Author Topic: p-63 (Read 1400 times)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2008, 06:16:16 PM »

Just understand that the P-63 is a totally different bird then the P-39.

It's use was minimal if at all in combat where the 39 was in it from 41-45 in every theater of operations outside of the ETO and even the ETO if you count the trials with 601 Squadron RAF and the P400.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2008, 06:38:55 PM »

The best plane, on paper, in the war, and the best plane for life in AH aren't necessarily the same. For special events, models or variants that saw widespread use, in multiple theaters, are going to be more desirable than rarer models which saw limited use.

humble · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2008, 07:03:42 PM »

One of the problems is we've been getting mostly latewar or advanced midwar planes. The P-63 would be just another uber plane amongst similiar rides. While the B-25 is useful its more limited then most envisioned it...so while its not a hanger queen its not far off.

The P-39 fills three pretty good "needs"...

1) It's a good scenario/FSO plane
2) it should fill a nice early war/mid war niched
3) It will offer another good "Skill option" in the LWA

If you could imagine a faster 109E with a spud gun thats as close as you'd find I think in the current plane set. IMO it will see alot of ongoing use in the LWA.

stephen · « **Reply #18 on:** January 19, 2008, 05:35:08 AM »

Anaxogoras.....dude go be an english teacher somwhere else, If you want better writing skills on here, go open a thread about it, instead of hijacking somone elses.

And whats more...NO ONE REALLY CARES.

Shuckins · « **Reply #19 on:** January 19, 2008, 06:20:06 AM »

There are some pretty long-lived misconceptions about the P-63 that have cropped up in this thread. The most common seem to be that the Kingcobra saw limited use and was of limited production.

While it is true that the P-63 did not match the mainline U.S. fighters in production numbers there were still well over 3000 produced. Of that number, more than 2400 were sent to the Soviet Union. Although it was not considered to be a top-tier U.S. fighter, the Russians liked the aircraft. Like everything in the Russian airfleet, they literally flew the wings off them for, by wars end, none were left. Ergo, it saw extensive combat use.

As to its performance, it was a bear at low to medium altitudes. The Kingcobra's supercharging worked very well at those altitudes, attaining speeds of over 400mph up to 22,000 feet if altitude....after that, its effectiveness dropped off rapidly, being easily eclipsed by the systems of the Mustang, and Thunderbolt.

Nevertheless, at its best rated altitude, the P-63 was the fastest climbing U.S. fighter, with rates of climb varying between 3,500 and 4,000 fpm. Rate of roll peaked at or near 110 dps at speeds between 300 to 350 mph. The only other fighters in our inventory that could approach that rate were the early P-40s.

The Kingcobra also possessed one of the best turn rates of all U.S. fighter aircraft. Sans flaps, it could outturn all other mainline American fightes, except for the F4F.

Because of this low/medium level performance, maneuverability, climb rate, and excelleration, the P-63, if brought to Aces High, would quickly establish a dominance over almost all other fighter aircraft.

The only serious drawback to the design was range, since internal fuel was limited to only two wing tanks.

Regards, Shuckins

humble · « **Reply #20 on:** January 19, 2008, 09:17:09 AM »

I dont think anybody mentioned limited production at all. Technically it was not allowed to be flown by the russians vs the germans so officially it only saw limited use in the east. Unofficially multiple guards units were equipped with it in late 44 onward and its appearance duely noted in german combat reports and wreckage inspections...

angelsandair · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2008, 12:06:38 AM »

well, since ive heard soo much bad stuff about the earlier p-39s i think we should get the best 1, so try to tell me more about the p-39s, like what was the best and what was the worst

Shuckins · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2008, 07:46:49 AM »

The prototype P-39 was designed with a turbosupercharger, which gave high-altitude performance above 20,000 feet of around 390mph...excellent performance for the day.

As we all know, the Army made a disastrous decision to remove the turbosupercharger, leaving the Airacobra with only an integral single stage, single speed supercharger. Performance remained excellent below 12,000 feet, yielding 360mph, but fell off rapidly above that altitude. In effect, the P-39 was a dog at high-altitude.

Of the 9500 Airacobras built, about 7000 were of the late-model N and Q Versions, which had increased engine performance above 12,000 feet. These models could attain 375 mph up to 20,000 feet before speed fell off at higher altitudes.

The early P-39D could climb at a rate of about 2400-2500 fpm up to 12,000 feet, after which the climb performance fell off sharply, falling to under 1000fpm at 25,000 feet. Late Q models had rates of climb well over 3000 fpm to 12,000 feet, reducing sharply after that.

Rate of roll was only mediocre, attaining a peak rate of about 75 degrees per second at speeds near 250 mph, thereafter falling sharply to about 50 dps at speeds in excess of 350 mph.

The P-39 had extreme control sensitivity. A P-39 fore-aft stick movement of only one inch would change the wing lift coefficient from a high speed value of 0.20 to a near stall 1.40 with a normal airplane center of gravity location. In effect, if the stick was handled carelessly the aircraft could be thrown into a stall before the pilot was aware what was happening, for stalls occurred with no warning.

The Airacobra could be dived to a maximum Mach number of 0.80 and an IAS of 475 mph, or a true airspeed of 560 mph, as measured at 15,000 feet.

The above information was gleaned from "America's Hundred-Thousand" by Francis Dean.

I have another source somewhere, which I can't lay my hands on at present, which showed test results of a P-39D against an early Zero. The Airacobra outperformed the Japanese fighter by quite a margin in speed, climb, and acceleration at altitudes below 15,000 feet. Above that altitude, the Zero could fly circles around the P-39.

Regards, Shuckins

angelsandair · « **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2008, 03:27:59 PM »

well i heard that 1 of the kinds of p-39s could fly like 2 circles inside a zero (either that or a 109) but im pretty sure it could outmaneuver the zero

Angus · « **Reply #24 on:** January 20, 2008, 03:38:53 PM »

Humble:
"Dont underestimate the P-39....

It's going to suprise the snot out of most people. When the british tested the D model they found it better then anything they had in the horizontal turn, but inferior in the vertical with performance that obviously got worse at realistic combat alt in the west. It could handily out turn a 109E taking on two revolutions to fly completely around the 109 if the 109 started on its tail (British testing).

If we look at its combat record in the PAC it actually did much better them most people think. It actually had better numbers then the spitfires that replaced it vs the zekes(port Morseby). Many of its pilots said it could even outperform the zeke in a narrow window between 8-12k.

So basically you'd have a plane with handling similiar to the Hurricane 2c thats roughly 45-50 MPH faster with 4 x .50 and a 37mm in the nose (using the Q). Obviously handling is a guess till its actually here but at normal AH alts it'll be a tough plane to beat."

While not underestimating it, I am trying to understand issues with the P-39.
Why was it so roughly named "the Iron dog"?
Why did the Germans refer to it as a dangerous opponent above USSR fighters because it had at least a proper gunsight? (just that)
Why did I NEVER see any source stating this aircraft as a turner on a dime!!!!!????
Why would it turn so well with the loading it had. C.o.G. issue? (engine position)
Why the heck did the USA use P39/63 as target drones? (Politics?)

As for the 39 and the 63 to AH, I go YESSSSS BTW.

Shuckins · « **Reply #25 on:** January 20, 2008, 05:14:54 PM »

Angus, the perception of the P-39 as a tight turning aircraft is somewhat relative....depending on what you are comparing it to. Francis Dean quotes pilot reports stating that the Airacobra was slightly less maneuverable than the P-40. Certainly, when flown against the lighter Japanese fighters at low to moderate airspeeds, it would be found wanting.

Yet, that is not really a failing, since no Allied fighter could compete with the Zero or Oscar at those airspeeds. At high airspeeds the P-39 could, like most American fighters, outmaneuver the Japanese. In addition, it could outrun and out dive the Japanese fighters.

The best tactics for a P-39 pilot to use against the more nimble Japanese aircraft was to maintain a high cruising speed of around 300 mph TAS when in enemy territory, make high speed passes, diving out of reach and executing a high speed roll to elude pursuit. To stay and fight the Japanese on their terms was to commit suicide.

Had the Airacobra retained its turbosupercharger its combat history might have been much different.

Regards, Shuckins

DaddyAck · « **Reply #26 on:** January 22, 2008, 04:12:09 AM »

I agree, if it had the turbocharger then yes history might be different. Even so, as it was produced the P-39 was a quirky but a good on the deck to mid alt fighter. I think it while not a turn fighter per say, it would still thrive in the lower altitude fighting that permiates the MA enviorment.