Aces High Bulletin Board
July 11, 2014, 08:39:44 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   AHWIKI Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: P-63 Kingcobra  (Read 2486 times)
DMVIAGRA
Copper Member
**


Reg: May 2011
Location: Plymouth, IN

Posts: 321
Offline Offline

« on: October 16, 2011, 05:05:19 PM »





TECHNICAL NOTES (P-63E):
Armament: One 37mm cannon and four .50-cal. machine guns
Engine: One Allison V-1710 of 1,325 hp
Maximum speed: 408 mph
Cruising speed: 280 mph
Range: 450 miles
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft.
Span: 38 ft. 4 in.
Length: 32 ft. 8 in.
Height: 12 ft. 7 in.
Weight: 9,350 lbs. maximum
Crew: One




Yes I know this is in the wrong section.....
 
« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 05:12:53 PM by DMVIAGRA » Logged

bozon
Platinum Member
******


Reg: Jan 2002

Posts: 4538
Offline Offline

« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2011, 05:15:45 PM »

I wonder if this is the 400+ mph capable plane with the lowest engine HP. Only 1,325 HP ?
Logged

Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
DMVIAGRA
Copper Member
**


Reg: May 2011
Location: Plymouth, IN

Posts: 321
Offline Offline

« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2011, 05:23:43 PM »

I wonder if this is the 400+ mph capable plane with the lowest engine HP. Only 1,325 HP ?

I know, I was eye balling it as well. Could be correct, maybe it has paddle prop or something so, maybe alluminum....
Logged

Karnak
Radioactive Member
*******


Reg: Dec 1999
Location: Hutto, Texas

Posts: 22249
Offline Offline

« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2011, 06:21:07 PM »

I know, I was eye balling it as well. Could be correct, maybe it has paddle prop or something so, maybe alluminum....
Paddle props didn't help top end speed, and could even lower it.  They helped low speed acceleration/climb mostly.
Logged

Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-
W7LPNRICK
Gold Member
*****


Reg: Feb 2009
Location: Boise

Posts: 2047
Offline Offline

WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2011, 09:30:03 PM »

I know, I was eye balling it as well. Could be correct, maybe it has paddle prop or something so, maybe alluminum....
Max dive speed w/o compressing...?
Logged

WildWzl
Ft Bragg Jump School-USAF Kunsan AB, Korea- Clark AB P.I.- Korat, Thailand-Tinker AFB Ok.- Mtn Home AFB Idaho<br />F-86's, F-4D, F-4G, F-5E Tiger II, C-130, UH-1N (Twin Engine Hueys) O-2's. E3A awacs, F-111, FB-111, EF-111,
Widewing
Plutonium Member
*******


Reg: Jan 2001
Location: On the other side of that horizon...

Posts: 8416
Offline Offline

« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2011, 10:25:27 PM »

The P-63A was powered by an Allison V-1710-93 engine rated as follows:

Takeoff: 1,325 hp
WEP (dry): 1,500 hp
WEP (wet): 1,820 hp

Note that the P-63 was a very fast climber, exceeding 4,200 fpm below 10,000 feet in WEP (dry), and even better when using water injection. Climb to 10k was about 2 minutes, 20 seconds. Its roll rate was very fast 110 degrees/sec at 260 mph. The P-63 had a laminar flow wing design of considerable area. Pilots stated that it would easily out-turn a P-51B. One pilot stated that "head to head with P-63, a P-51 had virtually no chance."

What prevented the P-63 from seeing front line service with the USAAF was its lack of range. This was not a problem for the Soviets, who liked the P-63A very much.
Logged

My regards,

Widewing
YGBSM

Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, now flying as Tredlite.
Guppy35
Aces High CM Staff
Plutonium Member
*******


Reg: Jan 2001

Posts: 18834
Offline Offline

« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2011, 10:33:41 PM »

She is a pretty bird
Logged

Dan/CorkyJr
80th FS "Headhunters
Raptor05121
Nickel Member
***

Reg: Sep 2008
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Posts: 486
Offline Offline

« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2011, 11:02:54 PM »

The P-63A was powered by an Allison V-1710-93 engine rated as follows:

Takeoff: 1,325 hp
WEP (dry): 1,500 hp
WEP (wet): 1,820 hp

Note that the P-63 was a very fast climber, exceeding 4,200 fpm below 10,000 feet in WEP (dry), and even better when using water injection. Climb to 10k was about 2 minutes, 20 seconds. Its roll rate was very fast 110 degrees/sec at 260 mph. The P-63 had a laminar flow wing design of considerable area. Pilots stated that it would easily out-turn a P-51B. One pilot stated that "head to head with P-63, a P-51 had virtually no chance."

What prevented the P-63 from seeing front line service with the USAAF was its lack of range. This was not a problem for the Soviets, who liked the P-63A very much.

so why do we not have this plane in game?
Logged

InGame: xRaptorx of the ***Alchemists***

Quote from: dirtdart
To suggest things that do not meet this basic criteria is equal to masturbation.  It may feel good to you, will not produce any tangible results, and you may be embarrassed if you get caught. 
Karnak
Radioactive Member
*******


Reg: Dec 1999
Location: Hutto, Texas

Posts: 22249
Offline Offline

« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2011, 11:08:38 PM »

so why do we not have this plane in game?
Because if it saw any combat at all it was a very small amount of combat.

Yes, I know, Ta152 and all, but the Ta152 reuses a lot of artwork from the Fw190D-9.  Despite the similar appearance of the P-63 to the P-39 it is actually a 100% different aircraft and would require completely new artwork.
Logged

Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-
Tyrannis
Persona Non Grata
Gold Member
*****

Reg: Sep 2010
Location: Ohio

Posts: 3931
Offline Offline

« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2011, 12:09:09 AM »

I think the biggest problem with getting the kingcobra's approval of admission, is that there are no official documents saying it has a combat record. At least that's what the past 2 topics on it has boiled down too.

Some say it was deployed in the Soviet Union, but never saw combat.

Others say it saw limited combat in Manchuria when the russians attacked Japan.
Logged
bozon
Platinum Member
******


Reg: Jan 2002

Posts: 4538
Offline Offline

« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2011, 02:40:01 AM »

The P-63A was powered by an Allison V-1710-93 engine rated as follows:

Takeoff: 1,325 hp
WEP (dry): 1,500 hp
WEP (wet): 1,820 hp

<snip>

What prevented the P-63 from seeing front line service with the USAAF was its lack of range. This was not a problem for the Soviets, who liked the P-63A very much.

That is a monstrous WEP! extra 500 HP over the 1300 HP and in a light aircraft is huge!
The 39 and consequently the 63 were completely castrated and neglected - somebody up there in the decision making rooms did not like it. Had the 39 been taken seriously, a 63-like plane could have been around even before the P-51 entered service. Not to mention that in 42 the americans could have had at least one plane that did not suck. I am also certain that if range was a requirement, it could be significantly increased when designing the 63.

One of the great things about american aircraft industry at the time was that they were very daring in their designs. You don't see any serious twin-booms or rear engines anywhere else. The 39 got some really stupid decisions made for it, lost favor and cast aside, receiving no development budgets and a legend was lost.
Logged

Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
Debrody
Platinum Member
******


Reg: Nov 2010
Location: Das Muppets o'club, das nachfolgendes Bier bitte!

Posts: 4301
Offline Offline

« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2011, 03:03:56 AM »

If im right, the p63 was just like what the p39 "should be". Heard they removed the compressor and did some weird stuff to make it cheaper and simpler. I dont know much about the 63, but looks much more like the 39s original plan.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 05:25:04 AM by Debrody » Logged

I was that "Dora'hore"              
My Angel, show me the way
DMVIAGRA
Copper Member
**


Reg: May 2011
Location: Plymouth, IN

Posts: 321
Offline Offline

« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2011, 05:12:53 AM »

I think the biggest problem with getting the kingcobra's approval of admission, is that there are no official documents saying it has a combat record. At least that's what the past 2 topics on it has boiled down too.

Some say it was deployed in the Soviet Union, but never saw combat.

Others say it saw limited combat in Manchuria when the russians attacked Japan.

"All this production and delivery effort resulted in the destruction of only one Axis plane, a Japanese fighter shot down during the invasion of Manchuria. The first P-63A regiment, the 28th IAP, was part of the Moscow area PVO, but there had been no raids on Moscow for three years. Most Kingcobras were still in Siberia when Germany had been defeated in May 1945. For the war against Japan in August, they equipped the 190th and 245th fighter air divisions (IAD) on the Transbaikal Front, while the 410th and 88th IAPs on Kamchata supported the attack on the Kuriles, and P-63s served the Soviet Pacific Fleetís 7th IAD. That divisionís 17th IAP scored the Kingcobras sole recorded victory over a Japanese fighter on August 15, 1945."

2nd Paragraph from the bottom

http://www.americancombatplanes.com/p63_1.html
Logged

Slade
Silver Member
****

Reg: Feb 2009

Posts: 891
Offline Offline

« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2011, 12:03:51 PM »

+1 (but perk it if required)
Logged
oboe
Platinum Member
******


Reg: Jun 2000

Posts: 5386
Offline Offline

« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2011, 12:18:23 PM »

+1

I'd sell my grandmother to the Cossacks for this plane.
Logged

DGS II 364th FG 385th FS

Aircraft Profile
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to:  

Design By simply sibyl And Free Forum Hosting
Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines