Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hey windhund 116, the Soviet Union used them throughout the war ... VERY effectively, and they stayed in service until at least 1949. The last aerial victory of WWII was by A Soviet P-39 against an Fw 189 on 9 May 45. The last Luftwaffe victory was by an Me 262 against a Soviet P-39 on 8 Aug 45.
The P-39, in Soviet service achieve the highest number of victories of any U.S. type, in any conflict. Strange, considering the U.S.A. didn't like them or come up with successful tactics for employing them. That was left to the Soviet Union. The P-39 was always a formidable ground attack airplane, but the Soviet Union mostly used them in an air-to-air role, in support of ground forces ... though they DID fly all types of missions in Soviet service.
I am not sure exactly when it as retired from U.S. service, but it was after WWII as some were still operational in 1946.
Hey windhund 116, the Soviet Union used them throughout the war ... VERY effectively, and they stayed in service until at least 1949. The last aerial victory of WWII was by A Soviet P-39 against an Fw 189 on 9 May 45. The last Luftwaffe victory was by an Me 262 against a Soviet P-39 on 8 Aug 45.
The P-39, in Soviet service achieve the highest number of victories of any U.S. type, in any conflict. Strange, considering the U.S.A. didn't like them or come up with successful tactics for employing them. That was left to the Soviet Union. The P-39 was always a formidable ground attack airplane, but the Soviet Union mostly used them in an air-to-air role, in support of ground forces ... though they DID fly all types of missions in Soviet service.
I am not sure exactly when it as retired from U.S. service, but it was after WWII as some were still operational in 1946.
Their main role was battlefield air superiority. Escorting bombers and intercepting German bombers.Must have been a fairly formidable ground assault airplane, if the Soviets thought so. Since they did have the famous IL-2 Sturmovik, from fairly early in the Great Patriotic War.
Could helium tank be installed in the P-39 to make it lighter?
There you guys go again; speaking in tongues and handling serpents at worship!
Would like to see your calculations, thanks.Ouch, my ears! LOL!
Hi MiTasol -
Based on the loading chart for the P-39Q and the numbers calculated by Ivan earlier, I came up with a few items...
At 7075 pounds, wheels up, the CG arm is 134.22. Within the envelope but very aft.
First, the wheels up and wheels down moment numbers on the chart are wrong, off by a smidge.
But if we use the CG range of 130.1072 - 136.5584 you'll find that if you use half fuel and expend all ammo, you're right at the aft CG (I came up with 136.58) Funny that when I did the same calculation with 1/4 tanks I came up with similar CG numbers.
If anyone wants to see my math, I can scan my calculations.
See page 16 post #306 of this thread...
Would like to see your calculations, thanks.
And I contest those copyrights as invalid! Call your attorney; see you in court. Or would you prefer pistols at twenty paces or sabers toe to toe? In that case, call your second; see you on the meeting ground.HEY! Careful now, you're treading into dangerous territory, Troll George and I own the copyrights to snark in this here forum.
Well, St George awarded me a "Funny" for this post, so I see no threat there...unless there's an implied "Farm" after it, in which case, "Them's fightin' wuhds, Suh!"It's hard to countenance this faux pas on your part but I can be magnanimous in this instance, George on the other hand, well, he's the one you have to watch out for.
And I contest those copyrights as invalid! Call your attorney; see you in court. Or would you prefer pistols at twenty paces or sabers toe to toe? In that case, call your second; see you on the meeting ground.
*SNIP*
My challenge, your call, Sir: pistols or sabers? I have a matched pair of John Wilkes Booth style .41 cal Derringers. Will that suffice? Our seconds will attend to the loading, if that suits.
Being a Southern Gentleman, I choose pistols suh...My challenge, your call, Sir: pistols or sabers? I have a matched pair of John Wilkes Booth style .41 cal Derringers. Will that suffice? Our seconds will attend to the loading, if that suits.
Would like to see your calculations, thanks.
P-39 weight was always confusing. Actually the early P-39D and the much later P-39Q-1 empty weights were about the same. AHT lists the D at 5523lbs and the Q-1 at 5680lbs but the Q-1 had the additional IFF radio that weighed about 120lbs. Empty weights of all the production P-39 models (D/F/K/L/M/N/Q) were about the same.
Loaded weights varied because of the differences in .30cal ammunition and armor plate, both of which were included in the "load" total and not the empty weight. .30cal ammunition boxes held 1000 rounds per gun but normal load was 300 rounds per gun, a difference of about 200lbs. That's why you sometimes see 7650lbs and 7850lbs quoted al loaded weight. The armor plate varied from about 265lbs on the P-400 to about 195lbs on the later N and Q models.
The British went a little crazy with armor on the P-400 by armoring the oxygen bottles etc. Compare that 265lbs to the contemporary P-40E with 111lbs of armor plate and glass. Deleting the 100lb nose armor that didn't protect anything and a few small pieces outside of the rear armored glass would get the armor plate/glass to a more reasonable 130lbs while still providing excellent protection.
Hey Stig1207!
Overclaiming? Surely you jest.
Never happened, especially on the Russian Front where Stalin never executed anyone for lack of performance!
"OK, you two guys get one rifle and 5 rounds. When the first man is killed, the second man takes his rifle and continues fighting! In the Soviet Army, it's hard not to be a hero!"
The P-39, in Soviet service achieve the highest number of victories of any U.S. type, in any conflict.