SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I don't think XBe02Drvr was saying Americans were/are more technically savvy (I know I wasn't), but that Americans were more habituated with rudimentary tech than most other nations as a whole.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't think XBe02Drvr was saying Americans were/are more technically savvy (I know I wasn't), but that Americans were more habituated with rudimentary tech than most other nations as a whole.My point is that applying the American situation to other countries is inappropriate. Equally, applying the situation in the UK to that in Italy is equally futile. The industrial revolution occurred at different times at different regions. Equally, levels of technical awareness varied greatly...but to suggest the US had greater technical savvy because farmers had Model Ts is taking things much too far (IMHO).
MODE O.T. ON
View attachment 597215
The newspaper, which was the main press journal of the Italian Communist Party, says:
Eternal glory to the man who most of all did
for the liberation and progress of humanity
and
View attachment 597217
Stalin's work is immortal!
Long live his invincible cause!
Not only I had the dubious privilege of being born and live in the Nation that had the largest Communist Party in the Western world, but also in the Nation with the largest Communist Party in the world after the Soviet Union.
Almost one in three Italians voted until 1989 for the Communist Party and, considering that there were over thirty million voters in Italy, this meant more than ten million Communist votes.
I imagine that it is very difficult for an American or a British to understand how the propaganda of such a strong Communist Party was: everything had been invented in the Soviet Union, from radio to condensed milk and the Party newspaper every day gave the news of some amazing discovery made by some Soviet scientist. The Italians were divided in two: those who believed in it and who would have been ready to swear on what "L'Unità" said, and those who had been vaccinated and instead did not believe a single word of it. In 1989 we saw who History proved right.
Elmas,
The above bolded statement caught my attention. I fixed it in the following sentence, made more US appropriate...
Every single statement, or even word, in these times, made by The Main Stream Media, had to be strictly viewed with a large does of WTF...
MODE O.T. OFF
The M was an earlier model, 7000 more N/Q models would still be produced out of 9500 total.Hello P-39 Expert,
The P-39M was one of the Mid Production versions, about the same as the P-39N.
The engine was the V-1710-83 with significantly better altitude performance than the earlier models with the V-1710-35 and V-1710-63. It carried a bigger propeller (11 feet 1 inch) with different reduction gearing because the engine had the altitude performance to use it. Earlier models had a 10 feet 4 1/2 inch propeller.
What could be done with this engine is not indicative of what would work with earlier engines.
What change in nose cannons made a difference of 140 pounds?
- Ivan.
I don't think XBe02Drvr was saying Americans were/are more technically savvy (I know I wasn't), but that Americans were more habituated with rudimentary tech than most other nations as a whole.
The M was an earlier model, 7000 more N/Q models would still be produced out of 9500 total.
The larger propeller was introduced with the 167th N model. Reduction gear was the same 2:1 as the D-2/K/L that used the -63 engine.
The 37mm cannon weighed 300lbs with ammo, the 20mm 160lbs with ammo. Difference 140lbs.
A full tenured professor at Brooklyn College said I was the best B.S. artist he ever met.My use of the term tech savvy reflected exactly what you stated more elegantly as "more habituated with rudimentary tech.". I just couldn't be bothered typing long words like habituated and rudimentary with my fumble-thumbs.
Having worked on many aircraft (to include warbirds) I can somewhat agree with your field removal of some the equipment to save weight, 3 hours of maintenance is a bit skewed unless you're going to just hack the items mentioned out, not plug rivet holes and possibly leave wire bundles.Lighter P-39 would have taken about 3 hours of maintenance crew's time at a combat base. Remove the wing .30s and their mounts, chargers, heaters and ammo boxes, and the nose armor plate. While you're at it remove the IFF radio and save another 130lbs. Still have the voice radio.
Your linear calculation does not address weight and balance of the items removed. If you're lucky enough to make the aircraft slightly tail heavy, it will fly faster but be more unstable, something already plaguing the P-39. You're comparing the C and D models and by your own post, no armor and no self sealing tanks. So you're making your point with performance numbers from an aircraft that was really not capable of entering combat????The 1.2feet/minute climb per pound of weight saved comes from wwiiaircraftperformance.org. Compare the climb rates of the P-39D and the P-39C at their different weights. C climbed 1000fpm faster than the D and weighed 836lbs less, making each pound of weight improve climb by 1.2fpm. I know the C model did not have self sealing tanks and armor plate but it had the exact same engine, propeller and aerodynamics as the D model. Only difference in performance was the weight.
I think you will find both aircraft were constructed of similar material (24T, mild steel where required)Also any comparison on what actual metals were used on each plane? Duralum or something? steel?
the .50 gun receivers are coming back into the cockpit. the red flags are attached to the cocking/recharging handles. the cylinders sticking back with the slot are the firing solenoids.
the red flags are attached to the cocking/recharging handles.
It depends on how you want to group things. Most books I have count the L through N models as the "Mid Production" series. There were about 240 M models produced and about 2000 N models produced.
Bell said in writing that the nose armor plate was not needed for ballast/balance on the P-39M. The M was an early model with the same weight and weight distribution as previous and later models. They were able to balance the plane with larger (heavier) propellers and different nose cannons that differed in weight by 140lbs. Bell designed the P-39 to take larger (heavier) three blade and four blade propellers and an auxiliary stage supercharger behind the engine that weighed 175lbs. They certainly were able to maintain proper balance with any or all of these items installed. The nose armor certainly could have been deleted and balance maintained.
If you remove the 100lb nose armor you don't need to relocate an item from behind the engine to the nose compartment. That would make the nose heavier than the tail. You could delete the item behind the engine to balance the plane, or move it to the center of gravity right behind the pilot above the engine. The IFF radio in the tail cone could have been deleted (some other planes didn't have it) or moved up right behind the pilot. If deleted you just saved another 130lbs. The Soviets deleted this radio (and the .30MGs) and reduced the weight of their P-39s by about 330lbs. They kept the nose armor and didn't have any CG problems.
I was writing a similar treatise on weight and balance, but MiTasol's was way better.
Only the N and Q models followed the M. That would suggest the M was a later production version!
The Q was in production 8 or 9 months after the M.