Can you imagine a seriously stripped cobra?
No added armor (the motor in back of the pilot is plenty). No guns in the wings. Just 1 radio.
Take a Mikulin AM-38 in place of the Allison. A ShVAK 20mm and 2 UBS 12.7mm in place of the Olds and Brownings in the nose.
Voila! (French, I know. What's the Russian word?)
Finally, the interceptor Bell meant it to be!
Now you can climb, roll, and turn even better.
No more altitude sickness.
And the 3 guns are putting out more rounds per second (40+) than the 5 American guns did (37), and they'd have harmonized high-powered ballistics. All the better for dogfighting.
Need a 37mm for enemy bombers? Use the Soviet NS-37 for more than twice the firepower of the U.S. Olds 37.
Overheat too much? Keep them on the northern front of the Soviet Union.
Not enough range? Use drop tanks until engaged with the Luftwaffe.
For all we know, many of these things were done, but not by us. What we did was take the P-63 fighter-bomber which was a ton heavier (loaded) than the P-39 fighter, and add more armor (till it could hardly take-off) for target practice. We couldn't see the value of a mid-engine aerobatic fighter to counter the nimble Japanese.
The Russians did. They even downed a Nakajima interceptor with a P-63 no less.

WHEN i mentioned intake, I mean in the combustion chamber.
It was too undeveloped vs it's peers. The Connie inverted inline became a dead-end unfortunately. The best allied inline should have replaced it on the production line back when it first disappointed Bell. The Merlin or powerful Mikulin AM-38. The Klimov M-105 was not more powerful than the Allison and had the negative 'g' problem of the early Merlins. Failing all that, make an American injected and boosted 'DB-601' style inline for that period. That's what the Italians did well (Alfa Romeo Monsonie) but the Japanese, not so well (perhaps weight reduction made the Ha-40 worse in this case). If Allison and Continental had combined, who knows? All this could have been developed on the Airabonita without delaying the P-39 production.

I know it is fantasy to play what if..
But since the basic spin problem was due to a light nose after too much ammo was spent, what if the pilot and weapons swapped places (cockpit forward as in the trainer design but without the back seat) putting the ammo on the c/g. Longer gun barrels wouldn't hurt, improve ballistics if anything (of course the hub gun would go, but 4 synchronized UBS/ShVAK-like guns could be in the sides of the fuselage) If that's not pretty enough, then displace the lost weight as you go, using ballast or something (sliding armor plates).
The problems with tail rudder and elevator contact during a spin could be simply avoided by moving the tailplane forward ala Zero or P-51, perhaps enhancing turning time too. P-39s didn't sputter bunting into a negative 'g' dive like the early Merlin powered RAF fighters of the same period (or Yaks too for that matter). So why not install the improved Allison like those in the P-38 (at least a contender vs P-39/P-40). Why did Bell take so long before fielding a water injected 2 stage supercharged Allison powered P-63C, 1945?
Like the early P-51 with a refined Merlin replacing it's Allison engine, Bell (and Curtis too) should have followed suit. Allison should have followed in the steps of Packard which started producing Merlins for the Mustang. At least a few production lines anyway. North American didn't wait around like Bell once the negative 'g' trouble was cured on the Rolls-Royce Merlin. Either way, U.S. fighters being produced from about 1943 on should have only had competitive powerplants, export or not. No excuses. As it was, the P-39 with a 1 stage supercharged Allison would inevitably use too much war emergency to last very long due to overheating.
A 3rd point would be this. When the Russian delegation visited the Bell factory to give input for the P-63 they should have installed and demonstrated the Soviet guns of the same caliber like the NS-37 and the UBS 12.7 mm and for the P-400 fans the ShVAK or the later B-20. I know I mentioned this before. But P-39s were faulted for mixed ballistic performance. Switching to these guns at the Bell factory (or something like them) would have addressed this. It's no secret that these powerful weapons found their way into Russian Cobras but certainly U.S. pilots should have benefitted too. Bell should have ceased installing the .30 Cal wing guns long before the P-39Q! At least an American version of the high velocity NS-37 cannon and the others would have almost tripled the total firepower! Thus 3 guns would suffice. Their muzzle velocity was all on the same page too. The complaints by U.S. airmen about the slow synchronized rate of fire for the browning .50 Cal (12.7 mm) P-40B cowl guns averaging around 425 r/m made the P-39 look bad at 300 r/m while the Soviet synchronized 12.7 mm UBS fired over 800 r/m each! And the bullet was even heavier not lighter 48 vs 43 gm. Gone would be the jamming headaches of the Olds T4 37 mm or the Hispano 20 mm cannons. The RAF Hispano was more refined than the American Hispano but both paled in comparison to the ShVAK 20 mm or lightweight B-20 in Russian fighters. All had great ballistics but the Hispano was less reliable. On the other hand it fired a heavier shell 130 vs 98 gm. The Hispano was slower and I don't know if it was ever synchronized like the Russian 20 mm. Even then they were as fast as the Hispano unsynchronized: 600-710 r/m - most;
ShVAK/B-20: around 750-850 (708 r/m synchronized).
I'll leave the Vya-23 alone for now.
The P-39 that the U.S. pilots regarded as a dog could have been so much more.

Hmmm, where to start. Main reason Soviets were more successful with P-39 was reduced weight by deleting worthless .30 cal wing guns that weighed (with ammo)400 pounds ("good for damaging German paint" said Soviets). At 7100# Airacobra was equal to 109 and 190 at all altitudes up to 26,000'.

Turbo was deleted because it wasn't ready or reliable. If not deleted P-39 would not have been ready for WWII. Turbo P-38 didn't see combat until 12/42, P-39 without turbo was ready in Jan/41. U.S. would have been in trouble without P-39 in 1942.

Armament (without .30 cal wing guns) considered excellent and devastating by Soviets. No mechanical problems occurred with 37mm cannon unlike U.S. Soviets used P-39 as air superiority fighter (interceptor/escort) not ground attack resulting in 4 0f top 5 Soviet aces flying Cobra.

P-39 was finest fighter in Soviet inventory and was discarded by U.S. much too early. Allison engine with mechanical second stage (in P-63) would have equalled P-51 Merlin performance at high altitude. U.S. gave up on P-39 based on promise of P-47 (somewhat unfulfilled) and gave them to the Soviets who deleted the worthless wing guns and won the war with them.

Another problem concerned the P-39's Allison V-1710 engine. The engine's advertized operational life of 250 hours fell short in Russian front combat conditions, where it lasted only around 65% of that. The degraded performance was attributed to excessive boost that overheated the engine oil and fused bearings. Use of poor quality oil and gasoline also contributed to this. When there was a shortage of American spares over 100 P-39s were refitted with hardy Soviet M-105P engines.
Can you imagine one of those with Russian weapons installed when the U.S. originals were worn out as well?

Soviet P-39 kill ratio against the Luftwaffe was 4 to one in favor of the Cobra to the end of WW 2.
Many of it's losses were due to fatal spins when very low on ammo in the nose.
Even many top Russian pilots fell victim to this accident.
Very quick reaction was necessary to recover.

Just been reading online how Allison engines in the P-39 suffered from poor intake design aside from the turbocharger cut to save the expense, making it less capable at any altitude than it could have been. This, and the fear of having any high-tech well-developed fighters exported (P-400) or otherwise captured. I couldn't believe it. The Russians didn't care. Their aces made it the #1 U.S. fighter for top Allied aces in history anyway. Pokryshkin refused to trade in his 'little Cobra' for a new La-7 !! Imagine if Allison had switched to building Merlin engines (evidently Packard couldn't spare any of their Merlins due to the P-51 demand). Then the Cobra would have fulfilled it's designed intention as an interceptor with a big stick (3+kg/s) at all altitudes.
Speaking of firepower, it has been critisized for having disharmonious mix of guns. This too was remedied by the Russians. This may help account for it's success in their hands. Too bad the USA couldn't do it first.

eliko116, all Pokryshkin´s kills not being counted had nothing at all to do with it being a LL plane, it had everything to do with the Soviet airforce at the time only counting kills that were 100% proven, which usually mean only kills over friendly territory.

cocksucking nonces

VVS also used it as an escort plane for il-2s .Pokryshkin ( soviet ace , 59 victories , p39n # 100 ) prefered this plane even when the VVS comand tried to force him change to La-7 . He wrote at his memuars that he loved the armament of P-39 . His P-39 was firing all guns at once whith one trigger . I heard from my grandfather that he was best scoring VVS pilot , but he was flying american plane thats why some of his victories wans't get into account . Best soviet ace had to fly soviet plane . Sorry 4 my eglish . Thanks .

There was a plan to try a Merlin in the P-63 but it didn't materialize. I guess the idea of focusing this bird on ground support meant the Allison was good enough and let all available Packard Merlins go to P-51s. Still, to see if it could have at least proven itself, just for the record.
Check out the P-63 page.

What a world-beater this could have been, had the supercharger been installed - it's not the thing I would've thought the USA would've overlooked. (I'd compare this oversight to Britain's stupidity with the non-forward armament of the Boulton Paul Defiant). A nose-mounted 37mm Cannon, and a nosewheel would've made it a formidable opponent. I liken this to Britain not having had a 'floatplane' fighter on its ships (U-boat War). A real shame.

525 mph red-line dive speed. This is to alter my earlier post. 380 turn time was 19 Seconds (D&Q). The D climbed to 5km in 6.5 minutes and the Q reached 6km in 8.5 minutes.
This comared favorably with the Fw 190A-4.

Along with losing th P-38 prototype for a photo-op & continuing to produce the B-17 instead of replacing it with the Mosquito one of the biggest mistakes made by the Army Aircorps was messing up the P-39.

In April 39 it did 400mph in trials & could reach 20k ft. in 5 min a minute faster than the P-38. Then the idiots @ NACA fixed it they took away the B5 GE turbocharger & moved the air intakes among other things. They took a 400MPH early 1939 plane & turned it into a 355MPH plane worthless above 15k ft. To add insult to injury they took the marvelous R.R. Merlin & put it in the P-40. Who knows how fast the P-39 would have been with the Merlin, no 37mm gun, laminar flow wings like the P-51 & Hamilton Standard paddle type 4 blade props (P-47).

British Airacobras (P-400) mounted 2 .50 in upper cowl, syncronized, w/ 200 rpg and 2 .30 in wing w/1000 rpg. plus the 20mm Hispano.

Why U.S rejected this beauty?

I have a nose gear fork that may be for an early Airacobra. I can send photos to anyone who can ID this gear. The overall length of the piece is about 40". Inside of the fork is about 15". Thanks for any help.

Can anyone verify the armament of the P39's in RAF use.
The 20mm Hispano with 60 rounds is a constant but the machine guns vary.
2x0.5 & 4x0.3 OR 6x 0.303 OR 2x0.5 & 4x0.3.
It's a small point I know but I'm a real anorak about these things!!

I finally read a spec sheet which gave the range of the Cobra as 300 miles. This would correlate better with the fact that the P39 did not complete it's performance evaluation against the Aleutian Zero A6m2 because it ran out of gas. The 746 mile figure is higher than the usual 675 that is common. Since the prime reason for the layout was to carry a big gun, I wonder why the RAF never thought to fit one of the Vickers 40mm guns used on the Hurricane IID in the nose.And a merlin. I like to fix things 70 years too late. And the nickname of the P39 is Kobry, tovarich.

Climb rate ranged from 2,600 to 4,000 ft/min.
Terminal dive was 475 mph. Pullout was shallow. Controls were still light at high speed. It out-turned Bf 109 and Fw 190s.
Roll-rate was good: 75 degrees/sec. @ 235 mph.
If ammo in the nose got too low it could be spun out of control.

Since the top allied aces were mostly Russian P-39 pilots, and it had the slowest US guns in the nose (37mm = 2 rps; 12.7mm = 5 rps each) and the Soviet NS was the fastest 37mm (4 rps) and the UBS was the fastest synchronized 12.7mm (13 rps) cowl gun, I wonder if they swapped guns over time. We Know that they most often stripped off the wing guns for better handling in a dogfight. Some preferred the Bell P-400 for it's faster 20mm Hispano (10 rps) in place of the M4 37mm (both US cannon were prone to jam unless you fired only a couple of rounds at a time). To bag a Fw 190 or Bf 109 in 1943-44 you needed a pattern of fire denser than 12 rps total!
The Yak-9T averaged 18 rps with just 2 guns: an NS-37 and a UBS 12.7mm in the nose, and it was a hit in air-to-air kills! A ShVAK 20mm in the hub and twin UBS 12.7mm in the cowl would have given a P-39 40 rps - decent for only 3 guns. Then there is the Soviet VYa-23! 9 rps but double the punch of the 20mm. Now the prowess of the Russian P-39 begins to seem more plausible as an ace-maker.

I would like to get tech data/specs for all modifications of the P-39.
I am also looking for any info on the original "Whistlin
Britches" flown by the 69th fighter squadron.

can i have some drawings from aircobra if i can because i am going to r/c plane racings.The aircobra is faster and smaler than mustang ,spitful,MEE e.c.t. plz!

what was the nickname of this aircraft?