Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Kutscha wrote : France was sufficiently interested that they ordered 200 Model 14s on October 8, 1939.

Can you mention a US type that was not ordered by the French between 1939 and 1940? They even placed an order for LB-40s (Liberators) though they had no plans to use strategic bombers!

Chris

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

No: I am saying that if Fedden had not gone down the route of sleeve valves then powerful British radial engines could have been made available sooner. On the other hand, Napier could not have debugged the Sabre without the Bristol experience.

The Soviets did not make major changes to the P-39s, mainly removing wing-mounted weaponry. Where the P-39 did differ from other Lend-Lease types was that strenuous efforts were made to maintain the supply of fuel additives so that the P-39 units operated with 100 octane fuel. Perhaps somewhat higher opinions would have been held of the Hurricane had the higher boost usable with 100 octane been available.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Don't agree. The P-39 was superior to the Typhoon, Spitfire and P51 because although all their engines were liquid cooled, that of the P-39 was protected from ground fire. And protection of the aircraft's vitals from ground fire was the sine qua non of a CAS spec.

And was there any reason why the P-39's 20-mm low-velocity cannon could not have been replaced with a high-velocity cannon to make it suitable for tank-busting? Is there any evidence this role was even considered? Certainly the British Army was never consulted. And when the RAF cancelled the armour that had been ordered for fitment in North Africa to the successful Hurricane IID, which was equipped with a high-velocity 20-mm cannon, there should have been some thought given to its replacement - and not with an RP Typhoon which suffered from vulnerability and inaccuracy.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

The P-39 was of significantly poorer performance than the Typhoon and the Mustang, and no less vulnerable. Its engine was no more armoured, the central position making no difference to a flak gun, and it is mainly hits to the radiators and piping that make an inline-engine design vulnerable. It had no advantage to either of the other types, and considerable disadvantages. Not least the problems of introducing yet another type, for only a specialised role.

It may be possible to have developed the P-39 to take either the Vickers or RR gun as a replacement for the central cannon, but why? Half the firepower of alternatives, on a basic airframe nice enough perhaps, but that simply provided nothing not already available elsewhere in the inventory.

The Hurricane Mk.IId was replaced by the Hurricane Mk.IV, which did have armour. If you have knowledge that armour was prepared but not issued for the Mk.IId that saw action, please share it, otherwise this seems like pure invented slander. Despite the mixed results in service, the RAF continued to develop the big gun approach, testing it on both the Typhoon and the Mustang, and retaining Hurricane Mk.IV units in the UK until mid-1944. The problems always remained that it required a slow approach and overflight of the target area, with a low rate of fire, whilst permanently limiting the performance and agility of the platform. The actual guns available were seen as unable to penetrate the armour of the forthcoming generation of German tanks, which the rocket could and did, and the future operational environment deadly. (That the heavier German tanks only appeared in limited numbers was fortunate, but not clearly foreseeable.) The guns were retained on Mk.IVs in quieter theatres, remaining until the end of the war in Burma, where their specialised advantages could be used without their disadvantages.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Thanks for the clairification Graham.

I have read that the Soviets lightened the P-39. They also replaced the 37mm and .50" guns with the 20mm B-20 cannon and the 12.7mm Berezin UBS mgs.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

1. The Hurricane MkIV was not armoured in any meaningful sense. Your repeating it does not make it so.
2. The source about the Hurricane IID's armour is Shores' 'Ground Attack Aircraft of WWII', published in 1977, page 66. But what's the point of this discussion. It's going nowhere.

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

What was this protection on the P-39? Certainly you don't mean the thin aluminum fuselage skinning.

What cannon would that be?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

The Hurricane Mk.IV carried armour around the engine, radiator and cockpit. If this was not "meaningful" in comparison with the lack of same on the Mk.IId, then I suggest the difference is semantic not real.

Thanks for the Shores' reference, I shall look it up.

I would agree that the discussion seems to have moved away from its original intention, at least as I saw it. We are not discussing the real P-39 but some imaginary idealised version that might have embarrassed even Larry Bell.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

No, I don't mean the duraliminium skin. I mean the armoured bulkhead referred to by Shores below, and I believe there was armour protection to the oil cooler, but here I am out of my depth. I am referring to a design that could have been improved for CAS.
To quote Shores: "the engine was situated behind the pilot .... in this position it was considerably less vulnerable to ground fire than in the usual nose position, where instead armour plate had been installed.... It was its ability to double as an extremely effective ground attack aircraft which particularly endeared it to the Russians' hearts..."

How about the 40-mm fitted to the Hurricane IV?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Janes' gives a weight for the extra armour on the Hurricane IV as 350 lbs. The 8-mm seat back must have been responsible for most of that. Compare the weight of armour on the IL-2 at 2,092 lbs; the Ju87G-1 at 1,540 lbs; and the Hs129B at 2,370 lbs. Shores doesn't think the Hurricane IV's extra armour is even worth a mention, writing only of its 'universal wing'. I wonder if you are pulling my leg.

We are discussing a P-39 design that was inherently superior for CAS than the Typhoon, and given a tiny bit of good will on the part of the RAF could have been made into a good CAS machine.