P-39 Tumble and Spin Test WW2 Film

The U.S. Army Air Forces produced a short film to discuss the spin characteristics and procedures for the Bell P-39 Airacobra fighter. The film disputes a tumbling phenomenon described by some pilots. (Presented on KZbin for historical interest only, and not for instructional or operational purposes.)
#P39
#Airailimages

[@airailimages]

Here's more great P-39 film from the war: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHe0k6Rqfc6AhLM

[@mikebarr9865]

My dad flew these before the war and wasn't a fan. Luckily when he got to England his unit was equipped with Spitfires.

[@airailimages]

Thanks for watching and commenting. Always good to hear from the families of veterans.

[@doughumes]

From Chuck Yeager's biography: There were three squadrons in our fighter group, and among all those pilots, I was one of the few who loved the Thirty-Nine and would gladly have flown it off to war. The British refuse it, and so did our own Air Corps, except for instruction, so we gave P-39’s to the Russians to fight in. Our guys even sang a song about it: Don’t give me a P-39 With an engine that’s mounted behind It will tumble and roll And dig a big hole - Don’t give me a P-39 Well it was true that the drive shaft ran right up the center of the cramped cockpit, that the airplane performed beautifully at low altitudes, but was underpowered up high, and that if you stalled it, you might wind up boring a deep hole because it spun like a top going down. But once you had a feel for the ship and understood it, the Thirty-Nine was a fun airplane to fly. Another problem was maintenance. We flew so much, yet there were few old hands among the ground crews working on the airplanes. There was a lot of trial and error, both on the flight line and in the sky.

[@craigpennington1251]

I can see why some pilots won't recover. That looks pretty violent. And I'm sure, when you're in the cockpit, panic comes on quick. A truly great training and learning film. Thanks a bunch for presenting it.

[@airailimages]

You're welcome -- thanks for watching.

[@petesampson4273]

The P-39 certainly had its quirks and faults but she is still one of the prettiest fighters ever made. I had a 60" span RC scale P-39 and, especially when the nose mounted fuel tank was running low, it did some of the most spectacular spins, snap rolls, and Lomcovaks one could hope for. Alas. She was lost to a midair collision.

[@airailimages]

Yes, a good looking airplane. Sorry to hear about your RC midair. I bet that was a nice machine.

[@stevenhaley443]

Narrator: "Observe how easy it is to recover from a spin in a P-39 above 10K feet". Pilot in test film: "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH SHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIII..........!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[@stevetheduck1425]

Training to avoid spins is unfortunately routinely ignored among light aircraft pilots even today. 'How to get into a spin' should be taught, and 'what is a spin' even more so. Spin recovery should be trained repeatedly until it becomes automatic, like lowering the nose when an engine fails after take-off, instead of turning back while trying to extend a climb with no power, which a confident pilot will almost always attempt, then die from.

[@machia-mw1lm]

An Army / Bell film putting a " spin " on a spin . Not popular with seasoned pilots either . Spins were violent and had a tendency to tumble . Temperamental airplane . The Kingcobra ironed-out these problems . The Airacobra was not a pleasant airplane to fly . She was a handful .

[@odiloglobochnik2259]

Please, stop the BS. Spinning and the supposed "tumble" are totally different phenomena. As for "not pleasant", one should read the British wartime report by RAF AFDU pilots. They considered it to be an easy aircraft to fly.

[@stevetheduck1425]

The perceived problems with an aircraft can take a generation to iron out of brains. The B-26 Marauder was a handful for pilots who learned to fly slower and less advanced planes, they tended to treat it like the planes they were familiar with, a training fault. Pilots who learned to fly it first had no problems with it, and it actually holds the record for bombs-on-target over aircraft and crew losses from WWII. The P-38 Lightning was having a a lot of problems at first, especially in the cold environment of Britain. The RAF test pilots found no benefit in early P-38s over their own types (such as the DeHavilland Mosquito), and It took a squad of US pilots to go around all the USAAC P-38 squadrons, change the ground-crews turbo and intercooler adjustments back to the recommended settings and demonstrate that the plane worked that way before pilots even began to believe it was useful. Ever since, Lockheed has been quick to point out what an excellent, near-sonic design the P-38 was.

[@einherz]

don't mess with p-51 on the ground, and with p-39 in the air