "edge of the razor" feeling you get in an airplane when the CG is too far aft, and treated it with kid gloves, so he again survived the Airacobra.
The P-39 was not a terrible airplane. It just wasn't a very good one though, if properly loaded and properly flown, it did perform decently well in a limited envelope of air combat. It just couldn't do it very high, very fast, or very far away from the takeoff point. The average P-39 that sat outside in the weather (which was MOST of them in all theaters) was probably lucky if it could get as fast as 360 mph. All the 398 mph stuff you read about was a factory-new airplane with a new/fresh engine and new/fresh prop flown by a test pilot VERY familiar with the P-39. It was not an airplane a novice pilot was likely to be able to pull around in a tight, close-to-stall dogfight turn low to the ground and survive in. You could do that in a P-38, a P-40, a P-47, and P-51 (with some practice), but the P-39 was not forgiving around the stall like the other were. All of them were much more resistant to spin entry from an inadvertent stall, particulary if you unloaded the wing quickly. The P-39 could and did rotate quite quickly. For that matter, a P-63 would do it, too, but was altogether a much better airplane than the P-39 ever thought of being.
It has been mentioned that the Bf 109 was good around the stall. It has automatic slats that extend when the airflow separates. They are unpowred and simply flop where they want to go. They DO produce a very high lift coefficient, but that is not their intended use. They were put there solely to keep the airflow over the ailerons attached through the stall, so the pilot could maintain roll control THROUGH THE STALL. That's all they were there for, to maintain control through the stall. If they actuated asyjmmetrically, they spoiled the aim, but once they were out, the pilot could re-acquire the sight picture and shoot, even through the stall. It is a primary reason why there are many people who think a Bf 109 can turn with a Spitfire ... because the pilot could be stalled and still be fighting with roll control. It's why Bf 109 pilots were comfortable in low-altutude turning fights - they KNEW their airplane would warn them aerodynamically before departing and snapping into the ground out of control. It gives you confidence when your plane has great stall manners and you KNOW that.
Badly worded on my part. As I remember it, it was around when he broke the sound barrier, journalists and writers speaking to a famous aviator who just broke the sound barrier in a Bell aircraft asking typical questions " which planes did you fly", "which was the best then the NA P-51 or the BELL P-39? An aviation question that demanded diplomacy.Yeager never worked for Bell - He was a career Air Force officer, retired 1975
The first time I controlled a two wheeled slide going through Redgate corner at Donnington Park I was completely elated. It made the dozen times I had failed and bounced up the track on my ass or head worthwhile.I learned to fly at Speke Airport just outside Liverpool. We had a motley mix of Cessna 150s and a solitary 152 Aerobat. The biggest shock I got wasn't in stalling the 150s - they were pretty benign under most conditions. Stalling the 152 power on while pulling (limited) g was a different matter entirely. There was a sharp wing drop and all of a sudden, we were in a spin. Now...all that being said, the 152 was just a (slightly) souped-up 150, so it rapidly stabilized and spin recovery was straightforward. However, I remember the event vividly (it was 35 years ago now...eeek!) so, clearly, the experience made an impression.
Make accurate comparisons when stating your opinions.
...and looking back through his rose tinted retrospectroscope.Yeager's exact quote was that he "would gladly fly that little plane off to war anytime" and this was well after WWII when he was in his 60s