XP-39 and the Claims

pbehn · Mar 11, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
...and looking back through his rose tinted retrospectroscope.

There were Russian aces who would agree with him, but of the 4,000+ P-39s sent to Russia how many pilots made ace and how many were shot down. I loved the first bike I raced a Suzuki X7, it could out brake and out turn anything I was ever involved with, but that was mainly because it couldn't do more than 110MPH, given more power it wouldn't have been better, it would have been a death trap, cornering over 90MPH was a real experience, you could feel the frame twisting, great memories though even though I never won a race.

XBe02Drvr · Mar 11, 2021

GrauGeist said:
I like the Cessna 150...but that's not an endorsement. I like it, so what?

I like the Cessna 150/152. That IS an endorsement. I think it's the all-around best civil aviation primary trainer out there. (Not including any post-1995 additions to the field) It's able to perform and demonstrate pretty much all the basic factors of aerodynamics, including spins, and doesn't "hide" some of them as some other "trainers" do (I'm looking at you, Cherokee!)
It's easy to fly safely, but makes you work to fly it truly precisely, as a trainer should. Rugged enough to survive many thousands of hours of student abuse, yet light enough to get decent performance from a frugal 100 or 110 hp engine that will go 1800 or 2000 hours TBO, and then won't cost 2/3 the plane's value to overhaul.
My old pal, the T34, will probably take offense at this, but I think the 150/152 is better as a civil aviation trainer. The T34 was designed to train military pilots for the jet age, so Beech went out of their way to disguise torque and P factor, and to minimize pitch change with power as much as they could. The thrust line is canted down and to the right to a noticable degree, which is why an early Bonanza cowling doesn't fit on a T34, despite the identical engine and prop.
Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

fubar57 · Mar 11, 2021

This is the only airplane I have flown, last year. Soloed after 2300hrs and was pretty shaky on landing. No stalls though

pbehn · Mar 11, 2021

fubar57 said:
This is the only airplane I have flown, last year. Soloed after 2300hrs and was pretty shaky on landing. No stalls though

View attachment 615793

With those stubby wings and no flaps, that is great control.

buffnut453 · Mar 11, 2021

But does it have nose armour?

FLYBOYJ · Mar 11, 2021

Or IFF in the tail?

nuuumannn · Mar 11, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
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.

Geepers, makes the Boulton Paul Defiant, with its weight concentrated centrally, look good. Brown on the Daffy: "The Defiant exhibited good stability characteristics, very suitable for a night fighter. In cruising flight this positive stability was accompanied by good harmony of the controls, which were all moderately light and effective, though not up to the standard of the Hurricane."

He commented that it had undesirable stall characteristics because there was little or no impending warning of the stall (ahem), and ended with "The Defiant will never be remembered as a great operational aeroplane, but it deserves to be remembered as an aircraft with almost no flying vices."

Koopernic said:
This is one of the key factors in the MCAS disaster.

That, and like the Airacobra, some wayward design choices that made it a bit of a dog, hence the MCAS in the first place. And that doesn't include the change in focus of the company, the poor training of aircrew, the fast-tracking of certification to meet in-service dates to match its opposition... A litany of problems far greater than the aircraft itself.

fubar57 said:
This is the only airplane I have flown, last year. Soloed after 2300hrs and was pretty shaky on landing. No stalls though

But ample stall warning though, it has a built-in stick shaker.

XBe02Drvr · Mar 12, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Geepers, makes the Boulton Paul Defiant, with its weight concentrated centrally, look good.

At least it had a big chunk of metal in its forecastle to drag the nose down when it went ballistic. Makes a big difference in stall recovery.

GregP · Mar 12, 2021

My apologies for loosely quoting Yeager, which I read in 1985 and have not read since then. While I generally have a decent memory, it WAS 35 years ago that I read it. My recollection of his autobiography can be summed up in this sentence, "Hi, I'm Chuck Yeager and you're not." Hence, my lack of a second perusal of it. Perhaps his attitude is what General Momyer didn't like when he went to Viet Nam.

If he truly would fly the P-39 off to war "anytime," he's in a very small minority of WWII fighter pilots. Most of them would have happily traded in a P-39 for almost anything else that ran. There's a reason for that, but I'm sure you don't want to hear it again, so I'll oblige.

Cheers to you.

Koopernic · Mar 12, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
At least it had a big chunk of metal in its forecastle to drag the nose down when it went ballistic. Makes a big difference in stall recovery.

Do you think some of these handling issues were solved or tamed in the P63? Possibly mainly a longer tail.

XBe02Drvr · Mar 12, 2021

Koopernic said:
Do you think some of these handling issues were solved or tamed in the P63? Possibly mainly a longer tail.

Don't know. Haven't heard so much trash talk about the P63. Maybe they rearranged things and got the CG off the aft limit. As long as the added weight is compensated for CG wise, a longer tail would certainly help, improving rudder and elevator moment and reducing the blanking effect in a spin.

GregP · Mar 12, 2021

I have heard from people who fly a P-63 today that is handles very well and flies very well. These guys are NOT doigfighting with it, so their comments really don;t amount to a fighter flight report. I haven't seen many WWII P-63 flight reports, but the P-63 was supposed to address the wekanesses of the P-39. It was fast, climbed well, and rolled and turned well. But I do not know if it had CG issues if the ammunition was empty.

But, I look at it this way ... they didn't believe the P-39 would tumble during WWII and the P-63 was designed during WWII. It was sometime after the war that the guys managed to get a P-39 model to tumble in a wind tunnel when ballasted to aft CG. That said, I can't recall exactly WHEN this test was done, but it well after the P-63 was flying. So, I'm not sure Bell had any incentive to corect a condition they steadfastly maintained didn't exist.

In my case, the jury is still out on the P-63 "bad habits," but the P-63 seems like a quantum leap forward from the P-39 if you read about it a bit. Altogether, it seems like maybe a decent airplane that we simply didn't want.

XBe02Drvr · Mar 12, 2021

GregP said:
the P-63 seems like a quantum leap forward from the P-39 if you read about it a bit. Altogether, it seems like maybe a decent airplane that we simply didn't want

I think the legacy of the P39 was just a little too much to overcome. It wasn't a P51, so why bother?

P-39 Expert · Mar 12, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
I think the legacy of the P39 was just a little too much to overcome. It wasn't a P51, so why bother?

Why bother? Because the P-39 was available for combat at the beginning of WWII. The P-51 wasn't. Along with the P-40 and F4F it was all we had. Could have easily weighed 7160lbs and outclimbed the A6M2 as well as being 40mph faster. But no, had to have those 30cals in the wings or the war was lost.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 12, 2021

P-39 Expert said:
Why bother? Because the P-39 was available for combat at the beginning of WWII. The P-51 wasn't. Along with the P-40 and F4F it was all we had. Could have easily weighed 7160lbs and outclimbed the A6M2 as well as being 40mph faster. But no, had to have those 30cals in the wings or the war was lost.

So was the P-38 which replaced the P-39 in the SWP Theater in late 42'. Why was that???

P-39 Expert · Mar 12, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
So was the P-38 which replaced the P-39 in the SWP Theater in late 42'. Why was that???

Not understanding your question, did you mean to say the P-38 was available for combat at the beginning of WWII? If it was, why wasn't it used? If I misunderstood the meaning of your question please explain.

pbehn · Mar 12, 2021

P-39 Expert said:
Why bother? Because the P-39 was available for combat at the beginning of WWII. The P-51 wasn't. Along with the P-40 and F4F it was all we had. Could have easily weighed 7160lbs and outclimbed the A6M2 as well as being 40mph faster. But no, had to have those 30cals in the wings or the war was lost.

The war started in September 1939. The USA was involved from December 1941. While The UK was packing off its P-39s to Russia the first Mustang MkIs ( P-51A) were arriving, not all arrived because the US, understandably took them for their own needs.

Glider · Mar 12, 2021

P-39 Expert said:
Why bother? Because the P-39 was available for combat at the beginning of WWII. The P-51 wasn't. Along with the P-40 and F4F it was all we had. Could have easily weighed 7160lbs and outclimbed the A6M2 as well as being 40mph faster. But no, had to have those 30cals in the wings or the war was lost.

Your definition of the beginning of WW2 and being combat ready is so far from reality

Timeline
First Order placed I believe in August 1939 (of a version everyone agreed wasn't suitable for combat) War breaks out when Germany invades Poland 1 Sept 1939.
Result P39 not ready from the beginning of WW2

Combat Ready
The RAF ones were rejected almost as soon as they received them for a host of basic fundamental problems, not just performance. It certainly wasn't ready for combat as late as August 1941.
The P39 probably holds the record for being the only combat aircraft withdrawn from operations before the Press day to announce its arrival.

Edit
Your fantasy about the weight of the P39 is staggering in the breadth of its imagination

FLYBOYJ · Mar 12, 2021

P-39 Expert said:
Not understanding your question, did you mean to say the P-38 was available for combat at the beginning of WWII? If it was, why wasn't it used? If I misunderstood the meaning of your question please explain.

YES!!! It was sent to the SWP and replaced the P-39s being flown by the 39th and 9th FS, V Fighter Command. So to be crystal clear, why was the P-39 replaced???? (In your opinion)

Peter Gunn · Mar 12, 2021

P-39 Expert said:
Why bother? Because the P-39 was available for combat at the beginning of WWII. The P-51 wasn't. Along with the P-40 and F4F it was all we had. Could have easily weighed 7160lbs and outclimbed the A6M2 as well as being 40mph faster. But no, had to have those 30cals in the wings or the war was lost.

Actually, with a little forethought, the USAAF could have been operating Allison Mustangs by January 1942. I mean, it's no more of a stretch than the magical climb/speed the P-39 could attain if several criteria were met... theoretically.

XP-39 and the Claims

Colonel

2nd Lieutenant

General

Colonel

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

2nd Lieutenant

Major

Banned

2nd Lieutenant

Major

2nd Lieutenant

Non-Expert

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Non-Expert

Colonel

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads