Send him to UPT. Hopefully that would knock some sense into him before he washes out. I would even go back on active duty if I could be his instructor in Primary. Oh, the fun we would have!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Send him to UPT. Hopefully that would knock some sense into him before he washes out. I would even go back on active duty if I could be his instructor in Primary. Oh, the fun we would have!Hello P-39 Expert,
For the umpteenth time:
If this is really your response after all the information and explanations and evidence presented to you, either you are incapable of understanding weight and balance of aircraft or cannot comprehend how this information fits together.
You can wish whatever you want, but there were many intelligent and skilled people on the scene when YOU were not and I would trust their conclusions over yours. You clearly do not qualify as a P-39 "Expert".
- Ivan.
If this is really your response after all the information and explanations and evidence presented to you, either you are incapable of understanding weight and balance of aircraft or cannot comprehend how this information fits together.
The Russians beat the Luftwaffe with the P-39, after they lightened it a little.
According to whom? After all, despite carrying the much heavier 37mm cannon and the weight of the long driveshaft, the P-39 was lighter than the P-40 models with the same engine versions. This was reflected in the P-39s higher speed, higher rate of climb and superior ceiling to equivalent P-40 models. Indeed, it's fair to suggest the Allied war effort would have been better off it Curtiss had been told to build P-39s instead of P-40s.
The Airacuda suffered due to a bad concept, but was still faster and heavier-armed than equivalent attack aircraft such as the A-18 Curtiss Shrike
The XP-77 was as unlikely as many other similar lightweight fighter designs made in France, but it still managed to reach 330mph on a 500hp engine, which was quite an engineering achievement.
The XP-59 was vastly constrained by both the restrictions of the requirement and the restrictions on information about the new jet engines given to Bell by the USAAC. They weren't given any design information on the engines other than rough external dimensions! At the same time, they were told they had to make the aircraft big enough to carry two engines, lots of fuel and be very safe for pilots unused to the new jets. The result was designed more as a trainer than a fighter. BTW, the only other operational fighter to get the same J-31 engine was the Ryan Fireball, which was actually slower than the XP-59. Bell's development of a better fighter design, the XP-59B, was transferred to Lockheed and was developed into the P-80 Shooting Star, which was far superior to contemporary prop fighters.
And how many successful fighter designs did Bell's much bigger competitor Curtiss make after the P-40? Yup, zero.
Didn't someone say this about 15 pages back, post 576, that handsome fella, from Australia I think
I should also note that you were more likely to die in a P-39 accident that in any other fighter except for the P-38. Doing the math the fatality rate per 100,000 flying hours was 46.7 for the P-39, with the "runner up" P-38 at 33.4. The P 40 was 17.1, the P-47 was 16.8 and the P-51 was 16.7.I think this point has been made before. The P-39 had a very high accident rate in the training programs in the US.
View attachment 599408
BOOOOOOOO!!!For god sakes, stop scaring me!!!
And for the umpteenth time, we showed you what will happen if you remove nose armor and any weight forward of the CG. Unless you calculate exactly where you think you can put this radio, you're delusional!P-39D was a dog at 7650lbs. Could be made competitive by losing the nose armor and the .30s. Move the radio up from the tail cone for balance. For the umpteenth time.
Hello PAT303,
You were probably correct, but I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt.
I just don't expect to find religious fanatics when it comes to WW2 aircraft and there is a pretty good chance that is what is happening here.
The discussion wasn't a total waste. Think of all the entertainment we have gotten in the last 15 pages.
- Ivan.
While I was glancing through that batch of S/Ns looking for spin incidents, I did see a considerable amount of accidents (many fatal) due to training incidents.A quick glance at Joe Baugher's site shows that six P-39s out of the production batch 41-6722/41-7115 (P-39D-BE) crashed due to spin.
There's many more out of the batch that indicate wrecking with no specifics - those could be crossed with the USAAF MACR reports for details.
Like this, perhaps?Is this horse dead yet? Can we avast kicking now?
The Airacuda wasn't an attack aircraft it was supposed to be a bomber destroyer, comparisons to the A-18 are moot.
Did the XP-77 actually achieve 330 mph? The testing program was very short lived. One look at the The XP-77 with the pilot sitting so far aft makes you wonder how effective it could have been. Deflection shooting would be out of the question
The P-59A was not designed as a trainer. It was supposed to be a fighter. Due to it poor performance orders were cut back and it was relegated to the training role.
The J-31 you disparage is basically the Welland used in the Meteor MkI (Both based on the Whittle WB.2/23) which despite being heavier than the P-39A was much faster. As to the Me 262 there is no comparison.
From ch11-2
Although having about the same total thrust as the Me 262, along with a thrust-to-weight ratio over 30 percent greater than that of the German aircraft, the P-59A was slower by about 130 miles per hour. Analysis shows that the 65-percent-greater wing area and consequent greater drag area of the P-59A was responsible for much but not all of the difference in performance of the two aircraft. Perhaps the thick airfoil sections of the P-59A or some other sources of added drag contributed to its poor performance, or perhaps the engines did not perform as anticipated. An obvious question concerns the choice of so large a wing area for the aircraft. In comparison with the 60-poundper-square-foot wing loading of the Me 262, the corresponding value for the Airacomet was 28 pounds per square foot. The use of sophisticated leading-edge and trailing-edge high-lift devices on the Me 262 gave acceptable takeoff, landing, and maneuver characteristics with a small wing area and high wing loading on this aircraft. Only small, simple, inboard trailing-edge flaps were used on the P-59A, and the resultant low maximum lift coefficient no doubt played a large part in dictating the choice of a low wing loading and associated large wing area.
In any event, the poor performance of the P-59A precluded its adoption as a production fighter for the U.S. Armed Forces. The P-59 is included here only because of its historic interest as the first jet aircraft developed in the United States.
As I stated in another post Curtiss, in my opinion, was a basket case long before the end of WWII. Saying Bell was better than Curtiss is, as my uncle used to say, like beating a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. I believe he meant donkeys.