windhund116
Senior Airman
- 360
- Jul 3, 2017
What were the flight characteristics of the P-39, with a drop tank or under-slung bomb?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The follow-on Bell XP-83 flew in Feb 1945 and did 522 mph (840 km/h) at 15,660 ft (4,773 m).
The top speed of the Me 262 A-1 was 560 mph, so the XP83 wasn't far off when Bell had more information. The Me 262 had a service ceiling of 37,000 feet and XP-83's service ceiling was 45,000 feet. The XP-83's rate of climb was 5,650 fpm versus 3,900 fpm for the Me 262. The XP-83's range was 1,730 miles versus 650 miles for the Me 262.
So, again, when Bell had more information, they didn't exactly do badly. The XP-83 beat the Me 262 in all specs except top speed, and the top speeds were very close.
I have always said that removing the nose armor would require moving the radio (approx. 50lbs) from the tail cone (arm approx. 278) up to just aft of the aft cabin armor plate (arm approx. 154). This would move the CG from arm 134.32 to arm 134.56, a difference of .24 of one inch, still within CG limits. By the way, your excel weight and balance chart is great.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!
I have always said that removing the nose armor would require moving the radio (approx. 50lbs) from the tail cone (arm approx. 278) up to just aft of the aft cabin armor plate (arm approx. 154). This would move the CG from arm 134.32 to arm 134.56, a difference of .24 of one inch, still within CG limits. By the way, your excel weight and balance chart is great.
And I guess we showed, based on Bell's own data, they were wrong.Even though Bell (the manufacturer) said that the nose armor plate was not necessary for balance.
Again, training flights would probably result in more accidents than operational flights by experienced pilots who have completed training.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
The manufacturer was wrong and we guys on a message board are right?Now you're getting it, and thanks, but that chart was Greg's invention.
And I guess we showed, based on Bell's own data, they were wrong.
...and these were quite possibly due to the tumbling that an inexperienced pilot could not get out ofAgain, training flights would probably result in more accidents than operational flights by experienced pilots who have completed training.
The manufacturer was wrong and we guys on a message board are right?
Early P-39D/F/K/L with the -35 or -63 engines (8.8 supercharger gears) couldn't get much above 18000' with a drop tank. As with any contemporary fighter most aerobatic maneuvers were prohibited, the drop tank had to be jettisoned before combat. Without the drop tank about 22500' could be gained at normal power (2600rpm) and about 27500' at combat power (3000rpm). But the drop tanks were almost always used. The Russians hardly ever used drop tanks and lightened their planes by removing the .30cal MGs, some armor and the IFF radio so their performance was much better.What were the flight characteristics of the P-39, with a drop tank or under-slung bomb?
Thanks!
But at any altitude above mid-teens in feet, it didn't have fighter performance. So, cruising at 30,000 feet ina P-39 was not going to happen in a war zone. Might see that in training in the U.S.A., but that didn't help win the war.
I don't know about that. With the early P-39D/K/L in 1942 you are still looking at 360mph at 22500', very competitive in the Pacific. 40mph faster than a Zero. Would climb that high easily without a drop tank.But at any altitude above mid-teens in feet, it didn't have fighter performance. So, cruising at 30,000 feet ina P-39 was not going to happen in a war zone. Might see that in training in the U.S.A., but that didn't help win the war.
At 11,040 lbs, the P-51B's wing loading ws 28.6 lbs.sq in. and 11,040 was takeoff weight for the aircraft. Oh, and they did a lot of gliding because they ran out of fuel semi-often, according to the pilots who flew them. At the Planes of Fame, we've had 3 or 4 guys who flew OUR tail number come and give a talk. Many P-59 pilots ran out of fuel and glided to the nearest airport and called for jet fuel from the nearest bar, which usually had a telephone. Jet fuel wasn't very widely available , even in 1949.
According to the book "Flame Powered" as well as former Bell employees, the huge wings were because they didn't give Larry Bell much information except a big block of wood and told him the engines would not be any bigger than the block of wood. So, Bell designed an engine bay around it, and even had to add engine mounts later when the exact location of them was passed along. They put the big wing on because they didn't have any information and erred on the "more area" side.
Also, they didn't tell Bell how much air the engines used, so the intakes are WAY oversize, and create a lot of drag when air goes in, circulates around in the intake, and leaks back out the front because there isn't enough air used to take it all. I can tell you from personal experience that the build quality is pretty good. But, Bell Aircraft simply didn't have much information about the engines and built what is basically a test bed for the engines.
The follow-on Bell XP-83 flew in Feb 1945 and did 522 mph (840 km/h) at 15,660 ft (4,773 m).
The top speed of the Me 262 A-1 was 560 mph, so the XP83 wasn't far off when Bell had more information. The Me 262 had a service ceiling of 37,000 feet and XP-83's service ceiling was 45,000 feet. The XP-83's rate of climb was 5,650 fpm versus 3,900 fpm for the Me 262. The XP-83's range was 1,730 miles versus 650 miles for the Me 262.
So, again, when Bell had more information, they didn't exactly do badly. The XP-83 beat the Me 262 in all specs except top speed, and the top speeds were very close.
What were the flight characteristics of the P-39, with a drop tank or under-slung bomb?
Thanks!
The manufacturer was wrong and we guys on a message board are right?
I don't know about that. With the early P-39D/K/L in 1942 you are still looking at 360mph at 22500', very competitive in the Pacific. 40mph faster than a Zero. Would climb that high easily without a drop tank.
In 1943 there aren't going to be any FW190As at 30000'. No F4Fs. Not many Zeros or Oscars. I agree that there were not many P-39Ns cruising at 30000' but the capability was there.
There are more P-39D tests and some graphs on the P-39K which has the same 8.8 supercharger gears also.
Hello P-39 Expert,
Bell made a lot of unsubstantiated claims to sell his aircraft. Like what?
It is quite astonishing to see this statement from YOU. You want us to believe your performance and handling claims when the trained test pilots, and combat pilots who actually flew the aircraft report something quite different.
And plenty of test pilots and combat pilots report that it handled just fine. P-39 was a perfectly good handling airplane that served the country well when there wasn't anything else except the P-40 and F4F.
Here you go again with the "40 mph faster than a Zero". The facts simply don't agree with you. My facts all come from wwiiaircraftperformance.org
When a captured and beat to crap and rebuilt aircraft can hit 335 MPH in testing without emergency power, what do you think one that HASN'T been wrecked and rebuilt can do when its pilot chooses to use emergency power? I have no idea, but there were sure a lot of captured Zeros tested. And after the war Zero pilots who were interviewed substantiated the results of those tests. The Zero was many things, but fast wasn't one of them.
Your numbers don't add up.
These early P-39s also were equipped with engines that had a critical altitude at around 12,000 feet. They made their maximum speeds around 13,000 feet. More like around 14000' with ram, and they were able to hold that speed up to around 16000'. You talk like they stopped running when they reached their critical altitude.
They also weren't carrying drop tanks for decoration. They were not going to have the range to do anything useful without drop tanks.
And those tanks were dropped for combat, weren't they.
You have a very interesting view of history. Do you really believe those other types were not there in 1943? Some of those other types were already being replaced by aircraft with better altitude capability by 1943. Initial combat dates: P-38 November 1942, Corsair Feb 1943, P-47 May 1943, Hellcat August 1943, Merlin P-51 December 1943. P-38 barely made combat in 1942 a full year after the war started. P-39, P-40 and F4F were all that was available in 1942.
Another couple questions for you are: Would your hypothetical P-39N cruising at 30,000 feet be carrying a drop tank? I already said it was in clean condition.
Would it be a P-39N with 120 gallons of internal fuel or only 87 gallons? Either way. I really don't know why the AAF reduced the fuel from 120gal to 87gal internal, unless it was at the insistence of the Russians.
If it is NOT carrying a drop tank, then where would it be going at 30,000 feet where internal fuel would be sufficient for the mission? Returning from a mission where it had to drop the tank it would have 120gal less a 20 minute landing reserve (10gal) less 15 minute combat reserve (18gal at 25000') leaving 92gal left using 48gal/hr at 30000' resulting in 1.92hr at 305mphTAS or 585mi after reserves. A radar alerted interception mission with no drop tank and 120gal internal would be reduced by the takeoff allowance of 16gal, 15min combat allowance at 30000' of 14gal and a landing reserve of 10gal resulting in 80gal useable at 48gph or 1.7hours patrol time. Plenty of time to intercept a bombing raid.
Also, as GregP pointed out, just because an aircraft can get to 30,000 feet doesn't mean it can fight there. The A6M2 had a service ceiling somewhere between 35,000 feet and 38,000 feet depending on the information source but it most certainly wasn't a high altitude aircraft either. Why couldn't it fight there? All it had to do was be above the enemy and dive on him.
- Ivan.