This looks...fun!

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Karnak
Really?

I would be surprised if the Japanese had any Ki-27s still in service that late in the war.

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Ki-43?

The Ki-27 was the last fixed gear fighter for the Japanese Army.  The Ki-43 was the fighter that started to replace it before WWII.

what i read about P-63, a long time ago, was that it's total of confirmed ww2 combat victories was two, a pair of Ki27 in a training squadron downed by 888 IAP (which had recently converted to the kinga cobra from i-16s) iirc....

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Debonair
what i read about P-63, a long time ago, was that it's total of confirmed ww2 combat victories was two, a pair of Ki27 in a training squadron downed by 888 IAP (which had recently converted to the kinga cobra from i-16s) iirc....

Confusing it with the P-61 maybe? (though where a Ki-27 would have come from for the P-61 to shoot down is anyone's guess).

-Sik

[Karnak]

Ah.

Well, a training unit makes sense.  Hardly "air-to-air" combat though.

Originally posted by Sikboy
Confusing it with the P-61 maybe? (though where a Ki-27 would have come from for the P-61 to shoot down is anyone's guess).

-Sik

No, P-61s got a number of confirmed kills, in Europe and the Pacific.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Karnak
Ah.

Well, a training unit makes sense.  Hardly "air-to-air" combat though.

 
No, P-61s got a number of confirmed kills, in Europe and the Pacific.

Yeah, had I finished reading his post about the training unit I wouldn't have looked as dumb as I feel now lol.

-Sik

[Warspawn]

Originally posted by Debonair
what i read about P-63, a long time ago, was that it's total of confirmed ww2 combat victories was two, a pair of Ki27 in a training squadron downed by 888 IAP (which had recently converted to the kinga cobra from i-16s) iirc....

Odd, you'd think that with over two thousand of these sent to the USSR there would be more victories / kills listed than that, even if inflated.

[Warspawn]

Ah, found it.  P-63's weren't "supposed" to be used against the German front, only the far East:

"By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany, and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East against an eventual attack on Japan. However there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that Supercobras did indeed see service against the Luftwaffe. Most notably, one of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to Supercobras in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show that nothing but P-39s used against Germany.

Overall, official Soviet histories played down the role of Lend-Lease supplied aircraft in favor of local designs, but it is known that the P-63 was a successful ground-attack and ground attack aircraft in Soviet service. Sufficient aircraft continued in use after the war for them to be given the NATO reporting name of Fred.

[Debonair]

i read a book by a guy who was sent up to attack B-29s in a Ki.27.
the gist i got from that book was that Ki.27s were considered a good plane to send a n00b up in.
the book was I Was A Kamikaze, good read...
i've also read that P-63 combat victories in the west were not recorded or counted as P-39 victories because
P-63 were sent exclusively for use against japan, or that stalin thought it was bad propoganda.  you read enough & eventually you come across all sorts of crazy stuff.  some of it may ever reflect reality:noid

[Widewing]

P-63A-8 performance from America's Hundred Thousand, page 407-409, and graph 52.

Climb: 2.00 minutes from sea level to 10,000 feet in combat power, wet.
           4.80 minutes from sea level to 20,000 feet in combat power, wet.
           (Leaves the Bf 109K-4 well behind)

Speed: 378 mph at sea level in combat power, wet (faster than Dora and close to La-7)
            421 mph at 17,200 feet, combat power, wet (faster than La-7 and Yak-9U)

Roll rate: 109 degrees/second @ 270 mph (thats Spit16 territory)

Max HP: 1,820 hp @ 75 in/Hg at sea level, combat power,wet.

Acceleration: At sea level, calculated to be better than F4U-4.

Calculated turning performance, no flaps: Expected to be superior to F6F-5, but slightly inferior to FM-2.

In short folks, this baby would be the best low-level fighter in the game, bar none.

Because it offered only average performance at medium to high altitudes, the USAAF did not buy many or deploy those they did buy to combat zones. On the other hand, the Soviets tested the P-63 against the Luftwaffe and found it superlative. There were some issues with a rather weak fuselage near the tail. This was corrected with the P-63A-7 (150 built). The P-63A-8 (200 built) introduced water injection, with the M10 cannon coming into service with the P-63A-9. The largest batch of A models was the P-63A-10, of which 730 were produced. P-63C-1 through -5 constituted the largest block of aircraft (1227 built). Performance was slightly better than the P-63A-8 thru -10.

The Soviets appear to have stockpiled the P-63s in anticipation of declaring war on Japan after Germany was defeated.  

My regards,

Widewing

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Widewing
P-63A-8 performance from America's Hundred Thousand, page 407-409, and graph 52.

Climb: 2.00 minutes from sea level to 10,000 feet in combat power, wet.
           4.80 minutes from sea level to 20,000 feet in combat power, wet.
           (Leaves the Bf 109K-4 well behind)

Speed: 378 mph at sea level in combat power, wet (faster than Dora and close to La-7)
            421 mph at 17,200 feet, combat power, wet (faster than La-7 and Yak-9U)

Roll rate: 109 degrees/second @ 270 mph (thats Spit16 territory)

Max HP: 1,820 hp @ 75 in/Hg at sea level, combat power,wet.

Acceleration: At sea level, calculated to be better than F4U-4.

Calculated turning performance, no flaps: Expected to be superior to F6F-5, but slightly inferior to FM-2.

In short folks, this baby would be the best low-level fighter in the game, bar none.

Because it offered only average performance at medium to high altitudes, the USAAF did not buy many or deploy those they did buy to combat zones. On the other hand, the Soviets tested the P-63 against the Luftwaffe and found it superlative. There were some issues with a rather weak fuselage near the tail. This was corrected with the P-63A-7 (150 built). The P-63A-8 (200 built) introduced water injection, with the M10 cannon coming into service with the P-63A-9. The largest batch of A models was the P-63A-10, of which 730 were produced. P-63C-1 through -5 constituted the largest block of aircraft (1227 built). Performance was slightly better than the P-63A-8 thru -10.

The Soviets appear to have stockpiled the P-63s in anticipation of declaring war on Japan after Germany was defeated.  

My regards,

Widewing

Thus we will never ever see it in game.  
The whine it would produce would put napa (sp) valley out of business.

Bronk

[DoKGonZo]

Well the game needs a P39, and the P63 would be gravy. Just perk the P63 like the 4-Hog to keep it from becoming just a toolshedder.

[Widewing]

A quick follow up.

A P-63A-8, with four .50 cal MGs and 37mm fully loaded, plus full internal fuel weighs in at 8,988 lb. Wing area is 248 sq/ft. Thus, fully loaded without external tanks or bombs, the wing loading is 36.2 lb per sq/ft. At 50% fuel, the weight drops to around 8,600 lb, with the wing loading dropping to 34.7 lb per sq/ft. That is mighty low for a high performance US fighter. In comparison, an F6F-5 loaded with full internal ammo and gas, tips the scale at 12,483 lb, or 37.37 lb per sq/ft. Even at 50% fuel, the wingloading is 35.12 lb per sq/ft. Only when both are virtually out of gas does the wing loading approach being equalized.

Thus, you can see why the P-63A is expected to out-turn the F6F-5.

P-63s also employ a plain flap, similar to that used on the P-51, F6F and Bf 109s. This flap design offers a slightly better lift to drag ratio than the split flaps used on many fighters, such as the Spitfire and P-40.

My regards,

Widewing

[Bronk]

Wide in your opinion. How do you think a late model P-39 would do in the MA environment.
I am thinking that the alt most fight are at it would be more than adequate.




Bronk

[Angus]

Hope Widewing pops in with something on the P39.
As I have read, it would be a MA bird also, much better than many we have.
4 MG's and a 37 mm is good. Not as fast as the YAK perhaps, but once those 37 mm are gone, the 39 has more other stuff.
Carries ordnance as well and was extensively used.
The LW crowd learned to respect it as well.
Perhaps the only mass produced and much used main warbird we don't have in AH?
Fits several arenas, such as USA vs Japan and USSR vs Germany, and even Finland!

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Angus
Hope Widewing pops in with something on the P39.
As I have read, it would be a MA bird also, much better than many we have.
4 MG's and a 37 mm is good. Not as fast as the YAK perhaps, but once those 37 mm are gone, the 39 has more other stuff.
Carries ordnance as well and was extensively used.
The LW crowd learned to respect it as well.
Perhaps the only mass produced and much used main warbird we don't have in AH?
Fits several arenas, such as USA vs Japan and USSR vs Germany, and even Finland!

It fits into North Africa, Sicily and Italy as well.

P-39s vary by model, but overall speed wasn't very good on the deck, making about 310-320 mph on the deck and between 360 and 390 mph at best altitude (typically between 10k and 15k) depending on what model we look at. Some sources claim a speed of 399 mph at 9.8k for the P-39N model. Climb rate for late models (M,N and Q) was average, needing about 1.8 minutes to get to 5k from sea level. Indeed, the P-63 offered nearly twice the climb rate down low. Takeoff weight for a fueled and gunned up P-39Q-1 was 7,570 lb, and the P-39's wingloading was around 35 lb per sq/ft, with that dropping to 34 lb per sq/ft at 50% fuel. That means decent turning ability, but not very good in the vertical.

My regards,

Widewing

[Krusty]

There is no way in hell a 9,000lb plane [edit: with an allison engine] is going to climb 5000+fpm at milpow. It's just not going to happen, EVER. That's like saying the P47 had a 3,500hp engine, and could reach 30k in 6 minutes.

Physics doesn't allow it.

Edit: wait, does "combat power, wet" mean with water injection?

Regardless, 10k in 2 minutes is BS for a single allison engine in a heavy airframe.