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