P63

[icepac]

A Ki-27 of the Manchukuo Air Force successfully downed a B-29 by ramming it, so I guess you can put Ki-27 amongst the planes you listed.


ack-ack

Absolutely....I think the ki27 should show up here at least 2 years before the P-63.

[Mystery]

Another crack at the chart I posted earlier, better formatting this time:
From the chart Bronk posted, some impressions and comparisons:
1) WOW what a difference between Mfr Data and USAAF data.
2) Let's use the less-favorable USAAF data and compare speed against the LA-7 as modeled in AH.
                               <td>V@SL,mph              V@5K',mph                      V@10K',mph                    V@15K',mph                   V@20K',mph</td>
P-63A-8, "wet", WEP             340*                        360                                 379                              396                                  408
P-63A-8, Mil Power               318*                        337                                 355                              373                                  388
LA-7, WEP                           380                          401                                 396                              391                                  410                  
LA-7, Mil Power                    358                          380                                 396                              391                                  410
*extrapolated from chart

3) For completeness, the mfr data:
                             <td>V@SL,mph                 V@5K',mph                    V@10K',mph                   V@15K',mph                  V@20K',mph</td>
P-63A-8, "wet", WEP         378                              398                               412                                422                                  421
P-63A-8, Mil Power           344                               364                              382                                399                                  416

4) Rate of climb using the mfr data (USAAF didn't report R/C directly but based on time-to-altitude comparisons, the mfr data is reasonably close)

                            <td>R/C@SL,fps                R/C@5K',fps                   R/C@10K',fps                 R/C@15K',fps                 R/C@20K',fps</td>
P-63A-8, "wet", WEP      4100*                           3900*                            3800                               3750                                2900
P-63A-8, Mil Power**     3200                             3200                              3300                               3100                                2600
LA-7, WEP                    4400                             4100                             3300                               2850                                2400                  
LA-7, Military Power       3600                             3750                             3300                               2850                                2400
*"dry"; no data for "wet"
**extrapolated from time-to-altitude data
 
Conclusion 1:
If you accept Mfr's data as correct, the P-63A-8 is nearly competitive with the LA-7 below 10K and faster above 10K at WEP output.
If you accept USAAF data as correct, the P-63A-8 is much slower than the LA-7 up to about 12K and is then a match but at WEP output only.

Conclusion 2:
The P-63A-8 is nearly a match for the LA-7 in rate of climb below 7K and climbs better than the LA-7 above that mark.
 
Moot, thanks a lot for the table format tips 

[moot]

Sorry Mystery, thought you'd understand that the <>'s stand for []'s

[Mystery]

Sorry Mystery, thought you'd understand that the <>'s stand for []'s

Ummm....oops? 

[Mystery]

So if the P-63 is so great, why didn't the USAAC adopt it for operational use?

Simply, it didn't meet the criteria the USAAC viewed as important. USAAC was looking for a high-altitude performer with long legs for escorting bombers.

From the published data, the P-63 is not an exemplary high-altitude performer and is easily surpassed by the P-51. The King Cobra has very short legs (fuel held only in wings) where the P-51 was the class of the field for operating range - ditto the P-47N.

General comments re the P-63: (paraphrased from "America's Hundred Thousand by Francis H. Dean, Shiffer Publishing, 1997)
"A pilot who flew the P-63 found it to be easy to handle and responsive, quite delightful all around.
The P-63 was an entirely different flying machine than the P-39.
The limited range and ceiling were serious liabilities for combat flying.
Not operationally suitable because high speed is not up to contemporary fighters.
It was a dream to fly.
The P-63 was a good fighter against the P-38, P-47 and P-51. At low altitude it could out-manuever and out-climb the P-51. Higher up, performance suffered against the others.
In a climb it was absolutely excellent, especially low down."

My opinion - seems to fit what the majority of pilots do in AH2.

[Mystery]

Confirmed Kills - what's the criteria?

Many folks here have deemed the single (?) P-63 kill by Jr Lt I F Miroshnichenko against a Ki-43 or Ki-27 as "unconfirmed".

I'm wondering what would be acceptable critera for confirmation? Miroshnichenko's wingman, Capt Vyacheslav Sirotin, a HSU medal awardee and no slouch himself in the cockpit (26 kills), saw the kill and submitted a report stating just that. This incident has been published by perhaps THE pre-eminent US author of Soviet air force operations, George Mellinger. What else would be required to satisfy those who doubt its veracity? A scan of a Cyrillic-alphabet after-action report by Sirotin? Somehow, I don't think we'll ever see it.

Please, don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to poke the naysayers. But considering the circumstances - a late WWII action by an increasingly less-friendly "ally" in a US-built plane - can we expect more?

[Saxman]

Confirmed Kills - what's the criteria?

Many folks here have deemed the single (?) P-63 kill by Jr Lt I F Miroshnichenko against a Ki-43 or Ki-27 as "unconfirmed".

I'm wondering what would be acceptable critera for confirmation? Miroshnichenko's wingman, Capt Vyacheslav Sirotin, a HSU medal awardee and no slouch himself in the cockpit (26 kills), saw the kill and submitted a report stating just that. This incident has been published by perhaps THE pre-eminent US author of Soviet air force operations, George Mellinger. What else would be required to satisfy those who doubt its veracity? A scan of a Cyrillic-alphabet after-action report by Sirotin? Somehow, I don't think we'll ever see it.

Please, don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to poke the naysayers. But considering the circumstances - a late WWII action by an increasingly less-friendly "ally" in a US-built plane - can we expect more?

The problem is that no one has been able to conclusively show WHERE this kill claim was recorded. EVERYTHING has been from third-hand sources. It's also the one and only incident in which a P-63 is specifically supposed to have claimed a kill (all of the others are of the "well if one did, then others must have"). One may not be able to find official records for EVERY claim by Hellcat pilots against the Japanese during the war, but there's enough official records that ARE available to conclude that, yes, the F6F claimed several thousand Japanese aircraft destroyed in the air. Even the Ta-152, as few as were produced and served before Germany's surrender, has more than just the mention of a single incident reported via third-hand sources to show that it did indeed see combat action during the war.

So yes, with no other conclusive supporting evidence a scan of a Cyrillic-alphabet after-action report probably IS necessary.

[Bronk]

See Rule #4

[Karnak]

Another significant difference between the P-63 and the Ta152 is that the Ta152 uses much of the Fw190D-9 geometry, making adding it easier, as compared to the P-63 which, despite superficial similarity to the P-39, would need completely unique geometry work.  Likewise the P-47M uses P-47D geometry and the F4U-1C largely uses F4U-1A geometry.

[Guppy35]

Confirmed Kills - what's the criteria?

Many folks here have deemed the single (?) P-63 kill by Jr Lt I F Miroshnichenko against a Ki-43 or Ki-27 as "unconfirmed".

I'm wondering what would be acceptable critera for confirmation? Miroshnichenko's wingman, Capt Vyacheslav Sirotin, a HSU medal awardee and no slouch himself in the cockpit (26 kills), saw the kill and submitted a report stating just that. This incident has been published by perhaps THE pre-eminent US author of Soviet air force operations, George Mellinger. What else would be required to satisfy those who doubt its veracity? A scan of a Cyrillic-alphabet after-action report by Sirotin? Somehow, I don't think we'll ever see it.

Please, don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to poke the naysayers. But considering the circumstances - a late WWII action by an increasingly less-friendly "ally" in a US-built plane - can we expect more?

While not at the top of my list, based on it's involvement in August Storm Soviet offensive against the Japanese, I do believe it would be considered a combat bird.  It falls in that same area as the Meteor to me.  Unlike something like the P80, you can at least acknowledge it had a combat role, however limited.

[Mystery]

So yes, with no other conclusive supporting evidence a scan of a Cyrillic-alphabet after-action report probably IS necessary.

После победы над Германией 17-й ИАП был перевооружён истребителями Р-63 "Кингкобра" и переброшен на Дальний Восток в 12-ю Воздушную армию. Там он участвовал в разгроме Квантунской армии милитаристской Японии. За период этой короткой войны лётчики полка сумели одержать лишь одну победу в воздухе - противника практически не было. Тем не менее, именно Вячеслав Сиротин оказался причастен к этой единственной победе.

15 Августа во время доставки наступающим сухопутным войскам горючего транспортный самолёт, командиром экипажа которого был Лейтенант Смульский, атаковала пара японских истребителей. На выручку вылетели лётчики 17-го авиаполка Герой Советского Союза В. Ф. Сиротин со своим ведомым И. Ф. Мирошниченко. Они смело отразили все атаки японских истребителей. При этом, благодаря опытному руководству ведущего, Мирошниченко сбил один вражеский самолёт. Другой скрылся, уйдя на бреющем полёте. В результате горючее было доставлено по назначению.

Source: www.peoples.ru/military/aviation/vyacheslav_sirotin/

Which translates to:
After the victory over Germany on 17 th IAP was rearmed fighters P-63 "Kingkobra" and redeployed to the Far East in the 12-th Air Army. There he [Sirotin] participated in the defeat of the Kwantung Army Japanese militarism.During the period of this short war, the regiment's pilots managed to win only one victory in the air - there was virtually no enemy. Nevertheless, it Vyacheslav Sirotin had been involved in this single victory.

August 15 at the time of delivery of the ground troops advancing fuel transport aircraft, the commander of the crew of which was Lieutenant Smulsky, attacked a couple of Japanese fighters.  To rescue the pilots flew the 17 th Regiment Hero of the Soviet Union VF Sirotin with his wingman JF Miroshnichenko. They bravely repelled all attacks of the Japanese fighters. At the same time, thanks to the experienced leadership of the lead, Miroshnichenko shot down one enemy plane.  Another vanished after leaving on low-level flight. As a result, the fuel was delivered to destination.

A scan of an after-action report? Well no...but the language -especially in the second paragraph - strikes one as rather authentic. And yes - just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true  

[Saxman]

How about contributing a meaningful counter-argument to this discussion rather than just a smart-assed edited quote?

Mystery,

The original problem remains: You have the same story being repeated that's already been told, but from what PRIMARY SOURCE is this being taken?

[Guppy35]

How about contributing a meaningful counter-argument to this discussion rather than just a smart-assed edited quote?

Mystery,

The original problem remains: You have the same story being repeated that's already been told, but from what PRIMARY SOURCE is this being taken?

Are we saying that 63 shouldn't be ok for the game because we can't point to a primary source for that kill?  For me, if George Mellinger uses that info, It's pretty solid.  That being said, I think the fact that there were six P63 units at least involved in operations by the Soviets vs the Japanese, should also be taken into consideration. 

Again, I'm not saying it's a top priority bird like the Ki-43, Beaufighter, He-111 or Me410 is to me.   I do think should there come a time where HTC considers other birds, that the P63 shouldn't be excluded from that conversation.

[Saxman]

Are we saying that 63 shouldn't be ok for the game because we can't point to a primary source for that kill?

Considering that's the ONE account being used to conclusively state the P-63 saw combat action against the Japanese and meets HTC's criteria? I would say yes, that's pretty important. Everything else posted has only INFERRED the P-63 was involved in combat.

Of course, the quickest way to resolve this is if hitech were to come in here and say whether that is or is not enough for him to go with. Not sure what the likelihood of that is, however.

[Bronk]

Considering that's the ONE account being used to conclusively state the P-63 saw combat action against the Japanese and meets HTC's criteria? I would say yes, that's pretty important. Everything else posted has only INFERRED the P-63 was involved in combat.

Of course, the quickest way to resolve this is if hitech were to come in here and say whether that is or is not enough for him to go with. Not sure what the likelihood of that is, however.

So by your logic the meteor should never be included also?  If we use your logic then if we use your same logic the c-47 we have should not be in game....well as modeled.   Unless you have a pilot shooting down an AC with his sidearm documented.