Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So now the P-39 can't operate in a group?
Again, the P-39 was operational from the beginning of the war. Earliest Mustang I combat was April 1943. With comparable engines (-35 vs -39, -81 vs -85) the P-39 was about 10-15mph slower but outclimbed the P-51.
No, they just keep moving farther away from each other.
The P-39 still had two .50s with a duration of 25 seconds.
.....
The 37mm put out more pounds of projectile per second than the 20mm.
.....
I said use a bigger ammunition tray for the 20mm. 120rds instead of 60.
They only bought 9500 of them, about the same as the P-38.
[/QUOTE
They gave over half of them to the Soviets. Of the remainder, some were used to equip the French and Italians and quite a few were used as training aircraft stateside. This does not sound like an aircraft that was seen as suitable for operational use by US forces.
No, they were using them to win the war in the East. 4 out of their top 5 aces and scores of 20+ victory aces flew this plane against the Luftwaffe. Their favorite plane. Begged for more of them. Demanded more of them. From ground level to over 8000meters (26500').
The P-39 was a hot little fighter at low altitude where most Soviet fighters operated.
Its reliability was generally much higher than Soviet manufactured aircraft.
The low altitude use is well supported by historical accounts.
So far, I haven't seen anyone but you argue that the P-39 on the Eastern Front was an effective fighter above 8000 meters.
Can you provide some documentation on this subject?
Ivan1GFP, I think you're typing to a brick wall.
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.
I have learned a lot from this place, but I certainly don't claim to be an "Expert" at anydangedthing. I've often thought that self-declared "experts" are anything but that. I kinda think that he's just trolling you all. I'm moving on to other things.
Hello glennasher,
This "argument" isn't that different than some of the political discussions I have gotten into over the years as far as results though it is much easier to "prove" things here. It is good practice and keeps me amused at how certain mantras get repeated as though they were prayers seeking assistance from the Gods. When those mantras are all that is left when everything else seems to contradict them, one has to wonder what that person must still be thinking.
Besides, I collected a lot of data and references on the P-39 about two or three years ago when I was working on a project.
This gives me an opportunity to test and re-examine the quality of my research and conclusions.
- Ivan.
Again, the P-39 was operational from the beginning of the war. Earliest Mustang I combat was April 1943. With comparable engines (-35 vs -39, -81 vs -85) the P-39 was about 10-15mph slower but outclimbed the P-51.
Again, the P-39 was operational from the beginning of the war. Earliest Mustang I combat was April 1943. With comparable engines (-35 vs -39, -81 vs -85) the P-39 was about 10-15mph slower but outclimbed the P-51.
The first Mustang combat mission was undertaken by Flying Officer G. N. Dawson of No. 26 Squadron on May 10, 1942, strafing hangars in France and shooting up a train.
The first Mustang I operational sortie was on July 27, 1942. Mustang Is participated in the disastrous Dieppe landings by British commandos on August 19, 1942, where it saw the first air-to-air action. During this operation, pilots of No 414 Squadron of the RCAF were attacked by Fw 190s. An American RCAF volunteer, F/O Hollis H. Hills, shot down one of the enemy, which was first blood for the Mustang.
In October of 1942, On a mission to the Dortmund-Elms Canal and other objectives in Holland, the Mustang I became the first single- engined fighter based in the UK to penetrate the German border. By this time, the Mustang I equipped Nos 2, 4, 16, 26, 63, 169,239, 241, 268, and 613 Squadrons of the RAF, plus Nos 400, 414 and 430 Squadrons of the RCAF, and No 309 (Polish) Squadron of the RAF.
This book (or something like it)
Fraas. AIRCRAFT POWER PLANTS. 1st ed, 1943. | eBay
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.And that doesn't make a difference! Apparently you never heard of a "critical engine."
Critical engine - Wikipedia
Depending who you talk to the P-38 didn't have a critical engine or both were critical. In either case the P-38 had great engine out characteristics once you were trained on how to fly a twin!
"Normal spin characteristics with prompt recovery if proper technique is used." I had seen this film before, thanks for posting.I think this video might have been posted on here. I've always enjoyed watching it. Some of our pilots, please comment when you see the attitude of the aircraft after some of the spin/ stall sequences. The last portion of the clip drives the point home!
I also think the commentator "sugar coats" this. I'd bet dollars to donuts all of these scenes were flown by seasoned Bell test pilots, to include the last portion!
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.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"
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.I saw a P-39 crash at the end of a spin. Why wasn't the proper technique used?
You are correct on the dates on the Mustang I. I stand by my other statements.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!
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.
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.
P-39 had no trouble operating in squadron or group strength.
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.
The AAF didn't buy many Allison powered Mustangs. Less than 1000 P-51s and only a little over 600 Mustang I.
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.......
A bit, yes.
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. Perhaps the equivalent of 1.5 regular .50cal.
.......
Pounds of projectile is great, but firing rate is too low and ballistics are poor. Too low for what? You make it sound like the 37mm was hand loaded after every round. Ballistics very good (flat) out to 400yds.
There is probably a reason why everyone else settled on 20 mm cannon. 37mm was not more widely used because it had to be a centrally mounted weapon on a single engine plane. Could not be mounted out on the wing like all the other AAF/USN planes required.
.......
If this was so easy, then one has to ask why it wasn't done. 20mm was used in the P-39 only briefly because of early shortages of the 37mm, and because the Brits specified it on the P-400. 20mm would have been just fine on the P-39 given more ammunition capacity. Either gun could have been used.
That particular gun fed from a drum. If doubling the ammunition capacity were that easy, one has to wonder why it wasn't done. Brits did it with the Spitfire. Started with a 60 round drum quickly expanded to a 120 round belt feed.
Even with double the capacity, that is only 12 seconds of fire. Spitfire had only 12 seconds of fire, P-38 had only 15 seconds. 3 seconds more.
[/QUOTE]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.
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.
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.