Jump to content

Bell P-39 Airacobra aka Белл П-39 Аэрокобра


Gregory
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's another 31st PG airplane in 1941 from my collection. Not sure which squadron.

Nice... it's from the 39th Pursuit Squadron, I believe.

 

 

Fade to Black...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are quite welcome...

 

Here's the front and rear covers of the January 1942 ish of the 'Bellringer'...

 

BRJan42-001a.jpg

Project 914 Archives

 

BRJan42-024a.jpg

Project 914 Archives

 

 

 

Fade to Black...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to amend something I said earlier... the shot of the 40th Pursuit Squadron P-39s... the ships nearest the camera are P-39Fs, not P-39Ds.

 

It may be a mix of Fs and Ds, though, as this shot, taken at the same time, shows a P-39D nearest the camera.

 

Scan-111111-0002a.jpg

Project 914 Archives (M.Butry collection)

 

 

Alrighty... I mentioned earlier that the P-39 that was recovered in the video Sabrejet linked to was about 30-45 minutes away from me. It's at the Niagara Aerospace Museum in Niagara Falls... but before they acquired that Cobra, they had another on loan from the NASM, named 'Galloping Gertie'.

 

I was able to get all hands on with this particular P-39, as a friend was volunteering at the museum when 'Gertie' was there. I did take some photos, but with my friend's camera... so I need to borrow 'em and scan 'em... then I'll post 'em.

 

Until then, here's a shot taken by another friend of mine...

 

0716598a.jpg

Marty McGuire photo

 

 

And here's a shot of 'Gertie' back in the late 40s, with the gal who owned and named her... Elizabeth Haas. (Her married name was Pfister.) I forget where I found this image, unfortunately.

 

obitpfister.jpg

 

 

Fade to Black...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In its day it must've been as sleek as an F-22!

It may be Martin Caidin's comment. He wrote very interesting article "The Bell P-39 Airacobra" for my favourite US WWII era aviation magazine Air Tech. It was a kind of P-39 monograph with front cover indicating that article.

 

Source:

The Bell P-39 Airacobra

by Martin Caidin

Air Tech, Vol. 5 No. 2, August 1944

pages 18 to 23 and 68

post-75-1346919516.jpg

post-75-1346919525.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, Chuck Yeager has been quoted as saying that the Airacobra was one of his favorite airplanes to fly.

Source:

The Bell P-39 Airacobra

by Martin Caidin

Air Tech, Vol. 5 No. 2, August 1944

pages 18 to 23 and 68

post-75-1346935193.jpg

post-75-1346935203.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Soviet P-39 Manual continued.

 

Here is something interesting in various contexts -- historical, technical, social-cultural, marketing. It shows how much powerful was the Rohm & Haas Company's marketing activities all over the world and how much brand awareness may change itself into social and terminological mania. I mean the European mania because I do not know how does it look like in the USA?

 

This European mania is in the fact that all the people here have always called maniacally "plexi" or "plexiglas" every organic glass regardless of whoever manufactured it. That mania existed in Europe before WWII and up to this time is present everywhere. We may congratulate the Rohm & Haas Company and their Marketing Department that they did something like brainwash in the European heads because the Plexiglas (yes, excellent organic glass of course) has never been the only one in the world.

 

During WWII not everyone US organic glass was Plexiglas (by Rohm & Haas Company) because four brand names of organic glass existed then in the USA (the Plexiglas among them) manufactured by four different and independent manufacturers.

 

The European "Plexi mania" is clearly seen in the chart posted below. Its title is "Plexiglas Repair". Ironically, the Hercules Powder Company was proud supplier of organic glass for the P-39s canopies and that company advertised itself with the Airacobra image. So, not the Plexiglas covered P-39 cockpits, but Hercules organic glass manufactured by Hercules Powder Company.

post-75-1346950086.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the Bell's subcontractors only, but also Bell was proud of its P-39 production for the USSR and the company advertised this fact. That ad was published in the Air Progress, Vol. 3 No. 3, September 1943 (back cover).

post-75-1346968982.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. I would like to put photos of some of my P39 stuff. 51st Fighter Squadron defending the Panama Canal....I think these guys had it pretty easy and did a lot of fishing. There were several accidents and a death from crashes. Thanks.

barlow3.jpg

fighting_51st.jpg

barlow2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During WWII not everyone US organic glass was Plexiglas (by Rohm & Haas Company) because four brand names of organic glass existed then in the USA (the Plexiglas among them) manufactured by four different and independent manufacturers.

Self-correction.

 

I apologize! There were five types of organic glass delivered to the US aviation industry during WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Manual was printed in Moscow and it is dated June 19th, 1944. The manual was approved by General Engineer of the Soviet Air Forces Lt. Gen. Алексей A. Лапин / Aleksei A. Lapin. Here is an internal cover with this information.

I thought you would like to know who Lt. Gen. Aleksei A. Lapin (Алексей A. Лапин in Russian -- full name Алексей Алексеевич Лапин) was. Before WWII he was an aviation engineer and test pilot working for famous TSAGI -- the Soviet counterpart of your NACA. By the way -- before apogee of anti-American fanaticism of Stalinism era the TSAGI and NACA cooperated from time to time in selected aspects. Aleksei A. Lapin worked for the TSAGI since 1931. During WWII he cooperated with the American aviation experts and, perhaps, visited the USA, though am not sure seeing what and how the Russians write about him. After WWII he flew even by Tupolev Tu-4 -- the Soviet copy of the Boeing B-29.

 

From today's perspective it would be interesting to research Lt. Gen. Lapin deeper in the US archives including FBI, who knows, perhaps he was under observation by the US authorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. I would like to put photos of some of my P39 stuff. 51st Fighter Squadron defending the Panama Canal....I think these guys had it pretty easy and did a lot of fishing. There were several accidents and a death from crashes. Thanks.

barlow3.jpg

fighting_51st.jpg

barlow2.jpg

Hello,

 

Thank you very much. That's forgotten thread in the P-39 operational history. Here is an interesting link where we can read among others:

 

Japan's I-400 subs were just over 400 feet long and displaced 6,560 tons when submerged. Segundo was nearly 25 percent shorter and displaced less than half that tonnage. Remarkably, I-400s could travel 37,500 nautical miles at 14 knots while surfaced, equivalent to going 1½ times around the world without refueling, while Segundo could travel less than 12,000 nautical miles at 10 knots surfaced. I-400s carried between 157 and 200 officers, crew and passengers, compared to Segundo's complement of 81 men.

 

Originally conceived in 1942 to attack U.S. coastal cities, the I-400 subs and their Seirans were central to an audacious, top-secret plan to stop the Allies' Pacific advance by disguising the floatplane bombers with U.S. Army Air Forces insignia and attacking the Panama Canal. It was a desperate, Hail Mary–type mission to slow the American advance in the closing days of World War II. However, when the giant subs were finished too late in the war to be effective in stemming the Allied tide, they were reassigned to attack U.S. carrier forces at Ulithi Atoll, the launch point for a devastating air campaign against Japan in preparation for Operation Olym­pic, the planned invasion of the island nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

The business about the tubo being deleted from the P-39 because the USAAF wanted a low altitude airplane has been around for years, but it's not true.

 

The reality is that the turbo was taken out because the P-39 was SLOWER with the turbo. It was a very small airplane as US fighters go, and they had to hang the turbo part way outside. The result was that turbo created so much drag that the airplane was faster with just the single stage supercharged V-1710. Of course, with the mechanical supercharger optimized for a moderate altitude, around 15,000 ft, to enable the best range of performance, the airplane ran out of steam at higher altitudes

 

The XP-37 tried using a turbo as well, but they had to move the cockpit way back by the tail to be able to incorporate the turbo, making it look like a Gee Bee racer. It was 50MPH fater than a P-36 at altitude, but other than that an unworkable design. The P-40 resulted, dispensing with the turbo and using a single stage supercharged V-1710 like the P-39.

 

Only large airplanes, such as the P-38 and P-47, had the space to incorporate turbos together with the very necessary intercooler/aftercooler to reduce the temperature in the intake charge.

 

For the P-63, a much larger airplane than the P-39, they added a 2nd stage mechanical supercharger coupled to the V-1710 starter drive, This enabled them to replace the turbo while keeping the same basic V-1710 engine used in other applications. Good for production, but a bad idea otherwise, and they compounded the mistake by not adding an intercooler. Allison inexplicabilly never produced a 2 speed drive for the single stage V-170 supercharger, something that literally everyone else in the world did with their engines; the result was like trying to drive car while staying in 2nd gear the whole time - there is only a narrow range where everything is optimized. The Allison Mustangs had the same problem. And the P-63 type V-1710 engine used in the F-82 was not very successful due to the lack of an aftercooler/intercooler.

 

The massive definitive work on the Allison engine, Vees for Victory, explains all of this, although without going into the all real implications for the aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...