P-63 KingCobra......again

[Vinkman]

Weird only thing I see is 410mph top speed with 2500ft climb rate, but I'm sick right now and really not going to spend the day looking up info on the P-63C, these might be the stats for the P-63A.

Pretty sure widewing has the info, that would be amazing for a 1943 fighter, why hell we didn't use it? Must of been the range im guessing?

This is the Data I've seem for the A model with no water injection. That engine made 1325HP.

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/minThis data was from Birch Matthews book on Bell aircraft, with a focus on the Airacobra and Kingcobra. Matthews stated in the book that he could not find Test data for the Water-injected equipped planes. He did however have HP data for those variants of the Allison V-12 at 80lbs of Boost. The water injected versions made 1800hp. I wonder how HTC would do it. I'm guessing the flight model could be correlated on 1325HP and then bump the HP to 1800 when in WEP.  A very simple linear Scaling of the 3.675ft/min would suggest to 5088 ft/min. So Widewing's numbers seem plausible, even though they are "Corrected" data. But the Gun package will keep this plane from being used high number of MA players.

[Wmaker]

Francis Dean in is AHT-book that the Bell figures are most likely rather optimistic. In USAAF testing showed much more conservative performance.

For example, as mentioned in this thread, Bell's figures show 384mph at sea level with water injection, while the best figure I've seen obtained by the Air Force was 366mph, with another example doing ~340mph.

Data for the P-63: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/P-63.html. As can be seen, there's quite difference between manufacturer's figures compared to what USAAF achieved.

This data was from Birch Matthews book on Bell aircraft, with a focus on the Airacobra and Kingcobra. Matthews stated in the book that he could not find Test data for the Water-injected equipped planes. He did however have HP data for those variants of the Allison V-12 at 80lbs of Boost. The water injected versions made 1800hp.

I think you mean 80 inches of mercury. British measured MAP in pounds and 80lbs boost would be from another planet. AHT shows 75"HG MAP for 1820hp.

[LCADolby]

Brewster performance is optimistic, and that'd in game.   

[Wmaker]

Brewster performance is optimistic, and that'd in game.   

Actually manufacturers data in Brewster's case happened to match the figures obtained in Finnish Air Force's testing.

A poor bait but I'll just mention that...

As you don't have a faintest clue about the performance or the existing data about these planes (or much else either) anyway, maybe you should understand to ask questions instead of making BS statements?

[Vinkman]

Francis Dean in is AHT-book that the Bell figures are most likely rather optimistic. In USAAF testing showed much more conservative performance.

For example, as mentioned in this thread, Bell's figures show 384mph at sea level with water injection, while the best figure I've seen obtained by the Air Force was 366mph, with another example doing ~340mph.

Data for the P-63: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/P-63.html. As can be seen, there's quite difference between manufacturer's figures compared to what USAAF achieved.


I think you mean 80 inches of mercury. British measured MAP in pounds and 80lbs boost would be from another planet. AHT shows 75"HG MAP for 1820hp.

oops, you are correct it's 80inches of Mercury, not PSI

[Vraciu]

This is a must-have. 

Such a great airplane that never got its due. 

And anyone who thinks the Ruskies didn't use this thing against the Jerries is dreaming in technicolor. 

[Saxman]

This is a must-have. 

Such a great airplane that never got its due. 

And anyone who thinks the Ruskies didn't use this thing against the Jerries is dreaming in technicolor.

And what purpose does it serve? There's NO documented evidence that it saw more than a week of combat. This means it would find use in exactly ONE scenario, and would just be yet another late war monster plane in a main arena already choked with them.

This is BY NO MEANS WHATSOEVER a "must have."

Also:

[Krupinski]

And what purpose does it serve? There's NO documented evidence that it saw more than a week of combat. This means it would find use in exactly ONE scenario, and would just be yet another late war monster plane in a main arena already choked with them.

This is BY NO MEANS WHATSOEVER a "must have."

Also:

(Image removed from quote.)

Nobody but you cares about its IRL and in game usage. The point is it would be a desirable LW aircraft in a game that is (like you stated) already centered around LW aircraft. While it's no monster compared to some others, people will fly it, and many will be thankful for it. 

[Saxman]

Nobody but you cares about its IRL and in game usage. The point is it would be a desirable LW aircraft in a game that is (like you stated) already centered around LW aircraft. While it's no monster compared to some others, people will fly it, and many will be thankful for it. 

YOU don't care, but how about you don't speak for everyone else, because there's been PLENTY of people who've made the exact same points EVERY TIME THIS THREAD GETS NECRO'ED.

And if you don't think HTC cares about its IRL usage, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Adding the P-63 — ESPECIALLY over glaring gaps like the Beaufighter and Ki-45 (seriously, events have to sub in 110s for a Japanese fighter) — contributes nothing of value to the game.

[Krupinski]

Yeah you know what, you're absolutely right.. the average MA player, or even newbie when the occasional one comes along, will definitely chose a Beaufighter or a Ki-45 over a P63.

Times change, awhile ago I would have agreed with you, but it's not about what aircraft are more 'relevent' anymore, it should be about what's more attractive to new and existing players. No, I'm not saying they should start adding prototypes and post war things.

[bustr]

After 18 months around Waffle and Hitech in the alphas, unless one of you has first hand day to day conversations with those two about game development. None of us really knows what is in the can waiting to be introduced or, how Hitech looks at the future development of rides to fill historic slots versus releasing rides to catch the fancy of the potential new gamers that will check out AH3.

During the trip from august 2014 in the closed alpha to today 2016 in the open beta release 5. We have gotten the following:

1. - New base and strat objects.
2. - An Iowa class battleship with 16 inch guns. One salvo sinks the CV or the cruiser or, destroys the shore battery.
3. - An anti aircraft base with 63 88mm flak positions.
4. - An updated carrier modeling.
5. - A new generation TBM model.
6. - Two versions of the Vbase object.
7. - Historicly correct reticle for each gunsight in every ride.
8. - Improved missions and AI, a Mission\AI arena.
9. - Capture the sheep arena.
10. - Capture a field by stealing its flag arena.
11. - One versus one automated matchup dueling arena.
12. - FMOD sound studio with 3d sound effects.
13. - Improved terrain engine.
14. - Speedtree trees, bushes, and clutter.
15. - A shader and post lighting effects graphic engine with graphic processing directly on the GPU.

Past this point, whatever new rides we get will be marvelous......

[Ack-Ack]

And anyone who thinks the Ruskies didn't use this thing against the Jerries is dreaming in technicolor.

Show the proof.  There is absolutely nothing that proves it saw any action in the ETO, other some anecdotal evidence.  There is no dispute that is saw limited combat against the Japanese during the last couple of months of the war in the PTO, mostly CAP and close air support.  There is more evidence (even though its rather questionable at best) that the P-63 engaged in A2A engagements at least once against the Japanese than there is evidence the P-63 ever saw combat over Berlin in 1945.

[lyric1]

During the trip from august 2014 in the closed alpha to today 2016 in the open beta release 5. We have gotten the following:


7. - Historically correct reticle for each gun sight in every ride.

 
AR 234B?

[Vraciu]

Show the proof.  There is absolutely nothing that proves it saw any action in the ETO, other some anecdotal evidence.  There is no dispute that is saw limited combat against the Japanese during the last couple of months of the war in the PTO, mostly CAP and close air support.  There is more evidence (even though its rather questionable at best) that the P-63 engaged in A2A engagements at least once against the Japanese than there is evidence the P-63 ever saw combat over Berlin in 1945.

Bull hockey.

There are dozens of Russian pilots who admitted they flew them against the Germans in violation of the Lend Lease agreement, where official reports listed them as "P-39s".

Yeah, governments *NEVER* lie.

And Scalia died in his sleep. 

Sure...

Lack of "proof" does not rule out an event.   There are more than enough anecdotal, firsthand accounts to support as FACT the use of the P-63 against the Germans.    *OF* COURSE the government was going to hide that reality.

*AND*, they saw combat against Japan.

It should be in the game.  I hope HTC can bring it to life someday.

[Saxman]

Bull hockey.

There are dozens of Russian pilots who admitted they flew them against the Germans in violation of the Lend Lease agreement, where official reports listed them as "P-39s".

Yeah, governments *NEVER* lie.

And Scalia died in his sleep. 

Sure...

Lack of "proof" does not rule out an event.   There are more than enough anecdotal, firsthand accounts to support as FACT the use of the P-63 against the Germans.    *OF* COURSE the government was going to hide that reality.

*AND*, they saw combat against Japan.

It should be in the game.  I hope HTC can bring it to life someday.

Tinfoil hats and anecdotes aren't evidence. There's a REASON HTC has built its flight model around the hard numbers of the flight manuals and technical specs, and not pilot anecdotes and hearsay.

You've been asked to provide verified, documented, AUTHENTICATED PROOF of the claim. Put up or shut up.