Bell P-39 Airacobra, Why the Mid Eng? 

As a kid, I was gifted an encyclopedia about airplanes. The P-39 was one of the aircraft that always stood out. Special place in my heart.

My late father would have thoroughly enjoyed this excellent presentation. He was a P-39 pilot. He also flew P-38’s.

I always think the p39 is fascinating plane due to the amount of myths surrounding it and the differences in reputation between the Soviets and Americans. It really shows how much the use of an aircraft can change its performance. I would love another video about the p39.

I just love how the Airacobra looks. Such a beautiful machine. I'd really like to hear more about her.

Great job! Thank you, Greg. The first unit in Soviet Air Force to fly Aircobras was 298 Fighter regiment. That were P-39K and P-39D-2. The regiment's planes (mostly I-16) were completely destroyed in the early months of the war. On October 20, 1942 pilots of the regiment arrived at Adjikabul (Azerbaidjan) to study P-39 got via Iran. The study began from learning the construction of non-flying P-39D-2. On January 5, 1943 first three P-39D-2 arrived and on January 10 the flights began. The were no accidents during the study. By January 26 the regiment got all the planes. It was February 3, 1943 when the regiment left for the war front. It had 32 planes: 3 squadrons with 10 planes each, plus 2 planes in HQ. 11 - P-39K (37mm cannon) these planes took heads of regiment, squadrons, etc; 21 - P-39D-2 (20 mm cannon) - for ordinary pilots. Some sources say there were 33 planes (11+22). By February 16 the regiment arrived at Kuban and became a part of 219 Bombing division. Its main purpose was escorting A-20 “Bostons” of 244 and 277 Bombing regiments. The regiment flew for hunting as well and by early March 1943 shot 5 Ju-52. In March the regiment made 417 operational flights (567 flying hours), shot 24 planes (10 - Me-109, 2 - FW-189, 1 - Ju-88, 5 - Ju-52) in air and 5 Ju-52 on the ground. Lost 9 planes (7 in combat, 2-non combat loss), 4 pilots killed. During April 1943 the regiment made 346 operational flights (430 hours), shot 50 planes (40 - Me-109). Lost 4 planes, 1 - MIA, 6 planes damaged, 1 - lost during transfer flight. The unit got new planes: 11 - P-39L, 2 - P39D-2. Quote from that time report: “Air fights analysis shows, that Aircobra is equal to Me-109 in horizontal and vertical maneuver. Turning radius is smaller, height gain in combat turn is bigger.” In May the regiment made 514 operational flights, including: 14 - bombing escort, 54 - covering of troops, 2 - “clearing” the air before attack, 5 - against bombing raids, 2 - reconnaissance. Conducted 39 air fights, shot 40 fighters and 27 bombers. Lost 6 planes (5 - shot, 1 - MIA), 2 pilots killed. On May 24, 1943 two pilots of the regiment got the highest military award (Hero of the Soviet Union): Vladimir Seminishin - 8 personal and 7 in-group shots, Vasily Drigin - 12 personal and 5 in-group shots. End of part 1.

It also has to be remembered that it was P-39s along with F4Fs that initially held back the air assaults by the Japanese on Guadalcanal. Good pilot training probably also contributed to their success, but if the planes were crappy I doubt they would have lasted as long as they did.

Thank you, Greg, for doing a more in-depth dive into the P-39 design, it's strengths and weaknesses. As a career aero engineer, I have been standing on the sidelines watching so many poorly thought out comments and criticizms of the design and hoping that someone would step forward with a well researched and comprehensive article. In the trade, we often hear the term, "synergy". The P-39 to me is a clever example of synergistic thinking, where one change results in many benefits. The P-39 is a really clever combination of features that resulted in a compact, lightweight, powerful machine. Unfortunately, it also resulted in a design that had very little internal volume for fuel or for turbocharger plumbing or cooling. The lack of space for a turbocharger was quickly recognized and that feature deleted. Unfortunately, that change made the airplane into a low altitude fighter only. The lack of internal volume for fuel was a tougher nut to crack. The very cleverness of the design packaged other necessary components too close together and certainly consumed most of the space near the center of gravity. In the end, the low fuel capacity limited the range and lack of a high altitude engine limited the operational altitude. So you wound up with an airplane with a narrow operating envelope. Regarding the stall/spin characteristics, I don't have much to offer. Early in my working career I rubbed shoulders with many WWII vets who had flown P-39's. Most of those with whom I discussed the airplane viewed it as a fun and feisty little machine that was entirely useless in a combat role. A great little sport flyer.

Non combat accidents in the Army Air Force were significant, almost half of all losses. My dad survived the collision B 17 with a B24 training over Lavenham England in ‘44. Out of 21 crew 11 lived. The aircraft were of course destroyed. In the fourties’ flying was much more dangerous than today, even when you weren’t being shot at!

There was some wieght savings built in to the mid engine design. Mainly that the engine sat on webbing directly attached to the wing spars, eliminating the typical steel cantilever engine mounting frame. The "Aleutian Zero" was tested against the P39. The 39 could out run, out accelerate, out climb, and even to an extent out turn the Zero at LOW ALTITUDE. However, the power loss was so severe with increasing altitude the the 39 became unstable at only 12,000 feet.

The shaft drive experience must have been useful for Bell's subsequent helicopter building career.

15:05, it was called the 'Townend Ring' not the TownSend Ring, it was named after its inventor, Dr Hubert Townend of the British National Physical Laboratory. Also, the spelling of the aerobatic manoeuvre is 'Lomcovák', often anglicised to Lomcovak and sometimes incorrectly spelled 'Lomcevak'. It was a term coined by the mechanic of famous Czech aerobatic pilot, Ladislav Bezák.

Greg, great video as always. I spent over 3,000 hours in modern Navy Fighter Jets / Training Jets and would agree with your comment about G-Loading. Modern Jet cockpits are well in front of CG, and allow pilots to pull upwards of 7 to 9 G's (depending upon the aircraft). G onset is a concern, but given modern training and assistance from G-suits, it is easily combated. Sustained G is generally the more challenging of the two...G-suits / training help, but one's physical fitness is more important. Our Demonstration teams don't use G-suits while flying the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, relying purely on technique and physical fitness...the more important of the two components of fighting G. Bottom Line: I don't think the Mid-Engine design near the CG for the P-39 made a huge difference in that era for G-Onset for the crews. However, it probably made it feel more lighter and responsive on the controls....but I've never flown it nor read any books on pilots who have.

The end of the story could have included "the Airacobra shot down more enemy aircraft than any other allied fighter", about 5200 according to the Soviet pilots. Half of their top aces flew P-39s and they operated them at full throttle instead of the lower recommended settings. The P-39 flew the entire war with the same basic engine while most of the other fighters got huge increases in horsepower. A 2000hp Cobra would have whipped them all, as it did in the 1945 national air races. Great job Greg as you always do. This is the best Airacobra review I have seen.

My Dad flew 39's and 400's in the South Pacific . He said the plane saved his life many times! It had many firsts for planes in WW 11. He said it would fall out of the sky better than any other plane but would not go to altitude very fast.

If anyone is watching this video who hasn't read Bob Hoover's autobiography you're really missing out. Great video explaining an often misunderstood aircraft. Thanks Greg!

Some historians have an opinion and find sources to support it, ignoring dissenting sources. Some historians look at all the different sources, and base their opinion on the whole of their research. And some historians go out of their way to explain the situation around the publication of those sources, and why they say what they do. That's Greg.

10:24 I remember reading somewhere that there was a shortage on the metals used in turbo production and that the army aircorps gave priority for this metal to the bombers.

I read in Chuck Yeager’s autobio that he really liked the P-38. Great vid!

I first saw a Lumcovak (sp?) in 1966 at the Abbotsford Airshow and was just amazed. I thought he was going to crash until everyone applauded. It's the kind of amazement where your second response - once you realize the pilot is in control of it - is just to laugh out loud because it's so crazy. Good video.

Fascinating dissection. Sounds silly to say, but every since I got to play an Airacobra in a simulator game as a kid its always been my third favorite aircraft of the era. Seeing it and my favorite aircraft of the era, the P-63F together in person really helped

What I like best about your videos are the research and references to original sources and documents, and of course your analyses. So many others will just rehash the commonly already known knowledge and myths…. but with your work we can be sure we are getting the facts…. great work…!

I always loved the Airacobra's clean lines.

One of my neighbors, along with his many other accomplishments, was a test pilot for Bell during WWII. He loved the Airacobra and considered it the best flying plane he had ever piloted. If the thing had a turbocharger it would have ruled the sky.

When I was a kid...like so many kids...I was deeply into model airplanes. I had pretty much every model available scattered around my room. I never fell in love with the Airacobra...but I was fascinated by it. For the longest time, I was pretty sure that it never really existed in real life. It was just too out there...like a science fiction space ship. I'm still fascinated by it...but now, I kinda do love it, for its space ship looks and its 'out of the box thinking' design. Thanks for sharing this.

I can’t wait for the second part to this. I’d love a deep dive into the Soviet reports of the P-39 in action.

P-43 becoming the P-47 kind shows an example of a company adopting the "just make it work" approach to fitting the turbo. Seems that if the P-39 had similar efforts, it too would have grown larger in size, but gaining performance and possibly having a chance to see the aerodynamics much improved along the way. And ditching the cannon, or at least going with a more normal 20mm or 30mm would have helped. But also fully committing to the mid engine with a pusher prop would have helped too (like the Do 335 or the Celera 500). Pilot and guns more forward in a lighter nose to put fuel between the pilot and engine, with a sliding canopy over that new fuel tank. Retaining the trike gear (almost necessary now with a pusher prop).

Hi Greg, LOVED this presentation on the P-39. I've had a sentimental place in my heart for the P-39 since I was a kid. It came from the Doubleday War Planes books (5 inch x 5.25 inch size) of the early 1960's, the "Fighters 4" edition. What was the first plane discussed? The P-39! That little book sparked my imagination about WWII fighter planes, a love I have to this day. I even fly an RC version of the P-39 (1.2 meter wingspan) and it flies excellent! I hope you do another P-39 presentation. I always thought that the P-39 was just caught in an "in-between" moment in aviation development and could have been quite an excellent plane. I still love the looks of it. Thanks for all your work in bringing these WWII planes to life with their development stories. Fascinating stuff. I've loved the P-38 and P-47 articles in particular. They are also favorite planes of mine. Best of luck to you and your channel!

One thing I’d say about CG is that, as the designer, if your CG moves back because of a mid-engine mount, you just shift your wings backward to accommodate it. Bell wouldn’t have designed an airplane knowing they had an unstable aft cg. I’m surprised anyone ever made that argument.

It would be awesome to have an analysis of the Soviet experience. They loved the plane and it was highly successful

I think one factor with people saying the P-39 has no supercharger is that people frequently discuss (turbo)supercharger (stages) in terms of their impact on altitude performance, and a mechanically driven supercharger that's running at full blow at sea level doesn't impact pilot workload or altitude performance and it gets rolled into the engine. As far as purely flight minded people go, there's a bit of a conceptual misuse of superchargers as being specifically the ones for altitude performance.

Give Me Operations 🎶 don't give me a P-39 the engine is mounted behind she'll tumble & spin & she'll auger you in don't give me a P-39 🎶 In all honesty, there are many other choruses complaining about other aircraft eg. P-51, P-38, etc. I always found this to be a fascinating aircraft and you have given it a fair and informative breakdown.

Thanks again for yet another informative video. Just a couple of points to add. First, one of the main reasons for deleting the turbocharger was to get a modern fighter into combat service as soon as possible. Working out all the problems with the turbo would have added months and maybe years before it was ready. The contemporary P-38 didn't get into combat until the very end of 1942 while the P-39 was ready for combat in spring of 1941 had it been necessary. Second, the fuel capacity could have been easily increased by replacing the ineffective wing light machine guns with 15 gallon fuel tanks in each wing. That would increase the total internal fuel capacity to 150 gallons, same as the P-38 and P-40.

I once had the opportunity at an airshow to stand directly in front of a P-39 during the start up and warm up period. The amount of shaking (or wobble) back and forth on that long spindly front landing gear was shocking to see and for a few seconds caused fear that a catastrophe was imminent. Ever since then, that's about the only feature of the airplane that gives me pause to wonder about how that worked out in service, especially on less than great surfaces. Thanks for another great video, Greg. I've noticed that you are referenced very favorably by commenters on other aviation channels, so good on ya!

Can’t wait for the next one. I know you work full time but every month I’m dying for another video. I just love the way you engage a topic so thoroughly!

Soviets absolutely loved it! Look forward to the P63 video!

Surely the fact that Eric “winkle” brown’s favourite aircraft during WW2 was the P39 tells a story, it is mentioned in his book when he took ‘ his’ P39 up for its final flight before it was withdrawn from service due to its age .

Some of the best and infrequently seen photos of WWII aircraft are in your videos. Great job Greg!!

I always felt that a lot of the problems with the P39 was our pre/early war training and doctrine. Not that it would've ever been up there with the P47s and P51s but I don't feel it was as bad as we're led to believe. The Soviets, from what I've read, did pretty good with them because they found their strengths and weaknesses and then they flew the hell out of them.

I met Bob Hoover once. His mustache was quite flamboyant at the time.

Would love a king cobra video. This is such an interesting aircraft.

Finally! Someone that addresses the missing turbocharger! I can't tell you how many times I've had "historians" tell me the P-39 never had one. I've been a fan and student of WW II aircraft since I was ten or eleven years old, and I knew damn well I'd read that the P-39 had been originally intended for turbosupercharging. The text I read indicated the bulk of turbochargers produced by GE were slated for Lockheed and the P-38; the Bell Company were a distant second or third. Therefore they chose to delete the turbocharger altogether. Performance suffered accordingly.

Cool, I love the "iron dog"! Such a 1930's, Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon look. Seriously, the P-39 was not as bad as many think. Under 15k feet, it was fast and manueverable.

I want to thank you for offering such interesting information on these wonderful aircraft… I’m no pilot, engineer, nor a designer. Just a retired soldier that has always loved world war 2 History… this adds a whole new level of understanding to the time period. Along with my History degree, and study of Socio-Economic problems of the period, it surely adds more “color” to the complete picture. Your thoroughness is to be commended. 🇺🇸

Years ago I read a biographical account of an US AAF pilot's tour of duty with his P-39 in the Pacific campaign. The book was titled after the name of his plane, "Madeline" or Katheline" or somesuch. In it, he describes how some pilots just didn't grasp the spin recovery very well, but others tamed it just like the book said. Overall, he was quite impressed and attached to his aircraft, as he spent almost his entire tour getting to know it and using it to good effect. In short, it did well, but didn't have the ceiling to pursue high-flying enemies, as you said. Which is why it performed so well in Soviet hands, where it was used as a ground attack and tank-buster plane.

My favourite WW2 plane (apart from the doors). Appreciate the effort explaining why it wasn't going to achieve its full potential.

Great vid Greg as usual I learned a lot from it and I consider myself a WWII aviation enthusiast.

Somehow I think this plane was better then presented by history. And the evidence of this was staring in our faces until Greg pointed it out in this marvelous video. And those are the wise words spoken by someone who said: "If it looks good, it flies good!" And man does this plane looks good!

I always considered the P-39 an aerodynamic "10"! When I built my first flying scale model of it, I fell in love.

Another great video, Greg! Just wonderful information...largely unknown information. Great insights and amazing display of data. Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to produce these excellent videos. i hope you will follow up with more on the P39. Of course, i hope you just make lots of videos on whatever suits your fancy! Thanks Greg.

I always have thought of the P-39 as a great export fighter and this video reinforces that... As you said it's cheap and it sounds like it was made for border defense something that was extremely unlikely to happen to the US any time the P-39 was in service and only if the axis won. Still sounds like a great plane and I would love to hear more on it!

I am an aeronautical illustrator and have been illustrating, designing adverts and layout for several publications for years and in all cases and all publications advertisers are rarely given the outright choice of a say on accompanying pages content - only the 'whale' advertisers who took out full page, double spread and article adverts (and paid a premium) had some sway in advising accompanying content but ultimately it is always at the editor's discretion which in most cases means quite considerate and thoughtful layout - if a cherished advertiser complained about this in a published edition it would more than likely be revised, within reason, going forward but other than 'behind closed doors' arrangements I don't know of advertisetrs being given a proof before publishing ... this, it must be said, pertains to modern publications (I have been professionally working since around 2001) so I can't really speak to classic and vintage publication's policies but I have an extensive vintage collection of aviation magazines and I have noticed less consideration given to this.

Saw a P-39 at an airshow once. It's performance at low altitude was quite impressive.

Great video. I know this isn't a statement on the historical merits of the planes, but back in the early days of War Thunder I used to live flying the P-39 and P-63 in Historical Battles modes. They were very fun planes to use.

I've come to know so much more about warbirds from your content that I ended up making a playlist of the audio from your vids to listen to as I go about my day(and a whole different playlist for the P47 which is an audiobook in itself😁)

To those of us who are fascinated by this subject matter, your videos are always a treat. You can learn so much.

One of the other knocks against the P-39 that I'd like to have seen addressed was the claim that the forward-hinged cockpit door made it difficult to bail out.

Oh Greg, mentioning combat performance in soviet air force, but not summarizing it. What a tease.

I am a retired competition aerobatic pilot. I believe your analysis is correct Greg. The pilot near the cg is immaterial for sustained g work, but should be easier on the body during rapid maneuvering, such as during snap rolls.

Your comment on the engine trying to roll the airplane reminded me of something my dad told me. He grew up on an airport and was in charge of washing the planes. He had to move a Corsair over to the hose, the pilot told him not to get anywhere near full power. Apparently a Corsair at full power, zero airspeed, and no armaments will roll right over.

Interesting video, as always. The P-39 is one of the fighters that I'm very curious about, due, of course, its unusual engine configuration. You took lots of questions I had about it. And about the Soviet 'Cobras, well, you gave the appetizer, now we want the full course.

👍As usual, another excellent video Greg. What surprised me was the disappointing drag factor. It looked like it had good aerodynamics, was compact and not too heavy. Can't help but feel it should have had better performance.

This is my favorite aviation content ! Thank you greetings I’m Greg 🙏🏻

As a car guy (specifically into drag racing) I've always been amazed at how much we've cribbed from NACA over the years. So many of these "undisputed" facts I've heard over the years about turbo vs supercharger, airflow/cooking/drag, structural design and more all have their roots in these NACA reports. Case in point the famous NACA vent that became ubiquitous on performance cars like the Ferrari F40 which is covered in the things.

Absolutely love the idea of mid engine prop fighters. Very cool.

Oh man!!! Greg finally did it- covered my favorite Old-ball and controversial aircraft- the P-39!!! Thanks Greg. Can we get a detailed video on the P-51A/36, A-20, and the infamous controversial and misunderstood Martin B-26?

UPS crew member here. Love your videos. Never stop

As an undergrad in aerospace engineering, your channel is a national treasure, thank you for your service :)

This was great! I would absolutely love it if you were to do another vid on the P-39. I'm also very hopeful you'll cover the P-63 at some time too. There was just something so innovative about this plane design that inspires my "Inner Geek". Thanks again, Mo-

Excellent. Thank you for putting this excellent video together. The P-39 has always fascinated me. I"m sure I'm not alone in saying I'd very much like to see a part 2 at some point, with more of discussion of how and why the turbo-supercharger was not used in the production aircraft.

Love the P-39. Thanks for this great video.

Every day that has an upload from Greg is a good day. Edit: I would appreciate hearing your assessment of the Bell engineers report on their trip to the USSR.

Informative video, easy to follow. I had thought the engine placement was due to the M4, not aerodynamics. And the engine torque issue makes sense. I never thought of it, really, but that did remind me of something I read about a few Italian fighters having different sized wings to counteract their engine torque.

The Me-309 (prototypes only) comes to mind with a 30mm cannon firing through the prop and a nosewheel rotating to lie flat under the engine.

"Lomcovak" introduced at 42:58 but at the page turn at 43:03 it's defined as "headache." It hit my funny bone. The video clip in the description is wild.

I always loved this airplane...being a tri gear made it look very futuristic.. I built several models as a kid and one r/c plane made out foam. If I built an experimental plane this would be on my bucket list. Too bad it got a bad rap...because It's really a sexy airplane.. Thank you for a great video. .

Thanks, Greg. I've been a fan of the P-39 for a long while, nice to see it getting some attention.

I just love these videos! As a professional corporate/charter pilot and absolute aviation nut, these are just awesome! Thank you for sharing!

What a beautiful plane that captures the "Streamline Moderne" style of the 1930s.

Excellent content Greg. The P39 has not been treated kindly by the internet. As you reiterate, it was product of its times.

With engineers this good it's no wonder they were the ones to break the sound barrier.

Out of all those in WWII, the P-39 is my #1 favorite. Learned to fly in a tricycle landing gear craft (Cessna 150). Fun aircraft. The 39 is very much more involved. Would've loved to have flown the P-39. I know we would get along well together. Amazing sound it has too. Thanks so much on this video. Clears up a lot of bad press.

I fell in love with the P39 for 2 reasons 1) it fired it’s cannon through its propeller hub and 2) it was mid engine like my 914 !!!!

Greg. Thank you for Another great video. I can’t wait to hear about the P63 and the Soviet experience with the P39.

Great job Greg! You cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had.

Love the channel Greg you always produce some of the best content online!

In the old USAF T-37 the manual's spin recovery procedure not only tells you to use full forward stick but to "slam"it forward. The wide flat nose of the Tweet was the culprit. If you look at the plane you'll see horizontal strakes on the side of the nose to break up air flow across the nose in a spin. The nose shape caused a lot of lift when subjected to the yaw exp[experienced in a spin, bring the nose up even further.

Well done article on the Aircobra

As always, a brilliant video. So full of detail but told in a way that even us non-engineers can easily follow. Thank you Greg.

The mid engine also gives the P-39 excellent moments of inertia. (More of the mass is near the CG so it doesn’t have to leverage it up or down when pitching). I think, Chuck Yeager mentions this in his book.

I just started the video but I have a feeling this is going to kick ass.

"To be in harmony with the parlance of our time". The Greg abides.

Wow. Thanks Greg. You cleared up quite a few of the misconceptions I had about this aircraft. I saw a P 39 up close at an Air Museum and I could not believe how small it was. Thanks so much for the great content.

The version I've heard about the removed supercharger is that the lack of weight and duct drag allowed for a significant increase in speed. (Around a ten to fifteen percent change) In turn, this would be ideal for countering low altitude high-speed craft like the Do-17 that had already been seen in Spain. Other airplanes could handle the opponents in upper altitudes, or for that matter a good bomber stream could defend itself. Reduced price and complexity can be an attractive feature as well.

Hi Greg! You all right? I hope you’re fine and well...two months without a new video, I start to feel abstinence! I sorely miss the best aviation tech contents available here on YT!

This is really eye-opening as to what test pilots did and how different everything they had to remember about each aircraft they flew might be. I'm always fascinated to hear about Soviet experience and Allied cooperation, so I look forward to that video.

Excellent, Greg, as usual. The CG discussion was enlightening, as well as your commentary about drag. I've always thought the P-39 was one of the sexiest-looking fighters of WW II, and wondered why - especially given the cliché that "if it looks fast, it'll fly fast" I've often seen attached to the P-51 - its performance at low altitude (I've known about the turbo issue for a long time) wasn't better. Drag goes a long way toward explaining that. Close examination of your photos that include the cockpit show why visibility was less than optimal, as well. A bubble canopy would have helped immensely. Yes! Yes! By all means, put together another video on the plane's performance. So much of what I've read about its combat performance paints the P-39 as a dog in the air, which clashes dramatically with the service it provided to a lot of apparently quite satisfied Russian pilots on the Eastern Front. And, since I'm a Pacific-theater guy due to my Dad's combat service there with VF-19, I'm especially interested in its success - or lack thereof - against the Japanese, since much of the dogfighting in the Pacific was done at relatively low altitudes (much like the Russian front), where the turbo issue should have had less of an effect.

Greg, have you read the book Nanette, by Edwards Park? ' 'Nanette , a tempermental P-39 Airacobra, was a Gopher squadron plane flying against the Japanese in New Guinea. To Park, she was a 'sexy machine, and rotten.' Together they flew countless wartime missions, so vividly described here that the reader sighs with relief when Nanette and her pilot return safely,"

Great video. There had of course been biplane pusher fighters with the engine located near the center of gravity, and Woods may also have been aware of the Westland F7/30 and Koolhoven FK.55, which had similar engine mounts with an extension shaft driving a tractor propeller. Incidentally Bell proposed both a model 3 design with the pilot seated aft of the engine, and a model 4, which became the XP-39.

Great stuff. I've always been fascinated by the P-39 and would be interested in another video by you on it.

That XP-37 would be a ground-handling nightmare for the pilot, what with what looks like at least 13 feet if nose ahead of the cockpit and that conventional undercarriage.