What do you think of the bell p-39 was it a good dogfighter

[stalkervision]

I know someone that just raves about the p-39 and says Chuck Yeager loved it! What do you think about the plane. As good as the me-109?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One word: Nope!

[DAVIDICUS]

I'll second that motion.

[Aggie08]

quickly shot down...

if i recall correctly it worked fine at low altitudes and was used for attack with decent success and didnt work well at higher altitudes, something about the air intake i think. sound right to anyone else?

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-39 is the perfect example of what happens when the government continually changes a design requirement during development. The P-39 initially was designed as a high altitude interceptor, had a supercharger, and seemed to have a bright future. Then the AAF wanted the thing to drop bombs and carry additional equipment. When the supercharger went away the AAF forgot that fact and placed it in harms way and emplyed tactics which it got smacked around pretty good, although the export versions, the P-400 did well in some cases as it had a more reliable cannon and was employed at lower altitudes. The Russians obviously had success with it and Bell tried to improve the design with P-63, actually a much better aircraft. I had an uncle who was washed out of flight training, but had a chance to fly a P-39 and he always felt uneasy knowing that there was this long drive shaft between his legs!

If you ask me, the aircraft got a bad rap and was continually placed in roles by the AAF for which it wasn't intended. Would I want to fly against an ME-109 in one? HELL NO! Give me some trucks and trains to shoot at instead!

[cheddar cheese]

It was not a good plane. Although the Russians used them well, which leads me to draw the conclsion that it was a good plane with inaccessible performance. The P-39 was designed in the same specification as the P-38 and P-40. Look how much more successful the P-38 was that both these aircraft! 2 englines, with superchargers, are better than one castrated engine (obviously )

But no. It really wasnt a good plane.

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-39 was designed in the same specification as the P-38 and P-40. Look how much more successful the P-38 was that both these aircraft! 2 englines, with superchargers, are better than one castrated engine (obviously )

But no. It really wasnt a good plane.

That's because the USAAF left the P-38 design board alone as the aircraft was so advanced. The man responsible for the P-38 desgin was probably smarter than the whole USAAF procurement board!

[cheddar cheese]

Oh I agree, Kelly Johnson was a great man. He knew what he was doing.

[FLYBOYJ]

Oh I agree, Kelly Johnson was a great man. He knew what he was doing.

Yep - very tactfully he had a way of telling government beaucrafts to F#*k off, unless they brought a good idea to the table. Fortunetly people in high places left him alone and listened to him most of the time.

The P-63 was a much better aircraft, but still sub-par when compared to say a Mustang or P-38. I think I would of used it in lieu of the P-40.

[cheddar cheese]

Me too.

How did the P-39/P-63 cope as a Ground Attack plane?

[FLYBOYJ]

Me too.

How did the P-39/P-63 cope as a Ground Attack plane?

Real well, at least as far as the Russians go. I believe the P-63 climbed about 3400 FPM, and had a service ceiling of 43,000 ft, not bad for a "dog."

Believe it or not there was a plan to put a merlin in the P-63, but it never happened.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-39 is the perfect example of what happens when the government continually changes a design requirement during development. The P-39 initially was designed as a high altitude interceptor, had a supercharger, and seemed to have a bright future. Then the AAF wanted the thing to drop bombs and carry additional equipment. When the supercharger went away the AAF forgot that fact and placed it in harms way and emplyed tactics which it got smacked around pretty good, although the export versions, the P-400 did well in some cases as it had a more reliable cannon and was employed at lower altitudes. The Russians obviously had success with it and Bell tried to improve the design with P-63, actually a much better aircraft. I had an uncle who was washed out of flight training, but had a chance to fly a P-39 and he always felt uneasy knowing that there was this long drive shaft between his legs!

If you ask me, the aircraft got a bad rap and was continually placed in roles by the AAF for which it wasn't intended. Would I want to fly against an ME-109 in one? HELL NO! Give me some trucks and trains to shoot at instead!

Almost sounds like the German RLM!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Oh I agree, Kelly Johnson was a great man. He knew what he was doing.

Yep - very tactfully he had a way of telling government beaucrafts to F#*k off, unless they brought a good idea to the table. Fortunetly people in high places left him alone and listened to him most of the time.

The P-63 was a much better aircraft, but still sub-par when compared to say a Mustang or P-38. I think I would of used it in lieu of the P-40.

a great axample of how politics can effect an aircraft.....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And this was prevelant in Germany.

[FLYBOYJ]

Oh I agree, Kelly Johnson was a great man. He knew what he was doing.

Yep - very tactfully he had a way of telling government beaucrafts to F#*k off, unless they brought a good idea to the table. Fortunetly people in high places left him alone and listened to him most of the time.

The P-63 was a much better aircraft, but still sub-par when compared to say a Mustang or P-38. I think I would of used it in lieu of the P-40.

a great axample of how politics can effect an aircraft.....

Very true my young friend! I think Bell just went along with what the government wanted and when things didn't work, it was real easy to blame the contractor for buiding a bad plane, although that same bad plane worked well with the Russians, were built in huge numbers, and still made someone very rich!