XP-39
#1

Please dont flame/skewer me for this its just a question and its me venting my frustration towards something that happened ages ago.

As you all know the P-39 was damned at the beginning with the removal of its General Electric B5 Turbo Supercharger, with it, it would have promised to be a good contender at the outset of 41. Instead it became loathed by many for its sluggish performance at medium/high altitude.

Would it prove difficult to produce an XP-39? with the added performance of the GE B5 turbo?

once again I know its out of the blue and quite vague, but Id be a happy camper if there was a way.

Devil952
Reply
#2

It should be easy enough. All one would have to do is create a new slot (which duplicates the P-39) and then modify the engine data (which is simple to do).

I've seen the files, but I don't have the tools to do the job properly. In any case, new slot aircraft seem to be frowned upon here if they aren't created by the central team (ie. the Yak-7B Late - which simply had a new slot - without any FM/DM changes - which should have been legal anyway since it had a new slot - was summarily deleted)

(correct me if I'm wrong)
Reply
#3

I hope someone will do this XP-39. I'am curious how this aircraft would perform when installed the GE B5 turbo. I'am hoping for this one a very long time. We'll see... 8)
Reply
#4

The P39 did have an unfortunate history, although it was loved by the russians it wasn't well liked by the Americans. The XP-39 prototype had stunning performance for its time, but was neutered in the late develpoment stage. It would be interesting to see how it performed, however the XP-39 was unarmed and unarmoured - so it would be little use in a combat simulator IMO. I'm not flaming or skewering, thats just my feelings on the subject Smile
Reply
#5

Yeah I too had thought of this 'if only' scenario. I like flying the P-39 and 'Super' Cobra.

I have the impression that if the P-39 had a supercharger, then it would have mitigated some of its tendency to spin easily. Experiencing that in itself would have been preferable to getting the Larch and other fantasy planes in 46'.

But what stats are available that would be meaningful? The XP-39 was pre-armament, wasn't it?
Reply
#6

thanks for the feedback gents, maybe this will catch the eye of an FM writer *I can only hope*




Devil952
Reply
#7

true enough...many USA service people purely hated the P-39. and certainly it did have it's faults, especially in the manner it was finalized into production and especially how it was used or had to be used during real life combat...at first, in early combat. later on, after air superioity was firmly established by more advanced types, it did very well, and did a pretty good job nailing ground/sea targets AND even luckless enemy aircraft that got caught within it's level of good peformance.

but there were some, even in the early days, that liked this aircraft. one oldster that i know at my local VFW swore it was more than good enough. he flew them for a good bit, and called them a true roadster of an aircraft. said they had great flying qualities if handled properly and used correctly and if respected and kept in their 'safe' zone of useage. he has remarked often that he particularly liked the "gentleman's" exit of the door over clambering over the cockpit rim of other planes...lol. he also was endeared to the brutal "punch" of the heavy cannon and the twin .50's in the nose. though he admits he never thought the 4 .30 cal's in the wings accomplished much except when ground straffing troops. he often said it flew like a dream...with little effort or hard control needed from the pilot.

yeah, it may be a totally unneeded aircraft...but i too wouldn't mind seeing the original 'test' aircraft and taking her for a spin. such stories from real combat vets really stir the blood. and wondering what this baby could have REALLY done has always been at the back of my mind.

good post up.

:wink:
Reply
#8

One of my favourite planes, early on in my online career whilst escorting a lone He-111, I scored 3 kills in a single sortie, one of which being a Me262. Still remember it as one of my greatest achievements! :lol:
I love the danger factor in turning this bird hard! Wink
Reply
#9

Thanks for the support guys, Howlin has said he will look into this, as he is an FM writer; I am truly excited. I am going to try to contact Bell Aviation and see if they have old performance data for this craft, If anyone knows of a better place to search for this please pm me or just post it here Smile
Reply
#10

well ive contacted the president of Bell Aviation, though i doubt ill get much from him, i hope nonetheless.

Heres a good (but long) read for you P-39 lovers.

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 its inception, the potential to be the world's finest fighter aircraft at the beginning of America's involvement in WWII. That it instead became one of the wars most loathsome fighters, easily conceals the real potential the prototype.
Bell's XP-39 prototype was rolled out for the world to see on April 6, 1939 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. Their 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. A 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.

Woods' design employed the new Allison V1710 engine, rated at 1,150 hp with the new B-5 turbosupercharger. Installation of the Turbosupercharged Allison promised excellent high altitude performance. This provided for a critical altitude of 20,000 feet, about the same as the XP-38. 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). Bell's little fighter also displayed a remarkable rate of climb, reaching 20,000 feet in 5 minutes flat! This odd looking aircraft created no small stir in the aviation community. Nothing flying in Europe could match the overall level of performance displayed by the XP-39. At least nothing having the potential for production. It should be noted that the prototype was unarmed and was not fitted with armor plate nor self-sealing fuel tanks (the last two items were not part of the USAAC specification).

Despite the superlative performance of the new Bell fighter, there were design flaws. An undersized vertical stabilizer led to problems with directional stability. Woods' 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. Airfoil section design was not addressed until the P-63 Kingcobra, where a laminar flow wing 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 generally 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 turbosupercharger inlet created too much drag. Certainly the inlet generated no greater drag than did the Prestone inlets on the Lockheed XP-38. Nonetheless, they were insistent, the inlet scoop 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 with only a single stage mechanical supercharger replaced the turbosupercharged engine. This effectively eliminated decent high altitude performance. Thanks to these changes, the Airacobra had it's center of gravity shifted further aft, exacerbating its 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. Bell Aircraft 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 company's financial viability, they would have to take it on the chin. Their pressing need was to get an order and establish some inward cash flow.

Fortunately, Bell 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 received orders for just under 1,000 P-39Cs and Ds from the USAAF. These were equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks and additional armor, the weight of which, only further degraded performance. Without the turbosupercharger, or even a gear driven two speed, two stage 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 turbosupercharger pressurizing the intake system.

Overall handling had degraded to a point where some claimed (without a grain of truth) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. Some Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more dangerous to RAF pilots than the Luftwaffe. Such extreme examples of exaggeration followed the P-39 throughout its service life.

Adding to the general unhappiness with the airplane, the 37mm Colt M4 cannon 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. One of the problems pointed out by the British was the cockpit being filled with cordite fumes after firing the guns. They also found that firing the guns would knock the magnetic compass out of whack. The RAF did admit that at low level they found the Airacobra to be a match for the Bf-109E. Unfortunately, the RAF needed a high altitude fighter. Besides, the Luftwaffe was now getting newer and far better performing fighters.


Because the Russians were seemingly 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 109s and Focke Wulf 190s.

Bell P-39s served in North Africa and Italy with the USAAF and several other Allies including the Free French and Italians. Airacobra service in the Pacific has been the subject of many books and articles. In a single sentence; the "Iron Dog" was replaced as quickly as possible.

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. This was the same establishment that prevented Lockheed from installing Merlin engines in the P-38 as early as 1941. Had the USAAC (Air Corps) not stripped the turbosupercharger from the XP-39, the United States may have entered the war with a competitive 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 1939. Of course, by that time, the P-63 was already outclassed by the P-38, P-47 and P-51. Indeed, the P-63 was too little too late. In large part, it was the Air Corps myopic vision of the future of aerial warfare that caused it to be so.
Reply
#11

Ive been looking into the XP-39 more and found out a few things.
[Image: bellp39b.th.jpg]


for one, the intake behind the cockpit we are all familiar with wasnt put in until after the removal of the turbosupercharger. as you can see on the XP-39A the scoops are on the sides of the aircraft.
The turbosupercharger was located on the port side of the fuselage.
The original 1150 hp Allison V-1710-17 which was rated at 1150hp was replaced with a derated
V-1710-37 (E5) engine rated 1090 hp on the XP-39B, supposedly for better low altitude perforamance.

Hope this information helps Howlin.

only question that remains, should this be an aircraft for aerobatic purposes(since it was an unarmoured and unarmed craft, or should it carry a "what if" armamament?
Reply
#12

328th*Maj.Malvado Wrote:Overall handling had degraded to a point where some claimed (without a grain of truth) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. Some Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more dangerous to RAF pilots than the Luftwaffe. Such extreme examples of exaggeration followed the P-39 throughout its service life.

Thats not the offical reason the RAF didn't use it, and to be honest, I've not read about RAF pilots refusing to fly it. British pilots were always less fussy about their machines than some natiions, and after all put the Corsair into naval service long before the americans decided it was ok after all.

That said...

The Model 14, the export version originally intended for the Armee De l'Air, was ordered by the British Government on April 13th 1940 as the Bell Caribou. The RAF was to receive 675 examples later renamed the Bell Airacobra I. On initial flight trials from June 1941 the pilots of the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford reported disappointing performance, some 33 mph slower than advertised, and Bell admitted the figures had been obtained from a highly polished prototype weighing a ton less.

A take off run of 750 yards excluded its use from many RAF stations, and it was considered inferior in flight (albeit pleasant to fly) to Spitfires and Hurricanes. Armament accessibility was poor and lethal amounts of carbon monoxide infiltrated the cockpit when the nose guns were fired. Many other defects and faulty installations were reported and this delayed operational use.

Eleven machines were assigned to 601 Sqn by September1941, and on October 9th, four of them were given permission to begin operations from Manston. A coastal strafing raid took place on the 11th, after which the lack of spares, continued fault finding, and general lack of serviceability precluded further operation flying. The RAF withdrew the Airacobra in December.

Of the British order, 212 were diverted to Russia, 54 lost at sea, and 179 sent to the AAF for use in the South Pacific as the P400. More than a hundred were sent to Australia. I don't know how many P400's were actually built.
Reply
#13

That wasnt written by me it was a story i found online, there is truth to the story though.
Reply
#14

This is one aircraft I'd definitely would love to see, being a P-39 driver since the very beginning of IL2.



8)
Reply
#15

328th*Maj.Malvado Wrote:That wasnt written by me it was a story i found online, there is truth to the story though.

About the RAF pilots refusing to fly it? I don't think so. That isn't the behaviour of British servicemen in the 1940's, and I'll illustrate that with an example.

During the course of the allied bomber offensive over occupied Europe, it was increasingly realised that a small number of bomber crews were diverting to neutral countries claiming technical difficulties. Since these crews would be interned there was therefore a suspicion that they were doing so in order to sit out the war in safety, particularly since any investigation would show the relative lack of evidence.

The American response was to issue a memo to fighter squadrons to the effect that if their pilots thought a bomber crew were faking it, they were to shoot it down, though in practice none did.

The British response was typically more stiff-necked. If the authorities suspected a crew of such cowardly behaviour, they stamped their service records 'LMF', or Lack of Moral Fibre, pretty much the same as handing them an official white feather, a stain on their character even after they left the services, and certainly the end of their career prospects.

In fact, if a British pilot had refused to fly a P400, his CO would have torn him to shreds. Something along the lines of "It takes us twelve months to train people like you" or "There's a war on. Of course it's dangerous", and finishing with "Go back and fly it, and I won't say any more."
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)