![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|