Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DMVIAGRA on October 16, 2011, 05:05:19 PM
-
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Chino2006/Highlights/P63Chino2006.jpg)
TECHNICAL NOTES (P-63E):
Armament: One 37mm cannon and four .50-cal. machine guns
Engine: One Allison V-1710 of 1,325 hp
Maximum speed: 408 mph
Cruising speed: 280 mph
Range: 450 miles
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft.
Span: 38 ft. 4 in.
Length: 32 ft. 8 in.
Height: 12 ft. 7 in.
Weight: 9,350 lbs. maximum
Crew: One
Yes I know this is in the wrong section.....
-
I wonder if this is the 400+ mph capable plane with the lowest engine HP. Only 1,325 HP ?
-
I wonder if this is the 400+ mph capable plane with the lowest engine HP. Only 1,325 HP ?
I know, I was eye balling it as well. Could be correct, maybe it has paddle prop or something so, maybe alluminum....
-
I know, I was eye balling it as well. Could be correct, maybe it has paddle prop or something so, maybe alluminum....
Paddle props didn't help top end speed, and could even lower it. They helped low speed acceleration/climb mostly.
-
I know, I was eye balling it as well. Could be correct, maybe it has paddle prop or something so, maybe alluminum....
Max dive speed w/o compressing...?
-
The P-63A was powered by an Allison V-1710-93 engine rated as follows:
Takeoff: 1,325 hp
WEP (dry): 1,500 hp
WEP (wet): 1,820 hp
Note that the P-63 was a very fast climber, exceeding 4,200 fpm below 10,000 feet in WEP (dry), and even better when using water injection. Climb to 10k was about 2 minutes, 20 seconds. Its roll rate was very fast 110 degrees/sec at 260 mph. The P-63 had a laminar flow wing design of considerable area. Pilots stated that it would easily out-turn a P-51B. One pilot stated that "head to head with P-63, a P-51 had virtually no chance."
What prevented the P-63 from seeing front line service with the USAAF was its lack of range. This was not a problem for the Soviets, who liked the P-63A very much.
-
She is a pretty bird
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/KingCobra.jpg)
-
The P-63A was powered by an Allison V-1710-93 engine rated as follows:
Takeoff: 1,325 hp
WEP (dry): 1,500 hp
WEP (wet): 1,820 hp
Note that the P-63 was a very fast climber, exceeding 4,200 fpm below 10,000 feet in WEP (dry), and even better when using water injection. Climb to 10k was about 2 minutes, 20 seconds. Its roll rate was very fast 110 degrees/sec at 260 mph. The P-63 had a laminar flow wing design of considerable area. Pilots stated that it would easily out-turn a P-51B. One pilot stated that "head to head with P-63, a P-51 had virtually no chance."
What prevented the P-63 from seeing front line service with the USAAF was its lack of range. This was not a problem for the Soviets, who liked the P-63A very much.
so why do we not have this plane in game?
-
so why do we not have this plane in game?
Because if it saw any combat at all it was a very small amount of combat.
Yes, I know, Ta152 and all, but the Ta152 reuses a lot of artwork from the Fw190D-9. Despite the similar appearance of the P-63 to the P-39 it is actually a 100% different aircraft and would require completely new artwork.
-
I think the biggest problem with getting the kingcobra's approval of admission, is that there are no official documents saying it has a combat record. At least that's what the past 2 topics on it has boiled down too.
Some say it was deployed in the Soviet Union, but never saw combat.
Others say it saw limited combat in Manchuria when the russians attacked Japan.
-
The P-63A was powered by an Allison V-1710-93 engine rated as follows:
Takeoff: 1,325 hp
WEP (dry): 1,500 hp
WEP (wet): 1,820 hp
<snip>
What prevented the P-63 from seeing front line service with the USAAF was its lack of range. This was not a problem for the Soviets, who liked the P-63A very much.
That is a monstrous WEP! extra 500 HP over the 1300 HP and in a light aircraft is huge!
The 39 and consequently the 63 were completely castrated and neglected - somebody up there in the decision making rooms did not like it. Had the 39 been taken seriously, a 63-like plane could have been around even before the P-51 entered service. Not to mention that in 42 the americans could have had at least one plane that did not suck. I am also certain that if range was a requirement, it could be significantly increased when designing the 63.
One of the great things about american aircraft industry at the time was that they were very daring in their designs. You don't see any serious twin-booms or rear engines anywhere else. The 39 got some really stupid decisions made for it, lost favor and cast aside, receiving no development budgets and a legend was lost.
-
If im right, the p63 was just like what the p39 "should be". Heard they removed the compressor and did some weird stuff to make it cheaper and simpler. I dont know much about the 63, but looks much more like the 39s original plan.
-
I think the biggest problem with getting the kingcobra's approval of admission, is that there are no official documents saying it has a combat record. At least that's what the past 2 topics on it has boiled down too.
Some say it was deployed in the Soviet Union, but never saw combat.
Others say it saw limited combat in Manchuria when the russians attacked Japan.
"All this production and delivery effort resulted in the destruction of only one Axis plane, a Japanese fighter shot down during the invasion of Manchuria. The first P-63A regiment, the 28th IAP, was part of the Moscow area PVO, but there had been no raids on Moscow for three years. Most Kingcobras were still in Siberia when Germany had been defeated in May 1945. For the war against Japan in August, they equipped the 190th and 245th fighter air divisions (IAD) on the Transbaikal Front, while the 410th and 88th IAPs on Kamchata supported the attack on the Kuriles, and P-63s served the Soviet Pacific Fleet’s 7th IAD. That division’s 17th IAP scored the Kingcobras sole recorded victory over a Japanese fighter on August 15, 1945."
2nd Paragraph from the bottom
http://www.americancombatplanes.com/p63_1.html
-
+1 (but perk it if required)
-
+1
I'd sell my grandmother to the Cossacks for this plane.
-
+1
I'd sell my grandmother to the Cossacks for this plane.
You monster! :lol
-
Bump :cheers:
-
bumping is not allowed, especially on a thread that is barely a day old. What do you expect to happen? They going to add a cobra over night? :rolleyes:
-
bumping is not allowed, especially on a thread that is barely a day old. What do you expect to happen? They going to add a cobra over night? :rolleyes:
You think I'm another 321Bar don't you? Also no I do not think they'll add it to the game over night, I just want a good debate over the P-63. It would be nice to have though quite honestly. Oh surprise me with a cartoon, it'd be nice. :x
-
bumping is not allowed, especially on a thread that is barely a day old.
Backseat modding isn't either. :O
:noid
-
Not sure if you were involved in the last KingCobra discussion in the Wishlist Forum. It was a decent one.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309472.0.html
-
This sounds pretty damned interesting. Possibly a low- ENY
-
It is not a P-39 with a touch-up as I thought, but a new aircraft with the same idea.
AFAIK it did score kills with the Russians, and therefore meets the AH criteria.
From Wiki:
n the Pacific theatre, the Kingcobras flew escort, close air support and ground attack missions. The Soviet P-63s achieved their first air victory on 15 August 1945, when Lejtenant I. F. Miroshnichenko from 17th IAP/190 IAD, shot down a Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa Army fighter off the coast of North Korea
so,,,,,,
-
It is not a P-39 with a touch-up as I thought, but a new aircraft with the same idea.
AFAIK it did score kills with the Russians, and therefore meets the AH criteria.
From Wiki:
n the Pacific theatre, the Kingcobras flew escort, close air support and ground attack missions. The Soviet P-63s achieved their first air victory on 15 August 1945, when Lejtenant I. F. Miroshnichenko from 17th IAP/190 IAD, shot down a Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa Army fighter off the coast of North Korea
so,,,,,,
You'll find that most around here do not take Wiki as an accurate enough source to confirm something. You'll need to find a better source thats more reliable in the boards (and HTC's) eyes.
-
+1 of course. Would love to have this plane. :aok
Spend a lot of time in the P-39. For late war it's underpowered and under wing-ed. The P-63 turns better, clibs better, and goes faster. Just what's needed to make it competitive in Late War. I don't think this plane would end up Perked or even with a low ENY value because the gun package, while challenging and fun, is not effective compared to 6 .50, and mutiple 20mm gun packages. The K4 which is faster, climbs better, and has a more effective gun package is a 20 ENY plane. Many have made a good case for the K4 being a 15 ENY plane, but I see the Kingcobra as a 20+ ENY plane.
-
+1 of course. Would love to have this plane. :aok
Spend a lot of time in the P-39. For late war it's underpowered and under wing-ed. The P-63 turns better, clibs better, and goes faster. Just what's needed to make it competitive in Late War. I don't think this plane would end up Perked or even with a low ENY value because the gun package, while challenging and fun, is not effective compared to 6 .50, and mutiple 20mm gun packages. The K4 which is faster, climbs better, and has a more effective gun package is a 20 ENY plane. Many have made a good case for the K4 being a 15 ENY plane, but I see the Kingcobra as a 20+ ENY plane.
qft.
-
i believe the usa had the p-63 in inventory on mainland usa...and was floen here....and....shot down a japanese bomb balloon during the war. i believe there are also some reports of p-63...notm p-39 being shot down by the luftwaffe....dosent ground attack constitute combat?
-
i believe the usa had the p-63 in inventory on mainland usa...and was floen here....and....shot down a japanese bomb balloon during the war. i believe there are also some reports of p-63...notm p-39 being shot down by the luftwaffe....dosent ground attack constitute combat?
Reports of P-63s in combat in Europe have been investigated and discussed by the group in some detail. It seems that P-63 were being shipped to western front units but very late in the war. One account I read in Porkryshkin's [sp?] memoir states that P-63s were arriving in April of 45. While it states they were with the unit, it makes no mention of anyone using them. With the time it would take to get trained in the new plane and combat ready it's doubtful that traceable, significant combat experience against the germans was recorded. Is it possible a P-63 flew in the vacinity of german combat troops...sure. But it's doubtful a combat record of any official validity was ever recorded onthe western front. None have been identified so far. But many keep looking :aok
On another note, Yes the P-63 was slated for units deploying to D-day. But production planes weren't being delivered in significant numbers until Dec 1943/Jan 1944. This is 6 months before D-day and it was thought that converted units would not have enough to train in the plane before the invasion. The Russians still hungry for planes, and already familiar with the very similar P-39, and with Bell, hence they became the more appropriate customers.
The question for me becomes why did it take 12 months for Planes to get from the Buffalo production facility to units fighting the Germans?
More research needed. :salute
-
http://p63kingcobra.com/p-63_kingcobra_battles.html
The Soviet air cover and support for the Shimushu landings were provided by the 128 SAD, their 888 IAP had the P-63 Kingcobra, which they had received only in August 1945, before that they remained the last active Soviet fighter regiment with the I-16. The 410 ShAP, also of the same division also had converted to the P-63, in their case from the Il-2 (It is uncertain but possible that they may have been redesignated as 410 IAP.). The third regiment in the division flew a mixture of A-20 and SB bombers, and a few PV-1s which had been interned prior to August 1945. The naval torpedo bomber unit was the 2 MTAD (division), consisting of the 4 MTAP (Il-4 & DB-3), 49 MTAP (Il-4, A-20G, & A-20H), & 52 MTAP (DB-3).
Also.
http://p63kingcobra.com/french_p63_kingcobras.html
It is generally accepted that 300 Bell P-63c King Cobras were supplied to the French, some sources suggest that they saw action for a brief period defending the docks of Le Harve during late 1944. However I have not personally yet seen any actual evidence of this to date and would be very keen to hear from anyone with additional information. I am sure somewhere out there is a pilot who can confirm one way or another.
http://p63kingcobra.com/p-63_kingcobra_history.html
One other E series aircraft served as the XP-63H, powered by a turbo compound V-1710-127 engine, which had not only the two-stage supercharger but an exhaust driven gas turbine which fed power mechanically back to the engine. At 29,000 feet, this engine still delivered 1,550 horsepower, and at low altitudes, with special fuel, its output was an amazing 2,900 horsepower. How then did the Kingcobra perform in combat with the U.S. Army Air Forces? It didn’t - the only American use of the P-63’s as fighters were a few hundred employed as transition trainers in Advanced Training Units. Most, about 2,397, Kingcobras were provided to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease, ferried by the U.S. and Soviet Pilots via the Alaska Siberia Route. As with the P-39, the Soviets used the P-63’s 37mm cannon for attacks on tanks and other armoured targets and seemed to have good luck with them in air-to-air combat. However few details have been published about the P-63’s combat role in the Soviet Union. It is believed by some sources that an unknown number of the P-63’s supplied by the U.S. were secretly transferred to the Russian front contravening the Lend-Lease agreement and thus seeing combat with the German’s, however no evidence has yet come forward to support this claim. What is known is the P-63 did see combat in the Far East during the brief but fierce fighting that took place when Russia declared war on Japan shortly after and taking advantage of the dropping of the first atom bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th 1945. This conflict became known to the Soviets as Operation Autumn Storm, very little archive information exists about these missions, but it is known that these battles extended beyond the official surrender of Japan which took place on board U.S. battleship Missouri on September 2nd 1945. It is a common misconception that some historians make stating that the last battles of World War Two were fought at Iwo Jima, whilst this might be true when referring the U.S. involvement in the war what is often overlooked was that the Russian’s were still carrying out Operation Autumn Storm well after the last battles of Iwo Jima had finally ended. The P-63’C’s deployed during these operations in the Kuril Islands can surely claim the last combat of World War Two undertaken by any American built aircraft.
-
http://p63kingcobra.com/p-63_kingcobra_battles.html
The Soviet air cover and support for the Shimushu landings were provided by the 128 SAD, their 888 IAP had the P-63 Kingcobra, which they had received only in August 1945, before that they remained the last active Soviet fighter regiment with the I-16. The 410 ShAP, also of the same division also had converted to the P-63, in their case from the Il-2 (It is uncertain but possible that they may have been redesignated as 410 IAP.). The third regiment in the division flew a mixture of A-20 and SB bombers, and a few PV-1s which had been interned prior to August 1945. The naval torpedo bomber unit was the 2 MTAD (division), consisting of the 4 MTAP (Il-4 & DB-3), 49 MTAP (Il-4, A-20G, & A-20H), & 52 MTAP (DB-3).
Also.
http://p63kingcobra.com/french_p63_kingcobras.html
It is generally accepted that 300 Bell P-63c King Cobras were supplied to the French, some sources suggest that they saw action for a brief period defending the docks of Le Harve during late 1944. However I have not personally yet seen any actual evidence of this to date and would be very keen to hear from anyone with additional information. I am sure somewhere out there is a pilot who can confirm one way or another.
http://p63kingcobra.com/p-63_kingcobra_history.html
One other E series aircraft served as the XP-63H, powered by a turbo compound V-1710-127 engine, which had not only the two-stage supercharger but an exhaust driven gas turbine which fed power mechanically back to the engine. At 29,000 feet, this engine still delivered 1,550 horsepower, and at low altitudes, with special fuel, its output was an amazing 2,900 horsepower. How then did the Kingcobra perform in combat with the U.S. Army Air Forces? It didn’t - the only American use of the P-63’s as fighters were a few hundred employed as transition trainers in Advanced Training Units. Most, about 2,397, Kingcobras were provided to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease, ferried by the U.S. and Soviet Pilots via the Alaska Siberia Route. As with the P-39, the Soviets used the P-63’s 37mm cannon for attacks on tanks and other armoured targets and seemed to have good luck with them in air-to-air combat. However few details have been published about the P-63’s combat role in the Soviet Union. It is believed by some sources that an unknown number of the P-63’s supplied by the U.S. were secretly transferred to the Russian front contravening the Lend-Lease agreement and thus seeing combat with the German’s, however no evidence has yet come forward to support this claim. What is known is the P-63 did see combat in the Far East during the brief but fierce fighting that took place when Russia declared war on Japan shortly after and taking advantage of the dropping of the first atom bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th 1945. This conflict became known to the Soviets as Operation Autumn Storm, very little archive information exists about these missions, but it is known that these battles extended beyond the official surrender of Japan which took place on board U.S. battleship Missouri on September 2nd 1945. It is a common misconception that some historians make stating that the last battles of World War Two were fought at Iwo Jima, whilst this might be true when referring the U.S. involvement in the war what is often overlooked was that the Russian’s were still carrying out Operation Autumn Storm well after the last battles of Iwo Jima had finally ended. The P-63’C’s deployed during these operations in the Kuril Islands can surely claim the last combat of World War Two undertaken by any American built aircraft.
Tyrannis,
These have been reviewed before and have been shown to be without reference or corroberation. It has for example been posted previously with references that the Russians didn't use the P-39 to attack tanks or ground targets. They assigned them exclusively to air superiority roles. The Russians never recieved armor piercing ammo for the 37mm. The whole myth about Russian P-39s as tank busters is a mis-translation of the russian term for "Ground support". [which to them meant clearing the air over russian troops of enemy fighters, not attacking enemy troops on the ground.] I've posted the page perfernces in other P-63 posts. but don;t have it handy. It's from "Attack of the Airacobras"
-
Reading The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, by Bodie (an *awesome* book -- wish there was one of that caliber on every WWII aircraft), Bodie talks about what the P-39 might have been like had it received the sort of support from the army project managers that the P-38 did (instead of being hampered).
It was a very-innovative design, and we see lots of excellent qualities in AH, I think. For it's day (introduced in 1941, I think) and below about 13k, it's fast. It handles well, even at high speed, turns decently, and is a very small target.
The Russians loved the P-39, and used it as an air-to-air fighter (as detailed in Attack of the Airacobras, by Loza). Three of the top five aces of the Soviets flew the P-39.
-
Reading The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, by Bodie (an *awesome* book -- wish there was one of that caliber on every WWII aircraft), Bodie talks about what the P-39 might have been like had it received the sort of support from the army project managers that the P-38 did (instead of being hampered).
It was a very-innovative design, and we see lots of excellent qualities in AH, I think. For it's day (introduced in 1941, I think) and below about 13k, it's fast. It handles well, even at high speed, turns decently, and is a very small target.
The Russians loved the P-39, and used it as an air-to-air fighter (as detailed in Attack of the Airacobras, by Loza). Three of the top five aces of the Soviets flew the P-39.
:aok
-
:aok
We need the 63 just so Vinkman stops getting so cranky in the MA :)
-
We need the 63 just so Vinkman stops getting so cranky in the MA :)
It's true. I would be happy all the time. :banana:
-
I;d be cherry for a P-63.....once my B-26 gets reskinned
-
P-63 should have been in the poll. :salute
-
P-63 should have been in the poll. :salute
Maybe next time.
-
ok so let me get this straight...P-63.made in quantity greater than p-47m,saw limited combat like the P-47m,was used by the usa and russia in 1944/45 and we have the p-47-m and not the p-63......somehow that dosent make sense. wish the p-63 was in the poll
-
And exactly what service did the P-63 see with US forces?
Oh, and while we're at it, how about how much action it saw with Soviet forces?
It was made in great numbers, to be sure. Its impact on the war was nonexistent. It has no cultural importance (as compared to the P-39 which was significant for both the US and the VVS), and fired almost no shots in anger.
Then compare it to the P-47M which swept the skies over France and Germany....
<sarcasm>Yeah, that's REALLY a valid comparison.</sarcasm>
-
And exactly what service did the P-63 see with US forces?
Oh, and while we're at it, how about how much action it saw with Soviet forces?
It was made in great numbers, to be sure. Its impact on the war was nonexistent. It has no cultural importance (as compared to the P-39 which was significant for both the US and the VVS), and fired almost no shots in anger.
Then compare it to the P-47M which swept the skies over France and Germany....
<sarcasm>Yeah, that's REALLY a valid comparison.</sarcasm>
OK ok, he doesn't know all the P-63 history. You don't have to do so rough on him. :salute
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]
-
P-63 should have been in the poll. :salute
Absolutely not. It would have completely invalidated the point of a poll. If either the P-61 or P-63 had been on the poll, HTC would have been better off saving themselves the trouble of the poll and just added the American unit.
ok so let me get this straight...P-63.made in quantity greater than p-47m,saw limited combat like the P-47m,was used by the usa and russia in 1944/45 and we have the p-47-m and not the p-63......somehow that dosent make sense. wish the p-63 was in the poll
Easy to explain. The P-47M uses exactly the same 3D model as the P-47D-40 where the P-63 would be a 100% new 3D model. Also, the P-47M saw much more combat, particularly that nobody has been able to provide confirmation that the P-63 saw any combat at all.
-
Sorry if I was harsh.
I get that there exists a case for including it in AH, I just think it's a bit of a weak case. It's what can only be classified as an uber plane that really has almost no war record at all. It falls in line with the F8F and F7F, the Do335, etc... The only difference is that it came earlier than end-of-the-war.
-
Sorry if I was harsh.
I get that there exists a case for including it in AH, I just think it's a bit of a weak case. It's what can only be classified as an uber plane that really has almost no war record at all. It falls in line with the F8F and F7F, the Do335, etc... The only difference is that it came earlier than end-of-the-war.
I don't dissagree. It depends on what are the reasons for adding any plane. You and Karnak seem to strongly prefer historical impact as the decider. That's logical. But most, and I'm in this camp, want to see what it's like to fly all of these birds and compare how they stack up to each other, and then I want birds that are fun to fly.
Uber is not fun - because there is no challenge in flying around in a superplane and killing everyone.
Completely sucky is not fun. - because a plane with no strengths to capitalize on means your flying a death trap with no options.
The fun planes are the ones with weakness and strengths. This forces one to devise strategies, and talents the create opportunities for the strengths, while trying to avoid situations that allow the enemy to exploit it weaknesses.
The P-63 looks to have a great combination of strengths and weaknesses which I think would make a really fun plane to fly. The p-39 gets a lot more flight time than it's performance numbers and kill ratio would justify. Why? Because it's fun! That stupid huge cannon in the nose is a complete frustration and a total blast to use all at the same time. But it's so slow and underpowered, and doesn't turn well enough to make up for that lack of power that it's just not competitive in most MA arenas. 50mph more, a little better climb, and a little better turn performance make the P-63 just the upgrade a P-39 needs to be a real keeper in the LW MA. I think this plane would end up being a significant presence in the MA, like the K4 is. Not perked or low eny plane, but it would develop a loyal following and become a permanant fixture in the MA skies.
A really fun new option that doesn't change the overall ballance of game play, but gives it more depth. That's my reason for wanting it. :aok
-
John Bagley who lives a few miles East of me in Rexburg Idaho,owns a P-63.He also has a stable of WWII,Korea,and Vietnam "War Birds",including "Ole Yeller",a P-51.I have seen him fly both of them in airshows,and the P-51 makes the P-63 look bad!He might just be afraid to open the P-63 up,or he is more comfortable with the "Pony".That being said I still like the P-63.It's history is interesting,with it's most notable use,was being used as a target plane.It had sensors wires installed,and the opponents fired wax bullets at it.I believe it did get a couple of kills in Manchuria during August of 1945.
I wouldn't have any problem with having the P-63 in AH,as we have a rocket plane that flies way longer and more deftly than it really was capable of.It killed more of the pilots that flew it in accidents than the enemy did!Might as well add the "Black Widow",and the "Bearcat",that would make a lot of people happy.
-
The P-61 Black Widow will hopefully be added someday. The F8F Bearcat has no place in AH, in my opinion.
-
Need more King Cobra :aok 30 rounds of 37mm just isn't enough :joystick:
-
The 37mm made by Oldsmobile was terrible!The Russians pulled them out and put in 20mm's.The P-39 was neutered by people that had pull,and they didn't like Bell Aircraft.The P-39 could have been a much better plane if it wouldn't have hadn't the blower pulled off it,and other changes in the air frame.The P-63 with the better wings, and the best Allison1710 that was made during the war,was an entirely different plane. On the Eastern Front the air battles were fought at lower altitudes,so the "Old Iron Dog done fairly well.Most pilots liked the P-39,and they are the ones that had to deal with it's short comings.
-
The 37mm made by Oldsmobile was terrible!The Russians pulled them out and put in 20mm's.The P-39 was neutered by people that had pull,and they didn't like Bell Aircraft.The P-39 could have been a much better plane if it wouldn't have hadn't the blower pulled off it,and other changes in the air frame.The P-63 with the better wings, and the best Allison1710 that was made during the war,was an entirely different plane. On the Eastern Front the air battles were fought at lower altitudes,so the "Old Iron Dog done fairly well.Most pilots liked the P-39,and they are the ones that had to deal with it's short comings.
Is there a reference for the Russian cannon replacement with 20mm? Loza's book makes no mention of the Russians pulling the 37mm out of planes, or any displeasure with the weapon. The russians developed tactics that included firing at extremely close range. This may have reduced some of the problems associated with the 37mm. The book quotes pilots that loved the 37mm for it's ability to kill anything with one shot. Porkryshkin scored 50 kills in a variety of P-39 models all with 37mm cannons. the book also dispells the myth that P-39 were uses as tank busters or ground attack planes, another common rumor on the internet. The Russians coveted the planes and used them exclusively for Air-superiority roll.
The allies didn't seem to have a lot of love for the 37mm, and the P-400 british (and I believe the french) variant did replace the 37mm with a 20mm per insistance from the british. :salute
-
The soviets loved big-bore cannons. They even put their own 23mm, 37mm, into their own home-grown fighters. What they removed were the wing guns and wing gunpods. They kept and mainly used the 37mm for most of their air to air kills.
The P-39s with 20mm were factory-made as P-400s for the RAF, but the RAF detested the performance and the surplus were shipped over via Lend-Lease to Russia or used in US service.
These were not field-stripped and replaced.
I know they replaced some other guns with their own, on the Hurricanes for example, but I don't think that happened on the P-39s.
P.S. Vinkman, there was nothing to "convert" -- the P-39 design was always only a fighter design. It was never an attacker (no more than the contemporary P-40B was!).
-
P.S. Vinkman, there was nothing to "convert" -- the P-39 design was always only a fighter design. It was never an attacker (no more than the contemporary P-40B was!).
You mis-read my mis spelling. lol
It said "covented" which you read as "converted" but was supposed to be "coveted" as in cherish and treat as highly prized. :aok :salute I fixed it.
P.S. didn't know the brits shipped the 20mm equipped planes to the Russians. That's good to know.
-
Oooh, Thanks for the typo fix.
-
I would actually like to see this bird in AH. :aok
-
Given the tantrums people threw about the Meteor possibly being added. The drama when this gets added should be at a whole new level.
-
Given the tantrums people threw about the Meteor possibly being added. The drama when this gets added should be at a whole new level.
Not nearly as much for the 63. At least it has one of those spinney things on the front :)
-
Not nearly as much for the 63. At least it has one of those spinney things on the front :)
A lot of the arguments against the Meteor were claims that it would lower the bar as to what was a valid addition. While that was not really true of the Meteor, it is not clear that it is not true of the P-63.
-
Given the tantrums people threw about the Meteor possibly being added. The drama when this gets added should be at a whole new level.
Tantrums about the meteor were because A) it wasn't their favorite plane. B) because some felt another Jet would adversely affect MA game play. The "it never saw a lot of action" comments are a way to try to disqualify it because telling folks the plane they want is bad for the gam,e is too tough a job. ;)
No offense, but mutch the way you find every P-63 thread and keep harping on the insignificant combat record, because you want the Ki-43 so bad! ;)
The "saw combat" clause helps weed out 3rd generation planes that weren't manufactured in time to see action, F8F, F7F, P-82, etc. Those planes meet the first two criteria but never saw combat.
The P-63 is unique because it is a 2nd generation plane signed off for delivery in 1943, and was delivered in the thousands a year and half before the end of the war. It was stationed in eastern Russia for use against the Japanese. If units are trained and flying the planes around for a year, petrolling the airspace bordering an enemy country during the war, it seems like a technicality to say it didn't see combat. It is also unique in that it may well have been the best V12 powered all american fighter of the war, and 2,700 of them were deployed. That has some significance.
But mostly it's a nice fit for the prop driven late war MA. Fun, Unique, capable, but not a game changer in anyway. Many of the other planes being asked for...Ki-43, aren't very unique. They are very significant, but not very unique, and so they don't add much to game play. They do add a lot to scenarios. :aok
The ki-43, yak3 are really repeats . The Me-410, the Pe-2, P-63..perhpas others add something new, without being game changers. :salute
-
Ki-43 is the most visible omission in the game that I can see as it was the Japanese Army fighter from beginning to end. They didn't fly Zekes. To do any accurate PTO/CBI event you need Ki-43s. That includes that final bit where the 63 actually fired it's guns in action for the Russians in that short offensive against the Japanese.
-
Ki-43 is the most visible omission in the game that I can see as it was the Japanese Army fighter from beginning to end. They didn't fly Zekes. To do any accurate PTO/CBI event you need Ki-43s. That includes that final bit where the 63 actually fired it's guns in action for the Russians in that short offensive against the Japanese.
Yes conclusive proof would nice to show once-and-for-all it meets HiTech's criteria. HTC has shown that if there's pull in the community they are willing to offer it up if it meets the criteria. I think there is quite a bit of pull for the Kingcobra. Not as much as other planes but enough to start making future polls. Superfly mentioned that the P-63 was being considered when the P-39 was complete, but at that time it decided not to do it. Whether that means it met the criteria to HiTech's satisfaction, but othe planes wre more worthwhile to develop first, or whether it didn't qualify is unknown to me.
-
I'm of the belief now, having read a bit about that last Russian Offensive against Japan, that the 63 most definitely got shot at and did fly combat. I don't know that we'll ever know for sure whether the one claim was an actual 'kill', but I don't question that it fired it's guns in anger.
I would fly the 63 if for no other reason then it was a 63 that was the first warbird I ever saw up close and flying.
-
How is the P-63 any more "unique" than the Ki-43?
-
How is the P-63 any more "unique" than the Ki-43?
well it's like a P-39, but 50-70 mph faster, and climbs better, accelerates better, and it might turn better (lower wing loading), carries two drop tanks, and more bombs. That's a big difference over a P-39 It will play very differen't.
A Ki-84 will play like a Zeke, only with weaker guns, and a little better turn performance. I could be wrong, but I don't see this plane performing different enough from a zeke to make a big difference in how it matches up in the MA with other planes and missions.
Example: A Zeke is dogfighting a Corsair. Is the fight a lot different if an Oscar is dogfighting a Corsair, from either perspective? The only fight that changes is fighting a Zeke in an Oscar because that's a new match up. imo
Example: A P-39 is dogfighting a 109G6. The fight becomes very different if a P-63 is dogfighting a 109G6. Every fight changes when you swap the P-63 in place of the P-39. again imo.
Not only does the P-63 sets itself apart from a P-39 but it doesn't end up resebling anything else in the game because of its weird gun package, awkward visibility, and who knows what handling quirks, and advantages.
What do you think? :salute
-
The difference between a Ki-43 and A6M would be a bit more than you're giving it, roll rate and such.
P-63 should be VVS colors only, absolutely no American skins for it. Possibly perked.
-
The difference between a Ki-43 and A6M would be a bit more than you're giving it, roll rate and such.
P-63 should be VVS colors only, absolutely no American skins for it. Possibly perked.
If planes are aloud to have training skins, why shouldnt the p63 be aloud to have its American Markings as well?
-
If planes are aloud to have training skins, why shouldnt the p63 be aloud to have its American Markings as well?
Planes are not allowed to have non-combat markings. If you are referring to the orange N1K2-J I would guess that it found itself in combat, something that Axis trainers were prone to late in the war. I don't believe that US trainers ever risked that.
EDIT:
And yes, this is a vindictive wish on my part. I want the people begging for an insignificant plane to be added just because it is American to be forced to use a Soviet skin with it. I know not everybody is begging to have it added because it is American, but by odd coincidence I don't imagine any of those people will mind using a Soviet skin either.
-
Have to admit, though I love the design and performance of the '63, and would like it in the game someday - seeing it only Russian skins is going to be a bit like Favre in a Vikings uniform. It'll see "not right" on some level. I have only the US military planners to blame though.
-
Planes are not allowed to have non-combat markings. If you are referring to the orange N1K2-J I would guess that it found itself in combat, something that Axis trainers were prone to late in the war. I don't believe that US trainers ever risked that.
EDIT:
And yes, this is a vindictive wish on my part. I want the people begging for an insignificant plane to be added just because it is American to be forced to use a Soviet skin with it. I know not everybody is begging to have it added because it is American, but by odd coincidence I don't imagine any of those people will mind using a Soviet skin either.
But, isent the white skin for the f4u a trainer skin as well? at least, thats what i thought people were saying.
-
The difference between a Ki-43 and A6M would be a bit more than you're giving it, roll rate and such.
P-63 should be VVS colors only, absolutely no American skins for it. Possibly perked.
I missed the part about possibly perking - what about its performance would warrant perking?
Also, to Vink's comment about the 63's awkward visibility - I find the '39 has the best foward/up view in the game. I spend a lot of time in lag pursuit, and the find the 39's canopy framing ideal to keep the bandit in viz. I'm having all kinds of trouble with the 109G6 in this respect. Dunno if anybody else noticed this. Also, for some reason I am most confident in the '39 for maneuvering 'down in the weeds' - think it has something to due with the head position and view out of the cockpit, and possibly the great control response.
-
The difference between a Ki-43 and A6M would be a bit more than you're giving it, roll rate and such.
P-63 should be VVS colors only, absolutely no American skins for it. Possibly perked.
Yes we want it because it's American but also because it's fun and unique. Don't leave out the best part!
Definately VVS only. I don't know why it would be perked though. I see it as behind a K4 for climb and top speed, with an even harder to use hub cannon. Some have effectively made the case for the K4 dropping from 20 ENY to 15 ENY, so I see the P-63 in that range. :salute
Oboe, The rear visibility on the P-63 changed at least on the A model be exchanging the bullet proof rear glass for plate steel. I don't know if it was changed back for the C-model. The plate maybe tougher to see around. I agree on the forward and up views, also the P63 cockpit is even more forward of the Wing than the P-39. Nice for looking over the side seeing what's below you without having to roll the plane over. I love the P-39 handeling because the departure characteristics are very benign. So it flies smoothly at the edge of its flight envelop. But it's still a smallish envelope. I don't know if the P-63 will retain such benign behavior at the limits, even though those limits should be improved over the P-39. I hope so :aok
-
If you are referring to the orange N1K2-J I would guess that it found itself in combat, something that Axis trainers were prone to late in the war.
I don't think that's the case. I think it's a matter of "ooh, colors! I don't care I want it in-game" and sneaking it in under the radar. I've seen examples where training units' aircraft were pushed into combat, and they were repainted to remove the orange.
-
But, isent the white skin for the f4u a trainer skin as well? at least, thats what i thought people were saying.
No, it is not.