Hello P-39 Expert,
It seems like most of these points have already been addressed by other forum members but here goes anyway.
Even with existing engines, the P-39 had a serious tendency to overheat on the ground. It also tended to exceed temperature limits in high power operation such as sustained climbs. Putting in a more powerful engine and running at higher altitude makes the problem worse. There is a reason why modern operators of P-39s tend to have spray bars installed to cool the radiators.
The P-51 85 Gallon Fuselage tank certainly created a CoG problem for the aircraft that did not exist before.
To state that, "P-39 didn't have any real CG problems." means you either don't understand the evidence that has been presented or are in complete denial. I don't know how to correct either situation.
Let's say it is possible to add another 30 Gallons in fuel cells to the outer wing of the P-39 in place of the wing guns.
That would make a total of 150 Gallons.
Please note that the P-51 already had 184 Gallons of internal fuel BEFORE it was determined to be necessary to add a 85 Gallon fuselage tank that caused some CoG problems without drop tanks.
Note also that the P-51 could carry two drop tanks on the wings.
The P-39 could carry at most one drop tank on the centerline.
What makes you think this is sufficient fuel?
The 37 mm cannon certainly is a big hammer, but it has a ridiculously low firing rate, low ammunition capacity and a low duration of fire and of course has a pretty loopy trajectory because of its low muzzle velocity.
This is not an ideal weapon to track maneuvering targets. 12 seconds of fire isn't much at all.
There are many better ideas for motor cannon and neither of the guns that were normally installed in the P-39 qualify as such.
The remaining two synchronized .50 cals even as you pointed out really do not deliver a great weight of fire.
- Ivan.
It seems like most of these points have already been addressed by other forum members but here goes anyway.
Even with existing engines, the P-39 had a serious tendency to overheat on the ground. It also tended to exceed temperature limits in high power operation such as sustained climbs. Putting in a more powerful engine and running at higher altitude makes the problem worse. There is a reason why modern operators of P-39s tend to have spray bars installed to cool the radiators.
The P-51 85 Gallon Fuselage tank certainly created a CoG problem for the aircraft that did not exist before.
To state that, "P-39 didn't have any real CG problems." means you either don't understand the evidence that has been presented or are in complete denial. I don't know how to correct either situation.
Let's say it is possible to add another 30 Gallons in fuel cells to the outer wing of the P-39 in place of the wing guns.
That would make a total of 150 Gallons.
Please note that the P-51 already had 184 Gallons of internal fuel BEFORE it was determined to be necessary to add a 85 Gallon fuselage tank that caused some CoG problems without drop tanks.
Note also that the P-51 could carry two drop tanks on the wings.
The P-39 could carry at most one drop tank on the centerline.
What makes you think this is sufficient fuel?
The 37 mm cannon certainly is a big hammer, but it has a ridiculously low firing rate, low ammunition capacity and a low duration of fire and of course has a pretty loopy trajectory because of its low muzzle velocity.
This is not an ideal weapon to track maneuvering targets. 12 seconds of fire isn't much at all.
There are many better ideas for motor cannon and neither of the guns that were normally installed in the P-39 qualify as such.
The remaining two synchronized .50 cals even as you pointed out really do not deliver a great weight of fire.
- Ivan.
