Warbird Information Exchange

Hi Digger,

My apologies for taking so long to get back to this, but it has become a pet subject for me and I see it got a bit side tracked anyway. I took the liberty of discussing your P-39 question with a colleague of mine while I was on an overseas trip recently. I have attached his response for your information and would be interested to know if you can provide further information about any other codes, number etc located on your Airacobra. Here is the response I received;

Regarding your questions on your P-39, the 317 number does not necessarily mean it was the 317th P-39 made, in fact I doubt it very much. In the early days Bell was struggling to get contracts for its new pursuit aircraft. With a war in Europe looking imminent Bell applied for a run of US serial numbers, but to say they produced their aircraft in this same order is a misconception. For example, take a look at a good P-39 reference book, I use Airacobra the Flying Cannon because in the first part it contains numerous pictures of early Bell factory conditions. If you look at some of these factory shots especially those referring to the construction of the D model, which I believe is the model you have in question, you will note the tail numbering is written in chalk on the rudder (pages 20 and 21) looking at this line, you will note that these “D” models are in fact C models and commence their numbering at the bottom of the page with 15-2, then 15-4 then 15-6 and so on. These are C models because there is not armored glass and no reinforcement strap over the pilot’s canopy just to point out a few model differences. On the next page, picture of the same assembly line but from the other end you see the same numbering process but ending with 25 (????) Why does it end with 25 and not 24 or 26?.
Simple, whenever Bell needed an aircraft they simply took one from the assembly line, looking at these same pictures you will see an aircraft with its rudder removed and gun bay covers off. This is in fact the first example of the P-39E which was to end up as the P-63. So how can we have an E model sitting in the middle of the first run of D’s and how does the first E model US serial number of 41-19501 equate back to the number applied on its rudder in this picture, being 15-16. Given that the first batch of D model Cobra’s had US serial numbers commencing with 41-6722 through to 41-7052, 41-7057 and 41-7058 and 41-7080 through to 41-7115 means that your model 15 P-39 with number 317 and US serial number 41-6978 is, if we follow the logic of the sequential system, about the 256th P-39 made, but as I have pointed out above using the development of the E model this is most likely not the case. In addition to this point is the fact that the serial number 41-6978 actually falls within the first run of serial numbers, that is, within the limits of 41-6722 and 41-7052. I’d suggest that the actual construction number would be something less that 317 and 256 simply because if the sequential system was applied, then you would have to minus the NA prototype, the YP39 (totaling 13) and the 20 P-39C models and the remaining 80 of that batch, making your cobra something like construction number 143.

So what is the relevance of this? Well I can tell you Bell did not apply the sequential system to its early aircraft contracts. It was too busy trying to survive a potential financial disaster to put into place a construction system similar to Boeing or North American, two companies that had adopted the Taylorist approach to the methodical assembly line regime, Bell did adopt this approach later in its manufacturing life and employed the expertise of our US Industrial genius Henry Ford and there are plenty of images of this fact around page 40 of the same reference book. Given your description of this particular P-39, the early type instrument panel, the apparent lack of tail fillet or a tail fillet fitted sometime after manufacture indicates to me a very early model P-39 and once again I would suggest a construction number less that 143. My reasoning for this is two fold. Firstly when Bell finally got its French and English contracts it would have already had its P-39C model well underway on the production line and it would have continued to manufacture the P-39 in its original “C” configuration until the French had indicated the required changes that eventually produced the Airacobra 1 or the P-400.
Remembering all of these events were taking place at the same time and Bell was also communicating with the Army Air Force to order more C models. So Bell would have had a long line of partially made C models and an even longer line of parts and sub assemblies sitting in waiting for these anticipated contracts to come to fruition. To add more confusion to the matter, Bell regularly took aircraft off the assembly line and used them as test beds for engine improvements, change in rudder and wing design and so on. When they were finished with these aircraft I doubt they scrapped them, I would believe, given the desperate times Bell was experiencing and also the desperate climate that was brewing, would have simply put the aircraft back into the assembly line and whatever model was being produced at that time this reintroduced aircraft would simply be rebirthed. Hypothetically speaking, it was possible for a C or D model to come out of the Bell plant as an N or Q model. Secondly you mentioned a series of numbers and letters being EV---6000-P4LX2-000001-31-41---MFG---10-23-41.
This code relates to design phases and model development. I am surprised to hear this code has been found on this P-39 as I have never seen it on others I have inspected, but then again I will say I have not deliberately set out to locate it. Regardless of this I can say that EV relates to a Bell experimental code and 01-31-41 is the date 1 January 1941. Given we know that the first P-39C (US serial 40-2971) flew in January 1941 does seem to match the above conclusions that this P-39 is an early variant. Based on this and what we have discussed I would be happy to argue that this is most likely a rebirthed Airacobra ending its production as a D model but clearly retaining some of its original C characteristics. Rather than using the number stamped into the aircrafts instrument panel, that of 317 and which really only provides a link of the aircraft from when it left the Bell production line to when the US Serial number was allocated and because this could simply represent the number of the cabin and not the fuselage. The P-39 with US serial number 41-6978 can be found in several Airacobra reference books being used as a test bed for long range fuel tanks. A check of my own records indicates this trial commenced in August 1941 which is very close to the final date of the code supplied, that of 23 October 1941. Is it possible to determine if there are any other numbers located on this aircraft, if not from the fuselage then from elsewhere on the empennage or tail assembly?

Looking forward to your response.

Shelldrake

Hi there

I have located a number inside the tail assembly, that being either 27 or 29, the handwriting is really bad, I am not sure what that means or how it equates to Bell assembly methods but I am prepared to look at any options. I am pretty happy with the ID being 41-6978 and have a couple of pre-war shots of that aircraft now.

If the 317 number relates to the cabin then why wouldn't the 27 or 29 number also relate to the construction of the tail????. However, it is clear the tail was manufactured without the "D" model filet and I have had that confirmed by a very reliable P-39 source but I was convinced it was still an early D rather than something even earlier. If it started life as a C but left the factory as a D with a US serial number isn't that the aircrafts identity?

As I say, I am open to any explanations.

cheers

Digger )

Hi Digger,

Here is a list of all YP-39 and P-39C's to D's. Note many 'no record of fate' and several C models that came out of the factory as later model D P-39. Your numbers 27 or 29 could they be 27 or 39???

Bell YP-39 Airacobra US Serial number 40-027/039

027 l/g would not extend near Buffalo, pilot bailed out Oct 18, 1940
028 to Chanute Field, IL as instructional airframe Jun 9, 1942.
029 SOC at Selfridge Field, MI Jan 21, 1942.
030 engine failure near Franklin, TN May 10, 1943. Pilot bailed out
031 lost right wing near Dayton, OH Dec 22, 1940. Pilot killed.
032 scrapped at Chanute Field, IL Nov 25, 1942.
033 scrapped at Buckley Field, CO May 7, 1945.
034 scrapped at Reading, PA 1945
035 RFC (Reconstruction Finance Corporation) Lincoln, NB Nov 28, 1945
036 spun in at Bridgeport, CT Mar 26, 1942. Pilot killed
037 RFC (Reconstruction Finance Corporation)Lakeland FL Aug 1945.
038 engine stalled in flight and crashed Norwalk, CT Jan 25, 1942
039 scrapped at Buckley Field, CO Nov 13, 1945.

Bell P-39C-BE Airacobra US Serial number 40-2971/2990

2971-no record of fate
2972-crashed Feb 15, 1942 Bridgeport CT
2973-no record of fate
2974-Returned to Bell Aircraft Plant Buffalo, NY.
2975-modified to D model, crashed Lowry Field CO June24, 1942
2976-no record of fate
2977-Taxiing accident Selfridge Field MI 39PS Aug 4, 1941
2978-w/o Dale Mabry AAF Fl May 1, 1942
2979-crashed Selfridge Apr 2, 1941, mid air collision
2980-crashed Selfridge Apr 2, 1941, mid air collision with 2979
2981-DS173 to RAF as Airacobra I no record of fate
2982-crashed New Orleans AAF May 4, 1942
2983-DS174 to RAF as Airacobra I SOC Oct 28, 1942
2984-DS175 to RAF as Airacobra I SOC Jan 7, 1944
2985-no record of fate
2986-recorded as a P-45A crashed June17, 1942. Charlotte NC
2987-taxiing accident Selfridge Apr 3, 1941. 31 PI
2988-crashed Harding Field LA, Dec 12, 1942.
2989-crashed Selfridge May 5, 1941. Pilot bailed out due to engine fire
2990-Returned to Bell Factory Buffalo, NY.

Bell P-39D-BE Airacobra US Serial number 40-2991/3050
Originally ordered as P-39C

2991-w/o Key Field MS May 28, 1942
2992-no record of fate
2993-crashed Sarasota AAF Aug 23, 1942
2994-no record of fate
2995-crashed, no other details
2996-no record of fate
2997-recorded as a P-39C, crashed Florence AAF Feb 19, 1942.
2998-crashed Spence AAF GA, Nov 13, 1942.
2999-crashed Venice AAF, Aug 14, 1943.
3000-crashed Florence AAF Mar 17, 1942.
3001-taxiing accident Selfridge Aug1, 1941
3002-taxiing accident Reykjavik Field, Ice, Jan 6, 1943. 33FS
3003-w/o Aug 15, 1942. Nelgerdi AAF, Ice.
3004-Forced landing due to engine failure, Selfridge Aug 5, 1941.
3005-Bell Aircraft Plant Buffalo, NY.
3006-no record of fate
3007-no record of fate
3008-Bell Aircraft Plant Buffalo NY
3009-crashed Patterson Field OH Jul 7, 1942
3010-crashed Florence AAF Mar 13, 1942.
3011-no record of fate
3012-no record of fate
3013-crashed Dale Mabry, Jul 9 ,1942.
3014-crashed Spence AAF, Jan 17, 1943. Pilot Killed
3015-no record of fate
3016-crashed Spence AAF, Nov 19, 1942.
3017-to RAAF as A53-8. W/o Mar 30, 1943, converted to components
3018-crashed Robins Field GA, Jan 31, 1944.
3019-no record of fate
3020-taxiing accident Selfridge. repaired w/o Florence AAF 1942.
3021-crashed Reykjavik Field, Ice, Oct 27, 1942. 33FS
3022-no record of fate
3023-no record of fate
3024-crashed Patterson AAF, Mar 27, 1942.
3025 modified P-39D-3 reconn config. Crashed Desert Centre Aug 28, 1943
3026-no record of fate
3027-crashed Craig Field AL, Oct 1, 1942.
3028-crashed Baer Field Texas, Jan 28, 1942.
3029-crashed Spence AAF, Dec 12, 1942
3030-crashed May 18, 1942. no other details
3031-no record of fate
3032-crashed Dale Mabry AAF, Jun 1, 1942. Pilot Killed
3033-crashed Page Field Fl, Feb 19, 1943. Pilot bailed out OK.
3034-crashed after entering flat spin, Spence Field GA Feb 26, 1943.
3035 to RAAF as A53-9. Returned to USAAF in 1943.
3036-crashed Florence AAF, Apr 18, 1942.
3037-no record of fate
3038-no record of fate
3039-taxiing accident Selfridge Aug 1, 1941. 40PS
3040-no record of fate
3041-no record of fate
3042-no record of fate
3043-crashed Florence AAF, Feb 19, 1942.
3044-Landing accident Cross City AAB, Fl, Jan 19, 1943.
3045-no record of fate
3046-no record of fate
3047-Crashed on take off Selfridge, Aug 5, 1941.
3048-w/o after ground collision, Cross City AAB Fl, Jan 2, 1943
3049-no record of fate
3050-crashed Dale Mabry AAF, Fl May 29, 1942


Please note this material is from the combined sources of J Baugher and myself and is not 100% accurate but it does give an idea of some aircraft rebirthing eg D model recon config. I will pass on your information and get back to you soon.

Shelldrake.

im a bit new to this but is it possible to get any photos of the instrument panel? im familiar with what i think is a d model type and later but if your p39 has another style it could help establish how early it is couldn't it?
wouldn't bell be able to tell you if the aircraft you had was started as one model and ended up as another later one? p39's aren't that rare are they? shouldn't there be other d models around to compare serial numbers with and wouldnt these also have their construction numbers, you could work backwards to identify the construction number of your p39?

its very interesting and ill keep an eye on updates

good luck, chris

Ok, I have reviewed all the comments collectively and revisited some of the suggestions to try and work out if my calculations are incorrect. I still do not completely understand the rebirthing issues but simply accept that this aircraft left the Bell factory with the US serial number 41-6978 and these are my reasons for this.

I have examined a number of 'known' P-39's here in Australia and by known I mean the identity of each can be confirmed along with their construction numbers. These are as follows;

The Beck P-39D US serial 41-6951 (also known as the Falletta P-39) and
the Armstrong P-39D US serial 41-6802, please note these serials are numerically lower than the one I believe is mine and will be discussed at the end of this.

As I have said before, the only numbers I have on my P-39 are 317 handwritten on several locations on the fuselage and stamped into the instrument panel. There is also the numbers 27 and 39 handwritten in two
locations within the tail unit (which I can confirm via reconstruction does belong to the fuselage I have).

Now, if I refer to Rick Mitchell's book 'Airacobra Advantage - The Flying Cannon' I can see that 41-6951 had a construction number of 290 and 41-6802 a construction number of 141.

So, I have simply subtracted the construction numbers and the US serial numbers to get the following.

41-6978 with 317
(minus) - 41-6951 with construction number of 290
= 27
As you can see the difference between 290 and 317 is in fact, 27. therefore its most likely that the 317 number is in fact the construction number of my P-39. To check this Hypothesis I have repeated this test with the two known P-39's being;

41-6951 with construction number 290
(minus) - 41-6802 with construction number 141
= 149

Repeating the same process above, the difference between 290 and 141 is 149. This means that the US serial numbers applied, at least in the early stages of the Bell assembly system did follow the US serial numbers.

41-6978 is therefore the US serial number of the P-39 I have with a construction number of 317.

Rebirthing of aircraft. Yes I agree that by looking at several images I have of the Bell line you can see later model F's mixed in with D models, so it is more than likely that nearly completed aircraft had been selected for modification. How you reverse engineer this I have no idea. I can understand that because no C model currently exists it seems like a good idea to reverse engineer my P-39 D back to a C model, but unless there is specific paperwork to suggest that P-39 with construction number 317 really started its life as an earlier construction number I would argue that the other two P-39's, with lower serial numbers would also be candidates for reverse engineering????.

I hope this clears up some of the questions and comments both on line and off line of this forum. I appreciate the help from everyone and truly believe I would not have solved this riddle without the help of this site.

thanks again.

Digger
(aka Peter Smythe)

Hi Digger

I thought I would update my latest P-39 information and answer some of the questions raised previously about your Cobra. I apologise for my late response but I have been overseas in the US, Canada and the UK. Did you know they drink their beer warm in the UK!, very strange habit that. While my travels centred around business, specalizing in current topics affecting International Law I did take time out in each country to check out some well known and not so well known museums and collections. I have updated myself with the current status of this forum and it seems there have been a few changes and sadly some losses. My condolences to the respective families who have lost loved ones in recent times and congratulations to the RAAF for their recent recovery of MIA's in Indonesia and for the recent burial of the 4 crew members of the Australian Beaufighter located last year and, which resulted in the their recovery. Now to a couple of issues on my favourite aircraft the P-39.

I agree with the conclusions you have reached regarding your cobra and its identity of 41-6978 however, my last message was not an effort to discredit this but to put forward a plausible explanation, which I might add I had cultivated from a number of well educated resources. Regarding the numbers of 27 and 39 on your tail assembly. I have it on good authority that this represents the 'series' run or build description series of the aircraft in question, it also reflects the numerical identifiers used for the YP-39 (C models), add this to your information regarding the EV code on your tail section I would suggest this is a unique feature and one not found on many other cobras, it has been described to me as "highly irregular and if true could represent and significant discovery", and given your previous comments about tail fillets and instrument panels I can add this, the instrument panels for the YP-39, the P-39C and those D models that came out of this initial production run should have the same instrument panels, and, so should the first batch of F models because of the reasons mentioned before. Bell removed C model Cobra's for updating to D and F specifications and this was as a direct result of criticims made about the Airacobra I's by the British, while at the same time Bell was distributing its first 20 or so C models to the USAAC. If your tail fillet is a field modification it will have a less number of 'production line' fasteners, those models produced with the tail fillet had 13 attachment points so anything less mean its was fitted after production of the original airframe. Are you in a position to tell us how many your Cobra has??? Secondly, research indicates that not all instrument panel numbers matched the construction number or the US serial number. This again implies your Cobra is an early variant if your numbers match. I have also been told hat you can still get Bell construction details and that these would tell you if your aircraft or those you refered to above did in fact start their lives as an earlier model, in addition to this I have also been told that there are plenty of images in many publications that support the theory that C models were removed and used for trials and testing of new systems. Bell changed the design of the Cobra's rudder three times I believe and used the same aircraft on each occassion. a simplified example but it does demonstrate the mindset at that time. I understand your comment about other D models also being capable of reverse engineered but it seems at least with your current research you are in a better position to present the material to support your claims, if you choose to make them. Otherwise I agree, the identity is that which it left the factory with, but I would highly recommend that you extensively research more photographic material before finalizing your decision.Basically, I have been told that it is acceptable to reverse the model upgrades because the original model is always contained in that final aircraft but you can not upgrade the aircraft to a later model if it did not leave the factory in that configuration, unless their are specific orders or modification guidelines authorising this. T-28's are a good example of this, its acceptable to modify these to earlier and or later modles because this was an accepted practice for this type. i am sure there are others but being specific to early WW2 aircraft the arguement is sound.

And now for some rumors, I have heard from a most reliable source here in Australia that there is another P-39 in South Australia? I should expand on this and explain that a load of aircraft parts, obviously P-39 were seen heading across the border from Victoria to South Australia. I understand that this is a seperate project to your own and is most likely intended to end up with the Classic Jets Fighter Museum. If this is the case, can we expect that yet another high quality restoration matching that of their P-38 will be commenced in the not too distant future, can you confirm this rumor????

Finally, I am still chasing the South Australian Spitfire rumors othr than the Alec Wilson project, can you add anything to that?

Shelldrake