Author Topic: Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?  (Read 695 times)

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« on: December 13, 2000, 08:15:00 AM »
Its a well known fact that during developement, the US Army Air Corps decided that the P-39 Aircobra "didn't need" its turbosupercharger, thereby dooming the P-39 to mediocrity in WWII.

Just yesterday, I found an even more interesting fact on the Bell P-63 KingCobra.

Now we know that the KingCobra was somewhat larger than the Aircobra, and that it had a new laminar flow wing similar to the P-51 Mustang wing, along with a 2 stage supercharger (fixing, the largest glaring error with the P-39).

But did you know that the P-63 was suppose to be powered by a Continental V-1430 engine, that produced 2,000hp?

Even with the anemic Allision V-1710 that only produced 1,325 hp, the P-63 had performance near to or exceeding the P-51 in most respects (speed at most altitudes, climb, and acceleration). And it actually handled better in turning ability.

Can you imagine what the P-63 could have done with 34% more power ?

Did Bell Aircraft have some really bad luck or what?

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2000, 10:20:00 AM »
P-63 could only ever be faster than a P-51D if it has a -117 engine with 1825HP WEP.

With only 1325HP, it's about 25mph slower.

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2000, 11:53:00 AM »
Yes, its slower at altitude, but the information I was looking at today (online) showed a sea level speed that was approximately equal with the P-51's.

My point is that if the continental engine had panned out, it could have easily outperformed the P-51.

I don't deny that with the Allison engine, that the P-51 is superior.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2000, 05:12:00 PM »
The P-63's biggest drawback was lack of range.  The USAAF was only interested in planes with very long range at that point, like the P-47D, P-51D, and P-38L.  As it is the P-63 only had a range of around 500 miles on internal fuel with the Allison.  Imagine how poor the range would be with the 2000hp Continental.  

The USAAF had no use for a short-range fighter, regardless of individual performance numbers.

ra

Offline BBGunn

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2000, 05:33:00 PM »
What largely doomed the P39 was its capacity to kill pilots.  It was far too easy to spin.  Bill Dunn who is credited by most for being the first American WW2 ace had this to say about the P39.  "I felt sorry for the poor SOB's that had to fly those things in combat against real fighter aircraft.  The known bad habits of all aircraft were collected together and developed into the P-39's flying characteristics: flat spins, tail plane stalls, tumbling to mention a few of the most dangerous.  It was a miserable kite to fly, and a lot of good guys busted their butt in the P-39.  We should have set fire to them all; however, we gave them to the Russians. No wonder they're still mad at us."  I also new a fellow who was a mechanic and had to work of them.  The hydromatic prop seals were constantly blowing and the Allison engines overheated on a regular basis.  Most of the time the pilots in the outfit he was assigned were not allowed to engage Japanese fighters in combat.  They flew off a safe distance until a raid was over-and then flew back and landed.  This made it look like the US still had an airforce when photographed by Japanese recon.  

funked

  • Guest
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2000, 05:57:00 PM »
Ah here we go with the tumbling wives' tales...

Offline LLv34_Snefens

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 728
      • Lentolaivue 34
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2000, 06:02:00 PM »
Oleg Maddox's (head developer of IL-2 Sturmovik) word on the P-39:

"Such problems of spin and vibrations were solved quickly with the help of Russian engineers, which were working in Bell to modify P-39 for Russian needs. from the N series there were not present any vibrations and damages of the tail and the mass distribution was changed. So to get in a spin this plane was not easy, like early."
Snefens, Lentolaivue 34.
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

"Luck beats skill anytime"

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2000, 06:28:00 PM »
I dont know much about P39s, only that russians felt little less than veneration for them.

Can't think of anyone feeling veneration towards such a pig as BBgun describes...so something good had to have!.

BTW didnt the highest russian ace fly a P39? Pokhryskin or something like that?

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2000, 07:51:00 PM »
Hi

P63 could have been good, but it wasnt. The is V1430 the vaunted "hyper" engine that never really worked right, the complete failiure of this engine ruined many other promising fighter projects. Anyway the P39 was never really that good either, even with its turbosupercharger in place. Yes the Bell performance numbers on the P39 prototypes were amazing for the day and were actually achieved on the prototypes. However those planes had no armour, weapons, self sealing tanks, radios, or just about everything else needed in a combat plane etc. etc. Basically they were strippers meant to give Bell spectacular numbers to put in the P39 sales literature. The P63 was a much better design and did well with the Russians in 1944, but it really wasnt very good in any spectacular way compared to 47/51, and IIRC it had bad range. Overall the Bell planes were amazing designs and engineering pieces but they just didnt fit well into the overall US fighter scheme of things in WW2.

thanks GRUNHERZ

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2000, 09:25:00 PM »
From Yeager's book:

...well, it was true that the drive shaft ran right up the center of the cramped cockpit, that the airplane performed beautifully at low altitudes, but underpowered up high, and that if you stalled it, you might wind up boring a deep hole because it spun like a top going down. But once you had a feel for the ship and understood it, the Thirty-Nine was a fun airplane to fly...

...there were three squadrons in our fighter group, and amoung all those pilots, I was one of the few who loved the Thirty-Nine and would have gladly flown it off to war.



for giggles:

...I told her I had five hundred hours in the Thirty-Nine and thought it was the best airplane I ever flew. She asked me if I wanted to fly it. "Yeah, man," I replied, "I'd give my right arm." So we concocted a little deal.
     She was scheduled to fly the show the next morning. She was an ex-WASP, and the P.A. announcer told the crowd all about her just before take-off. We parked her Thirty-Nine away from the crowd. She outfitted me in a woman's wig, and white jump suit, and a blue cap, and off I went. I put on a helluva arobatic show, doing Immelmanns and Cuban eights, thrilled to be back in a Thirty-Nine again. I landed and parked far from the crowd, where she replaced me in the cockpit and then taxied up to the main ramp to receive the cheers.



Some guys will do anything to fly I guess.

- Jig

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2000, 11:03:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Hi

P63 could have been good, but it wasnt. The is V1430 the vaunted "hyper" engine that never really worked right, the complete failiure of this engine ruined many other promising fighter projects. Anyway the P39 was never really that good either, even with its turbosupercharger in place. Yes the Bell performance numbers on the P39 prototypes were amazing for the day and were actually achieved on the prototypes. However those planes had no armour, weapons, self sealing tanks, radios, or just about everything else needed in a combat plane etc. etc. Basically they were strippers meant to give Bell spectacular numbers to put in the P39 sales literature. The P63 was a much better design and did well with the Russians in 1944, but it really wasnt very good in any spectacular way compared to 47/51, and IIRC it had bad range. Overall the Bell planes were amazing designs and engineering pieces but they just didnt fit well into the overall US fighter scheme of things in WW2.

thanks GRUNHERZ

Actually, the Soviets only used the P-63 against Japan in the Manchurian campaign after Germany capitulated.

------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GIAP VVS-KA, Knights

"Our cause is just.  The enemy will be crushed.  Victory will be ours."
ingame: Raz

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2000, 02:11:00 AM »
Another problem with the P-39 and P-63 was that 37mm cannon.  It had a low muzzle velocity and a low rate of fire.  Some improvement was made from the P-63A9 onwards as these had the M10 instead of M4 cannon, which was belt-fed to double the ammo capacity and had a slightly higher RoF (170 rpm instead of 140).  Still had the same low-velocity ammo, though.

One P-63 was different; the P-63D was armed with the 37mm M9 cannon, a very different beast which fired a much larger and more powerful cartridge and would have made a good tankbuster.  Although the gun was adopted for US service, it was never actually issued for some reason.  Pity.

Tony Williams
New book: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2000, 03:08:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Tony Williams:
Another problem with the P-39 and P-63 was that 37mm cannon...

Yeah, it was a pretty low velocity shell, but the explosive power of the round was a keeper.  Usually, all it took was one hit with a 37mm on a fighter to send it down.  Many Soviet P-39 aces in WWII could attest to that fact, I'm sure.
ingame: Raz

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2000, 03:22:00 AM »
One thing I heard was that some US pilots reserved the 37mm for air-to-ground work, and only used the MG armament vs fighters. I think this was on Zenos WW2 USAAF P39 traing film, but not 100% sure.

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
Bad Luck for the Bell P-39 & P-63 ?
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2000, 05:54:00 AM »
Is it true that you could not fire the 37mm and nose mounted 2x.50in at the same time - and that the Russians modified their P-39's so they could?