Author Topic: If HTC decides to model P-39s... (Read 3095 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #45 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:03:40 PM »

Where's Tony when you need him?

Bronk · « **Reply #46 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:23:09 PM »

Sourse on the "more streamlined" arse kisser. Or is that More Hyperbole like most of your posts.

If You do a basic search you find numbers as low as you quote to much much higher.
I believe the N-2 was same weight as the Q but with 1590 hp wep.
And you shaved at least 10mph from the 5k speed depending on the source.
As for turning prove it turns worst. This aircraft had some of the lightest stick forces. 2lbs of stick back per G. You don't get that with crappy turning.

I have no idea where HT will get his numbers but I don't think he will use just one source.
So go ahead and go by the lowest numbers you can find.
I didn't even bother to post the highest I found.

Bronk

Edit: N2 should read D-2 was looking at the wrong chart.

Bronk · « **Reply #47 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:27:02 PM »

Moot, the gun is not as good as the yaks period. That I'll agree with.
But the secondary guns will get you kills as there is more than one.
Not to mentioned extended rang with drop tank, or air to ground with a 500lber.

Bronk

Wes14 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:27:16 PM »

i would like a P39 plz:cool:

Krusty · « **Reply #49 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:34:43 PM »

Bronk is what we call fanatical, folks. Take a good look.

The website I got the 39N weight from cites the following as resources used for that sub-page.

-War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
-The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.
-United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.
-P-39 Airacobra in Action, Ernie McDowell, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1980.
-Airacobra Advantage: The Flying Cannon, Rick Mitchell, Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana
-The Calamitous 'Cobra, Air Enthusiast, August 1971.
-Bell Cobra Variants, Robert F. Dorr, Wings of Fame, Vol 10, AirTime Publishing , Inc., 1998.

The USAAF wanted to remove certain fuel cells in an attempt to save weight, going from 9100 lbs to 8750 lbs weight. However the range was cut so short they made kits and re-installed the fuel cells in the field. Still a far cry over 6500lbs. With the cells readded, it would be back up to 9100 max weight, 50% more than the max weight of the Yak9T, for about the same horsepower.

Also, if HTC doesn't allow +1000 boost on P47D-11s and on P51s and on P-38s, they're not going to allow it on the VVS P-39s either.

EDIT: P.S. only 128 N-1s were converted to N-2s for ground support. So I don't know why they'd be boosting 1500hp on a ground support version with limited numbers.

Bronk · « **Reply #50 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:35:56 PM »

The yak shell is the 37x195 .

The P39 uses 37x 145r.

Just to give a visual difference.

Bronk

Krusty · « **Reply #51 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:37:51 PM »

I still wonder what Tony'd have to say about the explosive content of the two gun types. Granted the 37mm has better trajectory, but what if you hit with both guns? Which would be stronger?

EDIT: Posted same time as bronk put image up

moot · « **Reply #52 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:49:35 PM »

Thanks Bronk. The effective damage of one round from the P39 is what will decide my vote.
The rest of the specs don't matter much.

Bronk · « **Reply #53 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:50:55 PM »

First off I ment to Type D-2. Sorry for the confusion.

Arse kisser D-2 is an up engined/diff prop geared D. Under normal loading 7697 lbs. Thats gross load. With 2039lb useful load.
Straight from Americas hundred thousand.

HP on wep once again straight from Americas hundred thousand.
wep 1590 at 2500 ft at 61 map . No crazy map needed

Bronk
Edit: Or is dean also a fanatic?

Wes14 · « **Reply #54 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:52:59 PM »

Wouldn't a P-39 be easier to land then many nose mounted planes?

Bronk · « **Reply #55 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:55:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Thanks Bronk. The effective damage of one round from the P39 is what will decide my vote.
The rest of the specs don't matter much.

Moot Its safe to say if you hit it . It's dead.

Bronk

Bronk · « **Reply #56 on:** March 25, 2007, 06:00:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty

Also, if HTC doesn't allow +1000 boost on P47D-11s and on P51s and on P-38s, they're not going to allow it on the VVS P-39s either.

Ohh look hyperbole who'd a thought krusty would try that.

Bronk

Krusty · « **Reply #57 on:** March 25, 2007, 06:01:35 PM »

Yes, keep pretending to post useful replies, yet insulting people to their face. PNGs are earned that way. You're becoming more like Kurfy, you know? Insult, try to change the subject, insult, try to change the details, insult, insult, PNG, oops, can't insult anymore.

As for the D-2, okay so you listed the wrong number. BIG difference, though. Even so,

"The remaining 158 machines on the Lend-Lease order were produced as P-39D-2-BE (Model 14A-1). These were assembled under contract AC 156 placed on June 1, 1941. The P-39D-2 introduced the uprated 1325 hp V-1710-63 (E6) engine and had a 2:1 reduction gear. It brought back the 37-mm nose cannon. It was otherwise identical to the P-39D-1. The P-39D-2-BE could carry the 145 US gallon drop tank underneath the fuselage."

Not that much of a difference. Okay, so it's got 175 more HP than the plain "D". That's not going to make it a speed demon, or a climbing monster. Especially when the plain "D" had a top speed of 309 mph at sea level, 335 mph at 5000 feet, 355 mph at 10,000 feet, 368 mph at 12,000 feet, and 360 mph at 15,000 feet. Slower than a spit5, and later than it, by the time it was sent to Russia.

EDIT: P.S. Why is the gross and max so different, when the most it could carry externally was a single 500lb bomb?

Bronk · « **Reply #58 on:** March 25, 2007, 06:13:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Yes, keep pretending to post useful replies, yet insulting people to their face. PNGs are earned that way. You're becoming more like Kurfy, you know? Insult, try to change the subject, insult, try to change the details, insult, insult, PNG, oops, can't insult anymore.

As for the D-2, okay so you listed the wrong number. BIG difference, though. Even so,

"The remaining 158 machines on the Lend-Lease order were produced as P-39D-2-BE (Model 14A-1). These were assembled under contract AC 156 placed on June 1, 1941. The P-39D-2 introduced the uprated 1325 hp V-1710-63 (E6) engine and had a 2:1 reduction gear. It brought back the 37-mm nose cannon. It was otherwise identical to the P-39D-1. The P-39D-2-BE could carry the 145 US gallon drop tank underneath the fuselage."

Not that much of a difference. Okay, so it's got 175 more HP than the plain "D". That's not going to make it a speed demon, or a climbing monster. Especially when the plain "D" had a top speed of 309 mph at sea level, 335 mph at 5000 feet, 355 mph at 10,000 feet, 368 mph at 12,000 feet, and 360 mph at 15,000 feet. Slower than a spit5, and later than it, by the time it was sent to Russia.

EDIT: P.S. Why is the gross and max so different, when the most it could carry externally was a single 500lb bomb?

So now I'm Kurfy cus I mistyped, guess thats more hyperbole ehh.
You started the name callin not me. Want it to stop, its easy stop doing it yourself.
Ohh and calling me kurfy is name calling and changing the subject. Pot kettle.

I'd suppose the useful load is considering all ammo fuel also.

Bronk

Krusty · « **Reply #59 on:** March 25, 2007, 06:15:40 PM »

Actually, no, you have only yourself to blame for your own little "crusade" you have. Sorry to burst your self-inflated bubble.

Oh, and this might be of interest to those that care about keeping this thread on track (Bronk need not apply, it seems).

Just an interesting speed chart I had saved from a while back.