ITT: What the h*ck were they thinking?

>>33494533
pure sex

Luckily the p-39 and p-63 are some pretty nice aircraft.

File: ImageK.jpg (28KB, 827x377px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 827x377px

>>33494533
could be useful in a dogfight...
If you think about it, it's pretty stupid, that you had to point straight forward at enemy to shoot him.

But than again I bet it flew like a brick.

Defiant was a much better concept. When engaged, they would just group in a circle like those animals in africa against lions, and shoot the krauts with ease.

>>33494533
>h*ck
Y tho

>>33494533
Maybe useful tee-bee haych

>>33494640
>could be useful in a dogfight
>but i bet it flew like a brick
Ergo, no use whatsoever in a dog fight.

>Just flew in a circle
Absolutely not, bs, no way, get out of here.

>>33494653
It was slower than he bombers it was supposed to destroy and the cannons in the nacelles were, get this, hand loaded after each shot.
Retarded idea.

File: 32708564194_7b8b312eb0_o.jpg (130KB, 900x732px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 900x732px

>>33494533

bomber destroyer was a popular idea in the the 30s

>Airacuda

lol what a faggy name :P

>>33494640

They were shot out of the sky in droves. Fighters with turrets were stupid and they died to those without.

>>33494533
Air war theory in the 1930s revolved around massing bombers to attack, which led to the bomber destroyer concept to defend. This was back when twin-engine aircraft were still generally flying faster and higher than single engine aircraft, which made it look like the best way to shoot down a bomber was going to be basically a bomber with guns. That thing was supposed to fly into a bomber formation and start throwing nuclear tennis balls.
That's obviously pretty different from how it actually went down.

>>33494698

>Tanks with turrets=awesome
>Ships with turrets=Mediocre
>Fighters with turrets=shit

What's wrong with having a better radius of fire?

File: 1484929726723.jpg (9KB, 302x259px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 302x259px

>>33494732
>nuclear
>1930's

>>33494732

part of the logic was the 37mm could hit the bombers further out than the bombers defensive armament could hit back

>>33494744

lots of additional weight and drag

it turned out that aerial gunnery wasnt as hard as the brits thought

>>33494744
Added weight takes away maneuverability and speed, it had no forward firing guns, and the turret only has the rear area to fire from.

Pretty sure they served for a few months then went straight into reserve/target pullers.

>>33494768

actually the turret could be locked forward and angled up then fired by the pilot in the defiant

they also served as some of the first night fighters

http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/ww2-commonwealth-gunner.html

>>33494744
Aiming in 3 dimensions at aircraft speeds is extremely difficult, the only way anybody could do it is by simplifying it through maneuvers until you're behind and on the turning circle of the aircraft you want to shoot down. Thus, maneuverability of aircraft wins out over maneuverability of guns.

File: okladka_twhs0315_przod.jpg (79KB, 565x800px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 565x800px

>>33494698
>Fighters with turrets were stupid and they died to those without.

>>33494670
>>33494698

Yes, later to the WW2 they ware obsolete, but the idea was sound in WW1, that's why brits continued it with Defiant.
I did read a detailed article about that interesting airplane.
The tactic of getting into circle and shooting down attacking fighters was very effective in WW1 and beginning of WW2. Dead end, sure, but interesting concept.

LOL

„Look, guns in the rear makes about as much sense as putting teeth in the ass of a tiger. You put the teeth in the mouth”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_YFM-1_Airacuda

Defiant WAS an interesting airplane.
Started to take heavy loses only after Germans started to attack them from the front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant
(..)in the vicinity of The Hague, Netherlands; during this flight, a single Ju 88, which had been in the process of attacking a destroyer, was shot down.[20] The following day, in a patrol that was a repetition of the first, Defiants claimed four Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bombers, but were subsequently attacked by a flight of Bf 109Es. The escorting Spitfires were unable to prevent five of the six Defiants being shot down by a frontal attack.[21]

During the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk, the squadron was based at RAF Manston, as one of the 16 squadrons that No. 11 Group had for the evacuation.[21] On 27 May 264 Squadron claimed three He 111 and two damaged. On 28 May, shortly after take-off, 10 Defiants were attacked by about 30 Bf 109s – forming a circle, they claimed six German fighters for the loss of three Defiants

The Defiant was initially successful against enemy aircraft and its best day was 29 May, when No. 264 Squadron claimed 37 kills in two sorties: 19 Ju 87 Stukas, mostly picked off as they came out of their dives, nine Messerschmitt Bf 110 twin-engined heavy fighters, eight Bf 109s and a Ju-88; one Defiant gunner was lost after he bailed out, although the aircraft made it back to its base to be repaired.[21] On 31 May, seven Defiants were lost in one day.[21]

File: P-39 original concept.jpg (86KB, 1600x1172px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1600x1172px

>>33494608
The P-63 shouldn't exist. The P-39 would have been just fine had they left the turbo alone.

>>33494744
>What's wrong with having a better radius of fire?
Back then, in the infancy of lead-computing gunsights, aerial gunnery was hard enough in the forward-facing direction. compound that to any fucking direction imaginable other than the same direction as your own velocity vector and it becomes damn near impossible to hit anything at anything but point-blank range.

>>33495236

the turbo and intercooler intake didnt work, bell basically stuck it in the dumbest place possible

>>33495236
>empty nose cannon
>maneuver
>oh fuck deep stall

>>33495348
It was fine until Kelsey left and Bell and NACA got all anal-retentive about streamlining the installation. They tried to give it an absurdly-low profile in the name of drag reduction and top speed and when they couldn't make it work they yanked the turbo entirely, which pretty much defeated the entire purpose and made the airplane slower while simultaneously neutering its altitude performance.
>>33495357
>Vatniks in charge of weight-and-balance calculations

>>33494640
Useful as Bf 110

>>33495575
Bf110s were very good at bomber hunting, and were used until the end of the war.

File: model 4.jpg (128KB, 980x1490px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 980x1490px

>>33495568

it was always in a retarded location, even in the predecessor to the p-39

File: XP-39 small.jpg (585KB, 3765x2415px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 3765x2415px

>>33495616
>lets put it in a place where it gets blanked in a climb, or a turn!

>>33495627
Unless you actually STALL the wing, you're not going to "blank" that scoop.

You do know that air velocity over the top of a wing actually INCREASES with higher AOA, right?

>>33495251
Did you really just use point blank range like that? Is this a /k/ meme that I'm not aware of? And they tried to get as many guys to be gunners that had experience with bird hunting as possible for a reason anon.

File: XP-39 63161.jpg (600KB, 3438x2191px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 3438x2191px

>>33495675

and yet they could never get adequate airflow through it in a climb, meaning they couldnt even try out full powered climbs

>>33495605
At night

>>33495682
>Did you really just use point blank range like that?
Yeah, you got a problem?
>And they tried to get as many guys to be gunners that had experience with bird hunting as possible for a reason anon.
Yes, and I know that USAAC training in particular focused on teaching fighter pilots and gunners proper deflection shooting, but it doesn't change the fact that shooting a 200+mph target from another 200+mph aircraft any significant range with both going in different directions can demand a challengingly large and difficult-to-judge deflection angle. Certainly harder than killing a 20-mph pheasant at 30 yards with a shotgun from the ground.

>>33495691
[citation needed]
Actually, disregard that, I already know you're pulling shit out of your ass considering that the prototype demonstrated a 5-minute time-to-climb to 20,000'. Unless you want to tell me that wasn't even full power, in which case all the better, hot damn.

>>33495714
Not only. They were mostly used at night because they were large enough to carry intercept radars.

>>33495755
>considering that the prototype demonstrated a 5-minute time-to-climb to 20,000

Plenty of aircraft have impressive performance without armament, armor, radio gear and other necessary military equipment. Which is exactly what the xp-39 did.

Hence the effort to cut down drag as much as possible in the P-39. The turbo installation was draggy, in a location with very little space, and it had heating issues. To compound things there were substantial engine vibration issues that needed to be solved.

Getting rid of the turbo cut down on drag and reduced weight, both were things the P-39 needed to maintain any semblance of decent performance.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/p-39.htm

There are plenty of other sources that give similar accounts, or you can read the original naca reports if thats not enough for you.

Also feel free to post a link to that one blog as your rebuttal.

File: naca chart.jpg (314KB, 640x678px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 640x678px

>>33495834
>NACA put the aircraft in its wind tunnel and determined the problem was largely due to the poor configuration and integration of the turbosupercharger with the engine, see Figure 6. From this it was determined that the airplane would never meet it requirements with the turbo, and hence the turbo should be removed, aerodynamic improvements made to the fuselage, and an altitude rated engine fitted.

ebin

File: naca.jpg (263KB, 868x669px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 868x669px

>>33495875
>This was quickly done, and by the expediency of using a higher step-up gear ratio to drive the integral supercharger a workable engine configuration was achieved. This provided enough power, an altitude of about 14,000 feet, where without the weight and drag of the turbo, the XP- 39 could just barely meet the 400 mph contract

>>33494640
I would be terrified as the pilot or gunner, that the vertical stabilizer would accidentally get shot off. Holy shit.

>>33495834
>Plenty of aircraft have impressive performance without armament, armor, radio gear and other necessary military equipment. Which is exactly what the xp-39 did.
Granted, weight makes a big difference. But turbos matter too, ESPECIALLY at altitude.
>Hence the effort to cut down drag as much as possible in the P-39.
You know what ELSE cuts down massively on drag? Flying higher where air is thin. Worked great for the P-47, and that thing was a goddamn flying turd. Not to mention the P-38.
>The turbo installation was draggy
Obviously not as draggy as they thought, considering they expected a 40 mph speed increase and instead got a 15 mph speed decrease...
>in a location with very little space
True.
>and it had heating issues.
You have yet to post ANY source for this, or for the prototype being unable to climb at full power, or for your "blanking out" of the side scoops.
>Getting rid of the turbo cut down on drag and reduced weight
Your own link says the XP-39B was 300 pounds HEAVIER despite deletion of the turbo. I suspect the drag reduction had a lot to do with that - particularly the new dual-radiator arrangement.
>both were things the P-39 needed to maintain any semblance of decent performance.
It LITERALLY had better performance before they got rid of the turbo.

>>33494640
>enemy coming from below
>fat tracers whizzing by

GUNNER TO PILOT - CANNOT ENGAGE! CANNOT ENGAGE! DO SOMETHING YOU FUCKING MORON! I'M GOING TO DIE BECUASE YOUR DADDY HAD CONNECTIONS AND GOT YOU INTO FLIGHT SCHOOL! YOU DONT HAVE THE BRAINS TO MILK A FUCKING COW!

>wingman shoots down enemy

ALL RIGHT BRO WE GOT OUTTA THAT ONE. I GET EXCITED BEING BACK HERE. YOU KNOW I DIDNT MEAN THAT SHIT, JUST MESSIN WITH YA. HAHA YEA, I GOT YOUR BEER WHEN WE GET BACK. NO HOMO

>>33495052
No, it was obsolete even before WWII, stop reading biggles.
Any aircraft wilfully flying in a circle and not moving is fucking toast.

>>33494533
>What the h*ck were they thinking?

Pls leave /s4s/

>>33494640

Free lunch for Bf-109s.

File: Tu-22M.jpg (332KB, 1280x865px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1280x865px

>>33494533
better question, what were they thinking about this, and how would it still works?

File: image.png (6KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 390x470px

>>33496113

>>33495964
>Granted, weight makes a big difference. But turbos matter too, ESPECIALLY at altitude.

which is great if the turbos actual work as intended

>Worked great for the P-47, and that thing was a goddamn flying turd. Not to mention the P-38.

And look at the turbo and intercooler installation in both of those aircraft compared to the P-39. They had the space for it, the P-39 didn't.

>Obviously not as draggy as they thought, considering they expected a 40 mph speed increase and instead got a 15 mph speed decrease...

You are misreading what is written.

>You have yet to post ANY source for this, or for the prototype being unable to climb at full power, or for your "blanking out" of the side scoops.

Naca tests, which showed that the intake design was bad.

Here is a tuft test that specifically calls out disturbed airflow at 0 AoA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKxe8jc9_rI

>Your own link says the XP-39B was 300 pounds HEAVIER despite deletion of the turbo. I suspect the drag reduction had a lot to do with that - particularly the new dual-radiator arrangement.

Yes, because the XP-39 lacked any sort of military equipment. It also had severe engine and drive shaft vibration problems that required beefing up the airframe by a significant amount.

>It LITERALLY had better performance before they got rid of the turbo.

with LITERALLY no armament or armor or radio or self sealing tanks or compass or any other necessary equpiment

>>33495052
>airframe coming up between the barrels
>can't even rotate turret without raising guns

Kek, what absolute retards.

>>33494533
Tbqh, A-10 is even crazier than that.

File: f0a03cc5d3cce3064a62a48026ab520b.png (102KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 250x250px

>>33494533
D e c o

>>33494640
Underpowered, no forward firing guns, 109 bait. You would have a better chance in a Gladiator

>>33494698
If the hydraulics were damaged and the turret was turned 90 degrees, the gunner was trapped. Death traps

>>33494650
Cuz there's too much fucking swearing on the intetwebs

>>33495575
110 was much better