Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: humble on February 16, 2005, 02:02:29 PM
-
Found this while looking for something else....
"In the spring of 1943, I was sent to Panama and trained in Curtis P-40 E's and RP-40 C's. The `R' designated a non-combat rated aircraft and was equipped with .30 Caliber machine guns. In contrast, the E model and following versions had six .50 Cal. guns in the wings and was a very stable gun platform. It was also considered a first-line fighter along with the newer P-39. After 40 or so hours in P-40's, I was assigned to the 28th Fighter Squadron flying P-39N's out of a jungle base at Chame. Having heard numerous stories about the tricky little plane, I had the usual first flight trepidations but found that the rear-engine ship allowed great forward visibility during landing and takeoff and the tricycle landing gear allowed one to taxi and steer as easily as a child's tricycle - if you remembered to keep your toes pumping the rudder pedals to keep pressure in the brake system. (As kids our bicycles were equipped with New Departure brakes applied by merely reversing pressure on the pedals. The Spitfires we flew in Africa had hand brakes like all European bicycles which led to some interesting ground maneuvers.) Actually, it was scarier to watch a P-39 landing as a spectator on the ground than it was piloting one. From the ground it appeared that the extreme nose-high configuration on final flare-out was sure to induce a stall. In fact a good landing resembled nothing so much as the attitude used to land many current high performance jet fighters. Even the torque produced by the 12 cylinder engine and metal propeller was easily controllable. Our 28th Squadron C.O. had a favorite landing procedure. He would roar down the runway at a high rate of speed, pull up into a loop, and activate his landing gear while inverted on top. Then he would cut his mixture control and complete the loop, landing "dead-stick" and roll power-off to his parking revetment.....
came from this URL....
http://www.31stfightergroup.com/31stReference/Profiles/Riddle.html
-
Track down a copy of "Nanette" by Edwards Park. He was a P39 pilot with the 35th FG in the Pacific.
Best fighter pilot book out there. He talks about things they did with 39s too.
Dan/Slack
-
Just amazed a guy would land like that repeatedly in a forward field enviornment...obviously the plane had to be very docile with regard to departure charicteristics...no way your gonna recover that...
-
Originally posted by humble
Just amazed a guy would land like that repeatedly in a forward field enviornment...obviously the plane had to be very docile with regard to departure charicteristics...no way your gonna recover that...
I think it was more common then we'd like to believe. Seems like I've read that guys like Bong and McGuire would do that with their 38s too.
As for departure characteristics. The 39 apparently was not very dociile in the hands of new guys, but the 39 vets knew how to handle her.
Dan/Slack
-
Yeah, that was one of Bong's favorite tricks. Buzz the runway WFO at about 5 feet, pull up for a loop, kill the engines, drop the flaps and gear, and land deadstick. Stan Richardson told me Hoover's 16 year old son was notorious for that in their P-38. Kind of like Bong's little buzz job that got him a day of doing some housewife's laundry after he blew it off her clothesline. Or his habit of looping most bridges a P-38 could fly under.
I guess we have to consider that such behavior was more sane and normal if you spent most days with people trying to shoot you and kill you. Not to mention that we're talking about the absolute hottest sticks ever to grace a cockpit. They were that good, and better, and always sought to push themselves even more.
-
P-39 wouldnt have been so crappy had it had a Merlin engine and supercharger. In fact, it would have probably saved alot of lives.
-
The Merlin would have thrown off the balance and center of gravity, and would not fit the fuselage well. The USAAC/USAAF took the original Allison with both a crank driven centrifugal supercharger AND a turbocharger (just like the P-38) out of the P-39. After the war, a P-39 with a P-38 engine setup was in fact one of the fastest race planes ion the air. It was in fact the USAAC/USAAF who ruined the Bell P-39. The Allison had nothing to do with it. General motors proposed a two speed two stage supercharger for the Allison as well, but was not allowed to use it. The Allison was intended to be turbocharged as well as using the built in supercharger. Curtiss wanted to use the turbocharger as well.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
P-39 wouldnt have been so crappy had it had a Merlin engine and supercharger. In fact, it would have probably saved alot of lives.
It was originally designed with a supercharger...in fact had it been rolled out as designed it would of been awful close to the P-63....probably would of been the dominant fighter in the early war set by far for any country....as it was it was great at lower alts...totally dominated the early 109's at lower alts prevalent in eastern front combat...thats why russians loved it so much....
-
Originally posted by humble
It was originally designed with a supercharger...in fact had it been rolled out as designed it would of been awful close to the P-63....probably would of been the dominant fighter in the early war set by far for any country....as it was it was great at lower alts...totally dominated the early 109's at lower alts prevalent in eastern front combat...thats why russians loved it so much....
When the XP-39 rolled out on April 6, 1939, it was powered by a V-1710 fitted with a turbocharger. Once the eggheads at Langley got their hands on it, the turbocharger was deleted, the wingspan clipped and the fuselage lengthened, all in the interest of improving drag and performance. Naturally, performance was reduced, especially above 10,000 ft.:rolleyes:
(http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39best.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
(Hero of Pearl Harbor) George Welch finally received orders to return to the Pacific. George reported to the 36th Fighter Squadron of the 8th Fighter Group in New Guinea. The good news was that this squadron had been seeing combat. The bad news was that is was flying the hopeless Bell P-39 Airacobra. Welch found himself flying mostly ground support missions, this being largely due to the P-39’s poor combat performance and its limited range. Certainly, the 37mm cannon was useful against ground targets, but the Bell was at a serious disadvantage when facing Japanese fighters. This was largely the fault of it being fitted with an Allison engine that lacked a two speed, two stage supercharger. This meant that performance dropped off quickly above 12,000 ft. At the altitudes necessary to engage the Japanese bombers and fighters, the P-39 was an absolute dog. Welch did not view the lack of performance at altitude as the primary sin of the P-39. What truly turned Welch against the Airacobra was its limited combat radius. With the majority of air to air engagements being fought beyond the reach of the Bell, opportunities to shoot down more Japanese were nearly nonexistant. Naturally Welch noted that there were squadrons on his base that were flying the P-38G Lightning. Now, here was a fighter! Fast, long ranging and equally important, its twin Allison engines were turbosupercharged. This allowed the P-38 to climb higher and faster than the P-39. It was everything Welch wanted and the performance of the P-38 was reflected in the tally of Japanese aircraft being shot down. George wanted the Lightning, he wanted it badly and cornered his group commander and inquired as to when 36th could expect to get the P-38. The answer was: “When we run out of P-39s.” That was all Welch and the pilots of 36th needed to hear. Virtually any problem encountered in flight (real or imaginary) resulted in a bailout from that day forward. The operational loss rate climbed dramatically. Welch found himself in hot water with the Group commander, who pointed out that George had been very successful in the P-39. Hadn’t he shot down two Vals and a Zero on the one-year anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack (bring his total to 7)? That didn’t deter Welch, who knew he could have splashed a hell of a lot more if he’d been flying the Lightning. Finally, the Brass gave into Welch’s repeated requests and transferred him across the field to 80th Fighter Squadron. At last, George had his P-38, and he made the most of it.
From: The Amazing George Welch (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch1.html)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/P-39d5.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Russian number 2 in kills Pokryshkin got most of his kills in P-39 (IIRC 64 confirmed kills), also I read an interesting story somewhere that when it was decided to make a filmed story about him , the communist party thought that it was not right for a patriot to fly a foreign plane and specially for the film they painted IIRC Yak-3 in his skin but he broke the tail wheel on take off since he never flew it before. It took some tries for him to get filmed there right.
-
"Several of the Red Air Force's ranking aces flew the P-39 for a major portion of their combat sorties. The top ace in the P-39 and number four overall was Guards Major Gregoriy Rechkalov, who shot down 50 of his total 56 kills while flying a P-39. Guards Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war as the number two Soviet ace with 59 individual and 6 shared kills, reportedly flew the P-39 for 48 of his kills. Another high scorer in the P-39 was Guards Major Dmitriy Glinka, who destroyed 20 German aircraft in 40 aerial engagements in the summer of 1943, and finished the war with an even 50 kills, 41 of them while flying the P-39. Third-ranked Soviet ace Guards Major Nikolay Gulaev transitioned to the P-39 in early August 1943 with 16 individual and 2 shared kills. He flew his last combat sortie on 14 August 1944 (ordered to attend higher military schooling), leaving the battlefield with an additional 41 individual victories and 1 shared kill after just over one year in his P-39."
-
P-63, which is a P39 with a 1400hp engine, achieved same top speed as P-51D Mustang (437mph) at 30,000 feet.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
P-63, which is a P39 with a 1400hp engine, achieved same top speed as P-51D Mustang (437mph) at 30,000 feet.
And had awful range which was it's downfall.
remember the Russian 39s operated at lower alts where the Cobra could compete. The guys in the 350th FG flying 39s in the MTO until August 44 also did fine as they to operated at lower alts where the lack of supercharger didn't hurt.
When they ran into 109s or 190s they generally came out on top, but it was because they were on the playing field of their choosing, not at the alts the LW birds were best at.
Profile is a Russian P63C
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1108676508_p63cprofileussrwp.jpg)
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
P-63, which is a P39 with a 1400hp engine, achieved same top speed as P-51D Mustang (437mph) at 30,000 feet.
I've seen 400 mph at 30k for the P-63 (per America's Hundred Thousand). Where the P-63 really performed was low to medium altitudes: 420 mph at 20k, 375 mph at sea level (WEP w/water injection, 1,825 hp). This thing is very much the American La-7.
HTC, model the P-63.... Please!
My regards,
Widewing
-
The figures I read for the P-63D were 410mph at sea level, 437mph at 30,000. 1800hp war emergency power at sea level. I bet the gun pods on the wings really slowed that plane down.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The figures I read for the P-63D were 410mph at sea level, 437mph at 30,000. 1800hp war emergency power at sea level. I bet the gun pods on the wings really slowed that plane down.
Ahh, yes the P-63D was a monster. However, the P-63D was a one-off prototype. It never entered production.
By the way, the P-63 and P-39 were as different as the F4F was from the F8F. They were completely different airframes. Similar in appearance, but vastly different nonetheless. For example, the P-63 was designed around a laminar flow wing (first tested on the XP-39E).
My regards,
Widewing
-
3303 P63s built, 2397 sent to the Ruskies. Sounds like we need a Russian P63 (C) in the game!
37MM M10 cannon with 58 rounds (was this cannon an improvement on the M4?)
2 - 50 cals in the nose 200RPG
2 - 50s in underwing gondolas 900RPG
Good as done right?
Magoo
-
Originally posted by Magoo
3303 P63s built, 2397 sent to the Ruskies. Sounds like we need a Russian P63 (C) in the game!
P63 never saw combat on the Eastern Front (against the LW)
Against the Japanese (just after the official surrender) the VVS achieved the one and only WWII combat kill by a P63 over the Kurile islands.
It is hardly a WWII ac but I guess its more of one than the Ta152.
It should only ever be seen in VVS colours IMO.
-
Good info Tilt. If indeed they didn't see combat in WWII, then we don't need them in the game. I'll take a P39 please, with a little Russian dressing...
And what about Australia's under-representation in the game? How about a commonwealth Boomerang?:D
Magoo
-
I'm a bit curious, its rare for a plane with such high production numbers to not have a combat record.
"The first P-63C deliveries took place in December 1944, with the total production being 1227 aircraft. Most of these aircraft were delivered to the Soviet Union, although 114 were delivered to the Armee de l'Air."
"The P-63A-9 had 198.9 pounds of armor. It introduced the 37-mm M10 cannon in place of the earlier M4, and an increase in ammunition capacity from 30 to 58 37-mm rounds"
"Most of the P-63As that were manufactured at the Buffalo plant were immediately ferried to the Soviet Union. Upon completion, the P-63s would be rolled out of the factory and ferried from Niagra Falls to Selfride Field, Michigan. After refueling, the would be flown to Truax Field in Madison, Wisconsin where Soviet ferry pilots (usually women) would pick them up and fly them to Edmonton, Anchorage and then across the Bering Straits to the Soviet Union. The Russians used the Kingcobra primarily for close-support and ground strafing. The Kingcobra had a relatively good low-altitude performance and had the ability to absorb a lot of battle damage and still remain flying. It proved to be a potent ground attack aircraft and tank-buster, but it never received the amount of attention in the Soviet Union as did the Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik"
P 63 A10
Engine: One Allison V-1710-93 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid cooled engine with a single-stage supercharger and auxiliary hydraulic turbosupercharger, rated at 1325 hp at sea level and 1150 hp at 22,400 feet. Performance: Maximum speed was 361 mph at 5000 feet, 392 mph at 15,000 feet, and 410 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 25,000 feet could be reached in 7.3 minutes. Service ceiling was 43,000 feet. Ferry range was 2575 miles. Weights were 6375 pounds empty, 8800 pounds loaded, and 10,500 pounds maximum takeoff. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 4 inches, length 32 feet 8 inches, height 12 feet 7 inches, and wing area 248 square feet. Armament One 37-mm M10 cannon with 58 rounds firing through the propeller hub, two 0.50-inch machine guns in the nose with 200 rpg, and one 0.50-inch machine gun in each of two underwing gondolas with 900 rpg. A centerline underfuselage rack could carry a 75-US gallon auxiliary fuel tank or a 500-lb bomb
Sounds like the A model was in service with frontline units....
-
Found this further down on the same web site....
Of the 3303 P-63s built, 2397 were delivered to the Soviet under Lend Lease. All of these were delivered between 1942 and 1945, and 21 were lost during ferrying.
So the P-63 was in service in the soviet union from 1943 on!
Has to be a typo...
Production deliveries of the P-63A began in October of 1943, and by December of 1944 1725 P-63As had been produced.
So plane was in service from late 1943, not late 1942...was wondering since 1st flight by prototype was Dec 7, 1942:)...
-
Originally posted by Tilt
P63 never saw combat on the Eastern Front (against the LW)
Against the Japanese (just after the official surrender) the VVS achieved the one and only WWII combat kill by a P63 over the Kurile islands.
It is hardly a WWII ac but I guess its more of one than the Ta152.
It should only ever be seen in VVS colours IMO.
If you research the P-63A, you will find reports of encounters between P-63As and the Luftwaffe. It seems that the plane saw limited combat testing on the Eastern front, if not actual deployment.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by humble
Found this further down on the same web site....
Of the 3303 P-63s built, 2397 were delivered to the Soviet under Lend Lease. All of these were delivered between 1942 and 1945, and 21 were lost during ferrying.
So the P-63 was in service in the soviet union from 1943 on!
If this isn't true... WHY??? What did they do with 2400 high performance fighters? I never knew any better than that they used them in combat. What am I missing here? Is ist that they had indigenous fighters in sufficient numbers by then?
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
If this isn't true... WHY??? What did they do with 2400 high performance fighters? I never knew any better than that they used them in combat. What am I missing here? Is ist that they had indigenous fighters in sufficient numbers by then?
http://www.internetelite.ru/aircrafts/p-63king.html
please read all the way to the bottom.......
-
Originally posted by Magoo
[B37MM M10 cannon with 58 rounds (was this cannon an improvement on the M4?)
Magoo [/B]
The only difference was the oval feed tray was enlarged to conform to the larger fuselage. The redesign also cured ( so I've read) the jambing problem.
afool
-
One interesting tidbit is that laminar flow wings werent very effective on World War II aircraft. Any vibrations, circulating airflow (from propwash), or even something as thin as masking tape, would disrupt the laminar flow.
-
Combat reports on any Allied plane used by the SAF are considered underreported by almost everyone. THE SAF for political purposes downplayed Lend Lease armaments as much as possible.
I would imagine the P-63 was buried by the propoganda people. No doubt all late war victories were made by the People's Yaks and Lavochkins!
Now if you can find some recent quotes for former WWII SAF vets saying the P-63 was never used, I might believe them. But as for official SAF records from the late 40's and 50's, they are worthless for the truth.
-
Originally posted by afool
The only difference was the oval feed tray was enlarged to conform to the larger fuselage. The redesign also cured ( so I've read) the jambing problem.
afool
I think I remember seeing a table (probably from Tony Williams) showing a slightly (about 10%) higher rate o' fire for the M10.....
http://www.internetelite.ru/aircrafts/p-63king.html
says an Il-2 until was requipt with the Kingacobra, so maybe they considered it more for the attack role than as a fighter A/C, especially since they had their Yaks & Las. The Emmanuel Gustin site says it had 1 hardpoint for a 500pounder, but the Russian one say 3 hardpoints were available.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
http://www.internetelite.ru/aircrafts/p-63king.html
please read all the way to the bottom.......
I did. Apparently they were used by PVO units (Anti-Aircraft Defence). Don't know much about the organization within the Red Air force, so I do not know if this means they did not see combat.
Still quite surprising, as is the fact that it even received a Nato code name (Fred).
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
I did. Apparently they were used by PVO units (Anti-Aircraft Defence). Don't know much about the organization within the Red Air force, so I do not know if this means they did not see combat.
Still quite surprising, as is the fact that it even received a Nato code name (Fred).
I posted this in a different thread a few months ago:
P-63C deliveries started in March of '45, but over 1,300 P-63As were delivered before the end of 1944. I have a photo of dozens of P-63As in Soviet colors on the ferry field at Fairbanks, Alaska. The photo was taken in the September of 1944.
Oleg Maddox has dug up references to P-63As being flown against the Luftwaffe in late 1944, with at least one pilot named Devitaev having been shot down by ground fire in December of '44. This limited use may have been part of the Soviet's combat evaluation of the King Cobra. Two squadrons were based near Moscow in late 1944, and may have been rotated into Poland to combat test the fighter.
Maddox provides this information:
My wife is from Germany. Her uncle was a young Luftwaffe Leutnant in charge of an anti-aircraft battery during the war. When we visited Germany this past autumn (he now lives in M?hlheim a. d. Ruhr), he and I talked about some of his war experiences. He told me that in late 1944 outside of Konigsberg (Kaliningrad), his unit was attacked by a flight of P-63s at low level. When I asked him how he knew for certain that these were P-63s and not P-39s or some other type of aircraft, he said:
"Our unit was highly skilled and trained in aircraft recognition...we had to be able to identify all types of aircraft so we would not shoot at friendly planes...we had been briefed that the Russians were receiving P-63s from the Americans and we had studied photos and drawings of them. The P-63s flew over us at only about 15-20 meters that day. I thought they were Airacobras at first, but then I noticed the wing planform was different from the P-39 and I could see the half-exposed tires in the wheel wells. When one of the planes went into a steep banking turn, I could see the taller vertical fin and noticed an ADF loop antenna behind the cockpit, which had never been seen on the P-39. I know for a fact that these were Kingcobras. I even stated this in the report I filed to my command after the attack."
So, the evidence is mounting that P-63s saw limited service against the Luftwaffe. I have seen the testimony of several German pilots who believed that they encountered P-63s. One stated that the "These new Bell fighters easily climbed away from our Focke Wulfs." P-39s don't out-climb 190s. P-63s out-climb them handily. Fully fueled, the P-63 can get to 15,000 ft in 3.5 minutes, which is averaging nearly 4,300 fpm!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
.......I could see the taller vertical fin and noticed an ADF loop antenna behind the cockpit, which had never been seen on the P-39. I know for a fact that these were Kingcobras.
Wow they had to fly combat & then do NDB approaches!?! Those VVS pilots really were tough as nails....Ha-ha, J/K That is info I'd not read anywhere before, thanks.
-
The 37mm M10 cannon used a disintegrating link belt feed rather than the closed loop 'squirrel cage' of the M4. This allowed the P-63 to carry more than double the quantity of ammo. Also, the RoF was increased from 140 rpm to 170 rpm.
The P-63D carried the 37mm M9 cannon, a very different beast firing far more powerful ammo. Pity it never got used.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
A wealth of information on that cannon fellas, thanks for the replies. It doesn't look like a P63 is gonna see the game, of course all this posting on it is certainly a great read. So what do you guys think, will we get a P39 in AH and what model? I'm betting they'll give us one soon. Hey, we have 2 P40s. Maybe a Russian version (P39Q) and an early war Army Air Force ride (P39D)? An option for the Hispano 20MM as fitted for the P400 would be a groove. :)
Of course I've always been an optimist:)
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_17.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_19.html
Magoo
-
http://www.southernoregonwarbirds.org/honmem.html
-C+