Re: Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

"Gregg Germain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I've often wondered about the Aircobra:
>
>  What if it had a supercharger like the ones fitted to the P-38?  What
>  would it's hi alt performance have been then?
>
>  Same for the P-40, I suppose.
>

The XP-39 did have a type B-5 turbocharger, but there just wasn't room in
the P-39 or P-40 for a supercharger installation like the P-38's.  One of
the reasons the P-47 was as big as it was was to accommodate the
turbocharger and intercooler and all the ductwork they required, and that
was an aircraft that didn't also require a coolant radiator.  The
turbocharger was deleted from the P-39 primarily because the Army didn't
think it needed a point-defense interceptor, so the plane was adapted for
low-medium altitude work.  That decision has been criticized since the war,
but had they chosen to develop the installation the same way they did the
P-38 they'd have had to get by with fewer and even lower performing
airplanes in the early war years and have had a short-legged airplane that
hauled little armament.  The airframe was just too small.