P39 damage.

[Guppy35]

Keep in context the time the P39 was designed.  At that point in the late 30s the bomber was king.  The world was watching places like Guernica in Spain where the bombers rained down destruction.  Japanese bombers were doing the same in the newsreels from China.  Rotterdam wasn't that  far off.

The Germans were developing the 109, a small, short range, liquid cooled engined fighter on a narrow undercarriage.  The RAF had the Hurricane, which was really a combo of bi-plane thick wing technology and the inline Merlin engine.  And the RAF had the Spitfire, thin wing, narrow gear, inline Merlin.  The race for speed was built around small, streamlined, liquid cooled engined fighters

For the USAAF the P35 and P36 were giving way to the Allison engined P40, the twin Allison P38 and the Allison P-39.

Everything was geared towards intercepting bombers, not looking behind, or dogfighting.  Much like jet design of the late 50s, early 60s, the vision was of going fast, looking forward and shooting down bombers as that was the threat.  Look at any of the fighters and they have narrow canopies with the fuselage built up behind the pilot.  The 39 at least pretended to think the pilot might look behind.  Compare it to the 109E or the Spitfire I with the slabsided, flat canopy it went into service with.  Mirrors were an afterthought once they figured out they were going to have to fight other fighters.

So the 39 was really ahead of the game for that time in design, much like the 38.  Tricycle gear, to help the pilot and cannons and MG loaded in the nose to shoot those bombers down.  It was not designed for what it ended up doing.  As it was adapted to the needs of wartime it found it's niche doing something completely different.

As for the guy asking if it should react different if shot down.  The center of gravity in a plane is what it is.  Wherever the engine is, the plane needs to be balanced for flight.

Just keep in mind the time it was designed and what it was meant to do.  It was never a 1944 design so it's not going to compare to those birds as they were designed for different roles.  That it did what it did through the war is some credit to the design.

I'm sure Widewing can expand on this a lot more as he's more versed in it, but I hope you get the idea and don't make the 39 what it's not.  You'll be sorely disappointed in it otherwise.

[VansCrew1]

Great read.

[angelsandair]

Originally posted by Rebel
Actually, it was the design of the P-39 cockpit that lead to the development of the full fledged bubble canopy in other fighters.  

Pilots of the P39 disagreed on many accounts (the more experienced being more positive, the less experienced more severe) about the flying characteristics (such as the tumble that the test pilots couldn't replicate), but they all agreed on one major point- it had "Fantastic visibility".

oooooooo! sweet, i like to see around my flying tank.

[Charge]

"I think you're in for a surprise."

I think so too.

Compare:

http://www1.hitechcreations.com/news/images/p39/p39q1.jpg

With:

http://ambiorix.spymac.com/Images/BellP39Q6/index.html

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39Cockpitfrnt.pdf

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/p39b.jpg

You  m a y  notice that the horizontal bar is much too thin. The vertical bars supporting the windscreen are as thin as they should be but the horizontal part which is part of the supporting structure is as thin in those pictures where as it should be as thick as the side framing (without the door frame).

AFAIK the P39 had a good or even excellent rear visibility despite the intake scoop.

Even the LA7 cockpit has too thin upper part of armoured glass just where it should be thickest, pretty much like in Spit and it is not, nor will be probably.

-C+

PS. http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165351&pagenumber=2

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

I hear someplace the default fov for the cockpits is not 90.

hit x and zoom in a little bit more, note sure how much it changes perspective, but its worth the note.
well...when we get it.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Hmph speaking of p-39 damage....gun damage that is.

This shell uses the point detonating fuze, M56. The complete round weighs 1.99 pounds (900 g); as fired, the projectile weighs 1.34 pounds (1,050 g). The 0.16-pound (70 g) charge of M2 powder is a Hercules NG formula of single perforated grains with 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) web and gives the projectile the prescribed muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second (600 m/s).

The M54 features the shell-destroying tracer in addition to the point-detonating fuze. The tracer, which has a burning time of three seconds, sets off an igniting relay charge of 1.68 grains (0.109 g) of Grade A-5 Army Black Powder which ignites a relay pellet to detonate the charge and destroy the shell before ground impact.

The bursting charge of tetryl weighs 0.10 pound (45 g), and the alternate Composition “A” charge weighs 0.105 pound (48 g). The tetryl loading consists of a 200 grain (13 g) tetryl pellet pressed into the shell cavity under 9,000 to 10,000 psi (60 to 70 MPa pressure and the remainder of the charge of two equal increments pressed under approximately 9,000 psi (60 MPa) pressure. The Composition “A” bursting charge is loaded in the same manner as the tetryl charge, except that the relay pellet with the Composition “A” weighs 36 grains (2.3 g) as against 23 grains (1.5 g) for the pellet used with the tetryl load.



Aparently the 37mm M54 round (HE) has a timed fuse set for 3 seconds.
That makes me wounder if the m4 37mm cannon we have on our pt's uses the HE or Ap rounds, if it is He it should blow up after 3 seconds.

oh my god its gonna be a mobile flak cannon! (39 & Pt)

[Charge]

The German 20mm HE's had a self detonating option too. Not sure what the timer setting was for them. I think it was when the rotation speed decreased certain amount the fuze exploded and destroyed the grenade. It would be interesting to have it in game but on the other hand it might be quite an FPS hog.

-C+

[Krusty]

In-game, rounds just disappear after a certain range (fire a cannon round at 10k and it will never impact the ground) so that's already modeled, sort of.

[Hap]

Originally posted by VansCrew1
Since the engine is mounted behind the pilot who would a old leak affect the cockpit? would you be able to see oil on the back of the windscreen? Also would the shaft running from the engine to the prop be sustainable to damage?

Vans, maybe after lack of oil craters the engine, how the drive shaft doing some wild things?

[Krusty]

Look at the pilot head positions. Look at the gunsight position.







The head is very high and the car door is INCHES from your face. Forward and up views should be decent, but if they don't model the side views with heavy impairment they're just not doing it right.

Rebel might be right about the intake, though. It's a tall intake, but narrow. Seeing around either side should still be good, as long as they model in a giant 6+ inch frame between the car door and rear window.

[EagleDNY]

I'm wondering if we will get the M80 AP rounds as an optional loadout.  The Soviets didn't use them (we didn't send them any), but they were an option for the M4 cannon.

[Krusty]

Were they:

- an option for the m4 cannon mounted in army planes? Or just for ground guns?

- ever used anywhere, ever, in an p-39?

- used regularly, or just once, or just in tests?

- distributed via supply chains to units using the P-39? (you mention we never sent any to Russia)

[Bodhi]

Krusty,
the side view out of a P-39 is not all that bad.  Sure there is the side bar of the door, but it is all a matter of head perspective, and if you give it a second it almost seems as though it does not exist.

[Krusty]

Bodhi: It looks to be just about eye level (from various pictures) and with the forward curve would be a real hassle to move your head around all the time to look around it.

My car's a little the same, the left-front windshield frame is right in my view if I want to look forward/left.

I just look at that head position and that glass, and can't help but wonder (even with the nice fwd and fwd-upper views) how HTC can justify such a wide open feeling the screenshot of the cocpit portrays.

I could be wrong, but it just doesn't fit. Kind of like how the P-51 cockpit looks like it's a loft apartment compared to the Fw190, but they're not that far off regarding head-to-frame spacing.


On the new planes, some cockpits I think they finish very well. Some others look like they're ... I don't want to say biased.. just far far too forgiving.

EDIT: P.S. How much distance from forhead to fwd glass? How much distance from temple (above ear) to door frame?

[Bodhi]

Krusty, it has been a while since I last sat in a P-39 so I can not tell you specifics on distances.  I just remember the side bar not being too big of an issue.  

As for frame spacing on the 51 and 190 being close, I have to disagree.  The 190's front view is just so much smaller than the 51's as is the overall canopy.  I have a picture of me inside of a 190 somewhere that I will have to find to show you what I am talking about.