The case for the P-63 in Aces High
While the single seat, single engine, liquid cooled V-12s were the premier fighters for Great Britain, Germany, and Italy, The U.S. Struggled to compete with its V-12 powered offerings at the outset of the war in Europe. The biggest factor in that struggle was the Allison 1710, the only V-12 available to American Manufacturers, which in 1941 was under developed, and underpowered. North American Aviation made the decision to abandon Allison for the British developed Merlin, hence the most successful V-12 powered American Fighter of the war, the Mustang, can't be considered all American from a design and engineering stand point. The Bell P-63 Kingcobra was the last and best attempt by American engineers to develop a single seat, single engine, V-12 powered fighter.
The second generation of Bell's mid-engine single seat fighter concept, the Kingcobra, possessed impressive performance numbers:
Climb Rate [ref 1]
0 ft 5000 ft 10,000ft 15,000 ft 20,000 ft 25,000 ft 30,000 ft
3.67k ft/min 3.73k ft/min 3.7k ft/min 3.55k ft/min 3.27k ft/min 2.6k ft/min 1.96k ft/min
Top Speed * [ref 2]
P-63A-1 P-47D-20 P-38J-15 P-51B-5
War Emergency Power 60"/3000 rpm 56"/2700 rpm 60"/3000 rpm 67"/3000 rpm
Speed @ 10,000 ft 372 367 383 395
Speed @ 20,000 ft 397 401 414 411
Speed @ 25,000 ft 397 414 420 424
Speed @ 30,000 ft 389 423 417 433
*note: This data was for these planes tested during the same flight test. As such its relative values are accurate, but actual values may differ from other flight test results. The P-63A with WEP rating of 1325 HP. The C' model P-63 could run with 80" of manifold pressure, producing 1800 HP. No top speed test data for C' model found to date. [ref 3]
Roll Rate & Turn performance.
I'm still searching for a source of the objective numbers, which are not quoted in Matthews book, but this quote from the NACA test results in [ref 4]: "the maximum rate of roll possible with full aileron deflection is exceeded by few current planes for which comparable data are available.", indicated the roll rate was excellent. Similarly, but much less objectively, these excerpts give an indication of turn performance. "With respect to maneuverability, the Kingcobra received high marks from the Air Force. The Kingcobra also consistently turned tighter circles than the other three fighters [P-51B-5, P-38J-15, P-47D-20]. In dives tests the Kingcobra had a slight advantage over the P-38. In full power dives the P-47 and the P-51 showed a marked advantage over the P-63. When subjected to zoom tests at full power, the Kingcobra was better than the P-47 and the P-38. [ref 5]
Great climb rate, excellent roll rate, good turn performance, good top speed, so why was the Kingcobra pass up by the U.S. Army?
In Europe the fighter mission had become a very specialized version of the air superiority role, consisting of very long range fighter sweeps. The qualities preferred were a large combat radius, and top speed, and a gun package ideal for killing fast maneuverable fighter aircraft. The P-63 is a poor match to the Mustang in combat radius, and its gun package has only two or four .50 caliber machine guns for the anti-fighter roll. The 37mm with 58 rounds, was a less than ideal weapon against evasive, agile fighters. The Mustang was better suited to the specific mission the Army was most interested in, in late 1943. Coupled with the need to provide planes to the Russians, and the Russians familiarity with Bell aircraft and the mid-engine layout of the Bell fighters, the decision to send the P-63 to the Russians, was a practical, and logical one, more than it was proof of a lack capability on the part of the P-63. On paper the P-63 seems to have a different attribute mix than the Mustang. When assessed versus the full variety of missions that play out in the MA, the P-63 would be better than the Mustang in the anti-bomber roll, ground attack, and it's better maneuverability but less than ideal gun package would make for a fun dog fighter, similar to the 109-K4
AP ammo might make it a good tank buster, but the game would employ Russian designation P-63s and they were not issues AP rounds [ref 6]
One of the great parts about Aces High is the ability to assess all the planes against each other in a variety of roles. Some of those roles will be outside of how they earned their reputations during the war. Messerschmitts dog fighting Zeros, Spitfires vs Corsairs. P-51s attacking large bomber formations instead of defending them. In such matchups the Aces High players get a unique opportunity to judge whether the reputations of these planes outpaces their actual ability, or perhaps in the case of the P-63, whether the reputation as a sub-par aircraft is a complete misunderstanding of the facts surrounding its deployment to the eastern front.
The case for the P-63 in Aces High II is to see for ourselves if the last and best attempt by American engineers to develop a single seat, single engine, V-12 powered fighter was just another weapons system footnote as many are lead to believe, or an under appreciated hidden jewel in the arsenal of democracy. Aces High would be the perfect laboratory to prove what Allison and Bell were truly capable of after they were given sufficient time and resources to develop their concepts to their full potential.
[ref1. Cobra! Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946, Birch Matthews, p. 188]
[ref2. Cobra! Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946, Birch Matthews, p. 188]
[ref3. Cobra! Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946, Birch Matthews, p. 395]
[ref4. Cobra! Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946, Birch Matthews, p. 200]
[ref5. Cobra! Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946, Birch Matthews, p. 194]
[ref6. Attack of the Airacobras, Dimity Loza p. needed]
