"Performance fell off above 13,000 feet..." In fairness to the Airacobra, the Curtiss P-40/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk fighters had exactly the same issue because they were powered by exactly the same engine. In fact, according to the performance figures, the P-39 actually had superior performance to the P-40. That was one of the reasons why the Soviets preferred the Airacobra. However, some other features that British pilots did not like about the Airacobra were its' mixed armament with different ballistic characteristics (20-mm cannon, .50 caliber MGs and .30 caliber MGs), the car-type cockpit access doors and the stalky tricycle landing gear. The British regarded that last feature as a major issue because most British airfields were unpaved grass, dirt or sand airstrips, frequently pock-marked with bomb craters. In addition, even the Soviets admitted that the P-40 could out-maneuver the Airacobra and that a pilot could put an Airacobra into a dangerous flat spin if he mishandled it. Incidentally, it was not Bell that insisted upon dispensing with the turbo-supercharger used in the P-39 prototype, it was the U.S. Army Air Corps. In their wisdom, the Air Corps brass decided that air combat would probably not be carried on at higher altitudes than that, so that the supercharger would be an unnecessary additional complication and expense.
All true, but the stalky landing gear didn't seem to bother the Soviets very much, and their airfields tended to be very rough, afaik. I guess if you like a lot of a plane's features you manage to get along with all its characteristics.
In all my experience reading about the development of different aircraft throughout history, I’ve come to realize that when a military decides to remove something from a design because it “won’t be needed” it seems to guarantee that the item will, in fact, be needed.
@@luvr381 Rough strips yes, but also fairly long strips, often with dense dry cold air. This allowed lower speeds and sink rates than the shorter strips and warmer climates where allies complained of the warbirds failings, and with less aggressive braking to transfer weight forwards AND the training to keep back pressure on the stick during such you could balence the plane mostly on the rear pair during all but the slowest speed movements. This is normal for modern GA planes, but something unheard of to people landing tail draggers (like basically every other fighter, and training aircraft of the time), where takeoff/landing with the aircraft much off level risked an accident.
I'm sure you have some documentation to back up your claim the USAAC killed the turbocharger (not supercharger, the Allison already had a supercharger). The USAAC was as busy as they could be putting turbochargers on such a varied group of planes as the P38, P47, and B17. High altitude was where they explicitly wanted to do their fighting.
Excellent mini-documentary. The P-39 was a visually stunning looking aircraft. With lot's of promise but introduced to early. Thank you Ed, this is the way mini+documentaries should be. Fast moving, with out fillers. If you can't tell I really enjoyed it :-)
Read the Wright Field test pilot's report. Unstable gun platform, stick forces unacceptably light under accelerated g manouvers, poor recovery characteristics after the stall, over heating engine, etc. Tumble and spin was an issue in training units causing a high casualty rate. The Allison engine also had issues with detonation, thrown rods, etc.
My mother and one of her brothers worked in the Bell plant in the Buffalo NY area. She worked in the drafting department, I don't know what my uncle did. The only thing remaining of the plant is a plaque in the parking lot of Buffalo International Airport.
its kind of a false redemption since yeah the plane wasn't as bad as its WW2 reputation in truth it wasn't that good either. Too many were looking at raw numbers and not the actual reason the western allies hated it...it was unstable and the centre of gravity was downright dangerous. The Russians ? Well ok the russians liked it better than some other planes in their arsenal because it "worked" Still had those same issues and if you look at the kill lists of the German super aces you'll see 2 fighters dominate The Lag-3 and thee Yak-1 but not too far behind was the P-39 so while the Russian aces did have success the other lesser pilots were still being shot down in droves just like anywhere else you have less experienced pilots.... the same can't be said of the P-51
@@mikepette4422, "wasn't that good either" is right. Everyone points to the success by Red Air Force and their "Kobras." But put those dogs in the air against the Luftwaffe of 1940 and the record would've been quite different. Much like the dismal record of the USAAF against the Japanese. Both fronts saw combat at fairly low altitude. It's a shame this Airacobra revisionist history couldn't be commented on by pilots who flew it in anger. I've been reading military history for 40+ years and NEVER came across a P-40 or F4F pilot that wished they flew the P-39 in the Solomons. Any Spitfire pilot would laugh in the face of someone suggesting the P-400 was just as good as his mount.
Thank you for this video. This is one of my favorite aircraft of the war and your video finally does it justice. It points out both the good and bad of the design. Well done
LOL, it was very unstable near the stall and didn't make a good gun platform for air combat according to Wright Field. The many who couldn't fly it were sent to the infantry.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Funny the Russkies didn't seem to have those problems. Think in their hands it shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Allied fighter.
@@tomhart837 firstly, don't be conned by Soviet claims. Secondly, the soviets would never have admitted the number of accidents and training fatalities. The problems of the P-39 were well documented in the US, which is why it was mainly an escort op fighter.
Greg just did a great series of videos on this underappreciated aircraft. Personally, I think the British version with the 20mm is an even better idea than the 37. If Bell had had the time to clean up the aerodynamics of the turbocharger, this could have been as famous as the P47 or P51.
Think about it: a 20mm cannon and two 12.7mm machine guns were the upgraded Me-109 armament, in 1943! So there was space for better balance on the P-39 armament. Getting hid of the "paint scratchers" 7,7mm wing guns would lower the weight and increase performance and range, something the Soviets did in the field. Also, both P-39 and P-40 suffered from a lack of development of the V-1710 supercharger. Allison could had made a version for those two fighters with different altitude profiles, like RR did with the Merlin. But when the dual supercharger model finally came in the end of 1943, it was too late. I'm of the opinion that the P-39 suffered not only the incompetence from Bell, but also from a good guidance by USAAF officials, toward where to direct the aircraft's evolution, like getting hid of the ridiculous "car door" arrangement.
@@magoid The whole single speed mechanical supercharger issue has its roots in the mid 30s decision on the Army Air Corps to use turbosuperchargers for higher altitudes. Given the increased demand for turbos with bomber production soaring the Allison aside from the ones used in the P-38s were stuck. Should Allison have more effort earlier into a two speed two stage mechanical supercharger. In hindsight, yes they should have. Another thing that could have been done. And was done by the Australians flying P-40s was to increase the manifold pressure increasing power. This wouldn't solve all of the high altitude problems but it would help. When it came time for Bell to build the P-59 (now there's a real dog) sometimes I think that they just should have put 1 GE built version of the early jet engine in a modified P-39 airframe. Even though the P-59* was a dog it did provide valuable service for the USAAF in that it allowed for experience operating and maintaining jet aircraft without the added strain of combat operations. *Should have been named the Aerodog
I've always rooted for the P-39 an A-V1710. I "what if" P-39 history a lot. Still, its small airframe limited range and development. That and timing issues. A looking glass and 9 mos more dev could have it great if the rest of the world stopped moving.
Part of why the turbo got nixxed was the obsession aeronautical engineers had with streamlining at the time. The original P-39 prototype was a hot rod that was set to dominate the sky, but then it got "streamlined." Making Bell one of the few aircraft companies to take a silk purse and turn it into a pigs ear.
The other part was just space... look at a cross section of the P38, plumbing goes almost all the way back to the tail. To get the same turbo (and keep in mind its the same engine) in less length either would have had big thermal issues, massive drag, or much wider fusilage, and the actual turbo fighters of the same vintage that flew had one or more of these faults... the P38 was the least impacted because of its large size, but even there the need for many cooling intakes/exhausts resulted in a very disrupted air-stream, and thus high altitude speeds that where matched by supercharged aircraft of only a couple years later. Go see the Gregs video on this matter, because the evidence that we have suggests more that they couldn't make the turbosupercharger work with staff, time and budget they actually had, rather than a top down decision to cancel it in favor of another approach.
I'm getting to the end of your video library now. I pulled this one up, only to realize once I'd started that I'd already seen it. But the video is so good I watched it again. All of these videos avoid the common mistakes I run into in RUclips Aviation content, they're not snarky and conceited, they're not running with the hype meter pegged into doomsday overdrive, they're highly accurate, and they don't have that grandiose 'I love to hear myself talk' quality that I find so off-putting on other channels. Also, generally, what we see is what you're talking about, and if it isn't, you're careful to note that. I have to conclude that you've had formal training in history, or writing, or both. Well done.
The iron dog was in fairness a good low altitude fighter that found itself in a mid-high altitude airforce. When placed in the right conditions would often compared favorably with bf-109f and fw-109a.
I've also read that the Soviets liked the P-39 because it had a cockpit heater (woah!). And since the over all climate in the Russias is, well, below tropical, the P-39 rarely overheated during ground taxi operations. Lastly, I have to believe that the pilots loved the P-39 and P-63 car-doors (with roll up windows) because, up to and through this era, few Soviet citizens could afford an automobile!
Very interesting details of the British experience with this plane. For anyone who wants to explore a thicket of technical detail, Greg's Airplanes & Automobiles did a lengthy video comparing the US and Soviet experience a few weeks ago. Lots of great photos. ruclips.net/video/l_pziH3tI9o/видео.html
Its such pretty plane that it's good to hear it wasn't a failure. Comparing it to the stubby cigar Karpov, plowing along pushing their frontal area through the sky, the mid engine lsyout makes so much more sense in aerodynamics, weight distrihution, pilot's vision and the coaxial canon.
One of the issues that you didn't mention was the decision to not have external radiators and coolers, but to bury them all in the wing centre section. Along with the wheel wells, this used much of the space that could have held fuel tanks, so the P-39 was of limited mission range.
Another really informative video, the way you drew out the reasons why different air forces had differing views/experiences of the type was particularly insightful. As always, thank you for all the work you put into your channel. Exceptional.
@@mikepette4422 I also owned a book by the British Communist party from early 1941 saying how awful Churchill was, which I bought as I was just surprised it got published!
In fact the soviet Air Force said that both p-39s and p-63s are the soviet pilots most favourite lead lease aircraft ever better then the la-5s and yak-9s
Soviet designers and pilots worked with Bell engineers to improve the planes. They were able to improve the performance and serviceability, along with potency. The post war head of IBM was in Moscow working on this, continuously.
If anyone would like more information on this aircraft, they should check out the videos covering it on the channel "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles''. A crucial factor in its performance issues was that it was designed to include a turbocharger that turned out to be unavailable to them.
@@Theonixco Tell me where it goes then, route the exhausts to where it is and route the air back to the carb. There are pics on the net and it is a right dogs dinner. The Turbo gives no advantage at low altitude, in fact it eliminates exhaust thrust and adds weight and drag, so it would have been a dog at all altitudes.
One thing about the P-39 was that it's main armament was in the fuselage. If you look at Soviet Fighter Aircraft - their main armament tends to be in the fuselage. So - here - you have an aircraft that fits right in with the Soviet Way of Doing Things. Often times they would take the guns out fo the wings to increase the aircraft's roll rate. The other thing they loved about Lend Lease Aircraft - is that if they still had the radios in them - they were very good radios, which Soviet Aircraft did not have. .
I’m glad that the Commemorative Air Force has both the P-39 AND P-63 in flying status. The Peachtree Air Base in Georgia has the P-63. The Central Texas Wing has the P-39. I love seeing them on display and flying. Both are very beautiful airframes
Interestingly Chuck Yeager wrote in his biography that he liked the P-39. But it must be kept in mind that he said this early in his flying career before he was able to compare it against other fighters.
This is parallel in certain ways to the Buffalo's story. Most air forces considered it a dog, but the Finns loved the tubby little bastiche. Apparently it had terrific cold weather performance.
The decisions regarding turbo super charger being removed was driven NACA wind tunnel test. The intakes cause significant parasitic drag. The Army Air Corps officer in charge of the program made the decision based on the NACA report. The officers name was Ben Kelsey. The Kingcobra was what Bell wanted to build, essentially. On the deck the the Aircobra was marginally faster than the Zero.
Hang on, is it a turbo or a super charger (compressor)? In my limited knowledge of engines those are totally different ways of adding power to a combustion engine. A turbo is driven by the exhaust while a compressor is power by the engines it self. The difference is that the compressor gives extra air directly, while the turbo needs a higher revs to increase the air to the engine. Sorry for my bad technical English. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, as I said I’m not an engine expert (far from it).
@@Hiznogood High altitude performance requires, typically, a two stage turbo supercharge. In automobile use you get single stage turbo or super chargers. Air craft during WWII and for while after still used reciprocating engines. Greg, a pilot does a better job explaining them than I can. ruclips.net/user/GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer I believe Kelsey said he was disappointed that the turbo wasn't pursued on it. Also think he got taken off the fighter program andtransferred to England about this time.
Why doesnt anyone ever mention that being a fighter with a mid engine the center of mass was placed in the most advantageous place for maneuverability ? This is no doubt what the Soviets liked plus the fact that the cockpit arrangement was superior to Soviet aircraft.
I've no idea if this is true of just a historical urban legend, but I've heard that the decision to eliminate the turbo-supercharger's scoop was made by the US Army Air Corps who, at the time, had a bee in their bonnet about "negative" (i.e. unnecessary) drag on airframes, and ordered Bell to lose the scoop, crippling the Airacobra. It might be that this was just an exculpatory myth put out by Bell themselves to divert blame for sharp practices, but on the other hand there is no deadlier opponent of military aircraft than bureaucrats.
Nice video. Fyi, the photo starting at 12:23 is the specially modified, high speed aircraft. You can see the bulged fairing to smooth air over the exhaust manifolds, and the shortened tail.
Yeah couple of things in the Soviets favour, they generally preferred cannons which mitigated the requirement for pilot accuracy, and almost all the combat on the Eastern Front was at low level partly as combat was less structured but also as the Soviets needed to fly low to navigate, finally most of the combat was tactical strikes and counter tactical air cover, very little in the way of high altitude strategic bombing and interception/escort (the largest strategic bombing mission on the Eastern Front during the war occurred in 1943 and had about 50 aircraft on both sides).
It's sadly refreshing to see that politicians and corporations have had their fair share of shysters throughout history - and even when the free world was at stake!
To make a slight correction, the P39's did have an engine driven turbocharger on the Allison but they did not have the exhaust driven turbocharger for a couple of reasons to include, they were told they could not have very many of the Spuerchargers because they were allocated to P-38's production, also, they could not get the aerodynamics straightened out and the early superchargers they did have on hand, weren't giving the power expected and actually slowed the prototypes top speed down a few knots iirc. As the P -39 was being spooled up for production, NACA released a critical report of aerodynamics that, had its lessons been implemented, would have drastically improved it's high altitude performance and the issues with the drag caused by the supercharger would have been alleviated. Bell had contracts in hand, and orders placed and could not afford the time for the redesign so they went ahead with what they had. The P63 did have some of the improvements but it wasn't enough to beat the later P51, which happened to still be in the paper design stage when the NACA report came out and thus, utilized as much of the improvements as possible and as such was so much faster for the same HP.
The Alison V-1710 had a single stage blower because they were told General Electric would make the turbo chargers. GE struggled but the turbos did eventually arrive for the twin engine P-38. The installation took up huge space so was never suitable for P-39.
I am surprised the RAF did not use the Airacobra I in the Western Desert as a ground attack fighter. In this role it performed well on the Russian Front. Below 10,000 feet the Airacobra was a pretty capable fighter. In many ways it enjoyed a superior performance to the Curtiss P 40E Kittyhawk.
Love your work Ed and a big fan of the Airacobra don’t know why I just like underdogs I guess 🤷🏻♂️ still waiting for the.. Blackburn Firebrand.. video I’ve only been asking 2.5 years but that’s ok take your time. 😁👍
the P-39 achieved a 2:1 to 5:1 kill ratio against Japanese airplanes in the south pacific according to multiple mission reports. and was not as bad as believed. Later improvements leading to teh P-39Q made noticeable performance improvements. The P-39 was used as a low level striker and pilots did not get to fly it against Japanese aircraft using appropriate tactics, thus helping give it a bad reputation early on, and even some US pilots are on the record admitting they were unfairly harsh on the P-39 early in the war.
Kill claims by BOTH sides look like that, and actual numbers of aircraft delivered to the front lines allow neither to be true. In addition the Japanese early on in south pacific where more experienced, better trained, better supplied ect than the allies to first meet them, and so its VERY unlikely such odds where attainable, let alone tolerated by an enemy who could observe the results and was deciding the next action. Indeed it was this adverse context that lead most later commentary to admit they viewed the technical merit of the aircraft to harshly, because they saw it when the deck was stacked against it, and compared to aircraft in other theaters that where less disadvantaged.
@@SheepInACart the Japanese could no more observe the results with accuracy any more than US pilots could. Not all south Pacific pilots were among the Japanese most trained and experienced. Yes, overcounting is a thing, but we're also talking analysis of reports done in hindsight. You can't claim 2:1 or 5:1 success if all your P-39 were shot down, so consider teh US point of view as well in their reports. The point is, the P-39 was a better plane and more capable even against teh Japanese than most people believe. It was not amazing compared to other planes soon to be available, but it could hold its own.
Hay can you do a video on the b-18 bomber that won over the first b-17 models in America's first major bomber competition. It is really forgotten even though it proved to be critical in the Caribbean campaign.
If Bell had managed to get a V-1710 engine with *PROPER* turbocharging, both the P-39 and P-63 would have been great fighters that would have lasted in service throughout World War II.
Had allways heard the p400 was equipped with a 20mm due to British request Also the allison manifold pressure was able to be turned up in the cold north for russia and had issues in the heat of china and was forced to run lower boost
Germany’s Erich Hartmann once shot down 10 Russian P39 Airacobras in one day! To be fair, he was the world’s highest scoring fighter Ace with 352 kills.
The aircraft was already heavy for its size, with high wing loadings and needing long takeoff runs. Armor would worsen that, while taking the edge off its turning performance advantage AND further reducing effective combat altitudes that where already an issue... it would be fine when actually shooting at things on the ground, but totally unsuited for the entirety of the rest of what that role requires. Armor's effectiveness at stopping a hull loss would also have been limited somewhat by the single water cooled engine, while dozens of large, aircooled planes where already in combat zones to be fitted with gunpods or rockets that outmatched the aerocobra's internal armament should it be viable to sacrifice their ability to participate against other fighters somewhat. Finally rerember close air supports role is mostly one of moral effect (both on your allies, and opposition), so large, loud and flashy is actually more important than quick or precise.
There were really two P-39s, the 1942 models (D, F, K, L) and the 1943 models (M, N, Q) with uprated engines. The vast majority supplied to the Soviets were the later 1943 models and these were fully the equals of the German Me109 and FW190 at all altitudes. The U.S. Army Air Force (AAF) struggled with their P-39s in 1942 until they instituted a weight reduction program In September by removing 650 pounds of unnecessary weight which greatly improved climb and ceiling, outclimbing the Japanese fighters while retaining their 50mph speed advantage.
Just a point of order. The engine placement was not done in order to place the big gun up front, but to allow a more streamlined nose. Ironic since when NACA tested the early plane it was found to have a ton of drag, being even less slippery than a Buffalo. Most of the problems with drag were fixed, but it did mean they ended uo ditching the turbo. Hence the poor high altitude performance.
@@echodelta2172 I've read that another reason for the mid-engine layout was to allow a tricycle undercarriage, which it was thought would reduce the high incidence of landing accidents suffered by tailwheel types.
And about the Buffalo, the story of both is relatively similar. A "dog" for the allies it did wonders with the Finns. Because it was essentially a very early "light" model and other reasons.
Well actually that is not a point of order, it is an opinion. One I suspect you got from Greg’s P-39 video. I am a Patreon supporter of Greg, but I do not buy that opinion, which is based on a magazine article written by a Bell executive. I think the writer was trying to present the aircraft as relevant even though it had failed to meet its original design intent, while burnishing the reputation of Bell as an innovator. However, the nose is not really more streamlined in terms of the ideal shape in subsonic flow. The airplane was clean in its use of buried heat exchangers, but even so the overall drag was found to be high in reality, which disproves the supposed benefit of the pointy nose. The specification called for a 37mm gun (to kill bombers) which would have been very difficult to install alongside an engine, a problem solved by the then unconventional aft mounted engine. Considering the extra weight of the drive shaft along with the dubious aerodynamic advantages, the 37mm gun remains the most reasonable primary purpose behind the configuration of this aircraft, one that a single magazine article cannot disprove.
One thing that is often overlooked in the lend-lease gear is, that the radios used in US aircraft were far superior to domestic russian ones. And every single plane had them, which was not the case with their own I-16 or I-153 stock. That opened a whole new tactical dimension for soviet front aviation.
i can recall some soviet era aviator saying on their p-39s , they had removed 750lbs of armor plate and greatly over-boosted the engine when they had good fuel and the good fuel and the 39s arrived at the same time--
P40 was far more tractable than the P39 because it carried about 35 gallon more fuel. Once the P40 reduced it fuel it climbed almost as well and was more agile. P39 was only about 5mph faster. Both early planes we excellent below 15k. The Brits and Russian ignored the Boost limits. Brits used the 130 octane allowed the newer Allison Engines to run at 1800hp on WEP.. Both P51A annd P40 were quite different animals. Not sure 130 octane was used inthe P39. But would have given it quite a boost in speed. Which they discovered with the air races after WW2.
Bell was clearly following the late 30s design brief "match the most powerful engine to the smallest, most aerodynamic fuselage". But Republic and Grumman proved that a larger fuselage was OK as long as you compensated with more horsepower. If Bell had added a good supercharger (or even better, used the Merlin) that required a modest sacrifice in size and weight it might have made a difference.
The Allison 1740 V12 and the RR Merlin had many similarities in the basic engine- the biggest difference was the compound supercharging on the Merlin. SC's and turbo chargers were designed to increase the incoming air pressure to regain hp lost by dwindling pressure at higher elevations- the Allison didn't have any so it had what it took off with and every thousand feet higher it had to go, the less available hp. The second difference is an outgrowth of the first; GB and the US engines were increasingly being designed for 100 octane avgas- unavailble in Russia, which did have gasolines in the 75-80+ octane- and the Allison did well with that below about 8 thousand feet- where much of Russia's focus was- defending targets that required the Germans t come down to their level to even bomb accurately. The Blitzkrieg had no such problem; a bomb dropped from 10,000 feet or higher over a city will hit the city and do the intended damage while targets in Russia were often widely separated or located in areas that had little tactical or strategic value to Stalin; and Stalin had little compunction over the deaths of thousands of Russian peasants as long as no one wasted Russian bullets to kill them. The higher octane help reduce the destructive engine knock from the much higher cylinder pressures and allows more ignition timing, all of which gain power- which the English and the Americans wee a bit spoiled for. BTW, the Americans, who also provided the bulk of fuels and lubricants used by all Allies only shipped low octane avgas to Russia, so it was do with what you had of die for them. Ed usually does better, IMHO, anyway! FR
The P-51 was designed at the behest of the British Purchase Commission prior to US entry into the war. The US Army saw it and liked it, but was not authorized to spend any money on another fighter plane at that time. There was no prohibition on spending money on attack aircraft, so they ordered the Apache.
@gort8203 You have no idea what you are talking about. Please go read some books about the P51, Dutch Kindleberg (sp) and Edgar Schmud (sp). The BPC wanted NA to build P40s under license.
when i imagine war on the eastern front between german and soviet aircraft i see incredibly low altitude dogfights which makes so much sense in retrospect why the soviets loved this airframe so much
The soviets used the aircraft in a primary air to ground role, as I have long believed. Which marked out its role for troop support, its relatively heavy armament suggests an excellent tank buster. This, along with the engine's ability to operate on relatively low octane fuel of the soviets, marked it out from the Spitfires provided to them (a notably demanding engine with regard to RON)
Your statement regarding the turbo supercharger is incorrect. "Before the Aircobra went into production the National Advisory Committee of Aeronautics (NACA) Langley Field, VA recommended several modifications one of which was the removal of the turbo super-charger. Despite the Army stated requirements this change was a reflection of the mind set of the time that pursuit planes were for air-to-ground support not high-altitude interceptors. The Government, not Bell, doomed the plane to inadequate high-altitude performance." This is from "Little Friends," Volume 1 by Tom Mullen.
I have read that the decision to use the single stage supercharged L-1710 instead of the turbocharged version was done because General Electric was short of production capacity and the Air Corp wanted them all for P-38's. One of the reasons for the unusual layout of the P-39 aircraft was to make the turbocharged L-1710 fit better. The production P-39 was an attempt to build the aircraft with aerodynamic improvements to make up for the performance limits of the lesser engine.. At lower altitudes it worked reasonably well.
I am suspicious of anything the Royal Air Force says. The American P-38 Lightning was designed with 2 Alison 12cylinder Supercharged engines. 1400hp 25,000 ceiling Top Speed 400+mph 4x50mm brownings + 1 20mm Cannon in the nose. The RAF ordered 3 but with no super chargers (to cut costs) and complained that the plane was a 🍋 lemon. Saying she didn’t have a 25,000 ceiling and was only getting a 350mph speed. So the RAF canceled a much larger order.
RAF and France ordered nearly 700 without superchargers because superchargers were in short supply and would delay delivery. Lockheed still overclaimed on performance. Britain later tested three loaned aircraft.
Try to learn the meaning of supercharger and turbo-supercharger, usually referred to as a turbocharger. The Brit P-38s had superchargers driven by the crankshaft not turbochargers driven by the exhaust gasses. The only Allisons without any form of super/turbocharging were early units used on American airships.
While the P400 did not have a turbocharger I think the P39 did? The 20mm instead of the 37mm gun was not that much of a disadvantage as the 37mm gun was known for jamming. (a problem with the ammo in the magazine in higher "G" maneuvers). The major reason the P400s were only used for low altitude fights in the Pacific was that the P400s had the RAF oxygen system that was not compatible with US equipment meaning the pilots did not have any oxygen so flights above 12,000 feet were not recomended. I wonder about the RAF procurment system as they ordered the P38 without turbochargers and with both props turning in the same direction. (the P38s had props turning in opposite directions to better the airflow over the wings) And they were disappointed in the performance???LOL
Although it wasn't so much a decision as them just not being available. The real mistake is Allison not developing a 2nd stage supercharger. This would have "fixed" the Allison engine and the both the p40 and p39. You can file that along with a working mk14 torpedo though.
Don't give me a P-39, With an engine that's mounted behind, It will tumble and roll, And dig a big hole, Don't give me a P-39. From Chuck Yeagers book "Yeager"
Sadly no room for a two stage supercharger. NACA not Bell, was the pusher for slick aerodynamics over bigger two stage boost. Bell agreed, while aircraft designer was in the UK on assignment.
I was always intrigued by the appearance of the Bell P-39 and remember building a plastic model of one. The tricycle landing gear, the engine in the rear, the "car door" pilot entry, the cannon through the propeller, all made it a unique fighter plane. It's sad to hear it was such a poor performer. That an American company would defraud an ally while it was fighting for its life against Germany is even sadder. Well, at the Soviet Union was happy to use them.
"Performance fell off above 13,000 feet..." In fairness to the Airacobra, the Curtiss P-40/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk fighters had exactly the same issue because they were powered by exactly the same engine. In fact, according to the performance figures, the P-39 actually had superior performance to the P-40. That was one of the reasons why the Soviets preferred the Airacobra. However, some other features that British pilots did not like about the Airacobra were its' mixed armament with different ballistic characteristics (20-mm cannon, .50 caliber MGs and .30 caliber MGs), the car-type cockpit access doors and the stalky tricycle landing gear. The British regarded that last feature as a major issue because most British airfields were unpaved grass, dirt or sand airstrips, frequently pock-marked with bomb craters. In addition, even the Soviets admitted that the P-40 could out-maneuver the Airacobra and that a pilot could put an Airacobra into a dangerous flat spin if he mishandled it. Incidentally, it was not Bell that insisted upon dispensing with the turbo-supercharger used in the P-39 prototype, it was the U.S. Army Air Corps. In their wisdom, the Air Corps brass decided that air combat would probably not be carried on at higher altitudes than that, so that the supercharger would be an unnecessary additional complication and expense.
All true, but the stalky landing gear didn't seem to bother the Soviets very much, and their airfields tended to be very rough, afaik. I guess if you like a lot of a plane's features you manage to get along with all its characteristics.
In all my experience reading about the development of different aircraft throughout history, I’ve come to realize that when a military decides to remove something from a design because it “won’t be needed” it seems to guarantee that the item will, in fact, be needed.
The Soviets used them successfully from unimproved airstrips.
@@luvr381 Rough strips yes, but also fairly long strips, often with dense dry cold air. This allowed lower speeds and sink rates than the shorter strips and warmer climates where allies complained of the warbirds failings, and with less aggressive braking to transfer weight forwards AND the training to keep back pressure on the stick during such you could balence the plane mostly on the rear pair during all but the slowest speed movements. This is normal for modern GA planes, but something unheard of to people landing tail draggers (like basically every other fighter, and training aircraft of the time), where takeoff/landing with the aircraft much off level risked an accident.
I'm sure you have some documentation to back up your claim the USAAC killed the turbocharger (not supercharger, the Allison already had a supercharger). The USAAC was as busy as they could be putting turbochargers on such a varied group of planes as the P38, P47, and B17. High altitude was where they explicitly wanted to do their fighting.
Excellent mini-documentary. The P-39 was a visually stunning looking aircraft. With lot's of promise but introduced to early.
Thank you Ed, this is the way mini+documentaries should be.
Fast moving, with out fillers. If you can't tell I really enjoyed it :-)
Lol very happy to hear it :D
Ditto
@@RedViking2020 ditto ditto
I am glad that in recent years the P-39/P-400 finally getting some credit for the good aircraft that it was when properly employed.
Read the Wright Field test pilot's report. Unstable gun platform, stick forces unacceptably light under accelerated g manouvers, poor recovery characteristics after the stall, over heating engine, etc. Tumble and spin was an issue in training units causing a high casualty rate. The Allison engine also had issues with detonation, thrown rods, etc.
Beautiful aircraft at 1:42. Smooth curvy lines and it's roundness and all that
Such a clean and slippery design, love it!
My mother and one of her brothers worked in the Bell plant in the Buffalo NY area. She worked in the drafting department, I don't know what my uncle did. The only thing remaining of the plant is a plaque in the parking lot of Buffalo International Airport.
The best quote ever regarding the P-400
"A P-400 is just a P-40 with a Zero on their tail."
The Airacobra’s redemption continues.
The film of RAF planes is especially appreciated!
its kind of a false redemption since yeah the plane wasn't as bad as its WW2 reputation in truth it wasn't that good either. Too many were looking at raw numbers and not the actual reason the western allies hated it...it was unstable and the centre of gravity was downright dangerous. The Russians ? Well ok the russians liked it better than some other planes in their arsenal because it "worked" Still had those same issues and if you look at the kill lists of the German super aces you'll see 2 fighters dominate The Lag-3 and thee Yak-1 but not too far behind was the P-39 so while the Russian aces did have success the other lesser pilots were still being shot down in droves just like anywhere else you have less experienced pilots.... the same can't be said of the P-51
@@mikepette4422, "wasn't that good either" is right. Everyone points to the success by Red Air Force and their "Kobras." But put those dogs in the air against the Luftwaffe of 1940 and the record would've been quite different. Much like the dismal record of the USAAF against the Japanese. Both fronts saw combat at fairly low altitude.
It's a shame this Airacobra revisionist history couldn't be commented on by pilots who flew it in anger. I've been reading military history for 40+ years and NEVER came across a P-40 or F4F pilot that wished they flew the P-39 in the Solomons. Any Spitfire pilot would laugh in the face of someone suggesting the P-400 was just as good as his mount.
Outstanding, concise, revelatory and without a doubt, entertaining, historical and educational. Put you're feet up and have a drink.
Thank you for this video. This is one of my favorite aircraft of the war and your video finally does it justice. It points out both the good and bad of the design. Well done
Always liked the look of the Aircobra
A Russian P39 Ace said quite succinctly (to an American interviewer apparently) "We knew how to fly it. You didn't".
LOL, it was very unstable near the stall and didn't make a good gun platform for air combat according to Wright Field. The many who couldn't fly it were sent to the infantry.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Funny the Russkies didn't seem to have those problems. Think in their hands it shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Allied fighter.
@@tomhart837 firstly, don't be conned by Soviet claims. Secondly, the soviets would never have admitted the number of accidents and training fatalities. The problems of the P-39 were well documented in the US, which is why it was mainly an escort op fighter.
P-39 - my favorite one of WWII vintage. And the 400 model is not left out-those are cool. It would be a fantasy come true to fly one.
Greg just did a great series of videos on this underappreciated aircraft. Personally, I think the British version with the 20mm is an even better idea than the 37. If Bell had had the time to clean up the aerodynamics of the turbocharger, this could have been as famous as the P47 or P51.
No. It might have been a great short range fighter but the small wing and airframe would limit range.
Think about it: a 20mm cannon and two 12.7mm machine guns were the upgraded Me-109 armament, in 1943! So there was space for better balance on the P-39 armament. Getting hid of the "paint scratchers" 7,7mm wing guns would lower the weight and increase performance and range, something the Soviets did in the field.
Also, both P-39 and P-40 suffered from a lack of development of the V-1710 supercharger. Allison could had made a version for those two fighters with different altitude profiles, like RR did with the Merlin. But when the dual supercharger model finally came in the end of 1943, it was too late.
I'm of the opinion that the P-39 suffered not only the incompetence from Bell, but also from a good guidance by USAAF officials, toward where to direct the aircraft's evolution, like getting hid of the ridiculous "car door" arrangement.
Agreed.. The 20 mm and .50 in the wings was the best balance.. the King Cobra was the best version..
@@magoid
The whole single speed mechanical supercharger issue has its roots in the mid 30s decision on the Army Air Corps to use turbosuperchargers for higher altitudes. Given the increased demand for turbos with bomber production soaring the Allison aside from the ones used in the P-38s were stuck. Should Allison have more effort earlier into a two speed two stage mechanical supercharger. In hindsight, yes they should have. Another thing that could have been done. And was done by the Australians flying P-40s was to increase the manifold pressure increasing power. This wouldn't solve all of the high altitude problems but it would help.
When it came time for Bell to build the P-59 (now there's a real dog) sometimes I think that they just should have put 1 GE built version of the early jet engine in a modified P-39 airframe. Even though the P-59* was a dog it did provide valuable service for the USAAF in that it allowed for experience operating and maintaining jet aircraft without the added strain of combat operations.
*Should have been named the Aerodog
I've always rooted for the P-39 an A-V1710. I "what if" P-39 history a lot. Still, its small airframe limited range and development.
That and timing issues. A looking glass and 9 mos more dev could have it great if the rest of the world stopped moving.
Part of why the turbo got nixxed was the obsession aeronautical engineers had with streamlining at the time. The original P-39 prototype was a hot rod that was set to dominate the sky, but then it got "streamlined." Making Bell one of the few aircraft companies to take a silk purse and turn it into a pigs ear.
The other part was just space... look at a cross section of the P38, plumbing goes almost all the way back to the tail. To get the same turbo (and keep in mind its the same engine) in less length either would have had big thermal issues, massive drag, or much wider fusilage, and the actual turbo fighters of the same vintage that flew had one or more of these faults... the P38 was the least impacted because of its large size, but even there the need for many cooling intakes/exhausts resulted in a very disrupted air-stream, and thus high altitude speeds that where matched by supercharged aircraft of only a couple years later. Go see the Gregs video on this matter, because the evidence that we have suggests more that they couldn't make the turbosupercharger work with staff, time and budget they actually had, rather than a top down decision to cancel it in favor of another approach.
I'm getting to the end of your video library now. I pulled this one up, only to realize once I'd started that I'd already seen it. But the video is so good I watched it again.
All of these videos avoid the common mistakes I run into in RUclips Aviation content, they're not snarky and conceited, they're not running with the hype meter pegged into doomsday overdrive, they're highly accurate, and they don't have that grandiose 'I love to hear myself talk' quality that I find so off-putting on other channels. Also, generally, what we see is what you're talking about, and if it isn't, you're careful to note that.
I have to conclude that you've had formal training in history, or writing, or both. Well done.
High praise, thank you!
Finished! I better get and make some more then 😁
Excellent work on this mini-doc. Very well discussed from the angles and situation of it's time. Thank you.
The iron dog was in fairness a good low altitude fighter that found itself in a mid-high altitude airforce. When placed in the right conditions would often compared favorably with bf-109f and fw-109a.
Exactly. It was a monster at low altitude.
I agree, look at the argument i have with W Bertie right now. he does not agree with us.
If they had added a turbocharger it would have been exceptional at high altitude as well.
@@gtdcoder probably, but it found its place in history
I've also read that the Soviets liked the P-39 because it had a cockpit heater (woah!). And since the over all climate in the Russias is, well, below tropical, the P-39 rarely overheated during ground taxi operations. Lastly, I have to believe that the pilots loved the P-39 and P-63 car-doors (with roll up windows) because, up to and through this era, few Soviet citizens could afford an automobile!
Very interesting details of the British experience with this plane. For anyone who wants to explore a thicket of technical detail, Greg's Airplanes & Automobiles did a lengthy video comparing the US and Soviet experience a few weeks ago. Lots of great photos. ruclips.net/video/l_pziH3tI9o/видео.html
Anyone who wants to learn more about how ww2 fighters worked owes it to themselves to watch Greg's channel, I learned so much from him
brilliant! still got a photo of a wrecked cobra from Betikama school "museum" on Guadalcanal, need to dig it up now!
Excellent....a video on the P 63 would be appreciated...even if it was a short one.
Nice one, another well researched and presented documentary about a lesser known subject, didn't know the Brits had them at all!
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they were used against the Japanese in burma.
Many American pilots in New Guinea preferred the 20mm over the 37mm that they referred to as tossing a grapefruit
The 20mm is probably more than good enough, anyway ! (?)
- 37mm sounds like a beast !
Yes. Also the P400 was effective on Guadalcanal in the strafing role. That 20 mm worked well against Japanese positions fortified with coconut logs.
Thank you for covering this aircraft. Great presentation appreciate the insights.
Its such pretty plane that it's good to hear it wasn't a failure. Comparing it to the stubby cigar Karpov, plowing along pushing their frontal area through the sky, the mid engine lsyout makes so much more sense in aerodynamics, weight distrihution, pilot's vision and the coaxial canon.
One of the issues that you didn't mention was the decision to not have external radiators and coolers, but to bury them all in the wing centre section. Along with the wheel wells, this used much of the space that could have held fuel tanks, so the P-39 was of limited mission range.
Seen many accounts of the history of this aircraft.....this is the best so far.
Another really informative video, the way you drew out the reasons why different air forces had differing views/experiences of the type was particularly insightful. As always, thank you for all the work you put into your channel. Exceptional.
Man I wish I knew how great it felt to fly a plane like that
It was just as exciting to be able to work on them.
I used to have a copy of the WW2-produced book "Britain's Wonderful Airforce" from around 1941 and it rated the P-400 highly. And the Manchester.
which goes to show how much what was written during war time was pure propaganda
@@mikepette4422 I also owned a book by the British Communist party from early 1941 saying how awful Churchill was, which I bought as I was just surprised it got published!
In fact the soviet Air Force said that both p-39s and p-63s are the soviet pilots most favourite lead lease aircraft ever better then the la-5s and yak-9s
The sharks teeth paint job makes it look like an angry dormouse (LOL).
I believe the one RAF squadron equipped with them was based at Duxford. Great video as always Ed, especially as it's such an interesting aircraft.
Soviet designers and pilots worked with Bell engineers to improve the planes. They were able to improve the performance and serviceability, along with potency. The post war head of IBM was in Moscow working on this, continuously.
If anyone would like more information on this aircraft, they should check out the videos covering it on the channel "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles''. A crucial factor in its performance issues was that it was designed to include a turbocharger that turned out to be unavailable to them.
I love that Greg is being mentioned a few times here, his overviews of usage and details of aircraft are very comprehensive.
Even if it was available it wouldnt work, where do you put it? Outside is the answer where it causes huge drag.
@@johnbrewer8954 Plane was designed with it in mind, it wasn't an afterthought.
@@Theonixco Tell me where it goes then, route the exhausts to where it is and route the air back to the carb. There are pics on the net and it is a right dogs dinner. The Turbo gives no advantage at low altitude, in fact it eliminates exhaust thrust and adds weight and drag, so it would have been a dog at all altitudes.
@@Theonixco So true
One thing about the P-39 was that it's main armament was in the fuselage. If you look at Soviet Fighter Aircraft - their main armament tends to be in the fuselage. So - here - you have an aircraft that fits right in with the Soviet Way of Doing Things.
Often times they would take the guns out fo the wings to increase the aircraft's roll rate.
The other thing they loved about Lend Lease Aircraft - is that if they still had the radios in them - they were very good radios, which Soviet Aircraft did not have.
.
I think it funny that when Japan started a space program the astronauts demanded Motorola radios that had already been tested.
I’m glad that the Commemorative Air Force has both the P-39 AND P-63 in flying status. The Peachtree Air Base in Georgia has the P-63. The Central Texas Wing has the P-39. I love seeing them on display and flying. Both are very beautiful airframes
If only they had made the P-63 first. Most probs ironed out. Perfect example of how to craft a youtube doc video. Ed Nash rocks again. :-)
All the things I didn't know I didn't know. Bravo sir.
Interestingly Chuck Yeager wrote in his biography that he liked the P-39. But it must be kept in mind that he said this early in his flying career before he was able to compare it against other fighters.
he still liked it but what struck me is his high regard for the FW 190
This is parallel in certain ways to the Buffalo's story. Most air forces considered it a dog, but the Finns loved the tubby little bastiche. Apparently it had terrific cold weather performance.
Many thanx Ed 👍👍
The decisions regarding turbo super charger being removed was driven NACA wind tunnel test. The intakes cause significant parasitic drag. The Army Air Corps officer in charge of the program made the decision based on the NACA report. The officers name was Ben Kelsey. The Kingcobra was what Bell wanted to build, essentially. On the deck the the Aircobra was marginally faster than the Zero.
Yeah, they needed cash so it seems like they just didn't have time to solve the issues with the turbo.
@@kyle857 The officer in charge of the program, Ben Kelsey ordered the change.
Hang on, is it a turbo or a super charger (compressor)? In my limited knowledge of engines those are totally different ways of adding power to a combustion engine. A turbo is driven by the exhaust while a compressor is power by the engines it self. The difference is that the compressor gives extra air directly, while the turbo needs a higher revs to increase the air to the engine. Sorry for my bad technical English. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, as I said I’m not an engine expert (far from it).
@@Hiznogood High altitude performance requires, typically, a two stage turbo supercharge. In automobile use you get single stage turbo or super chargers. Air craft during WWII and for while after still used reciprocating engines. Greg, a pilot does a better job explaining them than I can. ruclips.net/user/GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer I believe Kelsey said he was disappointed that the turbo wasn't pursued on it. Also think he got taken off the fighter program andtransferred to England about this time.
Great presentation and analysis.
Why doesnt anyone ever mention that being a fighter with a mid engine the center of mass was placed in the most advantageous place for maneuverability ? This is no doubt what the Soviets liked plus the fact that the cockpit arrangement was superior to Soviet aircraft.
Because it's not true.
It had a cockpit heater
Alas though, no room for a two stage supercharger.
I've no idea if this is true of just a historical urban legend, but I've heard that the decision to eliminate the turbo-supercharger's scoop was made by the US Army Air Corps who, at the time, had a bee in their bonnet about "negative" (i.e. unnecessary) drag on airframes, and ordered Bell to lose the scoop, crippling the Airacobra. It might be that this was just an exculpatory myth put out by Bell themselves to divert blame for sharp practices, but on the other hand there is no deadlier opponent of military aircraft than bureaucrats.
Nice video. Fyi, the photo starting at 12:23 is the specially modified, high speed aircraft. You can see the bulged fairing to smooth air over the exhaust manifolds, and the shortened tail.
I always loved these.
Yeah couple of things in the Soviets favour, they generally preferred cannons which mitigated the requirement for pilot accuracy, and almost all the combat on the Eastern Front was at low level partly as combat was less structured but also as the Soviets needed to fly low to navigate, finally most of the combat was tactical strikes and counter tactical air cover, very little in the way of high altitude strategic bombing and interception/escort (the largest strategic bombing mission on the Eastern Front during the war occurred in 1943 and had about 50 aircraft on both sides).
It's sadly refreshing to see that politicians and corporations have had their fair share of shysters throughout history - and even when the free world was at stake!
To make a slight correction, the P39's did have an engine driven turbocharger on the Allison but they did not have the exhaust driven turbocharger for a couple of reasons to include, they were told they could not have very many of the Spuerchargers because they were allocated to P-38's production, also, they could not get the aerodynamics straightened out and the early superchargers they did have on hand, weren't giving the power expected and actually slowed the prototypes top speed down a few knots iirc. As the P -39 was being spooled up for production, NACA released a critical report of aerodynamics that, had its lessons been implemented, would have drastically improved it's high altitude performance and the issues with the drag caused by the supercharger would have been alleviated. Bell had contracts in hand, and orders placed and could not afford the time for the redesign so they went ahead with what they had. The P63 did have some of the improvements but it wasn't enough to beat the later P51, which happened to still be in the paper design stage when the NACA report came out and thus, utilized as much of the improvements as possible and as such was so much faster for the same HP.
Like number 100 over here :D Another great video Ed!
Thank you for sharing.🙂🙂
Always liked it for some reason. In US service it served as advanced trainer also.
The Alison V-1710 had a single stage blower because they were told General Electric would make the turbo chargers. GE struggled but the turbos did eventually arrive for the twin engine P-38. The installation took up huge space so was never suitable for P-39.
I am surprised the RAF did not use the Airacobra I in the Western Desert as a ground attack fighter. In this role it performed well on the Russian Front. Below 10,000 feet the Airacobra was a pretty capable fighter. In many ways it enjoyed a superior performance to the Curtiss P 40E Kittyhawk.
Excellent video!
Love your work Ed and a big fan of the Airacobra don’t know why I just like underdogs I guess 🤷🏻♂️ still waiting for the.. Blackburn Firebrand.. video I’ve only been asking 2.5 years but that’s ok take your time. 😁👍
Lol hang in there 😁
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Thanks Ed 😂
You had me a Bell P39/400. Interesting plane.
the P-39 achieved a 2:1 to 5:1 kill ratio against Japanese airplanes in the south pacific according to multiple mission reports. and was not as bad as believed. Later improvements leading to teh P-39Q made noticeable performance improvements. The P-39 was used as a low level striker and pilots did not get to fly it against Japanese aircraft using appropriate tactics, thus helping give it a bad reputation early on, and even some US pilots are on the record admitting they were unfairly harsh on the P-39 early in the war.
Kill claims by BOTH sides look like that, and actual numbers of aircraft delivered to the front lines allow neither to be true. In addition the Japanese early on in south pacific where more experienced, better trained, better supplied ect than the allies to first meet them, and so its VERY unlikely such odds where attainable, let alone tolerated by an enemy who could observe the results and was deciding the next action. Indeed it was this adverse context that lead most later commentary to admit they viewed the technical merit of the aircraft to harshly, because they saw it when the deck was stacked against it, and compared to aircraft in other theaters that where less disadvantaged.
@@SheepInACart the Japanese could no more observe the results with accuracy any more than US pilots could. Not all south Pacific pilots were among the Japanese most trained and experienced.
Yes, overcounting is a thing, but we're also talking analysis of reports done in hindsight. You can't claim 2:1 or 5:1 success if all your P-39 were shot down, so consider teh US point of view as well in their reports.
The point is, the P-39 was a better plane and more capable even against teh Japanese than most people believe. It was not amazing compared to other planes soon to be available, but it could hold its own.
I anxiously await a review on the xp-67😁
These are what we’re used on Guadalcanal by the US, but having a high pressure oxygen system we on the canal didn’t have the set up to fill it.
09:13 I also recommend that you should check out Greg's video on the Aircobra. Its the most detailed video on that airplane.
Excellent analysis of a unique and useful low level fighter.
Hay can you do a video on the b-18 bomber that won over the first b-17 models in America's first major bomber competition. It is really forgotten even though it proved to be critical in the Caribbean campaign.
B 18 is very much on (long long long) list :)
Fascinating video.
If Bell had managed to get a V-1710 engine with *PROPER* turbocharging, both the P-39 and P-63 would have been great fighters that would have lasted in service throughout World War II.
Had allways heard the p400 was equipped with a 20mm due to British request
Also the allison manifold pressure was able to be turned up in the cold north for russia and had issues in the heat of china and was forced to run lower boost
Always an amazing day when Ed post a video.
Ed could you do a video on the westland wyvern
One of these days. It's very much on the list ;)
Absolutely! Heck, he could do a documentary on the History of Vacuum Cleaners and it'd be great!
@@egberthigglewonk4520 😄
Germany’s Erich Hartmann once shot down 10 Russian P39 Airacobras in one day! To be fair, he was the world’s highest scoring fighter Ace with 352 kills.
I remember the P-39, even P-63, but I don't remember this one. I know that Curtis had multiple variance of the P-40.
This is the best thing I ever saw.
With the addition of some armor it would've been a great ground attack plane. The Allison engines needed super charging for high alt.
The aircraft was already heavy for its size, with high wing loadings and needing long takeoff runs. Armor would worsen that, while taking the edge off its turning performance advantage AND further reducing effective combat altitudes that where already an issue... it would be fine when actually shooting at things on the ground, but totally unsuited for the entirety of the rest of what that role requires. Armor's effectiveness at stopping a hull loss would also have been limited somewhat by the single water cooled engine, while dozens of large, aircooled planes where already in combat zones to be fitted with gunpods or rockets that outmatched the aerocobra's internal armament should it be viable to sacrifice their ability to participate against other fighters somewhat. Finally rerember close air supports role is mostly one of moral effect (both on your allies, and opposition), so large, loud and flashy is actually more important than quick or precise.
One more thing: Was the engine in the P-39 series a stressed member of the airframe?
No it wasn't
There were really two P-39s, the 1942 models (D, F, K, L) and the 1943 models (M, N, Q) with uprated engines. The vast majority supplied to the Soviets were the later 1943 models and these were fully the equals of the German Me109 and FW190 at all altitudes. The U.S. Army Air Force (AAF) struggled with their P-39s in 1942 until they instituted a weight reduction program In September by removing 650 pounds of unnecessary weight which greatly improved climb and ceiling, outclimbing the Japanese fighters while retaining their 50mph speed advantage.
Just a point of order. The engine placement was not done in order to place the big gun up front, but to allow a more streamlined nose. Ironic since when NACA tested the early plane it was found to have a ton of drag, being even less slippery than a Buffalo. Most of the problems with drag were fixed, but it did mean they ended uo ditching the turbo. Hence the poor high altitude performance.
the plane was literally built around the 37mm cannon, to say they did it for slightly more streamlining isn't true
@@echodelta2172 I've read that another reason for the mid-engine layout was to allow a tricycle undercarriage, which it was thought would reduce the high incidence of landing accidents suffered by tailwheel types.
@@echodelta2172 According to the primary documentation from Bell, you are incorrect.
And about the Buffalo, the story of both is relatively similar. A "dog" for the allies it did wonders with the Finns. Because it was essentially a very early "light" model and other reasons.
Well actually that is not a point of order, it is an opinion. One I suspect you got from Greg’s P-39 video. I am a Patreon supporter of Greg, but I do not buy that opinion, which is based on a magazine article written by a Bell executive. I think the writer was trying to present the aircraft as relevant even though it had failed to meet its original design intent, while burnishing the reputation of Bell as an innovator.
However, the nose is not really more streamlined in terms of the ideal shape in subsonic flow. The airplane was clean in its use of buried heat exchangers, but even so the overall drag was found to be high in reality, which disproves the supposed benefit of the pointy nose.
The specification called for a 37mm gun (to kill bombers) which would have been very difficult to install alongside an engine, a problem solved by the then unconventional aft mounted engine. Considering the extra weight of the drive shaft along with the dubious aerodynamic advantages, the 37mm gun remains the most reasonable primary purpose behind the configuration of this aircraft, one that a single magazine article cannot disprove.
One thing that is often overlooked in the lend-lease gear is, that the radios used in US aircraft were far superior to domestic russian ones.
And every single plane had them, which was not the case with their own I-16 or I-153 stock.
That opened a whole new tactical dimension for soviet front aviation.
i can recall some soviet era aviator saying on their p-39s , they had removed 750lbs of armor plate and greatly over-boosted the engine when they had good fuel and the good fuel and the 39s arrived at the same time--
P40 was far more tractable than the P39 because it carried about 35 gallon more fuel.
Once the P40 reduced it fuel it climbed almost as well and was more agile. P39 was only about 5mph faster.
Both early planes we excellent below 15k.
The Brits and Russian ignored the Boost limits.
Brits used the 130 octane allowed the newer Allison Engines to run at 1800hp on WEP.. Both P51A annd P40 were quite different animals.
Not sure 130 octane was used inthe P39. But would have given it quite a boost in speed. Which they discovered with the air races after WW2.
Bell was clearly following the late 30s design brief "match the most powerful engine to the smallest, most aerodynamic fuselage". But Republic and Grumman proved that a larger fuselage was OK as long as you compensated with more horsepower. If Bell had added a good supercharger (or even better, used the Merlin) that required a modest sacrifice in size and weight it might have made a difference.
The Allison 1740 V12 and the RR Merlin had many similarities in the basic engine- the biggest difference was the compound supercharging on the Merlin. SC's and turbo chargers were designed to increase the incoming air pressure to regain hp lost by dwindling pressure at higher elevations- the Allison didn't have any so it had what it took off with and every thousand feet higher it had to go, the less available hp. The second difference is an outgrowth of the first; GB and the US engines were increasingly being designed for 100 octane avgas- unavailble in Russia, which did have gasolines in the 75-80+ octane- and the Allison did well with that below about 8 thousand feet- where much of Russia's focus was- defending targets that required the Germans t come down to their level to even bomb accurately. The Blitzkrieg had no such problem; a bomb dropped from 10,000 feet or higher over a city will hit the city and do the intended damage while targets in Russia were often widely separated or located in areas that had little tactical or strategic value to Stalin; and Stalin had little compunction over the deaths of thousands of Russian peasants as long as no one wasted Russian bullets to kill them. The higher octane help reduce the destructive engine knock from the much higher cylinder pressures and allows more ignition timing, all of which gain power- which the English and the Americans wee a bit spoiled for. BTW, the Americans, who also provided the bulk of fuels and lubricants used by all Allies only shipped low octane avgas to Russia, so it was do with what you had of die for them. Ed usually does better, IMHO, anyway! FR
There's a whole raft of aircraft that could have been improved with Merlins.
A modernize P-39 with turbo prop engine would be a good counter insurgent aircraft like the A-29 Super Tucano.
Could you (please) make a video about the origins of the North American A-36 Apache , the often forgotten dive bomber variant of the P 51 Mustang
Oh yes! Very much on the "to do list"
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters most appreciated !!
The P-51 was designed at the behest of the British Purchase Commission prior to US entry into the war. The US Army saw it and liked it, but was not authorized to spend any money on another fighter plane at that time. There was no prohibition on spending money on attack aircraft, so they ordered the Apache.
@gort8203 You have no idea what you are talking about. Please go read some books about the P51, Dutch Kindleberg (sp) and Edgar Schmud (sp). The BPC wanted NA to build P40s under license.
when i imagine war on the eastern front between german and soviet aircraft i see incredibly low altitude dogfights which makes so much sense in retrospect why the soviets loved this airframe so much
The soviets used the aircraft in a primary air to ground role, as I have long believed. Which marked out its role for troop support, its relatively heavy armament suggests an excellent tank buster. This, along with the engine's ability to operate on relatively low octane fuel of the soviets, marked it out from the Spitfires provided to them (a notably demanding engine with regard to RON)
More Cobras, YES! :D Thank you! :)
Love the P-400 joke!
Your statement regarding the turbo supercharger is incorrect. "Before the Aircobra went into production the National Advisory Committee of Aeronautics (NACA) Langley Field, VA recommended several modifications one of which was the removal of the turbo super-charger. Despite the Army stated requirements this change was a reflection of the mind set of the time that pursuit planes were for air-to-ground support not high-altitude interceptors. The Government, not Bell, doomed the plane to inadequate high-altitude performance." This is from "Little Friends," Volume 1 by Tom Mullen.
USA not obligated to partially defend the greatest Empire in history . We had our own gross inadequacies in national defense to address. Thank You!
I have read that the decision to use the single stage supercharged L-1710 instead of the turbocharged version was done because General Electric was short of production capacity and the Air Corp wanted them all for P-38's. One of the reasons for the unusual layout of the P-39 aircraft was to make the turbocharged L-1710 fit better. The production P-39 was an attempt to build the aircraft with aerodynamic improvements to make up for the performance limits of the lesser engine.. At lower altitudes it worked reasonably well.
The P-36 didn't use turbocharging.
@@wbertie2604 I think he ment the P-38.
I am suspicious of anything the Royal Air Force says. The American P-38 Lightning was designed with 2 Alison 12cylinder Supercharged engines. 1400hp 25,000 ceiling Top Speed 400+mph 4x50mm brownings + 1 20mm Cannon in the nose.
The RAF ordered 3 but with no super chargers (to cut costs) and complained that the plane was a 🍋 lemon. Saying she didn’t have a 25,000 ceiling and was only getting a 350mph speed. So the RAF canceled a much larger order.
RAF and France ordered nearly 700 without superchargers because superchargers were in short supply and would delay delivery. Lockheed still overclaimed on performance. Britain later tested three loaned aircraft.
Try to learn the meaning of supercharger and turbo-supercharger, usually referred to as a turbocharger. The Brit P-38s had superchargers driven by the crankshaft not turbochargers driven by the exhaust gasses. The only Allisons without any form of super/turbocharging were early units used on American airships.
While the P400 did not have a turbocharger I think the P39 did? The 20mm instead of the 37mm gun was not that much of a disadvantage as the 37mm gun was known for jamming. (a problem with the ammo in the magazine in higher "G" maneuvers). The major reason the P400s were only used for low altitude fights in the Pacific was that the P400s had the RAF oxygen system that was not compatible with US equipment meaning the pilots did not have any oxygen so flights above 12,000 feet were not recomended.
I wonder about the RAF procurment system as they ordered the P38 without turbochargers and with both props turning in the same direction. (the P38s had props turning in opposite directions to better the airflow over the wings) And they were disappointed in the performance???LOL
No mention by Ed of the unusual engine layout.
1:26
They really screwed up when they decided not to put the turbo supercharger on the p39.
Although it wasn't so much a decision as them just not being available.
The real mistake is Allison not developing a 2nd stage supercharger. This would have "fixed" the Allison engine and the both the p40 and p39.
You can file that along with a working mk14 torpedo though.
The joke in the Pacific was that a P 400 was a P 39 with a Zero on it's tail.
Don't give me a P-39,
With an engine that's mounted behind,
It will tumble and roll,
And dig a big hole,
Don't give me a P-39.
From Chuck Yeagers book "Yeager"
Sadly no room for a two stage supercharger. NACA not Bell, was the pusher for slick aerodynamics over bigger two stage boost. Bell agreed, while aircraft designer was in the UK on assignment.
I was always intrigued by the appearance of the Bell P-39 and remember building a plastic model of one. The tricycle landing gear, the engine in the rear, the "car door" pilot entry, the cannon through the propeller, all made it a unique fighter plane. It's sad to hear it was such a poor performer. That an American company would defraud an ally while it was fighting for its life against Germany is even sadder. Well, at the Soviet Union was happy to use them.
I wonder what a RR Merlin engine and a bubble canopy would have done for this lemon of an aircraft?
"Cobra" WAY ahead of it's time.