Author Topic: Kingcobra (Read 1659 times)

juzz · « **on:** June 04, 2000, 08:54:00 AM »

Hmmm.

P-63A: 360mph at 5,000ft, 410mph at 25,000ft with a 1325hp engine.

P-63C: ???mph with a 1825hp engine! Anyone got numbers for the water injection performance?

funked · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2000, 11:36:00 AM »

P-63A had water injection too. Combat Power was 1500 hp/3000 rpm/Sea Level/60" Hg. Combat Power with water injection was 1820 hp/3000 rpm/Sea Level/75" Hg.

Performance (America's Hundred Thousand, P-63A-8, manufacturer's figures)

Rate of climb over 4500 fpm below 10,000 feet, about 3800 at 15,000 feet, 2800 fpm at 21,000 feet, 1600 fpm at 30,000 feet.

Time to climb to 20,000 feet is a little under 5 minutes.

Speed: About 420 mph at 17,000 feet, 375 mph at Sea Level.

Power Loading: 4.5 lb/hp
Wing Loading: 33 lb/ft^2

Vermillion · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2000, 04:34:00 PM »

I would love to see this baby in AH

Plus you could skin it in either US, Russian, or Free French Markings.

French would be the best publicity wise, but either way it would be a very capable aircraft that I would fly.

Too bad they canceled production of the D model just as it was starting. Think of a slightly more capable C model, but with a bubble canopy !!

But we'll take the C

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

RAM · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2000, 05:08:00 PM »

I only say...

It is UGLY!

-duma- · « **Reply #4 on:** June 06, 2000, 04:21:00 PM »

No comment, RAM

Rendar · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2000, 05:37:00 PM »

Actually, it reminds me of the A-10.

------------------
Rendar

funked · « **Reply #6 on:** June 06, 2000, 05:41:00 PM »

Rendar you're going to have to explain that.

juzz · « **Reply #7 on:** June 06, 2000, 07:04:00 PM »

It got a BFG in the nose.

Vermillion · « **Reply #8 on:** June 06, 2000, 07:38:00 PM »

And yah gotta love a BFG !!

I can't wait to see the P-63 or the Yak-9K

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

leonid · « **Reply #9 on:** June 07, 2000, 12:51:00 AM »

funked,
Are those the stats on the -63, for real? Wow, never knew it had such a performance punch. The Soviets got them very late in the war, and so they don't have quite the 'charisma' that the -39 has in Russia. I really miss that cannon from my WB days. Talk about economy of force: get in close, pop a 37mm round, paint a star on the cowling

funked · « **Reply #10 on:** June 07, 2000, 01:35:00 AM »

Those are Bell's figures. The USAAF figures are less impressive but they still indicate it was a little monster. It's pretty similar to a P-51D... minus 2000 lb of fuel!

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-07-2000).]

RAM · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2000, 05:14:00 AM »

I'll say again.
IT IS UGLY!!!

Damnit guys, lets get real, is the ugliest fighter plane I've ever seen...

And about A10,if you put an A10 on the side of that monster, the Hog would win a beauty contest!!!

IS HORRENDOUS!!!

Vermillion · « **Reply #12 on:** June 07, 2000, 06:54:00 AM »

Ugly is good

I do believe RAM is getting Cannon Envy again, at least thats what I think

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

RAM · « **Reply #13 on:** June 07, 2000, 07:00:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vermillion:
Ugly is good

I do believe RAM is getting Cannon Envy again, at least thats what I think

SIGH,no...what do I want a 37mm for, if I cant hit a toejam with 4x20mm?...

Nahhh...bring that ugly thing here...but I wont put a hand over it...its really HORRENDOUS!!!

pzvg · « **Reply #14 on:** June 07, 2000, 07:00:00 AM »

RAM, it is not the ugliest fighter plane ever produced, that honor goes to the I16,which BTW, I WANT! it's sooo funny to get kills 'cuz people fly into the ground from laughing too hard

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"