WI: The P-39 was succesful?

P-400s never had a 37 mm to donate. The 37 mm cannons came from P-39s. IIRC, these were P-39s that were no longer repairable.

Well if nothing else, the P-400's on Guadalcanal donated many of their 37mm cannons to PT Boats.

I personally like the look of the P-39, but freely admit it had several disadvantages. One not mentioned is that the car doors could not be opened very easily if the pilot had to bail out.
 
P-400s never had a 37 mm to donate. The 37 mm cannons came from P-39s. IIRC, these were P-39s that were no longer repairable.

I stand corrected. I thought I had recalled that the first AAF planes on Guadalcanal were P-400s equipped with the 37mm cannons. It was from there I thought I had read that some of the PT Boats started to mount the cannons to combat Japanese barges.
 
Well if nothing else, the P-400's on Guadalcanal donated many of their 37mm cannons to PT Boats.

I personally like the look of the P-39, but freely admit it had several disadvantages. One not mentioned is that the car doors could not be opened very easily if the pilot had to bail out.

Odd that they didn't go with the 'Suicide Door' layout, a number of US autos had that feature in the '30s
 

The car doors were ejected from the P-39 for the pilot to bail out, they did not remained on the hinges for that occasion.

Comparison between P-39 and A-36 is not existing in 1942, since the 1st A-36s were in combat from February of 1943. A-36 being hopeless above 10000 ft, due the way supercharger was geared. The P-51A is even more too late, 1st combat was in September of 1943.
 
RAF's designation for P-51A was Mustang II, the type went in production after the A-36. RAF used, from April 1942 on, the Mustang I, and not long after that the cannon-armed Mustang Ia. The USAF were flying a handful of the equivalent of the Mustang Ia outfitted with cameras.
It took the installation of the V-1710 with workable hi-alt gearing for supercharger, reduction of armament and installation of drop tanks in order the P-51 to became P-51A.
 
RAF's designation for P-51A was Mustang II, the type went in production after the A-36. RAF used, from April 1942 on, the Mustang I, and not long after that the cannon-armed Mustang Ia. The USAF were flying a handful of the equivalent of the Mustang Ia outfitted with cameras.
It took the installation of the V-1710 with workable hi-alt gearing for supercharger, reduction of armament and installation of drop tanks in order the P-51 to became P-51A.

Thanks - I'm not that familiar with the details of the different marks...
 

The car doors were ejected from the P-39 for the pilot to bail out, they did not remained on the hinges for that occasion.

It was a separate system, activated by lever.

Easier just to have one system, to have slipstream assist. Save some weight and complexity
 
Jettison or doors

It was a separate system, activated by lever.

Easier just to have one system, to have slipstream assist. Save some weight and complexity

.........................................................................

In theory yes. In practice no.

Sliding canopies are the only dual use cockpit access method. Korean War vintage F-86 Sabre was one of the last jet fighters with a sliding bubble canopy. Even so, during ejection, the canopy was ejected by explosives.

Most other airplanes have two separate mechanisms: one for normal access and a second method for emergency exit.
For example: Pitts Special S2 aerobatic biplanes come from the factory with side-hinged bubble canopies. These canopies are difficult or impossible to open in flight, so -during an emergency - the pilot pulls a separate canopy jettison handle. The canopy jettison handle removes the hinge pins.
If a passenger accidentally pulls the canopy jettison handle, it gets very windy, very loud, and very expensive because the canopy is destroyed and the vertical fin gets a nasty dent.
Ergo, canopy jettison handles are normally only pulled during annual inspections.

Citabria and Cessna 150 Aerobat have two distinct door handles. The normal door handle releases the door latch bolt at the rear edge. A second (red emergency) handle removes door hinge pins from the front edge.
 
Last edited:
Robert S. Johnson told a wonderful story about trying to eject from his P-47 thru the sliding canopy, jammed by a 20mm shell. Others have stories that will never be told.

The British P-400s were a fairly shoddy lot, construction-wise. They have been described as a P39 with a Zero on its tail. They didn't help the reputation. The Tuskegee Airmen were assigned P-39s and became incensed because of the Cobra's apparent reputation. But the Soviets hadn't heard of this reputation, and the Cobra was a big success. So who's the judge? Can there be a split decision?
 
In another forum, half a year before, a member stated that nose U/C gear of the P-39 was so badly executed that folded all the time. When asked to provide some sources for that, he said he has a book stating so, and will provide the details.

So far no details were provided :)

Claims that P-39 have had the engine without a supercharger are well known, of course. Even in 2016.
 
In another forum, half a year before, a member stated that nose U/C gear of the P-39 was so badly executed that folded all the time. When asked to provide some sources for that, he said he has a book stating so, and will provide the details.

So far no details were provided :)

I only know of the one time, but I'm confident it happened again. The British reported that the main gear doors sagged open enough to create drag. The original P-39 prototype had no wheel covers at all and the wheels stuck out a few inches. Bitch, bitch, that's all they ever do. Larry Bell complained to a Russian pilot in 1944 that he never got any feedback from the Soviets. It took the Russians 5 months to get the first deliveries into service because they had to fix a few things, and Russianize some others.

Come to think of it, the nose gear was designed to fold all the time.

7099059293_53f32c5429_c.jpg
 
Top