Believe me, you are not damaging anyones reputation but your own.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Apologies to snarky pricks everywhere for besmirching their good names.
Exactly. Power to weight will affect climb more than any other measurement. Early P-39D/F/K/L P/W ratio was 18% higher than Spitfire V and 29% higher than 109G. Was quite overweight. Less weight improved climb, which was what the early P-39D/F/K/L needed most. Later N model with more powerful engine climbed very well.
Well, a Spitfire V weighed 6600lbs and had a 1200hp engine. A 109G weighed 7000lbs and had a 1475hp engine. An early P-39D/F/K/L weighed 7650lbs and had a 1150hp engine. See the power/weight ratios? EarlyP-39 was overweight.
Must admit I'm a bit confused by the whole "power to weight" comparison given that propulsive power for a given engine hp will vary depending on the gearing and propeller, while the weight component really only becomes a factor as a proportion of available lift generated by the flying surfaces.
What are you willing to do without? A6M and BF109 were essentially minimalist machines, both more susceptible to battle damage than the US machines mentioned, which can't be accused of flimsyness. "Hell for stout" was our motto, and we had this tendency to "gadgetize" anything with wings.I would say power to weight is entirely based on what the other guys are building. The Wildcat would have had a fine power to weight ratio if the Zero had weighed 9,000 pounds, but as it was the Wildcat and P39 and P40 were all a bit porky
No, just a plain understanding of written English. The L-133 was a conformal design - the wing thickness altered to allow it to engulf the axial engines in the wingroots. That means the wing was a lot thicker at the root, then thinned out toward the midsection, and was finally a conventional wing much further out. The P-80s is a simple, straight wing from the wingroot right to the tip.Are you basing this on your highly calibrated eyeballs or are you really good at guessing loft dimensions based on professional experience.....
You use a shovel to type? I'm impressed! Instead, I'll just put up some 3-views of the L-133 and the P-80, you can compare them to the 3-view of the XP-59B, and then you can shovel off a reply telling us how the much bigger L-133 is somehow closer to the P-80 than the XP-59B:......Well go get your shovel.....
And I'm sure, after several decades of repeating the company line, those Lockheed employees actually believed it......I worked with people in the mid 1980s who were on the XP-80 program and it was designed from the ground up.....
Actually, the authorities took the design away from Bell because Bell's design staff were already overloaded with other projects, just as the authorities had not given it to Lockheed to start with because Lockheed were too busy sorting out the flaws with the P-38. Now, personally, I think that was a good thing because the P-38 was really needed for the PTO, and the resulting P-80 was very good design. Had Germany held out longer then the P-80 would have been a far better fighter for the USAAF in the ETO than the Bell P-83 could have been, though the P-83's superior range might have made it the better choice for the PTO if the Manhattan Project had not succeeded. The idea that Bell were massively incompetent, and Lockheed were somehow simply devine, simply doesn't gell with the history of the P-38's development alone......The only thing Lockheed got from Bell was a great opportunity based on their failure to further their basic design....
Well, a Spitfire V weighed 6600lbs and had a 1200hp engine. A 109G weighed 7000lbs and had a 1475hp engine. An early P-39D/F/K/L weighed 7650lbs and had a 1150hp engine. See the power/weight ratios? EarlyP-39 was overweight.
I completely understand your point, but I guess there is a middle ground somewhere which is where aircraft manufacturers play. Of course we all want armor and self sealing fuel tanks along with good weapons, but who here if given the choice between flying a Zero and F2F-3 Buffalo against each other 1 on 1 would choose the F2F-3? When your limited to engines less than 1200 hp your simply limited on what you can carry or at least how well you can carry it.What are you willing to do without? A6M and BF109 were essentially minimalist machines, both more susceptible to battle damage than the US machines mentioned, which can't be accused of flimsyness. "Hell for stout" was our motto, and we had this tendency to "gadgetize" anything with wings.
Zero achieved its performance with lightness and slickness and "zero" protection, on a rather weak engine, while the Messerschmitt did it with small size and a cutting edge powerplant. Spitfire was an aerodynamic tour de force with an exceptionally fine engine, but a little more fragile than US was comfortable with. Built to US structural standards by anyone other than Reg Mitchell, our X-spurt friend would be calling it porky.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Larry Bell was not a Horikoshi, or a Mitchell or a Messerschmitt, witness missed opportunities such as the carburetor air intake, or adjusting wing positioning to ameliorate the CG issue.
Several suggestions have been made to lighten the early P39, most of which are impractical for CG, structural, or operational reasons, would not at the time have been recognized as necessary or desirable, and come with overly optimistic claims of performance enhancements. What I see is still a sow's ear.
No, just a plain understanding of written English. The L-133 was a conformal design - the wing thickness altered to allow it to engulf the axial engines in the wingroots. That means the wing was a lot thicker at the root, then thinned out toward the midsection, and was finally a conventional wing much further out. The P-80s is a simple, straight wing from the wingroot right to the tip.
You use a shovel to type? I'm impressed! Instead, I'll just put up some 3-views of the L-133 and the P-80, you can compare them to the 3-view of the XP-59B, and then you can shovel off a reply telling us how the much bigger L-133 is somehow closer to the P-80 than the XP-59B:
And I'm sure, after several decades of repeating the company line, those Lockheed employees actually believed it.
Actually, the authorities took the design away from Bell because Bell's design staff were already overloaded with other projects, just as the authorities had not given it to Lockheed to start with because Lockheed were too busy sorting out the flaws with the P-38. Now, personally, I think that was a good thing because the P-38 was really needed for the PTO, and the resulting P-80 was very good design. Had Germany held out longer then the P-80 would have been a far better fighter for the USAAF in the ETO than the Bell P-83 could have been, though the P-83's superior range might have made it the better choice for the PTO if the Manhattan Project had not succeeded. The idea that Bell were massively incompetent, and Lockheed were somehow simply devine, simply doesn't gell with the history of the P-38's development alone.
You use a shovel to type?
Tsk, tsk, did you actually banish him? Too bad, he was fun to watch! Worth a chuckle now and again, even if he did insult your former employer.You're too stupid to play here - bye-bye!
Tsk, tsk, did you actually banish him? To bad, he was fun to watch! Worth a chuckle now and again.
People like that not only entertain us they keep us on our toes and keep our diplomacy skills physically fit.I know he was entertaining but he was warned twice. I was intrigued about his ability to determine dimensions and loft data from internet 3 view drawings!
People like that not only entertain us they keep us on our toes and keep our diplomacy skills well exercised.
I have a book, actually two, on lofting, and though I COULD get through it, I'm not needing to loft just now. But, I can tell you that math for good lofting, while not too complicated, is also not simple, and you're NOT going to get it from a drawing. I do 3-views myself, and I use a bezier tool for lofting. They might have back in the day, too, IF they had been available ... but they weren't. So, they had to do actual lofting.
Here's one of my efforts:View attachment 598767
and I can tell you, the lofting was NOT done with classic lofting data. I used a bezier tool. It ain't a bad drawing, but it's also not 100% scale. The rivets are close, but not exact in number. the lines could be off by 1/4 inch or so, the NAA logo is my own reproduction, not an official company logo. I could go on, but this is good enough for a museum drawing or an illustration in a book.
I would not use it for scale documentation ... although I DID compete in RC aerobatics (not scale) for some years a couple of decade back (RC Pattern), I can tell you that the scale judges I used to see working at contests would not know what was not to scale in my drawing above. Some people in here might.
There is ONE rather glaring error in the drawing above ... the side view. Anybody want to make a stab at it?
Tsk, tsk, did you actually banish him? Too bad, he was fun to watch