Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Warspawn on June 04, 2006, 08:52:22 PM
-
(http://everquest2.247xtreme.com/albums/userpics/10028/p63-plate1.jpg)
Yummy... 37 mm M10 cannon with 58 rounds (as well as 4 x .50's when that was used up) and a maximum speed of 410 mph. And tons of these were built and used: over 2,400 in the USSR and some more delivered to the Free French Air Force.
The A10 version could mount 6 air-to-surface rockets or 3 x 500 lb bombs on centerline and wings. Or drop tanks.
I've seen some other threads on the P-39; I think this 'bigger brother' version of the Airacobra would be pretty fun to have in the arena.
-
Unless the M10 was lightyears ahead of the M4, it's crap. You'd be better off throwing rocks at the badguys.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Unless the M10 was lightyears ahead of the M4, it's crap. You'd be better off throwing rocks at the badguys.
-Sik
I believe it was.
Bronk
-
we dont have a ki27 for it to pwn
-
Originally posted by Debonair
we dont have a ki27 for it to pwn
I highly doubt the P-63 ever met a Ki-27 in combat.
-
i thought that was the only plane it ever met in combat
pinball wizard excepted
-
Really?
I would be surprised if the Japanese had any Ki-27s still in service that late in the war.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the Ki-43?
The Ki-27 was the last fixed gear fighter for the Japanese Army. The Ki-43 was the fighter that started to replace it before WWII.
-
hmm... i like it!
sneaky way of getting another !AMERICA PLANE![/b] into the game in a sneaky sneaky soviet disguise!! Excellent!
:D
-
Kingcobra....mmmm...definate Main Arena aircraft.
Not kidding.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
I believe it was.
Bronk
I can't seem to find anything on the RoF or MV of the M10. Unless they increased the length of the round over the M4, I'm not sure how they could have improved it that much. I'm guessing that's what they did.
-Sik
-
Linkies:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p63.html
"Specification of Bell P-63D Kingcobra:
Powerplant: One Allison V-1710-109 (E22) water-cooled engine rated at 1425 hp for take off. Performance: Maximum speed was 437 mph at 30,000 feet, service ceiling was 39,000 feet, and an altitude of 28,000 feet could be reached in 11.2 minutes. Normal range was 950 miles, and maximum ferry range was 2000 miles."
So, MA stuff ;)
(Most sources rate the P63 at 410 mph, but that's MA all right)
-
According to this page: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html
The M10 was identical in performance to the M4, with only the ammo capacity being increased.
No thanks.
-Sik
-
*Deleted double post*
-
Why not just get the P-63D version with the M9?
"The M9 was a very different weapon. The large cartridge case gave the same HE round as the M4 a considerably higher muzzle velocity. One of the types of ammunition available was a 752g armour-piercing projectile with a muzzle velocity of 930m/s, and at a distance of 460m this penetrated 6cm of armour plate. At the same distance the M4 could penetrate only 2cm of armour. It is obvious that the M9 was much better suited for ground attack; but it seems that the only aircraft in which it was ever fitted was the one-off P-63D."
*edit*grr, never mind. They only built one D model and then stopped because performance was about the same as the P-51D already flying.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
According to this page: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html
The M10 was identical in performance to the M4, with only the ammo capacity being increased.
No thanks.
-Sik
I think they made it more reliable.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Really?
I would be surprised if the Japanese had any Ki-27s still in service that late in the war.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the Ki-43?
The Ki-27 was the last fixed gear fighter for the Japanese Army. The Ki-43 was the fighter that started to replace it before WWII.
what i read about P-63, a long time ago, was that it's total of confirmed ww2 combat victories was two, a pair of Ki27 in a training squadron downed by 888 IAP (which had recently converted to the kinga cobra from i-16s) iirc....
-
Originally posted by Debonair
what i read about P-63, a long time ago, was that it's total of confirmed ww2 combat victories was two, a pair of Ki27 in a training squadron downed by 888 IAP (which had recently converted to the kinga cobra from i-16s) iirc....
Confusing it with the P-61 maybe? (though where a Ki-27 would have come from for the P-61 to shoot down is anyone's guess).
-Sik
-
Ah.
Well, a training unit makes sense. Hardly "air-to-air" combat though.
Originally posted by Sikboy
Confusing it with the P-61 maybe? (though where a Ki-27 would have come from for the P-61 to shoot down is anyone's guess).
-Sik
No, P-61s got a number of confirmed kills, in Europe and the Pacific.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Ah.
Well, a training unit makes sense. Hardly "air-to-air" combat though.
No, P-61s got a number of confirmed kills, in Europe and the Pacific.
Yeah, had I finished reading his post about the training unit I wouldn't have looked as dumb as I feel now lol.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Debonair
what i read about P-63, a long time ago, was that it's total of confirmed ww2 combat victories was two, a pair of Ki27 in a training squadron downed by 888 IAP (which had recently converted to the kinga cobra from i-16s) iirc....
Odd, you'd think that with over two thousand of these sent to the USSR there would be more victories / kills listed than that, even if inflated.
-
Ah, found it. P-63's weren't "supposed" to be used against the German front, only the far East:
"By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany, and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East against an eventual attack on Japan. However there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that Supercobras did indeed see service against the Luftwaffe. Most notably, one of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to Supercobras in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show that nothing but P-39s used against Germany.
Overall, official Soviet histories played down the role of Lend-Lease supplied aircraft in favor of local designs, but it is known that the P-63 was a successful ground-attack and ground attack aircraft in Soviet service. Sufficient aircraft continued in use after the war for them to be given the NATO reporting name of Fred.
-
i read a book by a guy who was sent up to attack B-29s in a Ki.27.
the gist i got from that book was that Ki.27s were considered a good plane to send a n00b up in.
the book was I Was A Kamikaze, good read...
i've also read that P-63 combat victories in the west were not recorded or counted as P-39 victories because
P-63 were sent exclusively for use against japan, or that stalin thought it was bad propoganda. you read enough & eventually you come across all sorts of crazy stuff. some of it may ever reflect reality:noid :noid :noid
-
P-63A-8 performance from America's Hundred Thousand, page 407-409, and graph 52.
Climb: 2.00 minutes from sea level to 10,000 feet in combat power, wet.
4.80 minutes from sea level to 20,000 feet in combat power, wet.
(Leaves the Bf 109K-4 well behind)
Speed: 378 mph at sea level in combat power, wet (faster than Dora and close to La-7)
421 mph at 17,200 feet, combat power, wet (faster than La-7 and Yak-9U)
Roll rate: 109 degrees/second @ 270 mph (thats Spit16 territory)
Max HP: 1,820 hp @ 75 in/Hg at sea level, combat power,wet.
Acceleration: At sea level, calculated to be better than F4U-4.
Calculated turning performance, no flaps: Expected to be superior to F6F-5, but slightly inferior to FM-2.
In short folks, this baby would be the best low-level fighter in the game, bar none.
Because it offered only average performance at medium to high altitudes, the USAAF did not buy many or deploy those they did buy to combat zones. On the other hand, the Soviets tested the P-63 against the Luftwaffe and found it superlative. There were some issues with a rather weak fuselage near the tail. This was corrected with the P-63A-7 (150 built). The P-63A-8 (200 built) introduced water injection, with the M10 cannon coming into service with the P-63A-9. The largest batch of A models was the P-63A-10, of which 730 were produced. P-63C-1 through -5 constituted the largest block of aircraft (1227 built). Performance was slightly better than the P-63A-8 thru -10.
The Soviets appear to have stockpiled the P-63s in anticipation of declaring war on Japan after Germany was defeated.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
P-63A-8 performance from America's Hundred Thousand, page 407-409, and graph 52.
Climb: 2.00 minutes from sea level to 10,000 feet in combat power, wet.
4.80 minutes from sea level to 20,000 feet in combat power, wet.
(Leaves the Bf 109K-4 well behind)
Speed: 378 mph at sea level in combat power, wet (faster than Dora and close to La-7)
421 mph at 17,200 feet, combat power, wet (faster than La-7 and Yak-9U)
Roll rate: 109 degrees/second @ 270 mph (thats Spit16 territory)
Max HP: 1,820 hp @ 75 in/Hg at sea level, combat power,wet.
Acceleration: At sea level, calculated to be better than F4U-4.
Calculated turning performance, no flaps: Expected to be superior to F6F-5, but slightly inferior to FM-2.
In short folks, this baby would be the best low-level fighter in the game, bar none.
Because it offered only average performance at medium to high altitudes, the USAAF did not buy many or deploy those they did buy to combat zones. On the other hand, the Soviets tested the P-63 against the Luftwaffe and found it superlative. There were some issues with a rather weak fuselage near the tail. This was corrected with the P-63A-7 (150 built). The P-63A-8 (200 built) introduced water injection, with the M10 cannon coming into service with the P-63A-9. The largest batch of A models was the P-63A-10, of which 730 were produced. P-63C-1 through -5 constituted the largest block of aircraft (1227 built). Performance was slightly better than the P-63A-8 thru -10.
The Soviets appear to have stockpiled the P-63s in anticipation of declaring war on Japan after Germany was defeated.
My regards,
Widewing
Thus we will never ever see it in game. :D
The whine it would produce would put napa (sp) valley out of business.
Bronk
-
Well the game needs a P39, and the P63 would be gravy. Just perk the P63 like the 4-Hog to keep it from becoming just a toolshedder.
-
A quick follow up.
A P-63A-8, with four .50 cal MGs and 37mm fully loaded, plus full internal fuel weighs in at 8,988 lb. Wing area is 248 sq/ft. Thus, fully loaded without external tanks or bombs, the wing loading is 36.2 lb per sq/ft. At 50% fuel, the weight drops to around 8,600 lb, with the wing loading dropping to 34.7 lb per sq/ft. That is mighty low for a high performance US fighter. In comparison, an F6F-5 loaded with full internal ammo and gas, tips the scale at 12,483 lb, or 37.37 lb per sq/ft. Even at 50% fuel, the wingloading is 35.12 lb per sq/ft. Only when both are virtually out of gas does the wing loading approach being equalized.
Thus, you can see why the P-63A is expected to out-turn the F6F-5.
P-63s also employ a plain flap, similar to that used on the P-51, F6F and Bf 109s. This flap design offers a slightly better lift to drag ratio than the split flaps used on many fighters, such as the Spitfire and P-40.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wide in your opinion. How do you think a late model P-39 would do in the MA environment.
I am thinking that the alt most fight are at it would be more than adequate.
Bronk
-
Hope Widewing pops in with something on the P39.
As I have read, it would be a MA bird also, much better than many we have.
4 MG's and a 37 mm is good. Not as fast as the YAK perhaps, but once those 37 mm are gone, the 39 has more other stuff.
Carries ordnance as well and was extensively used.
The LW crowd learned to respect it as well.
Perhaps the only mass produced and much used main warbird we don't have in AH?
Fits several arenas, such as USA vs Japan and USSR vs Germany, and even Finland!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hope Widewing pops in with something on the P39.
As I have read, it would be a MA bird also, much better than many we have.
4 MG's and a 37 mm is good. Not as fast as the YAK perhaps, but once those 37 mm are gone, the 39 has more other stuff.
Carries ordnance as well and was extensively used.
The LW crowd learned to respect it as well.
Perhaps the only mass produced and much used main warbird we don't have in AH?
Fits several arenas, such as USA vs Japan and USSR vs Germany, and even Finland!
It fits into North Africa, Sicily and Italy as well.
P-39s vary by model, but overall speed wasn't very good on the deck, making about 310-320 mph on the deck and between 360 and 390 mph at best altitude (typically between 10k and 15k) depending on what model we look at. Some sources claim a speed of 399 mph at 9.8k for the P-39N model. Climb rate for late models (M,N and Q) was average, needing about 1.8 minutes to get to 5k from sea level. Indeed, the P-63 offered nearly twice the climb rate down low. Takeoff weight for a fueled and gunned up P-39Q-1 was 7,570 lb, and the P-39's wingloading was around 35 lb per sq/ft, with that dropping to 34 lb per sq/ft at 50% fuel. That means decent turning ability, but not very good in the vertical.
My regards,
Widewing
-
There is no way in hell a 9,000lb plane [edit: with an allison engine] is going to climb 5000+fpm at milpow. It's just not going to happen, EVER. That's like saying the P47 had a 3,500hp engine, and could reach 30k in 6 minutes.
Physics doesn't allow it.
Edit: wait, does "combat power, wet" mean with water injection?
Regardless, 10k in 2 minutes is BS for a single allison engine in a heavy airframe.
-
Krusty not to start anything but ...
Widewing used" America's Hundred Thousand, page 407-409, and graph 52" as a source.
Now if you want to dispute this please post your source instead of jumping up and down shouting BS.
Because if you have different info it would make a nice read.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Krusty
There is no way in hell a 9,000lb plane [edit: with an allison engine] is going to climb 5000+fpm at milpow. It's just not going to happen, EVER. That's like saying the P47 had a 3,500hp engine, and could reach 30k in 6 minutes.
Physics doesn't allow it.
Edit: wait, does "combat power, wet" mean with water injection?
Regardless, 10k in 2 minutes is BS for a single allison engine in a heavy airframe.
Don't belittle the later Allisons, they were excellent engines. This Allison, specifically the 1710-93, was rated at 1,820 hp (WEP) with water injection (75 in/Hg) at sea level. It was a low-drag airframe, second only to the P-51 among American fighters and it had a laminar flow wing. Compared to the Spitfire Mk.XIV, it had a slightly greater wing area and at normal combat load, weighed about 60 lb less than the Spit XIV. If water injection was not used, the rate of climb fell off to about 4,200 per minute (1,500 hp @ 60 In/Hg).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Krusty
There is no way in hell a 9,000lb plane [edit: with an allison engine] is going to climb 5000+fpm at milpow. It's just not going to happen, EVER. That's like saying the P47 had a 3,500hp engine, and could reach 30k in 6 minutes.
Physics doesn't allow it.
Edit: wait, does "combat power, wet" mean with water injection?
Regardless, 10k in 2 minutes is BS for a single allison engine in a heavy airframe.
Krusty , can you show a formula that proves physics wont allow this, and that it cant be done . I'd like to see what kind of info you have that will discredit this .
-
Just zooming around the web I'm finding numbers for the P63A like 410mph @ 25K, climb to 25K in 7.3min ... which is Spit9 kinds of speed and climb. It weighs about 400 pounds less than a P51B, and if you don't load the 2 under-wing pods with .50cals and 900 rpg, that saves even more weight.
There's an interesting article on the P39 in Soviet service here (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/index.htm)
The P39 wouldn't get much use in the MA, but would be useful for AvA and events. The P63 looks to be pretty useful in the MA.
-
I'd fly it, and the 63, definately.
would be great for vulching. When the tanks start popping out you have the big gun :D
-
Originally posted by Widewing
P-63A-8 performance from America's Hundred Thousand, page 407-409, and graph 52.
Climb: 2.00 minutes from sea level to 10,000 feet in combat power, wet.
4.80 minutes from sea level to 20,000 feet in combat power, wet.
(Leaves the Bf 109K-4 well behind)
Speed: 378 mph at sea level in combat power, wet (faster than Dora and close to La-7)
421 mph at 17,200 feet, combat power, wet (faster than La-7 and Yak-9U)
Roll rate: 109 degrees/second @ 270 mph (thats Spit16 territory)
Max HP: 1,820 hp @ 75 in/Hg at sea level, combat power,wet.
Acceleration: At sea level, calculated to be better than F4U-4.
Calculated turning performance, no flaps: Expected to be superior to F6F-5, but slightly inferior to FM-2.
In short folks, this baby would be the best low-level fighter in the game, bar none.
Because it offered only average performance at medium to high altitudes, the USAAF did not buy many or deploy those they did buy to combat zones. On the other hand, the Soviets tested the P-63 against the Luftwaffe and found it superlative. There were some issues with a rather weak fuselage near the tail. This was corrected with the P-63A-7 (150 built). The P-63A-8 (200 built) introduced water injection, with the M10 cannon coming into service with the P-63A-9. The largest batch of A models was the P-63A-10, of which 730 were produced. P-63C-1 through -5 constituted the largest block of aircraft (1227 built). Performance was slightly better than the P-63A-8 thru -10.
The Soviets appear to have stockpiled the P-63s in anticipation of declaring war on Japan after Germany was defeated.
My regards,
Widewing
WOW.
I thought the 63 was potent but this is amazing.
-
The good thing you can said about american plane designers is that they really tried everything. Wierd stuff like at 12,000 lbs turbo-charger with a fighter built around it, a twin-boom twin-engine fighter and a fighter with a rear engine, tricycle gear and a car door to the cockpit. :)
American officials killed the P39 with stupid decisions enforced on Bell to change the original design. They could have had a 400+ mph plane back in 1942. Why it took so long to match this airframe with a decent engine and chargers is beyond me. P63 could have happened years earlier when it mattered.
Didn't Chuck Yeager said in his book he really liked the 39?
Bozon
-
Based on what I read online, the Soviets were instrumental in fixing the design flaws in the P-39 (like the tendency to flat spin) and making the P-63 what it was. The top P-39 ace refused to let his squadron be converted to Yaks or La's until the La-7 came out.
Yeah, it'd be great for vultching. Hunting M3's and LVT's. But it also has the climb rate to get up after heavy bombers like a K-4.
With the aft-mounted engine, the CG is almost centerred. So I wonder how this would affect handling.
-
I remember reading an article in Pacific Flyer a couple years ago about a concept ( i forget the term they used, but it was one of those really fancy ones, 'mean dynamic center of momentum' or something like that ).
this article was discussing the benefits of having the average distance from the center of gravity for any unit of mass in an aircraft be low & how this gives a plane better ability to change direction swiftly. the article was about camels & dreidekkers, but it did mention airacobras do well with respect to this measurement. maybe this has something to do with flap spins & weak tails (good ability to apply Gs) in the P-63 too
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
With the aft-mounted engine, the CG is almost centerred. So I wonder how this would affect handling.
Going by Warbirds (another Hitech game) the P39 was slightly unstable and had a nasty snap-stall at moderate speeds when turning tightly.
EDIT: No idea about the 63, though.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Going by Warbirds (another Hitech game) the P39 was slightly unstable and had a nasty snap-stall at moderate speeds when turning tightly.
EDIT: No idea about the 63, though.
Yeah ... that's probably about right.
The Russians helped a lot and the 63, and later model 39's, were supposed to be free of those tendencies.
As much as the B17 pilots feared seeing 190's approaching, imagine being a Ju88 pilot and seeing a couple dozen Russian P39's coming your way. Oog.
-
From Widewing:
"Compared to the Spitfire Mk.XIV, it had a slightly greater wing area and at normal combat load, weighed about 60 lb less than the Spit XIV"
It's still some 200 hp (?) short of the Spit XIV, so it makes me wonder. More power at lower levels perhaps, so that powerwise there is hardly a difference?
An early Spit XIV will go from start to 20K in 5 mins (J.Quill), - but not in AH.
ROC in low alt is more than 5K.
So, sounds about right to me.
At Duxford I saw a P63 forming with a P40. The 63 was told to be AWESOME and one of the best performers in the area.
-
iirc, they pretty well in the big postwar air races.
i thing i read that in Tony LeVier's book
-
Tilt once posted the VVS speed curves of P-63A-10 (among others). Quite a difference from from America's Hundred Thousand:
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/vvscurves/ae1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by TimRas
Tilt once posted the VVS speed curves of P-63A-10 (among others). Quite a difference from from America's Hundred Thousand:
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/vvscurves/ae1.jpg)
That curve corresponds closely to the USAAF curve for MIL power performance. I'll scan and post the USAAF and Factory performance curves.
Would anyone be surprised that the Soviets would underate any aircraft not built in the USSR? That same chart shows the Fw 190D-9 with a max sea level speed of under well 340 mph and the Spit LF MK.IX (Merlin 66) at well under 330 mph. So, what we see here is MIL power performance, not WEP or WEP with ADI/H20/MW50). For the P-63A-10, the power difference is 1,325 in MIL, and 1,820 in WEP, wet. Huge difference in performance...
My regards,
Widewing
-
109G slower than a Spit9?
Spit9 same speed as 190D9?
That don't seem right.
-
Hi Widewing,
>That same chart shows the Fw 190D-9 with a max sea level speed of under well 340 mph ...
By the looks of the chart, it's data from Werk-Nr. 270002, flown with ETC504 bomb rack, "fixed" wheel doors producing slightly more drag than the normal ones, no engine cowling seal, Jumo 213A from first delivery that was substandard (lacking 400 m full throttle height), at take-off power (early rating, no MW50) of ca. 1.54 ata in low gear, ca. 1.68 ata in high gear.
So the curve appears to be from actual test data, but from a very early point in the development when there were still a couple of bugs to fix and the engine had not reached its specified power yet.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)