Talk:Bell P-39 Airacobra/Archive 2

What does "very limited ammunition" mean?
What does the phrase "very limited ammunition" mean? Is it referring to few different types of ammunition available, or the amount of ammunition that could be carried in the plane? Could this be made clearer in the text? -- Dougher (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Where does it say this? ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   11:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2nd para of "Design and development" section:"Although devastating when it worked, the T9 had very limited ammunition, a low rate of fire, and was prone to jamming" - I suspect that this is a reference to the small ammunition capcity of the gun's magazine - 15 rounds in early aircraft and 30 rounds in later aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

First flight date and early history
I have used Birch Matthews' book extensively in my alterations. Birch was a former Bell employee had access to extensive Bell documents and drawings in writing his book, something I doubt most other authors had who wrote about the P-39. Among other things, he nailed down the correct first flight date. He also had access to Bell financials and in his book he shows how Bell aircraft cashflow was in precarious state during the development of the XP-39, justifying the use of the word "desperate" regarding Larry Bell's proposal to remove the turbocharger. If you don't like my changes, please look at the Matthews book before removing anything. Aeroweanie (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you have the book, provide relevant page numbers, as well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC).


 * What was the actual date???? - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked the diffs, and the year that AW added was 1939. I've added the source to the infobox, along with a note. If the Matthews' book isn't accepted as definitive (I don't know if it is, or if it should be), then the solution per WP guidelines is to cite both years, and note that there is a discrepancy among reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Walter Boyne says 6 April 1939 in Air Warfare: An International Encyclopedia, page 76. Lockheed engineer Warren Bodie writing about the XP-38 says the XP-39 first flew in April 1939. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However, Boyne contradicts himself in Beyond the Wild Blue: A History of the U.S. Air Force, 1947–2007, page 452, where he says 6 April 1938. Mike Spick wrote in 2002 that the XP-39 flew on 6 April 1938. Robert Schlaifer wrote that the XP-39 flew in April 1939. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be possible to find an article from a contemporary newspaper or magazine in online archives. This would give a more direct source for the date. Popular Mechanics often covered such events. - BilCat (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would frame this entirely the other way as a preponderance of sources from Boyne, Dorr, Donald, Angelucci, Bowers and the USAF all list the date of the first flight as April 6, 1938. FWiW FWiW (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC).


 * In Airpower, November 1978, Peter M Bowers says the XP-39 contract was signed in October 1937 and the prototype completed in March 1939, nine months past the contract delivery date, which must have been July 1938: had the XP-39 been completed and flown in March-April 1938 from contract to hardware would have taken about five months, three months ahead of the contract's delivery date. Not forgetting that Bell, which was still a small company, was working on the YFM-1 Airacuda. Ergo April 1938 is unlikely.


 * Of further note the XP-39B, which was the reconfigured XP-39, first flew 25 November 1939 - the XP-39 in its original form flew for a relatively brief period before it was shipped off to NACA at Langley, stripped down and tested in the wind tunnel before being shipped back to Bell for reconstruction. If 6 April 1938 is correct the change from XP-39 to XP-39B would have taken 20 months. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   21:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Angelucci and Bowers (1987), the extensive modifications demanded by the USAAC included reduced wingspan, stretched fuselage, repositioning the air inlets, and more importantly specifying a 1,090 hp Allison V-170-37 without turbosupercharger. The modified XP-39, nearly a completely new airframe, redesignated the XP-39B, had its maiden flight in November 1939. Recently, the aviation historian, Larry Dwyer has done some research on the background of the P-39 and confirms that the date of the XP-39's first flight was April 6, 1938. FWiW FWiW (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC).


 * In his book Beyond the Wild Blue, Boyne not only says 1938 but he says the P-39 was used by the Soviets to attack tanks on the ground, which we know to be false. I think this source can be discounted as poorly researched. Robert F. Dorr says 6 April 1939 was the first flight, piloted by Bell test pilot James Taylor. René J. Francillon wrote the same thing in 1969: American fighters of World War Two. Francillon has a lot of detail about the development and flight; he says the prototype neared completion in March 1939, Bell aircraft hull serial number 38-326. The aircraft was partially disassembled and then trucked "in great secrecy" to Wright Field near Dayton, Ohio, for USAAC tests. The first flight was 6 April 1939 with James Taylor at the controls. At 20,000 ft, 390 mph was attained for this unarmed and unarmored version. Arthur Pearcy in his 1993 Flying the Frontiers: NACA and NASA Experimental Aircraft writes that the XP-39 first flew "in the spring of 1939" after which it was taken to Langley wind tunnel on 6 June 1939. Full scale wind tunnel testing was ordered by "Hap" Arnold on 9 June 1939. Gordon Swanborough wrote in 1963's United States military aircraft since 1909: "The XP-39 (38-326) was first flown at Dayton by James Taylor in April 1939, and on the 27th of the same month, the Army ordered a service test batch of 12 YP-39s and one YP-39A, the latter to have no turbo-supercharger." Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't shock you that someone gets it wrong, and the mistake is compounded by the next people that repeat the error. From a contemporary article, dated April 6, 1938 and that appears in the Chronicle of Aviation, 1992, p. 356: "New Airacobra is first to carry cannon" Dayton, Ohio, April 6, 1938. The XP-39, the second radical fighter design by the young Bell aircraft Corporation made its first flight from Wright Field today with Jimmy Taylor at the controls." Seems pretty definitive. FWiW FWiW (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Is the article actually shown, with the date or is it cited? Plus I'd still like someone to explain how it was possible for the XP-39 to be nine months overdue on its contracted date in April 1938, when the contract for the prototype was signed in October 1937 - the time line just doesn't add up without some strange convolutions in logic. As for the possibility of mix-ups - that can go both ways: for example, here (go down past RAF video) the date of a Popular Mechanics article "P-39 compared with Republic P-41' is cited as "August 1938" - yet here it is plainly the August 1939 issue. The fact that at least two well known authors Boyd and Bowers), who seemingly had access to Bell's records, can cite both 1938 and 1939 suggests that there is some confusion in the records themselves, particularly when Bowers specifically claimed that the prototype was completed nine months after the contract date. I guess we'll just have to continue with the note that there is conflicting information which (seemingly) dates right back to the late 1930s. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   11:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Bzuk, I would like to see a scan of that article, connecting its title with its date. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in answering an earlier request, the article is complete with an illustration of the XP-39 in flight. (A scan of the article is available and can be sent out via email attachment.) The seeming contradiction in the dates and speed of construction of the prototype may stem from Bell taking on the work almost immediately from its unveiling of the Model 3 "proof-of-concept" design mock-up on 24 May 1937, then extensively modified into the Model 4 (later to be known as the XP-39) after the successful submission to the USAAC on 16 May 1937 and the signing of a formal contract on 7 October 1937. FWiW FWiW (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Bzuk sent me a scan of the article complete with the 1938 date. In neighboring articles are other famous events from earlier in 1938 such as Sir Alan Cobham performing the first in-flight refueling of an Imperial Airways "C" class flying boat. The description of the XP-39 flight is definitive. I think we must abandon all the 1939 cites because of this very firm proof otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We should keep the note in the text that mentions that some sources note that the date is in 1939 as some do, and to help alleviate future changes. Bzuk, thanks for following upnon the suggestion to check contemporary sources, and please add the cite info to the article when you can. Also, canyou send me the scan also? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If we can get a scan of the actual 1938 journal issue it would be even better. Bzuk's scan is from the 1992 book which gathers contemporary articles from each year and republishes them chronologically. Conceivably, the 1992 editors could have made a mistake. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this; great research, and it shows the value of having editors who are prepared to dig around. Thanks Bzuk, for clearing this one up. I also think there should be a note pointing out that both 1938 and '39 have been cited, but that there is very strong evidence that 1938 is correct. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   22:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The two books below put the first P-39 flight on April 6, 1938.
 * 1) David Mondey. The Concise Guide to American Aircraft of World War II. New York: Smithmark Publishers, 1982. 12.
 * 2) Jay Frank Dial. Aircraft in Profile Volume 7, The Bell P-39 Airacobra. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970. 262.

The following book puts the date at April 6, 1939.

I think Aircraft in Profile Volume 7, The Bell P-39 Airacobra (published 1970) was correct with 1938 and later histories made an error of 1939 and the mistake kept being copied. Frank Strnad who coauthored Picture History of Aviation on Long Island said this was very common. One guy makes a mistake and everyone keeps repeating it. Frank used to find mistakes all the time in many aero history publications. However, I’m still not sure. I just ordered Bell Aircraft Since 1935 from the library and I’ll check the date in that. The Putnam books are among the best. Lpdwyer (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) According to one reference, there was a test flight of the unmodified XP-39 on April 6, 1939 which was prematurely ended when engine overheating occurred. I also would like to be doubly sure of the 1938 date of the maiden flight by finding at least one more contemporary source. FWiW, there is an extensive 10,000 volume collection of magazines in our local air museum that may provide the answer, as I am almost certain that the major tomes, all vacillate from one date to the other. FWiW (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC).
 * 1) Ray Wagner.  American Combat Planes. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1982. 267.

I think I'm wrong about the 1938 date. A curator form the National Museum of the US Air Force answered my email and sent me the following: "Dear LPDwyer Thank you for contacting the National Museum of the United States Air Force. Unfortunately, we have no official resource on file which confirms the date of the first flight for the XP-39.  However, we do have on file a privately published resource which follows the P-39 procurement and development process in minute detail.  Messner, Warren A. “America’s Mid-Engine Fighters, The Bell P-39 Airacobra & P-63 Kingcobra”.  (1994) The sheer amount of documentation and description provided in this resource conclusively shows the first flight occurred in 1939 and not 1938." I’m trying to procure a copy of Messner’s document in the hopes of clearing up this mystery. In the meantime I think we should set the first flight date at April 6, 1939. --Lpdwyer (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, I feel whipsawed. Any hard confirmation of 1939 would clear up the troubling problem of what Bell was doing between April 1938 and June 1939—them sitting on their hands made no sense. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

After a fruitless search in our air museum library, I found Janes was no help as the only edition I located was the 1939 edition that merely indicated that information on testing was not available. Neither Aeroplane, Flight nor any other contemporary sources had a first flight date, which makes me think that a newspaper archive might still be the only conclusive sources. Perhaps Dayton or Buffalo newspapers have a microfile/microfiche or electronic record of the period. FWiW (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC).


 * We'll probably find out the first flight was 31 February 1939. Might as well keep the note stating that different sources have different dates. If Bell Helicopter have kept an archive I would have thought that the various authors who have been quoted would have already gone through them. Ah well, don't 'cha just love historical research? ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   01:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. Or April eleventy-first. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In the overall scheme of things, I have waaaay more sources saying 1938, including Lloyd Jones. Looking at editor Michael O'Leary's account in Air Progress Warbird, September/October 1988, pp. 22–23, he notes that a great deal of secrecy was involved with Bell Aircraft trucking the prototype XP-39 around on flatbeds and sent by rail to Wright Field. He states unequivocally that the first flight was on 6 April 1938 but that publicity was suppressed until the first public announcement of the aircraft that was made on 9 February 1939. When Bell undertook production of 13 YP-39s, they were to the XP-39 "interceptor" standard, ordered on 23 April 1939. The large number of modifications demanded by the USAAC led to a modification of the XP-39 to that of a low level role, resulting in the YP-39B, and a revamping of all the service test examples to the new standard. This timeline goes a long way to explain the delay from test flight to production status. FWiW  (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I just got a copy of Bell Aircraft Since 1935 from the library and the author, Alain J. Pelletier, puts the date at April 6, 1938. Here is a summary of the beginning of the P-39 section. On March 19, 1937 the USAAC issued specification X-609 for a new fighter. Bell aircraft created two designs, Model 3 and Model 4. Both designs were presented to the USAAC and Model 4 was retained for further development. A contract was awarded October 7, 1937 under the USAAC designation XP-39 for a single prototype to be ready August 1938. Construction of the prototype began in Buffalo and in the early spring of 1938, construction of S/N 38-326 was completed. The maiden flight was on April 6, 1938. “On June 6, after some sixty flying hours had been logged, the XP-39 was sent to Langley Field NACA wind tunnel.” The prototype was back in the air November 25, 1939. The aircraft was destroyed in an accident after only 28 hours of flying. On April 13, 1939, the USAAC signed a contract for 13 YP-39s (Model 12). The first YP-39 made its maiden flight on September 13, 1940. Alain J. Pelletier. Bell Aircraft Since 1935. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1992. 25-28. Pelletier’s book is the most comprehensive and detailed of any of the ten books I have recently looked at on the P-39. I’ve made up my mind. I'm going with April 6, 1938. --Lpdwyer (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Pelletier's account, or your transcription of it, contains some awkward problems. One is the difference between the prototype having 60 hours by June, then down to 28 hours at the point of its destruction after 25 November 1939. The second is that the NACA wind tunnel tests are always reported, even in disparate sources, as being June 1939, not June 1938. So what was the prototype doing for 14 months between first flight and NACA tests? It's possible there is a good reason, but I would like to know what it is. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "June 1939, not June 1938" At the risk of asking the stupidly obvious, you don't suppose that could be a misprint, do you?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote that; it is not a 'misprint'. There are dozens of sources for the June 1939 wind tunnel testing of the XP-39. A few: NASA, NASA, Flickr, originally NACA, NASA, Youtube (a wind tunnel 'tuft' film that concludes with a frame dating it to August 1939), "On 9 June 1939, he formally requested that NACA carry out immediate full-scale tunnel testing on the XP-39." (From aviation historian Arthur Pearcy), "Actually Langley had received the XP-39 from Wright Field three days before Arnold's request, which had been put in writing on 6 June..." (from historian James R. Hansen). In NASA's publication Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports, they list a 15 March 1939 series of spin tests performed on a 1/20-scale model of the XP-39 by research engineer Charles J. Donlan. So Langley was involved from March 1939 with a small model and then in June/August/September 1939 with full-scale wind tunnel testes. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "I wrote that" I didn't mean you, nor all the sources saying '39. I meant, if there's one source saying '38 (only one?), did that one get it wrong by something so simple? Even if not, I suggest, if there are many saying it's '39, it makes no difference if one says '38, because weight of evidence is against it.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Re the flying hours: surely the 60 hrs logged by June refers to the prototype in its original form before being modified to the XP-39B, after which it flew another 28 hrs, then crashed? Anyway, it is clear that there is more than enough evidence for keeping the note stating that the sources differ over the date of the first flight. :) ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   09:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My assumption is that the author meant that 60 hours were logged and then an additional 28 hours were logged for a total of 88 hours. If a contract was awarded in 1937 and supposed to be ready by August 1938, it should be obvious the USAAC meant, “ready to fly.” It is implied that the prototype was completed ahead of schedule. From June 1938 until the next flight on November 25, 1939, the airplane would have gone through wind tunnel tests (June 1939) and the conversion from the XP-39 to the XP-39B. I’m convinced Pelletier is correct that April 6, 1938 is the XP-39’s first flight. I scanned in the pages of the book relevant to the first flight date. See link. P-39.pdf Lpdwyer (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Birch Matthews cites Bell Aircraft Corporation Report No. 4Y021, dated 21 December 1938 which details the ground tests that preceded the first flight. He also cites the Bell Aircraft Corporation log of activities at Wright Field 27 December 1938 to 8 May 1939 and he gives a day-by-day history of the tests that led to the first flight.  The first flight WAS 6 April 1939.Aeroweanie (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your changes to the article as being non-consensual, especially since you haven't bothered to praticipate in the lengthy discussions here. It's up to you to build a new consensus here first, and not to unilaterally impose your own opinion. You've been on WP long enough to know better. - BilCat (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Explain this picture - the date is right on the photo. It couldn't possibly have flown in 1938, as it was still under construction at the end of the the year. consensus means nothing if original sources are not being used. Matthews cites two original sources, instead of what another book said. In the introduction to his book, Matthews states that one of his motivations to write the book was all of the incorrect information that keeps getting repeated about the P-39 and P-63. http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/Aeroweanie/XP-39UnderConstruction.jpg Aeroweanie (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, you aren't even trying to have an interactive discussion. Several sources have been presented above, some of which claim to also have researched Bell documents.


 * You cited 2 documents in your changes to the article. Are these documents in the Matthews' book? If so, you can't cite them individually, only the book itself.


 * Finally, you added this item: "ARMY TESTS FAST CRAFT; XP-39, Tiny Pursuit Ship, Called World's Fastest And Most Fierce Plane" New York Times April 1939. If you bothered to read the previous discussions, you'll see that we have been trying to find contemporary sources to help verify the dates. How did you find the NYT article? That is a great find! I've purchased the article to read it, and it does imply 1939 as the year of first flight, though it's not totally clear. The NYT article names Henry Taylor as the pilot of the first flight, while Pelletier's book names James Taylor. What name is given by Matthews? - BilCat (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC) BilCat (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The availability of an article from The New York Times may be the ultimate authoritative contemporary source. Despite the toooing-and-froiing that has taken place, it is likely prudent to insert a note to the reader that the date of the first flight remains contentious. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I found the NYT article with the first Google search I tried. Regarding first flight details, here are scans of the two relevant pages from Matthews' book.  And no, I do not have copies of the two references Matthews cites.
 * http://s4.photobucket.com/user/Aeroweanie/media/Page84.jpg.html
 * http://s4.photobucket.com/user/Aeroweanie/media/Page85.jpg.html


 * To be fair, I also checked my copy of Larry Bell's biography ("Larry; A Biography of Lawrence D. Bell" by Donald J. Norton, Nelson-Hall, Chicago IL, 1981) and in the text, it lists the first flight date as April 6, 1938 (page 91). On the other hand, it also has a photo on page 89 that has a caption that reads: "This is the XP-39A on December 3, 1938, before it was given the designation P-39.  'Bell Model 3' was undergoing ground tests when this photograph was taken".  This implies to me that it hadn't flown, as an aircraft first undergoes ground tests before first flight.  Aeroweanie (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

First Fighter to have the engine installed behind the pilot
Ok, before starting an editing war:)
 * 13:58, 15 April 2012‎ Bzuk‎ . . (78,672 bytes) (+85)‎ . . (The Fe.2 is not a similar aircraft)
 * 11:49, 15 April 2012‎ Lowkyalur . . (78,587 bytes) (-85)‎ . . (removed the statement that it was the first fighter with mid-engine placement. WW1 pushers like Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2 had this before, just not with a front propeller.)

I think it doesn't matter if the F.E.2 is similar or not, I'm just looking at the fact that the F.E.2 is a fighter aircraft, and had the engine behind the pilot well before the Airacobra did feature it. Therefore the general statement that "It was the first fighter in history [..] to have the engine installed in the center fuselage, behind the pilot" is wrong and should be removed. Bzuk please explain your reasoning why the sentence should stand as is.

--Lowkyalur (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it to make it a bit clearer. The difference is that the Aircobra was a tractor configuration, while the FE.2 etc was a pusher.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * cool. --Lowkyalur (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also the Beardmore W.B.IV which was an unsucessful tractor biplane fighter with the wngine behind the pilot which makes the original statement incorrect - how its written now should be ok though.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be better to state that the P-39 was one of only two mass-produced piston engined fighters to have the engine in the mid-fuselage behind the pilot? The P-63 was the other. Another prototype built well before the P-39 was the Westland F.7/30... ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆ MTalk''   22:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

First fighter with tricycle undercarriage?
Yes and no.

There were many aircraft in WWI which were photographed with nosewheels but were, in fact, taildraggers. The British Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2 was often seen with a nosewheel. They were fitted this way to prevent nose-overs.

There was however, one fighter which was fitted with nose gear and no tail skid. It was an Italian fighter called the S.I.T. Voisin III.

However, while it wasn't a taildragger, it had four wheels rather than three. It also had the engine behind the pilot but was a pusher design rather than a tractor.


 * Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I. London. Studio Editions Ltd, 1993, p.208. ISBN 1-85170-347-0 Flanker235 (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The S.I.T. Viosin III was more accurately described as equipped with a four-wheel chassis or running gear that formed the undercarriage, much like the Bell Oionus I of an earlier vintage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Which I have already said. Besides which, the Oionus I was not a fighter. Flanker235 (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's easier to let the reliable sources speak, and they say this was the first such fighter. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously saying Jane's is not a reliable source????? Even when a photograph is included? Flanker235 (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the Voisin's four wheels, two in front and two in back, all the same size, is not a tricycle undercarriage. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was the other poster who said that. You were the one who implied that there were more reliable sources than Jane's. I have already acknowledged that there were four wheels, not three (as "tricycle" explicitly implies). The way I see it, there are two components to it: 1) that it have three wheels and 2) that it not be a tail dragger. While four wheels would make ground handling more difficult, it would still have been a radical step to be using a configuration that was not a tail dragger. I don't know if you've done any flying but if you have then you would understand that pilots would probably have had difficulties with potential ground looping. What I'm saying is that there were more conceptual challenges with this layout than whether or not it had three wheels. I'm not arguing that this was actually "tricycle" gear per se, merely that the concept was around a long time before the P-39.Flanker235 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is saying the P-39 was the first non-tail-dragger fighter. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd add, unless the aircraft was designed & manufactured with trike gear, it would seem not to qualify. I've seen several conversions or trial versions, none adopted or manufactured. All predate the P-39. None, IMO, qualify as "first".  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the April 39 first flight is correct rather than April 38 (see above), then the SNCASE SE.100, with a first flight of 29 March, and sort of a tricycle (definitely with a large nosewheel, but with small "mainwheels" retracting into the tail) has it just beat. Not sure whether it is worth mentioning in the article, particularly owing to the uncertainty about when the P39's 1st flight was.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Lockheed P-38 Lightning prototype first flew on 27 January 1939, with tricycle landing gear. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh?
This article states: "The comparatively low-speed, low-altitude nature of most air combat on the Russian Front suited the P-39's strengths: sturdy construction, reliable radio gear, and adequate firepower." How does having "reliable radio gear" equate to strength in "low-speed, low-altitude" combat (or for that matter, why wouldn't reliable radios be equally essential in high-speed, high-altitude combat?) What's the source for this profound observation? Also, no sure why "adequate firepower" wouldn't be essential no matter at what altitude and speed the engagement was taking place - never heard of any combat where inadequate firepower was sufficient, let alone a strength. Thus, we're left with sturdy construction - no doubt the P-39 had this is spades, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.9 (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The writer is saying that because the Russians used the P-39 in a low-speed, low-altitude environment they could eschew aircraft with heavy and aerodynamically costly two-speed two-stage superchargers built for esoteric ideologically-driven high-altitude, high-speed warfare environments in favor of a model that focused on what was essential to the Russians' needs in their mud-and-blood environment: sturdy construction (i.e. an aircraft that could take a beating and get its pilot home alive without both needing to be "struck off charge" immediately thereafter, especially in settings where maintenance and medical facilities were primitive); reliable radio gear - to facilitate vigorous communication between pilots and ground controllers/spotters, as opposed to the much more sterile communication environments pilots of Russia's allies were trained to maintain; and adequate firepower i.e. firepower that wasn't inadequate to the Russians' needs like that found in the early-model Spitfires and Hurricanes with their .303s that the Russians also received in quantity. Such are the strengths of the P-39, and this part of the article is written well enough as it is.BLZebubba (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The two most important things in a combat aeroplane are whether it can do its job, and whether it can survive against the opposition. In 1940 against JG1 and JG2 the RAF found that neither the Airacobra nor Tomahawk could when used as fighters.


 * That's why the Airacobra was ditched and the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk relegated to army co-operation at low level and then later used with the Desert Air Force in support of the Eighth Army, again at low level.


 * In 1940 the British were fighting (and subsequently winning) the greatest air battle the world had even known - the Battle of Britain - so one suspects they knew a little of what they were talking about. At the time BTW, the Soviet Air Force's aircraft were still lined up on airfields all over the Soviet Union doing nothing. Just ready in fact for six months later when in 1941 the same Luftwaffe that had been so recently defeated by the RAF joined in with the other German invasion forces and wiped out almost the entire Soviet Air Force while it was still on the ground.


 * If this had not been allowed to happen the British would never have needed to have sent the Soviet Union the Hurricanes and Spitfires of which you complain about, and which were much needed by they themselves a short while later in places such as Singapore and Burma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bell P-39 Airacobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=805

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Bell P-39 Airacobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130173210/http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/uploads/stats.pdf to http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/uploads/stats.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214233631/http://www.marchfield.org:80/p39q.htm to http://www.marchfield.org/p39q.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401124839/http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/iad/16gviad.htm to http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/iad/16gviad.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140421120700/http://www.marchfield.org/exhibits-aircraft/aircraft/p-39q-airacomet-bell/ to http://www.marchfield.org/exhibits-aircraft/aircraft/p-39q-airacomet-bell/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121711330000/http://www.vasc.org/exhibits/aircraft/airacobra.html to http://www.vasc.org/exhibits/aircraft/airacobra.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826044759/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=477 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=477

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bell P-39 Airacobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121082940/https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo_explorer to https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo_explorer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Unclear
"The P-39 was used by the Soviet Air Force, and enabled individual Soviet pilots to collect the highest number of kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type flown by any air force in any conflict" I know a certain amount about WWII fighters, and yet even I cannot decipher the exact meaning of this. I presume it means that Soviet pilots racked up the highest personal score counts for any pilot flying a US built fighter, but you have to step back and re-read it to get the meaning to register, and even then it's not clear if the scores we are talking about are PERSONAL scores, if if it means each PLANE had the highest number of kills per plane. I.e. a single pilot flying a series of 5 diffferent P-39s shoots down 100 enemy fighters, thus giving the PILOT a score of 100 kills in the P-39 (assuming they were all gained while flying the P-39, which is often not the case) but only an average of 20 kills per P-39, or does it mean that each single P-39 shot down a higher average number of planes, i.e. each P-39 shot down on average 20.1 planes (for example). Or it could mean that certain individual P-39s reached much higher numbers of kills per plane, i.e. there was a single P-39 that shot down 230 enemy planes, while being flown by 5 different pilots. Since I beleive I've read somewhere in the past that Soviet kill markings were applied to each PLANE, rather than to any specific pilot flying the plane, it is hard to be sure (I don't say that I'm sure about it, just that I may have read that). And I KNOW that I've read that wingmen were granted "kills" for assisting the leader in shooting down a plane, i.e. the leader gets a kill, the wingman is credited with 0.5 kills. In any case, it's not obvious what it means, even to me who has been reading about WWII planes for years. If it is the first, most likely choice, it ought to say "the P-39 was also used by the Soviet Air Force, with some Soviet pilots achieving the highest number of personal air combat victories attained flying any single U.S fighter type of the war". Or something like that. I also object to the "it was hampered by the lack of an effective turbo-supercharger". It was hampered by the lack of an effective SUPERCHARGER (ss far as high-altitude goes), whether mechanical or exhaust driven. A good mechanical 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger would have served just as well as a turbocharger. There is no special magic about US planes that makes them require turbochargers to fly at high altitude. The Spitfire was not hampered by the lack of a turbocharger, nor was the P-51. It's like all the sources you always find that say "the X was hampered by a lack of a supercharger"...no, ALL WWII combat planes, probably without exception, had superchargers. It was the KIND of supercharger that mattered, and a turbo is just an alternative form of supercharger.

Idumea47b (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Survivor - Australia
Beck Museum has been closed for 3-4 years, so pretty sure nothing is on display. Might be worth amending this.

90.213.220.66 (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Move Survivors to own "List of surviving Bell P-39 Airacobras" page
Should we move the listing of surviving aircraft to its own 'List of surviving Bell P-39 Airacobras' page? Redjacket3827 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"Six .30 caliber MGs"
In "Service and Versions" it says "In September 1940, Britain ordered 386 P-39Ds (Model 14), with a 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 and six .303 in (7.7 mm), instead of a 37 mm (1.46 in) cannon and six 0.30 in (7.62 mm) guns".

What version of the P-39 ever had one 37mm and six .30 cals? The only weapons fits I've ever heard of for US service are the 37 and either 2x.50/2x.30 or 2x.50/4x.30 or 4x.50. The RAF simply replaced the 37mm with a 20mm and the two fuselage .50s with two .303 Brownings to standardize.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

And then shortly below this under "United KIngdom" it says "In 1940, the British Direct Purchase Commission in the U.S. was looking for combat aircraft; they ordered 675 of the export version Bell Model 14 as the "Caribou" on the strength of the company's representations on 13 April 1940. The British armament was two nose-mounted 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, and four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in the wings; the 37 mm gun was replaced by a 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano-Suiza cannon. "

Is this in ADDITION to the 386 mentioned above, or does it include it? If it includes it, then how do we reconcile the difference between the one claiming the .50s were replaced with .303s and the next claiming the .50s were retained? I suspect the latter is correct. I've never heard of the British replacing the .50s with .303s, and I can't really imagine why they would want to do so, unless because the .50 looses ROF when sychronized. I mean, a 6 .303/20mm outfit would be decent, but wouldn't loosing both the 37mm AND both .50s make the aircraft unbalanced? The RAF liked the .50 fine in the Spitfire IXE, although that was not a synchronized fit. In any case, they can't both be correct. At best each each is half correct, and some were all .303, some retained the .50.

Idumea47b (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)