XP-39 II - The Groundhog Day Thread
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Hello P-39 Expert,
This is your statement, not mine. I just pointed out that this is a common operational situation in which the requirement to avoid ground idling may not always be met.
First of all, the subject was lack of fuel capacity in the P-39. As for level speed versus climb, it is pretty obvious what the Army Air Forces preferred and it wasn't climb rate.
Yes they do and if guns are harmonized to 300 yards, in theory, they should remain no wider than how they started at about twice that distance. Don't forget your Geometry!
Reality and dispersion makes things a bit worse of course.......
Those two remaining SYNCHRONIZED .50 cals have a fairly low firing rate. Combined, they are perhaps the equivalent of one regular .50 cal. The free firing rate of these cowl guns was particularly low.
.......
Pounds of projectile is great, but firing rate is too low and ballistics are poor.
There is probably a reason why everyone else settled on 20 mm cannon.
.......
If this was so easy, then one has to ask why it wasn't done.
That particular gun fed from a drum. If doubling the ammunition capacity were that easy, one has to wonder why it wasn't done.
Even with double the capacity, that is only 12 seconds of fire.
This is your statement, not mine. I just pointed out that this is a common operational situation in which the requirement to avoid ground idling may not always be met.
First of all, the subject was lack of fuel capacity in the P-39. As for level speed versus climb, it is pretty obvious what the Army Air Forces preferred and it wasn't climb rate.
Yes they do and if guns are harmonized to 300 yards, in theory, they should remain no wider than how they started at about twice that distance. Don't forget your Geometry!
Reality and dispersion makes things a bit worse of course.......
Those two remaining SYNCHRONIZED .50 cals have a fairly low firing rate. Combined, they are perhaps the equivalent of one regular .50 cal. The free firing rate of these cowl guns was particularly low.
.......
Pounds of projectile is great, but firing rate is too low and ballistics are poor.
There is probably a reason why everyone else settled on 20 mm cannon.
.......
If this was so easy, then one has to ask why it wasn't done.
That particular gun fed from a drum. If doubling the ammunition capacity were that easy, one has to wonder why it wasn't done.
Even with double the capacity, that is only 12 seconds of fire.
wuzak
Captain
That may come as a surprise to the RAF pilots using the Mustang I in 1942.
Service of Mustang I/IA With RAF
Seems you were almost a whole year out!
fubar57
General
Doesn't seem to matter though does it
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
You can download a copy from Aircraft Power Plants : Arthur Fraas, : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. If you want a paper copy then look for it on bookfinder.com
Another, more basic book is the Allison primer that is on this forum - I cant remember the title.
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
I understand the critical engine. That refers to a conventional twin engined plane with both propellers turning the same direction. If both props are turning right as viewed from behind then the right engine would be the critical engine. If the left engine is lost then the right engine torque (and the drag of the dead left engine) tends to pull the plane into a left bank. If the right engine is lost the left engine torque works against the inclination of the plane to bank right offering more stability.
On the P-38 both engines turned outward so the loss of either one made the plane want to bank/turn violently toward the dead engine. Both engines were critical.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
"Normal spin characteristics with prompt recovery if proper technique is used." I had seen this film before, thanks for posting.
fubar57
General
Everyone here provides documents about the poor handling of the precious P-39 and all you seem to come back with is..."Because I said so". Back it up with documents, "Expert"
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Did you actually watch the P-39 spin film in post #555? "Normal spin characteristics with prompt recovery if proper technique is used?" Makes my point for me.
fubar57
General
I saw a P-39 crash at the end of a spin. Why wasn't the proper technique used?
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
As the film said, in that case proper technique was not used. The whole point of the movie was that P-39 spin characteristics were normal and recovery prompt if proper technique was used.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
You are correct on the dates on the Mustang I. I stand by my other statements.
fubar57
General
I have no volume on this laptop. Makes listening to music videos a little sketchy at times. Had I made that P-39 video, I would have put the crash in the beginning and then shown proper technique to avoid it
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
So long as you had 7000 to 8000 feet of airspace below you according to that pilot report above in post 527.
Now let me think.
Mmmmm.
How many times do you have 7000-8000 feet below you when you are exhausted after coming down from a combat induced adrenaline high while you are on approach for landing with your aircraft at or approaching its worst CG configuration?
My guess would be never.
You also ask why would a pilot be doing aerobatics at the end of a flight with no ammo on board.
Have you ever heard of a victory roll? Pilots did that when still on an adrenaline high after shooting down an enemy plane. Often that would be with zero ammo left.
Last edited:
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Please expand above.
Last edited:
We have 29 pages of wash rinse repeat, do any of you think the discussion will be any different if we went another 29 pages?, I think this member said it best.
He either is unwilling or unable to process the information so aptly put to him. He keeps up with a circular argument that has been refuted too many times to think it's not intentional.[/QUOTE]
He either is unwilling or unable to process the information so aptly put to him. He keeps up with a circular argument that has been refuted too many times to think it's not intentional.[/QUOTE]
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
[/QUOTE]
Sorry that I keep refuting incorrect statements from long ago that have been taken as fact for 75 years. I have been presenting facts, not heresay.
I'm enjoying the discussion, hope that I have not offended anyone.
Last edited:
fubar57
General
The Russians liked the hitting power of the 37mm but weren't really fond of the gun itself
"The Soviet pilots had some requests - for example, they wanted improvement in the ballistics and rate of fire of the 37mm cannon. The Russians asserted that the late-model P-39Qs were much less stable than earlier Airacobras, and that the armoured headrest introduced on this model impaired rearward visibility"
"The Soviet pilots had some requests - for example, they wanted improvement in the ballistics and rate of fire of the 37mm cannon. The Russians asserted that the late-model P-39Qs were much less stable than earlier Airacobras, and that the armoured headrest introduced on this model impaired rearward visibility"
No, but we might remove the expert from his name...
What did someone say about "self proclaimed" experts?
Last edited:
- Status
