What undid the P-39.......
C.C. Jordan
The story of the Bell P-39 is one that causes you to stop and think of
what might have been, as opposed to what actually was. Having gone
down in aviation history as the "Iron Dog", the Airacobra had from it's
inception, the potential to be the world's finest fighter aircraft at the
beginning of America's involvement in WWII. The fact that it instead
became one of the wars most loathsome fighters, easily conceals the
real potential the prototype.
The prototype was rolled out for the world to see on April 6, 1938 at
Wright Field. Essentially designed around the new Oldsmobile 37mm
cannon ( not unlike the A-10 Warthog ), The XP-39 was the second
design which incorporated the 37mm to come from Bell. The original
concept had placed the cannon behind a front mounted engine, pushing
the cockpit too far to the rear of the fuselage to be practical.
Bell's chief engineer, Robert Woods, went back to work and concieved
an aircraft with a mid engine location, which allowed the plane's nose to be
dedicated to a very heavy ( by late 1930's standards ) battery of weapons.
This rather unusual engine placement was not unique. The mid-engine concept
had been tried by Koolhoven of Holland with limited success due to a poor
choice of powerplant and inadequte technology. Their FK-55 fighter did not live
up to expectations. The general concept, however, was not without merit.
Wood's design employed the new Allison V1710 engine, rated at 1,150 hp
with the new B-5 turbocharger. The installation of the Turbo-Allison promised
excellent high altitude performance. This provided for a critical altitude of
20,000 feet, about the same as the XP-38. The expectations were fully met
and justified when, on April 6, the XP-39 attained a speed of 390 mph. Later
flights produced speeds that flirted with 400 mph ( 398 mph was reported ).
The Bell also displayed a remarkable rate of climb, reaching 20,000 feet in
5 minutes flat ! The aircraft created no small stir in the aviation community.
Nothing flying in Europe even came close to the level of performance displayed
by the XP-38. At least nothing having the potential for production.
Despite the superlative performance of the new Bell fighter, there were design
flaws. The undersized vertical stablizer led to problems with directional
stability. Wood's also made a poor choice in airfoil section for the wing.
These problems could have been overcome, and in fact, the vertical stablizer
was later redesigned to resemble that of the Curtiss P-36/P-40. The wing
section design was not addressed until the P-63 Kingcobra, where a laminar
flow airfoil was employed.
After the initial test flight, the XP-38 was turned over to the engineers at
Wright Field. And here is where the P-39 was undone.
At the time the Bell was being evaluated, the AAF was deep into "streamlining"
as a way to improve aircraft performance. This is somewhat understandable,
due to the relatively low powered aircraft engines of the 1930's. By reducing
drag, especially parasite drag, the engineering minds at Wright Field found that
signifcant increases in performance could be attained. This was all well and
good. Unfortunately, they carried it too far as it related to the XP-39. NACA
engineers decided that the Bell's turbocharger inlet created too much drag.
Certainly the inlet generated less drag than did the Prestone inlets on the
Lockheed XP-38. Nonetheless, they were insistant, the turbocharger had to
go. They reduced the height of the canopy, chopped 2 feet off the wing span
and lengthened the fuselage by over a foot. A less powerful Allison was
installed, without the capability of decent altitude performance. The Bell
had it's center of gravity shifted further aft, exacerbating it's already
marginal stablity. All said and done, the people at Wright Field had reversed
the old cliche, and created a sow's ear out of a silk purse.
Certainly Larry Bell and Bob Woods were outraged at the butchered result.
Unfortunately, there was very little they could afford to do about it. The
company was at the edge of bankruptcy. Having only produced 15 total
flyable aircraft, of any type, Bell was deep in debt. Neither Bell nor Woods
were willing to go to the mat for their beautiful fighter. To preserve the Bell
Aircraft Company, they would have to take it on the chin.
Bell later sold the French on the P-39, and recieved 2 million dollars in
advance on an eleven million dollar order. Later that same year ( 1940 ),
Bell recieved orders for just under 1,000 P-39C's and D's from the USAAF.
These were equiped with self-sealing fuel tanks and additional armor, the
weight of which, only further degraded performance. Without the turbocharger,
or even a gear driven supercharger, the Airacobra was not capable of taking
on modern fighter aircraft at anything above 10,000 feet. It should also be
noted that the early versions of the Allison V1710 engine never produced
anything close to their advertised power rating without a turbocharger.
The handling had degraded to a point where some claimed ( with more than a
grain of truth ) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. The
Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more dangerous
to RAF pilots than the Luftwaffe. The 37mm gun installed was generally the Colt
M4 which frequently jammed after only firing a few rounds. The balance of the
guns, 2 .50 cal. M2 and 4 .30 cal. Brownings were inadequate by 1942 standards.
The fact that the Russians were satisfied with the P-39 is not indictative of
the aircraft's performance as much as the Russian's desparate need for combat
aircraft. Moreover, the air war on the eastern front was fought largely below
20,000 feet, and more often than not, well below that. At these heights, the
P-39 possessed some marginal level of capability. Credit must be given to those
Soviet pilots who, despite the severe limits of the aircraft, used them very
effectively against the Luftwaffe's superior Bf-109's and Focke Wulf 190's
Taken as a whole, the P-39 was a dismal failure of the AAF's engineering and
procurement establishment to identify and develop the better attributes of an
advanced and promising fighter aircraft. The same establishment that prevented
Lockheed from installing Merlin engines in the P-38 as early as 1941. Had the
AFF not stripped the turbocharger from the XP-39, the United States may have
entered the war with a first rate single engine fighter plane already in
service. Indeed, it was not until the advent of the Bell P-63 that the level of
performance finally matched that of the Bell XP-39 of 1938. Of course, by that
time, the P-63 was already outclassed by the P-38, P-47 and P-51.
Regards,
C.C. Jordan
"Passion and prejudice govern the world; only
under the name of reason".
John Wesley
http://www.Aerodyne-controls.com
Aerodyne Controls: A division of Circle Seal Corporation.
Marv Smith
Appreciate your post on this ! Met a WWII fighter pilot at the Sussex,NJ,
airshow a few years ago who said that he flew lots of fighter aircraft
because he would go up in different types on his time off. He went on to say
that he liked the P-39 best of all, which astounded me at the time because I
expected to hear "P-51" in that category.
C.C. Jordan wrote in message <6j7i55$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Marv Smith
Appreciate your post on this ! Met a WWII fighter pilot at the Sussex,NJ,
airshow a few years ago who said that he flew lots of fighter aircraft
because he would go up in different types on his time off. He went on to say
that he liked the P-39 best of all, which astounded me at the time because I
expected to hear "P-51" in that category.
C.C. Jordan wrote in message <6j7i55$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Marv Smith
Appreciate your post on this ! Met a WWII fighter pilot at the Sussex,NJ,
airshow a few years ago who said that he flew lots of fighter aircraft
because he would go up in different types on his time off. He went on to say
that he liked the P-39 best of all, which astounded me at the time because I
expected to hear "P-51" in that category.
C.C. Jordan wrote in message <6j7i55$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Chris B.
C.C. Jordan <C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6j7i55$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> The story of the Bell P-39 is one that causes you to stop and think of
> what might have been, as opposed to what actually was.
I seem to recall in Chuck Yeagers book... that he loved the P-39. Although
he was well aware of the P-39's weak points... he also new how to use its
good points to advantage...
terrill clements
Chris B. wrote:
>
> C.C. Jordan <C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <6j7i55$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> > what might have been, as opposed to what actually was.
>
> he was well aware of the P-39's weak points... he also new how to use its
> good points to advantage...
planes flown or something, flew a P-39 in some carrier deck landing
trials, and for a while as his personal hack, and liked it quite a bit
too. He wrote in "Wings of the Weird and Wonderful" that he flew all
over Britain and the continent in it, "often in filthy weather and over
long stretches of sea, and it never gave me a moment's trouble....it was
with a heavy heart that I finally parted company with my old friend."
You may have noticed that about half of the top ten Soviet WWII aces
flew Airacobras. It had a phenomenal rate of climb up to 5000 feet, very
good up to about 10,000 ft (better than a Zero, for example), and had
good speed at those lower levels. In other words, it had the performance
right where the Russians needed it. On the other hand, its lack of
altitude performance could be a real problem when you had something
like,say, the Owen Stanley Mountains under you!
CDB100620
>[Eric Brown said of the P-39]..."it was
>with a heavy heart that I finally parted company with my old >friend."
Quite a few years ago an ex-fighter pilot who had flown the P-39 extensively
in combat wrote a little book about his Bell, which, if I recall correctly, he
titled "A Pilot's Love Story," or something like that. He was rapturous over
the handling of the aircraft, its precise responsiveness, etc. When it was
destroyed in a bombing raid, he sat by the ashes and cried. When his crew
chief tried to cheer him up by telling him that the squadron was to re-equip
with P-47s, he sank into a deep depression.
There was something to that airplane that the numbers don't reveal.
C.C. Jordan
This is a repost with spelling and designations corrected.
I never ran a spell check....... My apologies for the sorry
work.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
The story of the Bell P-39 is one that causes you to stop and think of
what might have been, as opposed to what actually was. Having gone
down in aviation history as the "Iron Dog", the Airacobra had from it's
inception, the potential to be the world's finest fighter aircraft at the
beginning of America's involvement in WWII. The fact that it instead
became one of the wars most loathsome fighters, easily conceals the
real potential the prototype.
The prototype was rolled out for the world to see on April 6, 1938 at
Wright Field. Essentially designed around the new Oldsmobile 37mm
cannon ( not unlike the A-10 Warthog ), The XP-39 was the second
design which incorporated the 37mm to come from Bell. The original
concept had placed the cannon behind a front mounted engine, pushing
the cockpit too far to the rear of the fuselage to be practical.
Bell's chief engineer, Robert Woods, went back to work and conceived
an aircraft with a mid engine location, which allowed the plane's nose to be
dedicated to a very heavy ( by late 1930's standards ) battery of weapons.
This rather unusual engine placement was not unique. The mid-engine concept
had been tried by Koolhoven of Holland with limited success due to a poor
choice of powerplant and inadequate technology. Their FK-55 fighter did not live
up to expectations. The general concept, however, was not without merit.
Wood's design employed the new Allison V1710 engine, rated at 1,150 hp
with the new B-5 turbocharger. The installation of the Turbo-Allison promised
excellent high altitude performance. This provided for a critical altitude of
20,000 feet, about the same as the XP-38. The expectations were fully met
and justified when, on April 6, the XP-39 attained a speed of 390 mph. Later
flights produced speeds that flirted with 400 mph ( 398 mph was reported ).
The Bell also displayed a remarkable rate of climb, reaching 20,000 feet in
5 minutes flat ! The aircraft created no small stir in the aviation community.
Nothing flying in Europe even came close to the level of performance displayed
by the XP-39. At least nothing having the potential for production.
Despite the superlative performance of the new Bell fighter, there were design
flaws. The undersized vertical stabilizer led to problems with directional
stability. Wood's also made a poor choice in airfoil section for the wing.
These problems could have been overcome, and in fact, the vertical stabilizer
was later redesigned to resemble that of the Curtiss P-36/P-40. The wing
section design was not addressed until the P-63 Kingcobra, where a laminar
flow airfoil was employed.
After the initial test flight, the XP-39 was turned over to the engineers at
Wright Field. And here is where the P-39 was undone.
At the time the Bell was being evaluated, the AAF was deep into "streamlining"
as a way to improve aircraft performance. This is somewhat understandable,
due to the relatively low powered aircraft engines of the 1930's. By reducing
drag, especially parasite drag, the engineering minds at Wright Field found that
significant increases in performance could be attained. This was all well and
good. Unfortunately, they carried it too far as it related to the XP-39. NACA
engineers decided that the Bell's turbocharger inlet created too much drag.
Certainly the inlet generated less drag than did the Prestone inlets on the
Lockheed XP-38. Nonetheless, they were insistent, the turbocharger had to
go. They reduced the height of the canopy, chopped 2 feet off the wing span
and lengthened the fuselage by over a foot. A less powerful Allison was
installed, without the capability of decent altitude performance. The Bell
had it's center of gravity shifted further aft, exacerbating it's already
marginal stability. All said and done, the people at Wright Field had reversed
the old cliche, and created a sow's ear out of a silk purse.
Certainly Larry Bell and Bob Woods were outraged at the butchered result.
Unfortunately, there was very little they could afford to do about it. The
company was at the edge of bankruptcy. Having only produced 15 total
flyable aircraft, of any type, Bell was deep in debt. Neither Bell nor Woods
were willing to go to the mat for their beautiful fighter. To preserve the Bell
Aircraft Company, they would have to take it on the chin.
Bell later sold the French on the P-39, and received 2 million dollars in
advance on an eleven million dollar order. Later that same year ( 1940 ),
Bell recieved orders for just under 1,000 P-39C's and D's from the USAAF.
These were equiped with self-sealing fuel tanks and additional armor, the
weight of which, only further degraded performance. Without the turbocharger,
or even a gear driven supercharger, the Airacobra was not capable of taking
on modern fighter aircraft at anything above 10,000 feet. It should also be
noted that the early versions of the Allison V1710 engine never produced
anything close to their advertised power rating without a turbocharger.
The handling had degraded to a point where some claimed ( with more than a
grain of truth ) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. The
Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more dangerous
to RAF pilots than the Luftwaffe. The 37mm gun installed was generally the Colt
M4 which frequently jammed after only firing a few rounds. The balance of the
guns, 2 .50 cal. M2 and 4 .30 cal. Brownings were inadequate by 1942 standards.
The fact that the Russians were satisfied with the P-39 is not indicative of
the aircraft's performance as much as the Russian's desperate need for combat
aircraft. Moreover, the air war on the eastern front was fought largely below
20,000 feet, and more often than not, well below that. At these heights, the
P-39 possessed some marginal level of capability. Credit must be given to those
Soviet pilots who, despite the severe limits of the aircraft, used them very
effectively against the Luftwaffe's superior Bf-109's and Focke Wulf 190's
Taken as a whole, the P-39 was a dismal failure of the AAF's engineering and
procurement establishment to identify and develop the better attributes of an
advanced and promising fighter aircraft. The same establishment that prevented
Lockheed from installing Merlin engines in the P-38 as early as 1941. Had the
AFF not stripped the turbocharger from the XP-39, the United States may have
entered the war with a first rate single engine fighter plane already in
service. Indeed, it was not until the advent of the Bell P-63 that the level of
performance finally matched that of the Bell XP-39 of 1938. Of course, by that
time, the P-63 was already outclassed by the P-38, P-47 and P-51.
Regards,
C.C. Jordan
"The secret of their power is their insensibility to
blows; tickle them with a bludgeon and they laugh
with a platitude."
Ambrose Bierce
Gord Beaman
C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan) wrote:
--cut--
>performance finally matched that of the Bell XP-39 of 1938. Of course, by that
>time, the P-63 was already outclassed by the P-38, P-47 and P-51.
>
>Regards,
>C.C. Jordan
Very interesting CC, thank you sir.
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada
Tom Cervo
>Quite a few years ago an ex-fighter pilot who had flown the P-39 extensively
>in combat wrote a little book about his Bell, which, if I recall correctly,
>he
>titled "A Pilot's Love Story," or something like that.
"Nannette", by Edwards Park. He wasn't entirely blind to his plane's faults--it
was a "she" because of her caprices, good and bad, but it is a terrific book,
and none of the pilots in it seem as "doomed" as P-39 pilots are thought to
have been.
Paul Baechler
In article <6jal1m$9...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan) wrote:
> Bell later sold the French on the P-39, and received 2 million dollars in
> advance on an eleven million dollar order. Later that same year ( 1940 ),
> Bell recieved orders for just under 1,000 P-39C's and D's from the USAAF.
> These were equiped with self-sealing fuel tanks and additional armor, the
> weight of which, only further degraded performance. Without the turbocharger,
> or even a gear driven supercharger, the Airacobra was not capable of taking
> on modern fighter aircraft at anything above 10,000 feet. It should also be
> noted that the early versions of the Allison V1710 engine never produced
> anything close to their advertised power rating without a turbocharger.
All V-1710 variants were supercharged. The assertion that the Airacobra
was not capable of taking on modern fighter aircraft is refuted by the Air
Fighting Development Unit report on Tactical and Armament Trials, 22 Sep
1941, which stated in part: "These combats show that when fighting the Bf
109E below 20,000 ft the Airacobra is superior on the same level and in a
dive."
> The handling had degraded to a point where some claimed ( with more than a
> grain of truth ) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. The
> Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more
dangerous
> to RAF pilots than the Luftwaffe. The 37mm gun installed was generally
the Colt
> M4 which frequently jammed after only firing a few rounds. The balance of the
> guns, 2 .50 cal. M2 and 4 .30 cal. Brownings were inadequate by 1942
standards.
I have seen no evidence that the Brits refused to fly the Airacobra. The
AFDU report cited above found the airplane "pleasant to fly". Reports from
601 Sqdn also indicated good flying characteristics. Airacobras furnished
under the British Contract were equipped with the Hispano-Suiza 20mm, not
the 37mm.
> The fact that the Russians were satisfied with the P-39 is not indicative of
> the aircraft's performance as much as the Russian's desperate need for combat
> aircraft. Moreover, the air war on the eastern front was fought largely below
> 20,000 feet, and more often than not, well below that. At these heights, the
> P-39 possessed some marginal level of capability. Credit must be given
to those
> Soviet pilots who, despite the severe limits of the aircraft, used them very
> effectively against the Luftwaffe's superior Bf-109's and Focke Wulf 190's
The Soviets were satisfied with the P-39 because it was a superior fighter
at the altitudes they normally employed it. In particular, it was superior
to the Bf 109, the AFDU trials showed that the Airacobra could out-dive,
out-run, and out-turn the Bf 109.
Agtabby
O.K., really good post. I remember as I child I built a plastic model of a
p39, and I thought it was really interesting. I think this was about the first
plane to have a bubble canopy.
My question: How good a plane was the King Cobra (p63?).
Any speculation about how good a merlin engined p39 would have been?
Andrew
Yama
Paul Baechler wrote:
> Fighting Development Unit report on Tactical and Armament Trials, 22 Sep
> 1941, which stated in part: "These combats show that when fighting the Bf
> 109E below 20,000 ft the Airacobra is superior on the same level and in a
> dive."
>
> > The handling had degraded to a point where some claimed ( with more than a
> > grain of truth ) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. The
> > Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more
> dangerous
>
>
> The Soviets were satisfied with the P-39 because it was a superior fighter
> at the altitudes they normally employed it. In particular, it was superior
> to the Bf 109, the AFDU trials showed that the Airacobra could out-dive,
> out-run, and out-turn the Bf 109.
Those trials were against Bf-109E, unfortunately when Airacobra began to flow to
USSR in serious numbers, Emil was already pretty much withdrawn to 2nd line/Jabo
duties. Friedrich turned better than Emil, plus both 109F and G could easily
outrun, outaccelerate and outclimb P-39, which wasn't similarly upgraded. Even last
-N and -Q submodels could only reach 560-580 km/h, while G-2 could do 630-640 km/h,
to say nothing about Focke-Wulf.
From references I've seen, my guess is that Soviets, especially Airacobra pilots,
preferred to fly in large formations where they could tie numerically inferior
opponents to big furball, thus preventing them to use their superior performance.
AC could outturn both FW-190 and Bf-109G, though it wasn't very good turner, all
Finnish fighters except 109 could easily outturn it. Soviets were helped by fact
that Messerschmitt's handling was optimized in altitudes over 5 kilometres, while
P-39's rarely fought that high.
Then simple question to C.C/CDB/some other expert: Airacobra's lack of stability
was mentioned. Now I've seen lot of references by Finnish fighter pilots which say
that they suspected that AC's unconventional engine location enhanced it's agility.
Could experienced pilot take advantage from that unstability so his plane would
start maneuvers faster? Polikarpov fighters, which also had marginal stability,
were extremely nimble and fast rollers, though lethal in low altitudes to careless
pilots.
C.C. Jordan
On Wed, 13 May 1998 05:45:16 GMT, pbae...@bellsouth.net (Paul Baechler) wrote:
>In article <6jal1m$9...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan) wrote:
>
>> Bell later sold the French on the P-39, and received 2 million dollars in
>> advance on an eleven million dollar order. Later that same year ( 1940 ),
>> Bell recieved orders for just under 1,000 P-39C's and D's from the USAAF.
>> These were equiped with self-sealing fuel tanks and additional armor, the
>> weight of which, only further degraded performance. Without the turbocharger,
>> or even a gear driven supercharger, the Airacobra was not capable of taking
>> on modern fighter aircraft at anything above 10,000 feet. It should also be
>> noted that the early versions of the Allison V1710 engine never produced
>> anything close to their advertised power rating without a turbocharger.
>
>All V-1710 variants were supercharged. The assertion that the Airacobra
>was not capable of taking on modern fighter aircraft is refuted by the Air
>Fighting Development Unit report on Tactical and Armament Trials, 22 Sep
>1941, which stated in part: "These combats show that when fighting the Bf
>109E below 20,000 ft the Airacobra is superior on the same level and in a
>dive."
The P-39's Allison had a single speed supercharger. It would have required a 2
speed supercgarger to have anything resembling reasonable performance above
15,000 feet. As to the RAF's opinion of the P-39....... One squadron was
equiped, for a short time, with the "P-400". By early 1942, all were withdrawn
from service being deemed "unsuitable". Of these, 212 were shipped to Russia,
179 were taken over by the Army prior to being delivered (P-400), and the
balance were handed over to the just formed 8th AF, who didn't want them either.
The P-39 served the RAF for less than 4 months before being withdrawn. That,
I believe, is far more telling testimony than any "technical evaluation".
Moreover, re-read my post. I state that " Without the turbocharger,
or even a gear driven supercharger, the Airacobra was not capable of taking
on modern fighter aircraft at anything above 10,000 feet." Down on the deck,
the Airacobra could hold it's own. At 20,000 feet, it was badly outclassed.
BTW, when the P-39/P400 reached Britain, the Bf-109E was generally replaced by
the far more formidable Bf-109F.
>
>> The handling had degraded to a point where some claimed ( with more than a
>> grain of truth ) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. The
>> Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more
>dangerous
>> to RAF pilots than the Luftwaffe. The 37mm gun installed was generally
>the Colt
>> M4 which frequently jammed after only firing a few rounds. The balance of the
>> guns, 2 .50 cal. M2 and 4 .30 cal. Brownings were inadequate by 1942
>standards.
>
>I have seen no evidence that the Brits refused to fly the Airacobra.
Does not the fact that they pulled all the P-39's from service indicate a level
of refusal?
>The
>AFDU report cited above found the airplane "pleasant to fly". Reports from
>601 Sqdn also indicated good flying characteristics.
The Piper Cherokee is "pleasant to fly". I wouldn't want to take one into combat
though.
>Airacobras furnished
>under the British Contract were equipped with the Hispano-Suiza 20mm, not
>the 37mm.
>
>> The fact that the Russians were satisfied with the P-39 is not indicative of
>> the aircraft's performance as much as the Russian's desperate need for combat
>> aircraft. Moreover, the air war on the eastern front was fought largely below
>> 20,000 feet, and more often than not, well below that. At these heights, the
>> P-39 possessed some marginal level of capability. Credit must be given
>to those
>> Soviet pilots who, despite the severe limits of the aircraft, used them very
>> effectively against the Luftwaffe's superior Bf-109's and Focke Wulf 190's
>
>The Soviets were satisfied with the P-39 because it was a superior fighter
>at the altitudes they normally employed it. In particular, it was superior
>to the Bf 109, the AFDU trials showed that the Airacobra could out-dive,
>out-run, and out-turn the Bf 109.
Once again you are pointing to an aircraft that was no longer in front line
service when the P-39's first arrived in Russia. And once more you fail
to grasp the fact that the Bf-109, any variant, was superior above
15,000 feet. This is not debatable, it is a fact.
ArtKramr
>The P-39 served the RAF for less than 4 months before being withdrawn. That,
>I believe, is far more telling testimony than any "technical evaluation".
>
>Moreover, re-read my post. I state that " Without the turbocharger,
>or even a gear driven supercharger, the Airacobra was not capable of taking
>on modern fighter aircraft at anything above 10,000 feet." Down on the deck,
>the Airacobra could hold it's own. At 20,000 feet, it was badly outclassed.
>
Aircobra. Some reported deadly flat spin characteristics. But most just
snickered and shook their heads in despair. It was generally considered by ETO
combat pilots that I spoke to as a dismal failure and less than useless as well
as deadly dangerous.
Arthur
Will the Tanayama-Shamura conjecture on the relationship between elliptical
equations and modular forms finally lead to a proof of Fermat's enigma? It is
truly an enigma.
CDB100620
>The P-39 served the RAF for less than 4 months before being withdrawn. That,
>I believe, is far more telling testimony than any "technical evaluation".
When Ben Kelsey was chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field before
the US entered the war, he was part of a team that evaluated the Spitfire for
possible production in the United States. The plane was already legendary for
its performance in the Battle of Britain, and the American evaluators
approached the aircraft with mixed awe and enthusiasm. But they quickly soured
on the airplane. As part of the evaluation, Kelsey flew the Spitfire from
Wright Field in Ohio to March Field in California. The trip was a nightmare.
Because of the short range of the airplane, he had to land at a number of
little-used secondary airfields and often touched down with the engine running
on little more than gas fumes. At many fields, engine cooling was inadequate
to permit taxiing from the landing strip to the service area. Long runways on
high desert airfields involved crosswind taxing that burned out the brakes.
The aircraft's marginal stability when airborne quickly exhausted the pilot,
especially in rough air. It was impossible to safely skirt the edges of even a
mild midwestern thunderstorm because of the plane's skittish handling, and what
was routine heartland weather in a P-40--or P-39--was dangerous in a
Spitfire.... In short, there were so many things wrong with the Spitfire from
the American point of view that the Air Corps evaluation board ruled it
unacceptable.
The point being that what one air force wants and needs is not what another one
does, and their evaluations of airplanes will be prejudiced by their own
requirements. The fact that the RAF had no particular use for the P-39 should
not be given more weight than the fact that the Soviet Air Force apparently not
only liked the P-39, but specifically requested it (my source for this is
Richard Lukas' "Eagles East," which is a fairly old book, but seems well
researched.)
{As an aside, Prof. Williamson Murray, who used to teach at the Air War
College, has said that the Luftwaffe had become a second-rate air force by the
end of 1943 at the latest, largely due to the atttrition warfare on the eastern
front. The P-39 must have played a part, perhaps a significant one, in
attriting the Luftwaffe; at least the Soviets, in negotiating the Third
Washington Protocol, which covered Lend-Lease to the USSR from Jan. thru June,
1943, asked for a staggering 500 P-39s a month to be delivered to them. They
had been using them (and P-400s) in combat for some time by then, and if the
airplane wasn't doing the job for them, they would have rejected it. They
certainly rejected the P-40 (which plane the USAAF in the SWPA thought was a
much better airplane than the P-39--again, different air force, different
needs)}.
It's interesting to note that the rate of climb of the P-39, which everybody in
the USAAF pissed and moaned about, was actually not that bad. The D and F
models (identical except for props, one electric, one hydraulic) could beat
both the P47C and P-51A to 25,000 ft.--and take *half* the time the P-40E took.
A P-39Q could get to 25,000 ft. in about 10.5 minutes, almost six minutes
quicker than the P-51D. (Of course, the Q couldn't fly from London to Berlin
and back.)
One of the reasons the P-39 got a bad rap in the SWPA was that when it was
initially deployed fairly early in 1942, what was desperately needed was a
super-fast climbing interceptor, because the best warning of an incoming air
raid was about five minutes. What was needed was something like the CW-21
(something with its rate of climb, anyway). The fact was that no fighter would
have been able to respond effectively under those circumstances. But since the
P-39 was what was on hand, it got damned by frustrated pilots struggling uphill
at 160 mph while the Japanese, thousands of feet above, winged over and howled
down on them.
It's worth noting that, despite the disadvantages they fought under, the 8FG,
which took over from RAAF 75 Squadron at Moresby, suffered fewer losses with
its P-39s than did 75 Squadron with its P-40s. And it should not be forgotten
that the P-39 was, in fact, not a failure in those desperate early days in New
Guinea. The 8th (and later the 35th) and its Airacobras gave the JNAF's Tainan
Air Wing (and later the 2AW) and its Zeros a well-pulped and very bloody nose.
Air raids on Morseby tapered off from two a day at the end of April to one or
two a week by the end of June. Nobody else was shooting at the Japs, so it
must have been the P-39s that discouraged them.
Tom Cervo
<<The 8th (and later the 35th) and its Airacobras gave the JNAF's Tainan Air
Wing (and later the 2AW) and its Zeros a well-pulped and very bloody nose.
Air raids on Morseby tapered off from two a day at the end of April to one or
two a week by the end of June. Nobody else was shooting at the Japs, so it
must have been the P-39s that discouraged them.>>
The 35th was Park's group, and they did not sound (in his book)
like doomed men--just tough men up against a tough enemy. They had a good
leavening of well trained prewar pilots.
The Tainan Air Wing was one of the elite Navy units, and it's no wonder that
they gave Allied units a tough time--but not so tough as we were led to believe
by some of the badly researched books which came out soon after the war, which
influenced so much of thinking on the P-39. The men who knew differently were
too busy starting up their lives to write their own accounts.
ArtKramr
>Tainan
>Air Wing (and later the 2AW) and its Zeros a well-pulped and very bloody
>nose.
> Air raids on Morseby tapered off from two a day at the end of April to one
>or
>two a week by the end of June. Nobody else was shooting at the Japs, so it
>must have been the P-39s that discouraged them.
Sounds to me like you've fallen in love with a whore and are now trying to
prove that she was pure as the driven snow.Well, love does that sometimes.
(grin)
walter e bjorneby
terrill clements wrote:
> Chris B. wrote:
> >
> > C.C. Jordan <C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> > <6j7i55$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > The story of the Bell P-39 is one that causes you to stop and think of
> > > what might have been, as opposed to what actually was.
> >The real problem with the P39 was that its engine had a single stage
> mechanical supercharger. One (1) P39 was equipped with a turbo. But the US was
> faced with a critical dearth of turbosupercharger manufacturing capacity and
> something had to give - and it was the P39.
Walt BJ
Shaber CJ
Why was the P-38 so effective in the Pacific and not very effective in Europe?
Lorne D. Gilsig
Well, I would say that in Europe the majority of Axis fighters were
energy fighters. Thus, the P-38 would be fighting strength against
strength.
In the pacific most (not all) of Japan's fighters were angles fighters,
thus the P-38 its strenght against an enemies weakness.
Lorne D. Gilsig
Matthew Saroff (Remove .123456 to reply)
shab...@aol.com (Shaber CJ) wrote:
>Why was the P-38 so effective in the Pacific and not very effective in Europe?
Hi,
One of the P-38's shortcomings was VERY poor cockpit
heat. In the ETO at 25K+ feet, it meant that the pilot was half
frozen by the time he engaged in combat.
Also, the British got some non-turbocharged P-38s without
the counter-rotating props. These were awful planes, and the
attitude about the spread through the theater.
Finally, the P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
handling characteristics that were dangerous, and if you weren't
brought up to speed, it could kill you.
In the PTO, there was no alternative to the P-38, as the
ranges were longer, so the pilots learned to use them
effectively.
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
msa...@123456.pobox.com. (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Tom Cervo
>Sounds to me like you've fallen in love with a whore and are now trying to
>prove that she was pure as the driven snow.Well, love does that sometimes.
>(grin)
>
>Arthur
>
>
That sounds like what Park wrote about his P-39 . It's the fickle ones you
remember . . .
Kimble D. McCutcheon
CDB100620 wrote:
>
> >...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
> >handling characteristics that were dangerous,
>
Good post!
Now, why did the engines rotate backwards on the P-38, and non-backwards
on the XP-38?
Best,
Kim
CDB100620
>...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
>handling characteristics that were dangerous,
Ixnay!!
Other than knowing how to handle an engine-out situation on take-off (the usual
VMC business), the Lockheed offered no trouble. A complex airplane? For its
day, yes. A dangerous airplane? Not at all.
This P-38 debate is endless, but some things about the P-38 that made it such
an marvelous design haven't been brought up that probably should be:
To achieve high-speed capability, an airplane will have high wing-loading
(gross weight to wing area) and low power loading (gross weight to horsepower).
The P-38 had very high wing loading (which provides other benefits, such as
when penetrating weather, etc.), higher than anything other than one-off
record-breaking and racing planes when it was introduced. And it also had
unusually low power loading; in fact it had the lowest power loading of any US
design (maybe any design) of WWII. Turbocharging ensured this power loading
would remain constant to very high altitudes.
This meant the airplane would be fast. But high wing loading would normally
degrade turning, climb and ceiling. With such high wing-loading, the P-38
should have been a dog in all but top speed. It wasn't because of two other
factors.
One is its aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the
length of the wing to its width). Another, related, factor is its span loading
(ratio of airplane weight to wingspan).
In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends to increase and its speed to decrease.
A way to counter this is to increase the wingspan. For any given wing area,
increasing the span decreases the chord, providing a higher aspect ratio. For
structural and other reasons, most WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or
less. The P-38 had an amazing aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain
the advantage of high wing loading for speed and still not lose in
maneuverability, climb or ceiling.
A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making
the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
good roller.
But wait--there's more:
Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines
need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line
being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.
But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of
the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
throughout the maneuver range.
This thrust efficieny made for an airplane that leaped into the sky on take-off
and could accelerate in the air like a drag racer.
Pretty neat, huh?
But wait--there's more:
Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.
Not bad, huh?
But wait--there's more:
The width of the horizontal tail surface was determined by the spacing of the
booms. The result was a very high aspect ratio for the tail plane. The
endplate effect of the two vertical fins and rudder surfaces on the end of the
booms produced an aerodynamic apparent aspect ratio that was even higher. This
had the effect of providing very rapid changes in force with small changes in
the aircraft's angle of attack. This great sensitivity, combined with superb
damping, meant that less trimming force was necessary for stability and that
there was a wide range of CG position or stability available without
degradation of flying characteristics.
Like, wow, man!
But wait--there's more:
The high aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord
elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver. Ditto for
the vertical tail surfaces and rudders. Net effect, the pilot could dance the
airplane all over the sky without breaking a sweat, while bellowing out the
latest tunes from "Oklahoma!" to drown out the curses in his headphones of any
other pilot in some lesser machine that he chose to sky-wrassle with.
Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produced a symetrical
slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus
reducing a source of drag. And there was no change in trim with changes in
speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat, er, dogfight.
Then there is the Fowler flap system which actually increases wing area,
tricycle landing gear, centerline fire guns, plenty of internal fuel, a roomy
cockpit....
The P-38 also had an amazing degree of detail refinement compared to other
planes. All its external surfaces were smooth with no distrubances from rivets
or lap joints, for example.
One negative was necessarily small ailerons because of the wing taper, meaning
large aileron displacement would be necessary to initiate a roll. That meant
high aileron forces. That's why the control wheel was used, and why the later
models had aileron boost. Savvy pilots would blip the inside throttle when
they wanted a smart roll ASAP. Less savvy pilots did lots of pushups. And
there was the cockpit heating and defrosting thing (by the way, it's just as
cold at 25,000 ft. in the tropics as in Europe), which did get solved about as
soon as it became apparent. Cooling was never as effectively solved.
But, all in all, a pretty damned good flying machine.
As pilots of the day said, if Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a
P-38.
Gord Beaman
>
>Someone wrote:
>>...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
>>handling characteristics that were dangerous,
cdb1...@aol.com (CDB100620) wrote:
>
>Ixnay!!
>Other than knowing how to handle an engine-out situation on take-off (the usual
>VMC business), the Lockheed offered no trouble. A complex airplane? For its
>day, yes. A dangerous airplane? Not at all.
--cut--
A most interesting and obviously knowledgeable discourse on the
technical and aeronautical attributes of fighter a/c in general and
the P-38 in particular. This writer not only flew fighters during the
war but knew (knows?) much more of the technicalities involved than
the average bear (imo).
polo
CDB100620 wrote:
>
> >The P-39 served the RAF for less than 4 months before being withdrawn. That,
> >I believe, is far more telling testimony than any "technical evaluation".
I do not think that the P-39 was taken out of service because of its
effectiveness
as a ground attacker. P-39s [too few] were used by 601 Sqdn. RAF to
operate
in a ground attack role on the French Coast. They were taken out of
service
because of high unserviabilty rate, not for lack of punch.
>
> When Ben Kelsey was chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field before
> the US entered the war, he was part of a team that evaluated the Spitfire for
> possible production in the United States.
There was no mention at Supermarine, either by the engineers,
executives, evaluators
or the test pilots of any effort on anybodies part to have Spitfires
built in
the states. Non of the historians who dealt with Supermarine, or the
Spitfire
have written one word about US building Spitfires.
The plane was already legendary for
> its performance in the Battle of Britain, and the American evaluators
> approached the aircraft with mixed awe and enthusiasm. But they quickly soured
> on the airplane.
All the American pilots who were in the RAF/RCAF and flew the Spitfire
were totally enthralled
with the Spitfire. Remember these were men who flew it into battle, and
won the battles
and came home again.
> As part of the evaluation, Kelsey flew the Spitfire from
> Wright Field in Ohio to March Field in California. The trip was a nightmare.
> Because of the short range of the airplane, he had to land at a number of
> little-used secondary airfields and often touched down with the engine running
> on little more than gas fumes.
Didn't the pilot have the benefit of the knowledge that the early
Spitfires were short range defensive aircraft???
It puzzles me; what sort of a test was a marathon cross country flight
in
an aircraft of such a short range??I suppose one could complain about
the short range and slow speed of a Cessna 150, because it can not
compare with the Concorde. That would be the same reasoning!!
> At many fields, engine cooling was inadequate
> to permit taxiing from the landing strip to the service area.
Spitfires were deployed in Malta, North Africa, Burma, etc. all of which
suffer higher temperatures than those encountered doing a cross country
flight of the US.
> Long runways on
> high desert airfields involved crosswind taxing that burned out the brakes.
It was fortunate that they carried all those spare brake pads.
Any way who would do all this long distance taxying, and why?? The
Spitfire had
good short field performance, which would naturally negate the need to
taxy any distance.
> The aircraft's marginal stability when airborne quickly exhausted the pilot,
> especially in rough air.
Hey this is a fighter aircraft, not an easy chair. RAF/RCAF pilots flew
these
aircraft under all weather conditions to get to and from their combat
areas.
Non of the Spitfire test pilots ever commented that the Spitfire
was unstable. And these were the guys who took the new planes up to test
the aircraft's performance, and flyability.
> It was impossible to safely skirt the edges of even a
> mild midwestern thunderstorm because of the plane's skittish handling, and what
> was routine heartland weather in a P-40--or P-39--was dangerous in a
> Spitfire.... In short, there were so many things wrong with the Spitfire from
> the American point of view that the Air Corps evaluation board ruled it
> unacceptable.
Well the squadrons overseas did not hear about the unacceptability of
the
Spitfire, because they were used by the USAAF in the European,
Mediteranean,
and far eastern theatres of war.
Once again I am baffled that the airforce in the US did not tell
the airforces that were fighting in the various theatres that the
Spitfire
was such a dismal failure. The USAAF pilots over seas, not realizing
what a poor fighter aircraft that the Spitfire was went out in them and
made
their reputations as "ACE" pilots. Good thing they did not know.
The Eighth Airforce operated Spitfire PRXIs and flew to Berlin and back,
under
war conditions. Surely the same could have been done in the US, because
both would
not be burdened with guns and armour.
> The point being that what one air force wants and needs is not what another one
> does, and their evaluations of airplanes will be prejudiced by their own
> requirements. The fact that the RAF had no particular use for the P-39 should
> not be given more weight than the fact that the Soviet Air Force apparently not
> only liked the P-39, but specifically requested it (my source for this is
> Richard Lukas' "Eagles East," which is a fairly old book, but seems well
> researched.)
In 1942/43 the RAF/RCAF needed aircraft that were suited to high
altitude escorting.
Spitfire Squadrons daily escorted USAAF bombers as far as they could,
and had to
fight at the high altitude flown by the USAAF. The P-39 was used by the
Russians
primarily for low level work, the same use they made of their own
aircraft.
The P-39 was deadly as a low level attack aircraft, and carried more
ammunition than most any other fighter. Two different uses needing 2
different
fighters.
> {As an aside, Prof. Williamson Murray, who used to teach at the Air War
> College, has said that the Luftwaffe had become a second-rate air force by the
> end of 1943 at the latest, largely due to the atttrition warfare on the eastern
> front. The P-39 must have played a part,
So too did the YAKS, Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Sturmoviks.
> They
> certainly rejected the P-40 (which plane the USAAF in the SWPA thought was a
> much better airplane than the P-39--again, different air force, different
> needs)}.
The RAF made good use of the P-40 in N Africa, and I would bet that
the P-39 would have been a star performer there, as there was much
ground support
activity, and the large amount of ammunition carried by the P-39 would
have been apprteciated.
> And it should not be forgotten
> that the P-39 was, in fact, not a failure in those desperate early days in New
> Guinea. The 8th (and later the 35th) and its Airacobras gave the JNAF's Tainan
> Air Wing (and later the 2AW) and its Zeros a well-pulped and very bloody nose.
> Air raids on Morseby tapered off from two a day at the end of April to one or
> two a week by the end of June. Nobody else was shooting at the Japs, so it
> must have been the P-39s that discouraged them.
P-39 could be WWII equivilent to the A-10....
polo
Shaber CJ wrote:
>
> Why was the P-38 so effective in the Pacific and not very effective in Europe?
While thumbing through "THE BOMBER COMMAND WAR DIARIES" by Martin
Middlebrook,
there were several instances that the raiding force consisted of
Lancasters, Halifaxes, Mosquitos, Stirlings, and 1 P-38 Lightning.
I immediately deducted that the USAAF was sending a P-38 on a raid,
and the RAF?RCAF sent along hundreds of aircraft to escort the Lighting.
Well any way the RAF used Lightnings in 100 Group, which was a
Radio Counter Measures Group
C.C. Jordan
This was likely a "Droop snoot" P-38 used in the "pathfinder" role.
Or, a P-38L Pathfinder, which had it's nose jammed with a radar
boming system for bombing through overcast or at night. They carried
up to 4,000 lbs of ordnance. It was a 2 man aircraft. Used mostly in the
ETO and MTO. The radar was the AN/APS-15 BTO type.
C.C. Jordan
On 16 May 1998 00:41:31 GMT, cdb1...@aol.com (CDB100620) wrote:
>But, all in all, a pretty damned good flying machine.
>As pilots of the day said, if Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a
>P-38.
This is very likely the best post to this newsgroup in many months..........
Copied to my archive files.....
Thank you CDB. Nothing beats a pilots perspective, and so well written too.
Best regards,
polo
Kimble D. McCutcheon wrote:
>
> CDB100620 wrote:
> >
> > >...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
> > >handling characteristics that were dangerous,
> >
> on the XP-38?
The XP-38 [prototype] was fittrd with two 1,040 h.p. engines
with exhaust driven G.E. turbo-superchargers and
driving Curtis electric inwardly rotating props.
That is, if you were at the front or rear of
the P-38, and looked at the props, you would see that
the props rotated in opposite directions.
The YP-38 props also rotated in different directions,
with the top of the props moving away from the fuselage,
which the opposite to the XP-38. An excellant feature.
I have heard that this was said to have ....handed props,
EG right handed, etc.
> Kim
Matthew Saroff (Remove .123456 to reply)
Hi,
cdb1...@aol.com (CDB100620) wrote:
no, it was me, matthew saroff
>>...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
>>handling characteristics that were dangerous,
>
>Ixnay!!
>Other than knowing how to handle an engine-out situation on take-off (the usual
>VMC business), the Lockheed offered no trouble. A complex airplane? For its
>day, yes. A dangerous airplane? Not at all.
the P-38 until the later models got the dive brakes.
It also flew very differently than the standard trainer
of the day, so it took a more experienced pilot to get the most
out of it.
--snip--
>A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
>the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making
>the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
>Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
>only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
>So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
>good roller.
helped roll rate a lot.
There were airplanes in WWII that one just got into and
flew, and there were those that need work to get the most out of.
The P-38 was the latter.
--snip--
>But wait--there's more:
>Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines
>need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
>by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
>width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
>aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line
>being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.
>But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
>propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
>airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of
>the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
>throughout the maneuver range.
blades or 4 blades), it would probably have improved high
altitude performance, and with the counter-rotating props, it
would not have the handling issues associated with those props.
>But wait--there's more:
>Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
>chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
>of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
>shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
>length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
>tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
>great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
>instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
>The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
>because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
>and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.
>Not bad, huh?
response (all things being equal). It's a trade off.
BTW, I do think that it was one of the great aircraft of
WWII. It's main problem was that it was costly in comparison to
similar planes.
polo
C.C. Jordan wrote:
>
> >I immediately deducted that the USAAF was sending a P-38 on a raid,
> >and the RAF?RCAF sent along hundreds of aircraft to escort the Lighting.
> >
> >
> >Well any way the RAF used Lightnings in 100 Group, which was a
> >Radio Counter Measures Group
>
> This was likely a "Droop snoot" P-38 used in the "pathfinder" role.
> Or, a P-38L Pathfinder, which had it's nose jammed with a radar
> boming system for bombing through overcast or at night. They carried
> up to 4,000 lbs of ordnance. It was a 2 man aircraft. Used mostly in the
> ETO and MTO. The radar was the AN/APS-15 BTO type.
I believe that since it was part of 100 Group, that it was a Radio
Counter Measures
P-39, as that was what 100 Group was.
Your description is of a USAAF P-39 which served as pathfinders.
The largest bomb load that I can find in "JANE'S FIGHTING AIRCRAFT OF
WWII,
or other sources, is two 1600 lb.bombs, hung on the wings.
>
Cynthia Keeney
From: [1]"Kimble D. McCutcheon"
>Now, why did the engines rotate backwards on the P-38, and non-backwards
>on the XP-38?
>
>Best,
>
>Kim
It was found on the XP-38 that the "right direction" of rotation caused
some buffeting that went away by spinning the props "backwards".
John
--
C.C. Jordan
Forget Jane's error filled reprint......... My data comes from Lockheed.
Jane's is *not*, I repeat, *not* the most reliable source for WWII data.
Factory sources are far more reliable. Save the Jane's for coffee table
decoration. The most accurate source for P-38 data is Warren Bodie's
"The P-38 Lightning" and our friend CDB, P-40 and P-38 ace of the 49th
Fighter Group.
Regards,
mari...@my-dejanews.com
How far did the shaft extend into the P-39 cockpit? Was it
just a bump on the floor, like a rear-drive car, or something
more intrusive?
Put another way, how far from the pilot's family jewels was
this thing?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
C.C. Jordan
On Sat, 16 May 1998 03:29:35 GMT, msaroff...@pobox.com (Matthew Saroff
(Remove .123456 to reply)) wrote:
>Hi,
>cdb1...@aol.com (CDB100620) wrote:
>no, it was me, matthew saroff
>>>...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
>>>handling characteristics that were dangerous,
>>
>>Ixnay!!
>>Other than knowing how to handle an engine-out situation on take-off (the usual
>>VMC business), the Lockheed offered no trouble. A complex airplane? For its
>>day, yes. A dangerous airplane? Not at all.
> I was referring to compressibility problems that dogged
>the P-38 until the later models got the dive brakes.
> It also flew very differently than the standard trainer
>of the day, so it took a more experienced pilot to get the most
>out of it.
Compressibility problems were not limited to the P-38. Both the Mustang
and P-47 killed pilots in high speed dives. The P-38 (late J's and all the L's)
were actually safer to dive than the other two.
>--snip--
>>A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
>>the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making
>>the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
>>Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
>>only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
>>So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
>>good roller.
> You left out the boosted controls in later models that
>helped roll rate a lot.
> There were airplanes in WWII that one just got into and
>flew, and there were those that need work to get the most out of.
>The P-38 was the latter.
What do you want, everything? :-)
>--snip--
>>But wait--there's more:
>>Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines
>>need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
>>by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
>>width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
>>aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line
>>being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.
>>But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
>>propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
>>airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of
>>the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
>>throughout the maneuver range.
> If they had ever put a higher effectiveness prop (wider
>blades or 4 blades), it would probably have improved high
>altitude performance, and with the counter-rotating props, it
>would not have the handling issues associated with those props.
Lockheed tried this conversion. The plane was designated the P-38K
Hamilton Standard Hydromatic props were installed and produced a P-38
that easily out-performed the outstanding L model. A maximum speed of
432 mph at 29,600 ft, was 14 mph faster than the L. At 40,000 ft, it was
40 mph faster. Further areodynamic enhancements ( the K required a
modification to the cowling shape ) was expected to gain another 10 mph.
This aircraft could be expected to reach 460 mph in WEP. Service ceiling
of the K was just over 46,000 ft.
Lockheed tried in vain to get the K into production. But, alas, the infamous
War Production Board killed the project. They were not thrilled with the
retooling time required to manufacture engine nacelles of a different shape.
>>But wait--there's more:
>>Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
>>chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
>>of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
>>shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
>>length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
>>tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
>>great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
>>instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
>>The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
>>because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
>>and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.
>>Not bad, huh?
> Longer fuselage gives more stability, but it gives less
>response (all things being equal). It's a trade off.
> BTW, I do think that it was one of the great aircraft of
>WWII. It's main problem was that it was costly in comparison to
>similar planes.
It was not a trade off...... No other Allied fighter had the speed of response
in the pitch axis as the P-38. It's initial rate of turn was better than the
Spitfire IX, although the sustained rate went to the Spit.
CDB100620
>Sounds to me like you've fallen in love with a whore
Not really a great fan of the P-39, considering the P-40 the much better
all-around airplane, especially the N. But the folks who flew the critter in
combat seem to have thought highly of it.
Re how close the prop shaft was to the pilot, it passed under the seat and
between the rudder pedals. It wasn't noticeable to the pilot because in front
of the stick and below the instrument panel were the radio controls, the cannon
charging system and the engine primer, blocking the view into the foot well.
The shaft never seems to have caused problems. But, at least in humid, damp
New Guinea, the plane, which had a lot of electrically-operated systems,
suffered from shorts; in fact, the standard description of the P-39 in that
theater was "a collection of short circuits flying in close formation."
CDB100620
> I was referring to compressibility problems that dogged
>>the P-38 until the later models got the dive brakes.
Throttles to idle before dropping the nose below the horizon, bank left and
right to slow when buffeting begins. That's all there was to it. No muss, no
fuss, no rough stuff.
Dugaru
I know much less about the P-38 than most people here (particulary the
ones who flew it!), but I'll toss in my $0.02: it was a beautiful
airplane. Just gorgeous. An innovative and effective design carried off
with elegance and flair. Consider how rare that combination is.
For my money (sadly, again, about $0.02), only the Spit, or maybe the
Hurricane, even comes close in the aesthetics department. (The next
echelon probably starts with the FW-190...)
I know, I know, I just have a soft spot for the Hurricane for some reason.
-DMG
Carlo Kopp
> >As pilots of the day said, if Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a
> >P-38.
>
> Copied to my archive files.....
>
> Thank you CDB. Nothing beats a pilots perspective, and so well written too.
>
Cheers,
Carlo
deh...@indirect.com
>I flew in the ETO so I can only report on what pilots in the ETO said about the
>Aircobra. Some reported deadly flat spin characteristics. But most just
>snickered and shook their heads in despair. It was generally considered by ETO
>combat pilots that I spoke to as a dismal failure and less than useless as well
>as deadly dangerous.
>
>Arthur
Art-Glad to see you called the P-39 by its real name"AIRCOBRA",
not airacobra. Never could understand how the name airacobra came
into common useage.
D.Hahn ex ww2 airdale
Ogden Johnson III
deh...@indirect.com wrote:
: Art-Glad to see you called the P-39 by its real name"AIRCOBRA",
: not airacobra. Never could understand how the name airacobra came
: into common useage.
In the same fashion as nucular became a common mispronunciation of nuclear
And, I've more often heard airocobra than airacobra. Also, I've known
since I was a wee tad listening to 'Uncle Ned's Flying Hour' on the radio
that aircobra is correct, but still catch myself from time to time saying
airocobra. Go figgur.
OJ III
ArtKramr
>Art-Glad to see you called the P-39 by its real name"AIRCOBRA",
>not airacobra. Never could understand how the name airacobra came
>into common useage.
Of course one deadly feature of the Aircobra was the fact that surviving a
crash landing was near impossible. The engine was behind the pilot and was
thrown forward on impact. There was hardly enough lef to bury. Buy the way, I
came home from Europe with a guy named Hahn who flew 51's with the 8th. That
wasn't you was it?
Arthur
Will the Tanayama-Shamura conjecture on the relationship between elliptical
equations and modular forms finally lead to a proof of Fermat's enigma? It is
truly an enigma.
CDB100620
>Art-Glad to see you called the P-39 by its real name"AIRCOBRA",
>not airacobra. Never could understand how the name airacobra came
>into common useage.
Airacobra is the correct name. There was also the Airabonita and the Airacuda.
The Airacuda was the first named plane (the XFM-1). Larry Bell told reporters
when it was unveiled in 1937 that the name was a combination of airplane and
barracuda.
When the British took over the French order for Bell Model 14s (P-400s) after
the fall of France, they called the airplane the Airacobra I. Like Mustang and
Dakota, the name stuck.
CDB100620
>ne deadly feature of the Aircobra was the fact that surviving a
>crash landing was near impossible.
Quoth a flight instructor once upon a time: "This here airplane is perfectly
safe as long as you don't crash it."
ArtKramr
CBD wrote:>>ne deadly feature of the Aircobra was the fact that surviving a
>>crash landing was near impossible.
>
>Quoth a flight instructor once upon a time: "This here airplane is perfectly
>safe as long as you don't crash it."
I won't go into chapter and verse as well as all the vicious language
expressed by pilots about the idea of a plane with the engine at your back.
The language would be horrible. BTW, did you know Tex Hil?. He was on TV an
hour ago commenting on the film Flying Tigers. He didn't like it. (g)
Arthur
polo
C.C. Jordan wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 May 1998 04:58:05 GMT, polo <sc...@newvale.com> wrote:
>
> >C.C. Jordan wrote:
> >>
> Forget Jane's error filled reprint......... My data comes from Lockheed.
> Jane's is *not*, I repeat, *not* the most reliable source for WWII data.
Because of my interest in military aviation, I read and research
as many aircraft that I can [ which does not make me an authority],
but if a number of historians each confirm a fact, I am prepared
to believe them. I am also prepared to be proven wrong.
I will then add the facts that proved me wrong to my collection
of information.
Having said that, I would like to ask you, if you wouldn't mind,
to give me the identification ISBN number so that I can track it
down, and buy it.
There were many books written shortly after WWII, that do not stand
up to scrutiny today because of the the release of facts that
were protected by the ...Secrets Act.
One example of this pertains to Ultra, Enigma and Bletchly.
After about 20 years the story of Ultra [et al] was revealed
to the public by a person who had been associated with Bletchly
but in fact did not have access to the total operation.
Because of the errors and ommissions the British war department
asked a historian to write the whole story about ULTRA.
All wartime [ secret] information was made available to him.
This was done so that a comprehensive and accurate
picture could made of the total operation at Bletchley.
> Factory sources are far more reliable. Save the Jane's for coffee table
> decoration. The most accurate source for P-38 data is Warren Bodie's
> "The P-38 Lightning" and our friend CDB, P-40 and P-38 ace of the 49th
> Fighter Group.
Why is Bodie's fact list the most accurate??? I would believe that
he is a historian, and his facts have been confirmed by other
reputable historians. Do you suppose that all
the contributors to Jane's are spinning tales???
Jane's must have gotten their information from
the manufacturer, or from people who were closely associated
with the P-38. Jane's was able to publish photos
of most of the aircraft, including thr P-38.
>
> Regards,
> C.C. Jordan
>
polo
deh...@indirect.com wrote:
>
>
> Art-Glad to see you called the P-39 by its real name"AIRCOBRA",
> not airacobra. Never could understand how the name airacobra came
> into common useage.
Bell aircraft called Airacobra.
> D.Hahn ex ww2 airdale
Tom Cervo
>I know much less about the P-38 than most people here (particulary the
>ones who flew it!), but I'll toss in my $0.02: it was a beautiful
>airplane. Just gorgeous. An innovative and effective design carried off
>with elegance and flair. Consider how rare that combination is.
In fact, there was a postwar car built (an Oldsmobile, I think) with a
twin-rounded tail fin that was inspired by the P-38. It's dead obvious when you
look at it. I see one on a guy's driveway every day I go to work and it gives
me a little lift to see it.
It really is the most American looking plane of that time--maybe anytime.
Thanks again to the gentleman from Alabama.
Tom Cervo
>Of course one deadly feature of the Aircobra was the fact that surviving a
>crash landing was near impossible. The engine was behind the pilot and was
>thrown forward on impact. There was hardly enough lef to bury.
I forget who, but I saw a first person account by a pilot who described seeing
a pilot land a P-39 wheels up . It hit the ground smoothly, and the engine
stayed where it was. Supposedly that part of the frame was very strong and what
you described was very rare.
C.C. Jordan
On Sun, 17 May 1998 05:47:01 GMT, polo <sc...@newvale.com> wrote:
>
>Because of my interest in military aviation, I read and research
>as many aircraft that I can [ which does not make me an authority],
>but if a number of historians each confirm a fact, I am prepared
>to believe them. I am also prepared to be proven wrong.
>I will then add the facts that proved me wrong to my collection
>of information.
>Having said that, I would like to ask you, if you wouldn't mind,
>to give me the identification ISBN number so that I can track it
>down, and buy it.
Here it is: "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" By Warren M. Bodie.
ISBN 0-9629359-0-5, published by Wideing Publications, distributed
by Motorbooks international. Price? About $40.
If you want another Bodie book of equal value, his monster study of
the P-47 ( really of Seversky and Republic Aviation ) is a must.
"Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt, From Seversky to Victory."
ISBN 0-9629359-1-3, also published by Widewing Books and
distributed by Motorbooks International. The price is also about $40.
>
>There were many books written shortly after WWII, that do not stand
>up to scrutiny today because of the the release of facts that
>were protected by the ...Secrets Act.
In the case of Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWII, I think the rush to release
the volume greatly contributed to the errors of fact or data not listed.
>
>One example of this pertains to Ultra, Enigma and Bletchly.
>After about 20 years the story of Ultra [et al] was revealed
>to the public by a person who had been associated with Bletchly
>but in fact did not have access to the total operation.
>
>Because of the errors and ommissions the British war department
>asked a historian to write the whole story about ULTRA.
>All wartime [ secret] information was made available to him.
>This was done so that a comprehensive and accurate
>picture could made of the total operation at Bletchley.
>
>
>
>
>> Factory sources are far more reliable. Save the Jane's for coffee table
>> decoration. The most accurate source for P-38 data is Warren Bodie's
>> "The P-38 Lightning" and our friend CDB, P-40 and P-38 ace of the 49th
>> Fighter Group.
>
>Why is Bodie's fact list the most accurate??? I would believe that
>he is a historian, and his facts have been confirmed by other
>reputable historians. Do you suppose that all
>the contributors to Jane's are spinning tales???
Bodie obtained the full endorsement of Kelly Johnson and Ben Kelsey
prior to publication. Both men contributed to the book, Kelsey wrote
the prologue and Johnson, the forward. Bodie was the founder of the Split-S
Society which led to today's P-38 National Association. To most of the
P-38 community, Bodies is looked at as "the keeper of the flame".
Bodie is also a remarkable aviation historian. Bodie had access to
Lockheed's wartime records, likely due to his friendship with Johnson
and Kelsey. A great deal of what Bodie presents, has never been
published before. Why? Because no one has had access to the records
to the extent that Bodie has.
As to Jane's: No they were not spinning tales. They did however, lack
a great deal of information, most of which was indeed available. Their
publishing deadline, undermined the gathering of that information.
>Jane's must have gotten their information from
>the manufacturer, or from people who were closely associated
>with the P-38. Jane's was able to publish photos
>of most of the aircraft, including thr P-38.
The data presented by Jane's could have been found in a WWII
era edition of Popular Mechanics. Just about everyone who was
stationed at an airfield had taken photos of P-38's.
By the way, Border's Books frequently has both of Bodie's books
on the shelf. Bodie has teamed up with Jeffrey Ethell to release
a stunning photo book ( of early Kodachrome photos ) depicting
America's golden age of aviation, as well as WWII. I don't recall
the title, however, I was fortunate that my local library obtained a
copy.
polo
C.C. Jordan wrote:
>
>
> Here it is: "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" By Warren M. Bodie.
> ISBN 0-9629359-0-5, published by Wideing Publications, distributed
> by Motorbooks international. Price? About $40.
>
> If you want another Bodie book of equal value, his monster study of
> the P-47 ( really of Seversky and Republic Aviation ) is a must.
> "Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt, From Seversky to Victory."
> ISBN 0-9629359-1-3, also published by Widewing Books and
> distributed by Motorbooks International. The price is also about $40.
>
Thank you for the book titles. I will now search, and
find, even if I have to squeeze a book seller.
Emmanuel Gustin
deh...@indirect.com wrote in message <6jlavo$eo2$1...@news.goodnet.com>...
>Art-Glad to see you called the P-39 by its real name"AIRCOBRA",
>not airacobra. Never could understand how the name airacobra came
>into common useage.
I believe that Bell called it the Airacobra :-). They also called
the FM-1 the Airacuda, the LF-1 the Airabonita, and the P-59
the Airacomet. Probably they felt that Kingacobra for the P-63
would just have been a bit too silly. Maybe Airapython?
BTW, the RAF's original name for the P-39 was Caribou. So
there were worse alternatives!
Emmanuel Gustin
MMillard0
I can add an anecdote to this.
In the 1970's I met an airline pilot who had flown P-38's on operations in
Europe. He told me that there was lots of heat out near the engines, but not
much made it to the cockpit.
On missions he told me, he wore two sets of thermal underwear, pants, two
sweaters, two flight suits, a flight jackets, and a pair of RAF type flying
boots.
He was so loaded with clothing the ground crew had to install him in the
cockpit. Depite all this it wasstill cold.
The unit was re-equipted with P-51's. He said he never really got used to
flying the P-51 in light clothing, just a flight suit. And underwear of course.
Maurice Millard
deh...@indirect.com
I
>Of course one deadly feature of the Aircobra was the fact that surviving a
>crash landing was near impossible. The engine was behind the pilot and was
>came home from Europe with a guy named Hahn who flew 51's with the 8th. That
>wasn't you was it?
>
>Arthur
Art-I wasn't in the ETO. Was in the bush leagues in the Pacific.
I did hear that there were some Hahns flying Bf109s however.
Shaber CJ
Is there good source or can anyone post information on the differences in F-86
models? Combat history and effectiveness etc.
Thanks
C.C. Jordan
On 17 May 1998 00:28:40 GMT, deh...@indirect.com wrote:
>
>Art-Glad to see you called the P-39 by its real name"AIRCOBRA",
>not airacobra. Never could understand how the name airacobra came
>into common useage.
Probably because Airacobra is the proper name..........
Regards,
C.C. Jordan
"Passion and prejudice govern the world; only
under the name of reason".
John Wesley