Author Topic: Guess we're gettin' a 39Q! (Read 12375 times)

scottydawg · « **Reply #60 on:** January 25, 2008, 02:54:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crockett
The whole aircraft was US made, we gave or sold them to the Ruskies during WW2.

Read his post again but this time also read the one he made before.

VansCrew1 · « **Reply #61 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:04:27 PM »

all i can say is about time.

trax1 · « **Reply #62 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:06:58 PM »

Looks like a good addition, but I'm still waiting for the 410.

TomHorn · « **Reply #63 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:10:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 5PointOh
So were getting the P-39. Hmmm does that mean this is next?

Yes I'm greedy!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A26, NOW WE'RE TALKIN!!!
Cryin shame if its not next....
With a load of 1000lb'ers, it would be the HANGAR BANGER SUPREME!!!

Yeah Yeah Yeah.... We need other planes for scenarios first....

The Q looks cool tho!!! WTG HTC:aok

FireDrgn · « **Reply #64 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:10:47 PM »

Looks like their already flying the p39 so that means only 2 weeks Yepee-Ki-A

2bighorn · « **Reply #65 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:15:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
If in fact it does turn better then a hurricane then it'll be tough to get away from.

And why would it turn better than Hurri? Down low it was comparable to 109F in turn performance, in terms of speed and climb, 109F had slight advantage.

Tilt · « **Reply #66 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:15:44 PM »

Here is a background on White 23 as per Festers skin.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/index.htm

Has Fester modeled the fuselage patch forward of the tail section?

some interesting facts about White 23 there in.

Should be a fun plane .............. the visibility from the cockpit seems to make it ideal for lead shots compared to most other ac in the inventory.

This actual aircraft had it's wing mounted cannon removed and had been at some time fitted with a external tank for ferrying purposes.

Thinkiing you should add a can of US "Bully beef" some where in the cockpit......... cans of this were found in the wing s in the ordinence stores.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/p39e.jpg

Bronk · « **Reply #67 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:17:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SFCHONDO
Are they going to model the CG problems which caused it to flat spin rather easly. And was even more pronounce after it fired it's ammo, creating an even worse CG problem. Or am I thinking of a different plane.

Only if your heavy handed.

The Fugitive · « **Reply #68 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:17:23 PM »

awwww Fester !!! you should have skinned it for the 35FG, 39th FS "Cobra in the Clouds".... not that I'm prejudice or anything

Bronk · « **Reply #69 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:18:35 PM »

Hope they sneak in the D and N also.

humble · « **Reply #70 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:22:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 2bighorn
And why would it turn better than Hurri? Down low it was comparable to 109F in turn performance, in terms of speed and climb, 109F had slight advantage.

Actually it could turn circles around a 109F. The P-39 took less then 720 degree's to go from immediately in front to immediately behind a 109E in a flat turning circle. The 109 had the edge in both speed and verticals however. Those are british tests during the P-39's evaluation phase. The p-39s marginal superiority in a flat circle vs the hurricane and spitfire didnt make up for its lack of performance at higher alts and in the vertical vs the 109 compared to the other two.

Simaril · « **Reply #71 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:25:14 PM »

Humble -- what version was used in those tests, and what year were they run?

Bronk · « **Reply #72 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:36:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
Humble -- what version was used in those tests, and what year were they run?

I think it was the D model.

SFCHONDO · « **Reply #73 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:38:20 PM »

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SFCHONDO
Are they going to model the CG problems which caused it to flat spin rather easly. And was even more pronounce after it fired it's ammo, creating an even worse CG problem. Or am I thinking of a different plane.

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Only if your heavy handed.

Love it when someone doesn't answer the question to the post and just types some garbage. Guess I need to type s..l..o..w..e..r so some can understand the post....LOL. So if you know the answer to my two part question, I'd love to hear your version. Otherwise don't respond. I was just trying to find out if this was the aircraft that had CG problems and tended to go into flat turns easily, and if so would HT model it that way. Anyway thanks for stopping by Bronk.

2bighorn · « **Reply #74 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:41:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
Actually it could turn circles around a 109F. The P-39 took less then 720 degree's to go from immediately in front to immediately behind a 109E in a flat turning circle. The 109 had the edge in both speed and verticals however.

Did you read how the tests were conducted (not sure if we are talking about the same tests)? British conclusion: it was useless against Luftwaffe. They've sent p-39 to fight barges...

Quote

Originally posted by humble
Those are british tests during the P-39's evaluation phase. The p-39s marginal superiority in a flat circle vs the hurricane and spitfire didnt make up for its lack of performance at higher alts and in the vertical vs the 109 compared to the other two.

Marginal superiority? In British tests, Spitfire (Vb) vastly outperformed P-39 in all aspects but top speed. Even the old Hurri was better in few areas...