P-39

Subject: P-39
From: Cub Driver
Date: 12/29/03 2:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


A two-stage supercharger would certainly have helped. The Lightning
was powered by the same engine as the Airacobra.

But then--so was the P-40. It didn't have a two-stage supercharger,
either, but it was a redoubtable aircraft at low and medium altitudes.

On 28 Dec 2003 11:56:49 -0800, (Bob M.) wrote:

I have read that the usefulness of the Bell P-39 was greatly decreased
by certain decisions made by the USAAF before it went into production
in the 1930s. Chief among these was the deletion of the
turbosupercharger, but the shortening of the wings also had an effect.
The question is, just how much more effective would this plane have
been had these changes not been made? Would it have a much greater
climb rate and been more effective at high altitudes? Or would it
still have been pretty much of a bust as a fighter/interceptor?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com


All the P-39 pilots I met during WW II never complained about superchargers.
They all complained about the deadly flat spin characteristics of the P-39 and
hated it for that reason.
Not being a pilot, I have no idea of what flat spin characteristics are, but I
do remember the conversations of many of them relfecting bitterness over this
design flaw.. Also they hated sitting in front of an engine, Can't blame then
for that.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
The fact that the USAAF was not disappointed in the q was that it accepted
the P-63 for production although as it turned out the current fighters
that
already in mass production continued to improve and the P-63 was
considered
excess to USAAAF needs, so the Russians got the benefit of a fighter that
was a natural progression of the P-39 and was equal to the 109's and 190's
it had to face in 44-45.

Actually, there is no evidence that P-63 ever saw combat against the
Germans. They were generally reserved by Soviets in the case high-altitude
interceptor was needed at some point. There are some reports that P-63 units
did see some combat in Manchuria against the Japanese in August 1945.

(Tony Williams) wrote in message om...
(Bob M.) wrote in message . com...
I have read that the usefulness of the Bell P-39 was greatly decreased
by certain decisions made by the USAAF before it went into production
in the 1930s. Chief among these was the deletion of the
turbosupercharger, but the shortening of the wings also had an effect.
The question is, just how much more effective would this plane have
been had these changes not been made? Would it have a much greater
climb rate and been more effective at high altitudes? Or would it
still have been pretty much of a bust as a fighter/interceptor?

I think the RAF missed a trick. They should have replaced that 37mm M4
cannon with the 40mm S gun, fitted more armour and used it for ground
attack instead of the Hurricane IID and IV. It was a tough plane, good
at low level as the Russians found, and certainly better than the
Hurri.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/


the P-400 version found its niche in the ground attack role during the
Guadalcanal campaign.

(Jack) wrote in message . com...
(Tony Williams) wrote in message om...

I think the RAF missed a trick. They should have replaced that 37mm M4
cannon with the 40mm S gun, fitted more armour and used it for ground
attack instead of the Hurricane IID and IV. It was a tough plane, good
at low level as the Russians found, and certainly better than the
Hurri.

the P-400 version found its niche in the ground attack role during the
Guadalcanal campaign.

Indeed - for most purposes the 20mm cannon was the best choice; it was
a reasonable ballistic match for the .50s and the RoF was much higher.
For punching holes in tanks, though, or sinking river craft (the
Hurris did both in Burma) the 40mm would have been better.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/