Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Vinkman on October 21, 2009, 11:29:42 AM
-
For the late war area this would be a great add. I love flying the P-39 but it's outclassed in the LWA for speed and climb, and not enough folks fly early and mid war to find a fair fight.
The LWA has the top of the like versions of most airframes 109K4, 190d9 &TA 152, P-51D, F4U F4, Spit 14, Tempest, La 7. and so on. It would be nice to thave the top of the line Airacobra as well. Bell aircraft deserve the 'cred'.
-
I believe the highest scoring allied pilot flew the P-39 and refused flying the P-63. :airplane:
-
The P-63 is not to the P-39D as the Spitfire Mk XIV is to the Spitfire Mk I or the Bf109K-4 is to the Bf109E-4. It was an entirely new fighter that visually resembled the P-39, but shared no parts. It also saw little, if any, combat.
-
It also saw little, if any, combat.
IIRC, there's NO irrefutable evidence it EVER saw combat. Certainly no records by the VVS to indicate it had, only a handful of rumors by the Luftwaffe. All VVS records during the war indicated that only the P-39s were used.
-
IIRC, there's NO irrefutable evidence it EVER saw combat. Certainly no records by the VVS to indicate it had, only a handful of rumors by the Luftwaffe. All VVS records during the war indicated that only the P-39s were used.
A russian P-63 DID shoot down A Japanese fighter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra
In the Far East, P-63 and P-39 aircraft were used in the Soviet invasion of Manchukoku and northern Korea, where a Soviet P-63A downed a Japanese fighter aircraft, an Army Nakajima fighter, Ki-43, Ki-44 or Ki-84, off the coast of North Korea.
So that blows that out of the water.
Edit: This is not an endorsement for immediate P-63 inclusion. However it is an endorsement for it's inclusion at some point.
-
+1
-
cool read
A russian P-63 DID shoot down A Japanese fighter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra
In the Far East, P-63 and P-39 aircraft were used in the Soviet invasion of Manchukoku and northern Korea, where a Soviet P-63A downed a Japanese fighter aircraft, an Army Nakajima fighter, Ki-43, Ki-44 or Ki-84, off the coast of North Korea.
So that blows that out of the water.
Edit: This is not an endorsement for immediate P-63 inclusion. However it is an endorsement for it's inclusion at some point.
-
#2 Official allied ace of WWII (Pokryshkin), his squad had been supposedly fitted by P-63s. But, the thing was IIRC, there was some sort of treaty, that said the P-63s could only be used in the eventual war with Japan.
BUT the thing with that treaty is, the VVS was still handling the Luftwaffe, and it would be like leaving a little kid alone with a present telling him not to open it, but never actually checking up to see if he did.
-
The p63 is closer to the p39's prototype than the actual p39 ever was sadly as the original p39 prototype would reach an amazing speed of 430ish mph then when the plane was accepted the people in charge looked at the plane and were in the process of {STREAM LINING IT} so they chopped the wings and some other stuff ripped out the engine it shoulda had and decided it didnt need the supercharger or intake it was designed to have.
all and all it was like seeing a good racing dog then deciding it didn't need its back feet to have all its toes and muscles deciding to replace it with blocks and stickers =/.
-
The p63 is closer to the p39's prototype than the actual p39 ever was sadly as the original p39 prototype would reach an amazing speed of 430ish mph then when the plane was accepted the people in charge looked at the plane and were in the process of {STREAM LINING IT} so they chopped the wings and some other stuff ripped out the engine it shoulda had and decided it didnt need the supercharger or intake it was designed to have.
all and all it was like seeing a good racing dog then deciding it didn't need its back feet to have all its toes and muscles deciding to replace it with blocks and stickers =/.
Uhhh, no.
The P-63 was almost a completely new design. The wing wasn't "chopped". It was a laminar flow wing like the P-51.
I suppose the engine was in the same place and it still had the big tater chucker it was designed around....
wrongway
-
and not enough folks fly early and mid war to find a fair fight.
Hmmm.... I find fights all the time in mid war. So do plenty of others. And I see a few P-39's now and again too.
-
awwrgway Please do a little research before you speak. I am not gunna go find the multiple googleings and what not I looked at and read about the 39 and its prototype and how the belle company was basically bankrupt when they finnally were able to sell the 39 bringing them outta the gutter so please check it out you might enjoy the nice history of the 39. {Side Note I would love to get some of the modified 39's The russians went to town on the 39's suping them up and stuff with all sorts of stuff from minor to major like replacing the engine with something better}
The 39 got pimped out by some ^.^ it was a plane that got some personal loving.
-
sorry no field mods.
-
The P-63 is not to the P-39D as the Spitfire Mk XIV is to the Spitfire Mk I or the Bf109K-4 is to the Bf109E-4. It was an entirely new fighter that visually resembled the P-39, but shared no parts. It also saw little, if any, combat.
I remember reading that the whole airframe was re-done because the addition of the Turbo charger and associated plumbing required a redesign of the mid and aft end of the plane. This changed the weight distribution and drove changes to the front of the plane as well as the wing design. So while it may not be just a more powerful version of the P-39, it is the final evolution of the design concept and was availible to LW pilots in the Russian theater. Maybe they could add it ans we could see if it was any good. I'd like to fly the bigger suped-up version and check it out.
-
P-63C - Improved P-63A models; fitted with Allison V-1710-117 engine of 1,500 horsepower with 1,800 horsepower capable through water-injection; decreased wingspan; 1,227 examples produced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will take this model :aok
-
For the late war area this would be a great add. I love flying the P-39 but it's outclassed in the LWA for speed and climb, and not enough folks fly early and mid war to find a fair fight.
The LWA has the top of the like versions of most airframes 109K4, 190d9 &TA 152, P-51D, F4U F4, Spit 14, Tempest, La 7. and so on. It would be nice to thave the top of the line Airacobra as well. Bell aircraft deserve the 'cred'.
MW arena averages between 30 to 50 players each evening, not sure how you can't seem to find a fight during those hours.
ack-ack
-
awwrgway Please do a little research before you speak. I am not gunna go find the multiple googleings and what not I looked at and read about the 39 and its prototype and how the belle company was basically bankrupt when they finnally were able to sell the 39 bringing them outta the gutter so please check it out you might enjoy the nice history of the 39. {Side Note I would love to get some of the modified 39's The russians went to town on the 39's suping them up and stuff with all sorts of stuff from minor to major like replacing the engine with something better}
The 39 got pimped out by some ^.^ it was a plane that got some personal loving.
My research shows the P-63 being dimensionally larger than the P-39, approximately 1500 pounds heavier and with a completely different wing and tail.
Bell didn't just take a bigger Allison and add a turbocharger and throw it into a P-39 airframe.
Yes, it was still mid-engined. Yes, it still had the "car doors". Yes it still had the 37mm cannon dominating the nose. That's about where the similarities end.
wrongway
-
My research shows the P-63 being dimensionally larger than the P-39, approximately 1500 pounds heavier and with a completely different wing and tail.
Bell didn't just take a bigger Allison and add a turbocharger and throw it into a P-39 airframe.
Yes, it was still mid-engined. Yes, it still had the "car doors". Yes it still had the 37mm cannon dominating the nose. That's about where the similarities end.
wrongway
Turbocharger???? I think not.
-
So you compared the p39 to the p63? I stated that the p39's prototype was closer to the p63 than the p39 ever was to the prototype.
-
The P-63 is not to the P-39D as the Spitfire Mk XIV is to the Spitfire Mk I or the Bf109K-4 is to the Bf109E-4. It was an entirely new fighter that visually resembled the P-39, but shared no parts. It also saw little, if any, combat.
I know for a fact that the Russians recieved one of the first batches of P-63's and used them extensively in the closing stages of WW2. So I think for the 39 Dweebs this would bring them into the game in the plane they love most.
+1 :aok
-
So you compared the p39 to the p63? I stated that the p39's prototype was closer to the p63 than the p39 ever was to the prototype.
In performance and overall appearance only.
-
I know for a fact that the Russians recieved one of the first batches of P-63's and used them extensively in the closing stages of WW2. So I think for the 39 Dweebs this would bring them into the game in the plane they love most.
+1 :aok
Some links or book quotes with the book title added would go a long way.
Don't ya think?
-
I can't help out on combat sorties but in terms of delivery, the Soviet Union received around 2400 P-63's before the end of the war (according to America's 100K).
-
Great Planes said it never saw service :bolt:
-
Funny how when the P-63 comes up, most seem to believe that the Soviets would honor their treaties.
I think there's enough evidence to make it likely that it saw combat against the Luftwaffe, and it's a legitimate aircraft to add to AH, but only after a long list of types that saw a lot more combat, e.g. Yak-1, Ki-43, Lagg-3, etc.
-
Great Planes said it never saw service :bolt:
It did.
-
Really, how much action did the Tempest see? or the Typhoon? These were very late war and what action they saw has never made it into any account of the war I've seen. In other words, one would have to dig far into the bowels of the internet to find the battle history of the Tempest or the Typhoon, and yet the are all over the LW arena in proportions that far outpaced their real world impact. Concidering that the Russians used the P-63 and killed Germans with it, I say good enough. Let's give the Bell fans and the Airacobra fans something to play with in the late war.
As for all these "I heard the plane sucked, and wasn't as good as the P-39" references, I say that you can't judge a plane's arena performance by it real war reputation. The P-63C model had 1800 hp and a top speed of 420mph. That's a HUGE improvement. Even if it weighs 1500 lbs more, that's only a 15% weight increase which should be more than made up for by the 70% hp increase. Doesn't that sound like fun?! :aok
-
Uh, the Typhoon was seeing combat as early as, what, 1942?
-
Uh, the Typhoon was seeing combat as early as, what, 1942?
seriously, I have never seen a single show, Great planes, Aircombat, Dogfights, Wings, or any other show on the history channel, or the Military channel, that cronnicles the success of the Typhoon in ww2, or the Tempest, or the Ki61, and yet they are in the game, probably having much more success than they ever did in real life. For god sakes the Breuster is in the game because a hand ful of Fins flew it against...rheindeer.
In my opinion the P-63 should rate a gameworthy, since the only real requirement seems to be that it was available during the war and the folks playing the game want it in the game.
what would it hurt to have it in there? why note just vote yes?
I vote yes!
-
seriously, I have never seen a single show, Great planes, Aircombat, Dogfights, Wings, or any other show on the history channel, or the Military channel, that cronnicles the success of the Typhoon in ww2, or the Tempest, or the Ki61, and yet they are in the game, probably having much more success than they ever did in real life. For god sakes the Breuster is in the game because a hand ful of Fins flew it against...rheindeer.
In my opinion the P-63 should rate a gameworthy, since the only real requirement seems to be that it was available during the war and the folks playing the game want it in the game.
what would it hurt to have it in there? why note just vote yes?
I vote yes!
Here's a little hint for you...
Those TV shows? Incomplete to the extreme.
Ki-61 saw significant action in the South Pacific until Allied bombing destroyed the plants manufacturing its engines. It's just not a Zero, so no one talks about it.
The Typhoon saw significant action in Western Europe, particularly in ground-attack roles. It's just not a Spitfire, so no one talks about it.
The Tempest appeared relatively late in the war, but still saw significant action in Western Europe, particularly hunting down 262s. It's just not a P-51, so no one talks about it.
There is NO comparison between the Typhoon and Ki-61--and even the Tempest--and P-63. At least the other three have more than vague recollections and spotty evidence of having seen combat.
-
I found the following while thumbing through the Osprey Publishing book "P-39 Airacobra Aces of World War 2".
Following the defeat of Germany, 17 IAP quickly converted onto the P-63 Kingcobra and was transferred east to the 12th Air Army, where (Maj Vyacheslav) Sirotin participated in the brief war against Japan. During this short conflict, his wingman scored the only aerial victory recorded by the P-63.
-
"typhoon saw limited service because there hasn't been a 'Great Planes' episode made about it" :lol
-
It did.
Of all people, you took the bait :P
-
Of all people, you took the bait :P
Or did you take the bait? ;)
-
Or did you take the bait? ;)
Good point, but re-baiting the hook didn't seem to help either...
d'oh! I see now. I guess the post I wrote didn't go through. Well that screwed that up.
-
Here's a little hint for you...
Those TV shows? Incomplete to the extreme.
Ki-61 saw significant action in the South Pacific until Allied bombing destroyed the plants manufacturing its engines. It's just not a Zero, so no one talks about it.
The Typhoon saw significant action in Western Europe, particularly in ground-attack roles. It's just not a Spitfire, so no one talks about it.
The Tempest appeared relatively late in the war, but still saw significant action in Western Europe, particularly hunting down 262s. It's just not a P-51, so no one talks about it.
There is NO comparison between the Typhoon and Ki-61--and even the Tempest--and P-63. At least the other three have more than vague recollections and spotty evidence of having seen combat.
No offense, but your anecdotal evidence in no evidence either.
By why do I have to prove the plane belongs in the game. Are there really service record requirements for the planes in the game? 1700 P-63Cs were shipped to the soviets, and as many as 3000 P-63s all together, what do you think they did with them, used them as paper weights? A large number of these late war planes were built and shipped to an allied airforce, with kills against Germans reported.
good enough for me, I still vote yes.
-
"typhoon saw limited service because there hasn't been a 'Great Planes' episode made about it" :lol
Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was the plane is relatively unknown by anyone other than plane historians, and did not have a significant impact on the war. I never said it saw limited service.
So you think the P-63 is not gmaeworthy? or are you just a plane factoid snob?
-
Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was the plane is relatively unknown by anyone other than plane historians, and did not have a significant impact on the war. I never said it saw limited service.
So you think the P-63 is not gmaeworthy? or are you just a plane factoid snob?
I know many casual WWII buffs that are familiar with the Typhoon, Tempest and Ki-61. Speak for yourself, don't speak for those you don't know. I can pull many books off of my shelf right now that have detailed information, or at least references to, those three aircraft.
The way you are presenting yourself is making you look extremely ignorant.
-
Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was the plane is relatively unknown by anyone other than plane historians, and did not have a significant impact on the war. I never said it saw limited service.
So you think the P-63 is not gmaeworthy? or are you just a plane factoid snob?
How about start by getting YOUR facts correct in the first place. Just because a plane isn't plastered all over the media doesn't mean it didn't have a significant impact on the war. The F6F and F4U get all the attention over the Wildcat, but does that mean the F4F didn't have an impact? HELL NO. It was the plane that held the line for the Navy and Marines during the most critical year of the Pacific War.
-
seriously, I have never seen a single show, Great planes, Aircombat, Dogfights, Wings, or any other show on the history channel, or the Military channel, that cronnicles the success of the Typhoon in ww2, or the Tempest, or the Ki61, and yet they are in the game, probably having much more success than they ever did in real life. For god sakes the Breuster is in the game because a hand ful of Fins flew it against...rheindeer.
I found it entertaining that the Great Planes episode with the P39 spent all of 5 minutes on the P39's Soviet service, where the P39 was actually an important aircraft with a good combat record (despite the Great Planes episode suggesting it was relegated to ground attack), and I don't remember them mentioning Rechkalov or Pokryshkin at all either(if they did I think it was only in passing....). I think they spent about as much time on the P-63, which is a plane where there are disputes on whether or not it ever shot down an Axis aircraft. The episode was 'look how great America is :DDD ' like 90% of shows on the History Channel.
Seriously, if you ever expect to see anything about something that's not 'Murikkan that's not a 109 or a Zero on the History Channel, you have far too high expectations.
And just because you had never heard of the Typhoon before coming to AH doesn't mean it wasn't a major player in the war... it actually played a very large role... however it was neither American nor a Spitfire so you'll never see it on TV.
-
How about start by getting YOUR facts correct in the first place. Just because a plane isn't plastered all over the media doesn't mean it didn't have a significant impact on the war. The F6F and F4U get all the attention over the Wildcat, but does that mean the F4F didn't have an impact? HELL NO. It was the plane that held the line for the Navy and Marines during the most critical year of the Pacific War.
The hellcat IS plastered all ove the media.
-
The hellcat IS plastered all ove the media.
Yes, it is. Saxman was talking about the F4F Wildcat though, not the F6F Hellcat.
-
I know many casual WWII buffs that are familiar with the Typhoon, Tempest and Ki-61. Speak for yourself, don't speak for those you don't know. I can pull many books off of my shelf right now that have detailed information, or at least references to, those three aircraft.
The way you are presenting yourself is making you look extremely ignorant.
It never fails that if you make a post, some snob will come out of the woodwork and call you stupid over a factoid not related to the point. It seems irrelevant how many people YOU THINK know about Typhoons and Ki-61s (do you have the data on that?) Is that supposed to prove they belong in the game and the P-63 doesn't, or that I am ignorant? Hmmm.
No need to be so didactic in your tone, it helps no one.
-
Yes, it is. Saxman was talking about the F4F Wildcat though, not the F6F Hellcat.
you are correct, I mistyped that. I meant to say the WILDcat IS plastered all over the media.
-
And just because you had never heard of the Typhoon before coming to AH doesn't mean it wasn't a major player in the war... it actually played a very large role... however it was neither American nor a Spitfire so you'll never see it on TV.
Now I've never hear dof the Typhoon!
I will attempt to state this for the rio Linda croud. Anyone who's heard of the Typh, Tempest, and Ki61, has heard of the Kingcobra. Good enough? ;)
-
It never fails that if you make a post, some snob will come out of the woodwork and call you stupid over a factoid not related to the point. It seems irrelevant how many people YOU THINK know about Typhoons and Ki-61s (do you have the data on that?) Is that supposed to prove they belong in the game and the P-63 doesn't, or that I am ignorant? Hmmm.
No need to be so didactic in your tone, it helps no one.
So you are the kind of person who thinks knowing what you are talking about is being a snob? Well, I think talking about things you don't know about makes you a fool.
you are correct, I mistyped that. I meant to say the WILDcat IS plastered all over the media.
Not nearly to the degree that the Hellcat and Corsair are hyped. The Wildcat also has the advantage of being American, which on those shows is a huge advantage. Not many Americans might have heard of the Typhoon, but a great many Brits have.
-
Most likely not. The Kingcobra is a ridiculously obscure aircraft that barely saw combat and the Typhoon was Britain's main fighter-bomber and one of the best of the war.
Anyone who's heard of the Typh, Tempest, and Ki61, has heard of the Kingcobra.
-
So you are the kind of person who thinks knowing what you are talking about is being a snob? Well, I think talking about things you don't know about makes you a fool.
What is it with you?
-
Most likely not. The Kingcobra is a ridiculously obscure aircraft that barely saw combat and the Typhoon was Britain's main fighter-bomber and one of the best of the war.
Total production of Typhoons = 3330
Total production of Kingcobras = 3300, entering service in 1943
Perhaps the KingCobra was as obscure as the Typhoon, or vice versa, which was my original point I believe.
-
What is it with you?
You came in here making wild claims, and then when you were shown to have been full of crap, you made further wild claims to cover up your lack of knowledge. After that you started insulting the people who do know about the subject you were talking about.
You posted hyperbole like the following despite knowing nothing of either aircraft's history. You freely make statements of fact based on your lack of knowledge and instead of learning from those who do know, you attack them.
In other words, one would have to dig far into the bowels of the internet to find the battle history of the Tempest or the Typhoon, and yet the are all over the LW arena in proportions that far outpaced their real world impact.
-
Total production of Typhoons = 3330
Total production of Kingcobras = 3300, entering service in 1943
Perhaps the KingCobra was as obscure as the Typhoon, or vice versa, which was my original point I believe.
The Typhoon saw heavy combat through most of WWII. The Kingcobra may have seen a small amount of combat at the very end. The Typhoon played a significant part in the outcome of the war in Europe. The Kingcobra played no role in the outcome of any war. Suggesting the Kingcobra might be as obscure as the Typhoon is sheer idiocy. The two are incomparable in service or history and it is the Typhoon that had a role.
-
The Typhoon saw heavy combat through most of WWII. The Kingcobra may have seen a small amount of combat at the very end. The Typhoon played a significant part in the outcome of the war in Europe. The Kingcobra played no role in the outcome of any war. Suggesting the Kingcobra might be as obscure as the Typhoon is sheer idiocy. The two are incomparable in service or history and it is the Typhoon that had a role.
I never said Typhs were obscure. You said P-63 were obscure, and I posted their production numbers. Apparently just as many P-63 were in service in the war as Typhoons. But of course they were flown by Russians which is why they are not as well known, which I think to your point should not be the definition of how obscure the plane is. I was using your agument against you. Not calling the Typh Obscure. The P-63 was secretly, widely, used by the soviets to great success. Perhaps the fact that they participated in the assault on Berlin elevates the P-63 out of Obscurity.
From Wiki
USAAF P-63A USAF photoAir Transport Command ferry pilots, including U.S. women pilots of the WASP program, picked up the planes at the Bell factory at Niagara Falls, New York, and flew them to Great Falls, Montana and then onward via the Alaska-Siberia Route (ALSIB), through Canada, over Alaska where Russian ferry pilots, many of them women, would take delivery of the aircraft at Nome [6] and fly them to the Soviet Union over the Bering Strait. A total of 2,397 such aircraft were delivered, out of the overall 3,303 production aircraft (72.6%).[7]
By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East for an eventual attack on Japan. However, there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that P-63s 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 P-63s in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. One account states they were in action at Königsberg, in Poland and in the final assault on Berlin. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show nothing but P-39s used against Germany.
In general, 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 aircraft in Soviet service. The Soviets developed successful group aerial fighting tactics for the Bell fighters and P-39s scored a surprising number of aerial victories over German aircraft, mostly Junkers Ju-87 Stukas and bombers but including many advanced fighters as well. Low ceilings, short missions, good radios, a sealed and warm cockpit and ruggedness contributed to their effectiveness. To pilots who had once flown the tricky Polikarpov I-16, the aerodynamic quirks of the mid-engined aircraft were unimportant. In the Far East, P-63 and P-39 aircraft were used in the Soviet invasion of Manchukoku and northern Korea, where a Soviet P-63A downed a Japanese fighter aircraft, an Army Nakajima fighter, Ki-43, Ki-44 or Ki-84, off the coast of North Korea. Sufficient aircraft continued in use after the war for them to be given the NATO reporting name of Fred.
-
Now I've never hear dof the Typhoon!
I will attempt to state this for the rio Linda croud. Anyone who's heard of the Typh, Tempest, and Ki61, has heard of the Kingcobra. Good enough? ;)
The typhoon/Tempest/Ki61 have operational record not the P63 you can throw away your unconfirmed claim ,or I will pretend several He 113 were shot down :D
-
Most notably, one of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to P-63s in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. One account states they were in action at Königsberg, in Poland and in the final assault on Berlin. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show nothing but P-39s used against Germany.
Actually, this shows precisely why the P-63 should NOT be added. Soviet records indicate only P-39s were used against Germany. This is because part of the deal that lead to their being sent to the Russians was that they would ONLY be used against Japan.
The only evidence of combat in Europe is a handful of reports of victories against P-63s (not exactly reliable unless the Germans recovered wreckage with serial numbers, as the P-63 DOES bear a superficial resemblance to the P-39 and misidentification of aircraft was VERY common) and ONE Russian pilot claiming they secretly switched over. Anecdotal evidence of this sort is not sufficient when it is completely discounted by the official record.
-
as a compromise I suggest the RP-63 as a substitute of the P-63
-
For god sakes the Breuster is in the game because a hand ful of Fins flew it against...rheindeer.
I almost laughed. But then I cried. Here is something to help you understand:
(http://chickencrap.com/images/1472.jpg)
FYI, the Brewster was also flown at Midway, although the model flown at Midway is not the model we have here. Also, the Dutch flew the Brewster in the Burmese/China theater against Japan. Very VERY different from a plane that has little evidence of its actual combat usage.
-
Actually, this shows precisely why the P-63 should NOT be added. Soviet records indicate only P-39s were used against Germany. This is because part of the deal that lead to their being sent to the Russians was that they would ONLY be used against Japan.
The only evidence of combat in Europe is a handful of reports of victories against P-63s (not exactly reliable unless the Germans recovered wreckage with serial numbers, as the P-63 DOES bear a superficial resemblance to the P-39 and misidentification of aircraft was VERY common) and ONE Russian pilot claiming they secretly switched over. Anecdotal evidence of this sort is not sufficient when it is completely discounted by the official record.
Why does action against Japan disqualify the P-63?
-
You came in here making wild claims, and then when you were shown to have been full of crap, you made further wild claims to cover up your lack of knowledge. After that you started insulting the people who do know about the subject you were talking about.
You posted hyperbole like the following despite knowing nothing of either aircraft's history. You freely make statements of fact based on your lack of knowledge and instead of learning from those who do know, you attack them.
I made no wild claims and have been shown to be quite accurate.
So instead of arguing about what the rest of the world might or might not know about the service records of various aircraft, perhaps you can comment on whether you'd like to see the P-63 in the game.
-
Actually, this shows precisely why the P-63 should NOT be added. Soviet records indicate only P-39s were used against Germany. This is because part of the deal that lead to their being sent to the Russians was that they would ONLY be used against Japan.
The only evidence of combat in Europe is a handful of reports of victories against P-63s (not exactly reliable unless the Germans recovered wreckage with serial numbers, as the P-63 DOES bear a superficial resemblance to the P-39 and misidentification of aircraft was VERY common) and ONE Russian pilot claiming they secretly switched over. Anecdotal evidence of this sort is not sufficient when it is completely discounted by the official record.
Saxman I'm surprised. Why write off the Russian pilot's account of the use of the P-63? that's sertainly more than a handful of reports? no? And if this is backed up by German records of plane wreckage, doesn't that complete the picture.
-
I made no wild claims and have been shown to be quite accurate.
You claimed the P-63 was an upgraded P-39. That is false. They are entirely different aircraft.
You claimed that the Typhoon and Ki-61 were obscure aircraft that one would have to dig deep into the bowels of the internet to find any information about them. That is false.
You claimed that the P-63 saw heavy combat. That is false. It saw little combat that can be verified.
You inferred that the Typhoon was more obscure than the P-63 and that their services were similar in scope. That is false.
You have claimed more falsehoods that not.
So instead of arguing about what the rest of the world might or might not know about the service records of various aircraft, perhaps you can comment on whether you'd like to see the P-63 in the game.
Obviously I don't think it has a place in the game. There are far, far more significant aircraft to add to the game than a fighter that shot down one Japanese aircraft and might have been used in the taking of Berlin against a Germany that had already lost the war.
-
Does the P-63 qualify for inclusion. Yes
Should it at this time. NO
There are way to many more important AC to be added. Early war Japanese to be specific.
My thinking on why is.. fill in some of this EW stuff and more might fly EW arena. That and no more free Hurri2cs.
:bolt:
-
The Airacobra is dead sexy, and the King Cobra,at 1800hp, is drop-dead sexy.
I hope it is added at some point, but in the meantime there are lots of holes in the planeset, particularly Japanese, that I hope are filled soon.
:pray
-
The Airacobra is dead sexy, and the King Cobra,at 1800hp, is drop-dead sexy.
I hope it is added at some point, but in the meantime there are lots of holes in the planeset, particularly Japanese, that I hope are filled soon.
:pray
I agree.
-
Looks Like Fun! :airplane:
(http://macbion.narod.ru/ufb/p-63-kingcobra.jpg)
-
Saxman I'm surprised. Why write off the Russian pilot's account of the use of the P-63? that's sertainly more than a handful of reports? no? And if this is backed up by German records of plane wreckage, doesn't that complete the picture.
WHAT GERMAN RECORDS? Wikipedia mentions in passing, but there is NO CITATION. What was the source? Where are the action reports? What tail numbers in the wreckage? Wikipedia says NOTHING about what evidence the Germans had to say that "This was a P-63."
And ONE PILOT'S ACCOUNT does NOT overturn maintenance logs, service records, serial numbers, inventories, flight logs, inspections, and the countless other reports and logs that make up the official paper trail in which the Soviet Union said: WE DID NOT USE ONE P-63 AGAINST GERMANY.
Is it POSSIBLE the pilot account was true? Yes, it can't be ruled out. However this is NOT sufficient evidence to support adding the aircraft. It's service against Japan has more weight, but there's this VERY important little detail:
The USSR didn't begin combat operations against Japan until August 9th. Japan surrendered a week later.
Does ONE aerial victory in such a short time-frame provide a realistic justification for adding the aircraft of THESE grounds?
-
Saxman I'm surprised. Why write off the Russian pilot's account of the use of the P-63? that's sertainly more than a handful of reports? no? And if this is backed up by German records of plane wreckage, doesn't that complete the picture.
The problem is that there are no official Soviet records for the P-63 being operated on the Eastern Front or in Europe as they marched to Berlin. There are also no official German records about shooting down any P-63s nor any photographs of any wreckages from these shoot downs. As someone pointed out, it is very plausible (and more than likely) that the Germans misidentified the P-39 as a P-63.
The official combat record of the P-63 shows a plane that came in during the later stages of the war and saw very limited combat with only one air to air kill to its credit when Captain Vyacheslav Sirotin of the 17th IAP shot down either a Ki-27 or Ki-43
Using only the words of a former Soviet pilot that he flew the P-63 over Europe as undeniable proof that it happened isn't considered good data when you do not have anything official to back up the pilot's story.
Should the P-63 be included in the game? Sure it should but it's definitely not one of those planes the game is in dire need of. Hell, I'd put it near the bottom of the list of planes to be eventually added. It brings nothing new to the game nor would it have any sort of significant impact. Definite a very, very low priority addition.
ack-ack
-
Does ONE aerial victory in such a short time-frame provide a realistic justification for adding the aircraft of THESE grounds?
1. no experimental aircraft. check
2. Must be at squadron strength. check
3. (and this is debatable for inclusion) must have fired guns in anger. again check
Now that we have the bases covered, want to rethink the above?
-
No, I do not. This isn't a small deployment number that nonetheless that still saw a good amount of combat, IE the F4U-1C, P-47M, and Ta-152 (even the 152 saw more than a month of action). This is an unknown number of aircraft (does anyone have records of TOTAL numbers of P-63s that actually FLEW combat sorties against Japan or do we just have a record showing one P-63 scored A victory? It doesn't matter a damn if it was deployed in squadron strength if those squadrons never actually flew combat sorties) that saw, at most, seven DAYS of battle, if that.
Add the P-63 under these conditions and you're opening a RIDICULOUS can of worms.
-
No, I do not. This isn't a small deployment number that nonetheless that still saw a good amount of combat, IE the F4U-1C, P-47M, and Ta-152 (even the 152 saw more than a month of action). This is an unknown number of aircraft (does anyone have records of TOTAL numbers of P-63s that actually FLEW combat sorties against Japan or do we just have a record showing one P-63 scored A victory? It doesn't matter a damn if it was deployed in squadron strength if those squadrons never actually flew combat sorties) that saw, at most, seven DAYS of battle, if that.
Add the P-63 under these conditions and you're opening a RIDICULOUS can of worms.
What can of worms??? What other 3k plus produced ac shot down 1 enemy fighter?
Do you think that russian was up there by his lonesome, you know just out for a spin? I'm thinking he was up there with his squadron doing combat patrol.
You are now being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.
It fills out the so called requirements.
Edit: I'm also for the meteor inclusion at some point. I think shooting down buzz bombs would be some dangerous shineola.
-
Bronk,
How many days of service did the Ki-43 see?
-
Bronk,
How many days of service did the Ki-43 see?
Have you not noticed that twice I said No to the 63 at this time. In fact i said early Japanese birds are far more needed.
Sheesh jump on me when I'm agreeing with you.
-
You claimed the P-63 was an upgraded P-39. That is false. They are entirely different aircraft.
You claimed that the Typhoon and Ki-61 were obscure aircraft that one would have to dig deep into the bowels of the internet to find any information about them. That is false.
You claimed that the P-63 saw heavy combat. That is false. It saw little combat that can be verified.
You inferred that the Typhoon was more obscure than the P-63 and that their services were similar in scope. That is false.
I said none of those things. Read the posts.
-
And ONE PILOT'S ACCOUNT does NOT overturn maintenance logs, service records, serial numbers, inventories, flight logs, inspections, and the countless other reports and logs that make up the official paper trail in which the Soviet Union said: WE DID NOT USE ONE P-63 AGAINST GERMANY.
I haven't had a chance to read all those logs yet. Can you forward them?
-
1. no experimental aircraft. check
2. Must be at squadron strength. check
3. (and this is debatable for inclusion) must have fired guns in anger. again check
Now that we have the bases covered, want to rethink the above?
Thank you Bronk. On a side note I need to check into why the Russians would help develop a plane, buy 2800 of them, and agree not to use them. Stranger though, is why the U.S. would not want them used against the Germans.
I'm not familiar with the Ki-43. I will look it up. While I agree that there is a good argument for filling out the line up, and historical significance based inclusion, I would also argue that planes of lesser performance might move down the list because few might chose them. The EW arena has 1/4 of the people in LW, and the LW isn't chock full of P-40s, and TBMs. No telling how many would chose a P-63 either, but it's spec sheet suggests it would be a fairly fun plane.
I think fun factor might be higher on the P-63 ;)
-
Edit: I'm also for the meteor inclusion at some point. I think shooting down buzz bombs would be some dangerous shineola.
Read an account from Wing Commander Roland Beamont (commander of 150 Wing) that he had his cannons converged at 300 yards in his Tempest as he figured this was the best range to harmonize his guns at. Talk about things getting hairy when he destroyed one, at that range he definitely must have felt the shockwave of the blast. I wonder if there were any pilot deaths as a result of getting too close to an exploding V1 in the air.
ack-ack
-
The Ki-43 was the main fighter of the Imperial Japanese Army until about 1945 when the Ki-84 began to be available in numbers.
-
The Ki-43 was the main fighter of the Imperial Japanese Army until about 1945 when the Ki-84 began to be available in numbers.
But he hasn't heard of it, so it must not have been significant to the war.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
You claimed the P-63 was an upgraded P-39. That is false. They are entirely different aircraft.
The Bell P-63 Kingcobra (Model 24) was a United States fighter aircraft developed in World War II from the P-39 Airacobra in an attempt to correct that aircraft's deficiencies. Although the aircraft was not accepted for combat use by the United States Army Air Forces, it was successfully adopted by the Soviet Air Force.
XP-63
Although the XP-39E proved to be disappointing, the USAAF was nevertheless interested in an even larger aircraft based on the same basic layout.
-
But he hasn't heard of it, so it must not have been significant to the war.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Your mocking tone is unnecessary. I didn't say the requirement for adding a plane to the game is if Vinkman has heard of it. I said that planes that were built and deployed in the thousands, and are familiar to even casual students of WWII aircraft, and are asked for frequently, should be added.
-
The Bell P-63 Kingcobra (Model 24) was a United States fighter aircraft developed in World War II from the P-39 Airacobra in an attempt to correct that aircraft's deficiencies. Although the aircraft was not accepted for combat use by the United States Army Air Forces, it was successfully adopted by the Soviet Air Force.
XP-63
Although the XP-39E proved to be disappointing, the USAAF was nevertheless interested in an even larger aircraft based on the same basic layout.
Developed from is not the same as upgraded version of.
P-39:
34' 0" wingspan
30' 2" length
11' 10" height
P-63:
38' 4' wingspan
32' 8" length
12' 7" height
Not the same plane.
Your mocking tone is unnecessary. I didn't say the requirement for adding a plane to the game is if Vinkman has heard of it. I said that planes that were built and deployed in the thousands, and are familiar to even casual students of WWII aircraft, and are asked for frequently, should be added.
The P-63 was built in the thousands, but was barely deployed at all and would be an unknown to the casual student of WWII aviation. The Ki-43 and Typhoon were both built and deployed in the thousands and are common knowledge to even casual students of WWII aviation.
-
it's a matter of personal opinion but it's the same plane but just bigger with the same basic layout and fixed some deficiencies to me they just done an upgrade, not saying your wrong just my opinion. :salute
Developed from is not the same as upgraded version of.
P-39:
34' 0" wingspan
30' 2" length
11' 10" height
P-63:
38' 4' wingspan
32' 8" length
12' 7" height
Not the same plane.
The P-63 was built in the thousands, but was barely deployed at all and would be an unknown to the casual student of WWII aviation. The Ki-43 and Typhoon were both built and deployed in the thousands and are common knowledge to even casual students of WWII aviation.
-
You can have whatever opinion you like, even if it is factually wrong. The Spitfire IX is an upgraded version of the Spitfire I, they share the same structure. The P-63 has an entirely different structure than the P-39. You could claim the Typhoon was an upgraded Hurricane as easily as the P-63 is an upgraded P-39.
-
You can have whatever opinion you like, even if it is factually wrong. The Spitfire IX is an upgraded version of the Spitfire I, they share the same structure. The P-63 has an entirely different structure than the P-39. You could claim the Typhoon was an upgraded Hurricane as easily as the P-63 is an upgraded P-39.
k
-
The P-63 was built in the thousands, but was barely deployed at all and would be an unknown to the casual student of WWII aviation. The Ki-43 and Typhoon were both built and deployed in the thousands and are common knowledge to even casual students of WWII aviation.
I'd say the casual student of World War II aviation would recognize the P-51, the P-40, the Spitfire, the Me 109, the A6M, the B-17, and maybe the B-24, the P-38, the P-47, the FW 190, and the Hurricane.
-
You can have whatever opinion you like, even if it is factually wrong. The Spitfire IX is an upgraded version of the Spitfire I, they share the same structure. The P-63 has an entirely different structure than the P-39. You could claim the Typhoon was an upgraded Hurricane as easily as the P-63 is an upgraded P-39.
Karnak please provide the reference you are quoting in saying the P-63 and P-39 didn't share a single part.
The P-63 is on display in the wright Patterson airforce museum in Dayton Ohio. So is the P-39. The Ki-43 is not. Please list the American Museum where a Ki-43 is on display. I think American planes are more commonly known than Japanese planes to casual observers, or even hobbiests, with the exception of the Zero. My father was a kid during wwII and he knows all about the P-39 and P-63. He has no idea what Ki-43 is.
To continue to debate the popularity of the Ki-43, and how much of an upgrade the P-63 was from a P-39 as a defense for why the P-63 is not int he game is...silly.
-
Is it true it could hold 60 taters?
And another thing, How do you find out the ammo load of the planes?
-
To continue to debate the popularity of the Ki-43, and how much of an upgrade the P-63 was from a P-39 as a defense for why the P-63 is not int he game is...silly.
What relation if any the P-63 had to the P-39 HAS no bearing on why the P-63 is in the game. The fact that the P-63 saw virtually no combat DOES.
I'd still like to see an order of battle showing the P-63 was ACTUALLY deployed against Japan in squadron strength and it's NOT just a handful of birds provided to squadrons equipped with other aircraft for evaluation purposes.
-
What relation if any the P-63 had to the P-39 HAS no bearing on why the P-63 is in the game. The fact that the P-63 saw virtually no combat DOES.
I'd still like to see an order of battle showing the P-63 was ACTUALLY deployed against Japan in squadron strength and it's NOT just a handful of birds provided to squadrons equipped with other aircraft for evaluation purposes.
I guess the question come down to the criteria of whether or not a airframe saw combat, the P-63 saw combat. Not a lot but it did, if that criteria is going to be changed to saw "enough" combat then that's another discussion. If I recall correctly (I think I may have even posted it earlier in this thread) some 2400 P-63's were delivered to the VVS before the end of hostilities. So far I haven't been able to find a lot of information on the subject but some did turn up here.
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/aerial_actions_over_kuriles.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/aerial_actions_over_kuriles.htm)
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/soviet_navel_aerial_kills_augus.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/soviet_navel_aerial_kills_augus.htm)
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/George_Mellinger/soviet_order_of_battle.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/George_Mellinger/soviet_order_of_battle.htm)
I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the articles as they in general do not have a bibliography, but are an interesting read if you can accept that the statements are in fact well researched.
*edit*
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/joe_brennan/order_of_battle.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/joe_brennan/order_of_battle.htm)
-
Karnak please provide the reference you are quoting in saying the P-63 and P-39 didn't share a single part.
The P-63 is on display in the wright Patterson airforce museum in Dayton Ohio. So is the P-39. The Ki-43 is not. Please list the American Museum where a Ki-43 is on display. I think American planes are more commonly known than Japanese planes to casual observers, or even hobbiests, with the exception of the Zero. My father was a kid during wwII and he knows all about the P-39 and P-63. He has no idea what Ki-43 is.
To continue to debate the popularity of the Ki-43, and how much of an upgrade the P-63 was from a P-39 as a defense for why the P-63 is not int he game is...silly.
Concerning the Ki43 any people having a bit of competence in WWII history will agree with Karnak.
Stop your damned crusade and stop ridiculing yourself.
-
Karnak please provide the reference you are quoting in saying the P-63 and P-39 didn't share a single part.
The P-63 is on display in the wright Patterson airforce museum in Dayton Ohio. So is the P-39. The Ki-43 is not. Please list the American Museum where a Ki-43 is on display. I think American planes are more commonly known than Japanese planes to casual observers, or even hobbiests, with the exception of the Zero. My father was a kid during wwII and he knows all about the P-39 and P-63. He has no idea what Ki-43 is.
To continue to debate the popularity of the Ki-43, and how much of an upgrade the P-63 was from a P-39 as a defense for why the P-63 is not int he game is...silly.
Of course they shared some parts. They had the same guns for Christ's sake. The structure was entirely different though, you could not take the spar from a P-63 and use it in a P-39, nor the ribs, nor the fuselage formers, ect, ect. I really don't care if it is added eventually, but right now I see huge gaps in the Japanese, Russian, Italian, British, German and French planesets while the US set is very well covered and people have descended into asking for US aircraft that practically didn't see service.
And my grandmother is still 100% sure the Japanese-American workers at sugarcane plantations on Oahu cut arrows to direct the incoming Japanese strike to Pearl Harbor despite the US Navy investigating those claims during WWII and concluding they were false. Russian and Japanese aviation were almost unknown outside of their respective nations, even to the USAAF, USN and RAF. The fact that a civilian had never heard of a given aircraft type is meaningless. As somebody who has put a goodly amount of effort into the study of this subject, but focused on the war and not just pulling aircraft from books listing types from the era, I knew what a Ki-43 was long, long before I ever heard of a P-63. In fact I did not come across the P-63 until I looked in the books that just list the basic stats for many different aircraft from the period. Studying WWII aircraft from the standpoint of studying WWII you will come across almost no mention of the P-63, while the Ki-43 fought from 1941 through 1945 in all places the IJA fought.
EDIT: Japanese aircraft were given other names by the US because we often had no idea what they were called by the Japanese, and even if we did the names were hard for English speakers to remember. The Ki-43 was the Hayabusa to the Japanese, which means Peregrin, but to US pilots it was the Oscar. Any WWII book where the author talks about fighting against Oscars, those are Ki-43s.
-
I'd say the casual student of World War II aviation would recognize the P-51, the P-40, the Spitfire, the Me 109, the A6M, the B-17, and maybe the B-24, the P-38, the P-47, the FW 190, and the Hurricane.
I'd agree, and add the Corsair to this list.
-
Concerning the Ki43 any people having a bit of competence in WWII history will agree with Karnak.
Stop your damned crusade and stop ridiculing yourself.
I'm not sure how you think your wild bellybutton guesses about how many people are famililiar with a particular WWII aircraft are any more acurate than mine.
But if it makes you happy, they can add the Ki-43 as well.
-
The Oscar is one of those iconic planes of WWII - The Japanese Army's equivalent of the Zero, the mainstay of it's airpower during the first half of the Pacific war.
In comparison, the P-63 is just a footnote, both in numbers as well as actual impact on the air war.
"Please list the American Museum where a Ki-43 is on display" is irrelevant to that matter as well as it's hardly indicating any "popularity".
Not many Japanese planes did survive the war at all, and that has reasons that had not much to do with the actual importance or role those planes did play during the conflict.
-
The Oscar is one of those iconic planes of WWII - The Japanese Army's equivalent of the Zero, the mainstay of it's airpower during the first half of the Pacific war.
In comparison, the P-63 is just a footnote, both in numbers as well as actual impact on the air war.
"Please list the American Museum where a Ki-43 is on display" is irrelevant to that matter as well as it's hardly indicating any "popularity".
Not many Japanese planes did survive the war at all, and that has reasons that had not much to do with the actual importance or role those planes did play during the conflict.
Please, this is folly. I never denied the role of the oscar. But Americans are more familiar with American planes, regardless of their role or significance because as a nation we tend to celebrate our own efforts more than the enemies. Familiarity can be measured by internet searches, museum visit, TV program dedicated to the related subject, etc. I didn;t say the King Cobra deserved to more famous than the oscar, I just think it probably is. BUT whether is is or not is not relevant.
What is relevant is that I'm asking for the P-63.
This thread should be for people who also want to see the P-63 so HT can get an idea of how much pull there is for the plane. If you want the Oscar, start your own thread.
-
" I R THE CAR WRECK"
Says it all.
-
This thread should be for people who also want to see the P-63 so HT can get an idea of how much pull there is for the plane.
It doesn't MATTER how many people want it. If it doesn't fit the addition criteria it ain't gonna happen, and there's too much debate over whether the P-63 ACTUALLY meets all the criteria.
-
It doesn't MATTER how many people want it. If it doesn't fit the addition criteria it ain't gonna happen, and there's too much debate over whether the P-63 ACTUALLY meets all the criteria.
Is it HiTECH's position that it doesn't fit the criteria?
-
The Oscar is one of those iconic planes of WWII - The Japanese Army's equivalent of the Zero, the mainstay of it's airpower during the first half of the Pacific war.
In comparison, the P-63 is just a footnote, both in numbers as well as actual impact on the air war.
"Please list the American Museum where a Ki-43 is on display" is irrelevant to that matter as well as it's hardly indicating any "popularity".
Not many Japanese planes did survive the war at all, and that has reasons that had not much to do with the actual importance or role those planes did play during the conflict.
We know all radial engined Japanes fighters were Zeros or Zekes no matter what they actually were.
:aok :noid
wrongway
-
Please, this is folly. I never denied the role of the oscar. But Americans are more familiar with American planes, regardless of their role or significance because as a nation we tend to celebrate our own efforts more than the enemies. Familiarity can be measured by internet searches, museum visit, TV program dedicated to the related subject, etc. I didn;t say the King Cobra deserved to more famous than the oscar, I just think it probably is. BUT whether is is or not is not relevant.
What is relevant is that I'm asking for the P-63.
This thread should be for people who also want to see the P-63 so HT can get an idea of how much pull there is for the plane. If you want the Oscar, start your own thread.
You narrowed it yourself ... even if the American dominate the MA the American history buff know witch plane have scenario uses and their relative importance.
Having a P63 at the expense of the Ki43 is a no go for me and them.
Btw even in late war there is some missing planes like the Yak3 for example.
-
It doesn't MATTER how many people want it. If it doesn't fit the addition criteria it ain't gonna happen, and there's too much debate over whether the P-63 ACTUALLY meets all the criteria.
BS, it does. Ohh and not very interdependent (you know seeing both sides of the issue) thought process ehh? Sounds mostly one sided if ya know what i mean.
-
This thread should be for people who also want to see the P-63 so HT can get an idea of how much pull there is for the plane. If you want the Oscar, start your own thread.
Part of that is letting one's opinion be known that non-participants in the war shouldn't be added at the expense of things that saw heavy use.
Ultimately I doubt any of these posts have much effect though, HTC has their own schedule and makes their own choices. A couple of times they put it up for votes.
-
Part of that is letting one's opinion be known that non-participants in the war shouldn't be added at the expense of things that saw heavy use.
Ultimately I doubt any of these posts have much effect though, HTC has their own schedule and makes their own choices. A couple of times they put it up for votes.
It participated .... just very little. ;) It's about priorities. As much as I love the AC it should be just about the last AC added.
Vink remember this is a public bbs. Be prepared for others to disagree, vigorously.
-
You can have the P63 right after Bronk and I get the Spitfire XII. At least the XII can show a history that involved some serious combat as opposed to the 63 that was a footnote, if that at the very end of the war.
Understand the first real warbird I ever saw was a KingCobra and I love the airplane. But in the AH scheme of things it's way down the list compared to far more historically relevant planes that aren't in the planeset.
Get back in a P39Q. That bird performs well and is fun to fly. Or really work at it in the 39D. You can have a lot of fun in that bird too.
-
You can have the P63 right after Bronk and I get the Spitfire XII. At least the XII can show a history that involved some serious combat as opposed to the 63 that was a footnote, if that at the very end of the war.
Understand the first real warbird I ever saw was a KingCobra and I love the airplane. But in the AH scheme of things it's way down the list compared to far more historically relevant planes that aren't in the planeset.
Get back in a P39Q. That bird performs well and is fun to fly. Or really work at it in the 39D. You can have a lot of fun in that bird too.
Hey... now here is an idea. :D
-
Karnak please provide the reference you are quoting in saying the P-63 and P-39 didn't share a single part.
The P-63 is on display in the wright Patterson airforce museum in Dayton Ohio. So is the P-39. The Ki-43 is not. Please list the American Museum where a Ki-43 is on display. I think American planes are more commonly known than Japanese planes to casual observers, or even hobbiests, with the exception of the Zero. My father was a kid during wwII and he knows all about the P-39 and P-63. He has no idea what Ki-43 is.
To continue to debate the popularity of the Ki-43, and how much of an upgrade the P-63 was from a P-39 as a defense for why the P-63 is not int he game is...silly.
They recovered and restored 4 Ki-43s from the Kamchatka Penninsula. Not sure
where they are now, probably west coast.
(http://www.btillman.com/images/losacr01.jpg)
http://www.btillman.com/oscars.htm (http://www.btillman.com/oscars.htm)
-
They recovered and restored 4 Ki-43s from the Kamchatka Penninsula. Not sure
where they are now, probably west coast.
(http://www.btillman.com/images/losacr01.jpg)
http://www.btillman.com/oscars.htm (http://www.btillman.com/oscars.htm)
Nice plane. Thanks for Posting. I was really trying to get Karnak to reference the P-63 posts about it being a completely different plane because most of those references that I've read online also state the P-63 saw actions against the Germans..but now you ruined it! ;)
But since he's picking on my plane, I'll pick on his. This looks like every other Japanese plane in the game. would it fly very different from what's in AH already? So from an historical perspective the Oscar rates high, but from a "give pilots something new and unique to fly" standpoint wouldn't this be pretty low?
So I think we all violently agree that historical significance is important, and I can't make a good case for the P-63 on those grounds. My point was that the brewester was not a significant player in the war and it's in the game. So I think there are other reason to add planes. How much fun and different they are to fly should be a consideration. The armament and arrangement make the P-63 plane very unique. The Army decided it wasn't better than P-51 and it was more expensive, so they couldn't justify buying it. But what if the Army was wrong?. I think it would be fun to see what this plane could do against all the planes that actually got a chance to mix it up in big numbers. This is a big part of what this game is about...Mustangs fighting Lightnings, 109 fighting Zeros...it's getting to see the Dream matchups that NEVER happened.
I think many of us wonder what this plane could do if it got the chance. I think that's a big draw for adding it.
-
Ki-43 would be the lightest built, lightest armed, and most agile fighter in the planeset. It would significantly out turn the A6M2.
In addition there are many, many scenarios where it is needed as the primary Axis opposition.
-
Ki-43 would be the lightest built, lightest armed, and most agile fighter in the planeset. It would significantly out turn the A6M2.
In addition there are many, many scenarios where it is needed as the primary Axis opposition.
Which is pretty much EVERY aerial engagement in which the IJAAF participated (in other words, any PTO setup except for the carrier battles).
-
awwrgway Please do a little research before you speak. I am not gunna go find the multiple googleings and what not I looked at and read about the 39 and its prototype and how the belle company was basically bankrupt when they finnally were able to sell the 39 bringing them outta the gutter so please check it out you might enjoy the nice history of the 39. {Side Note I would love to get some of the modified 39's The russians went to town on the 39's suping them up and stuff with all sorts of stuff from minor to major like replacing the engine with something better}
The 39 got pimped out by some ^.^ it was a plane that got some personal loving.
You know, I don't see one supposed fact here that is supported by history.
The XP-39 was fitted with a turbocharger, and at altitude flirted with 400 mph. However, it had no armor, no guns or any other government supplied equipment. When NACA was done with wind tunnel testing, they recommended several changes. Larger rudder, reduced wing span and eliminate the turbo were the biggest. To get an Army contract, Bell acquiesced and redesigned the fighter.
I have not found one documented instance where the Soviets hot-rodded a P-39. The typical Soviet mechanic was hard pressed to perform routine maintenance, given the level of their training. I've seen no documentation than any Soviet P-39 flew in combat with anything other than an Allison engine, and a stock one at that. I you have some, please post it as it would be enlightening to many of us.
No question Bell was in financial difficulty by 1940. Their XFM-1 and YFM-1 Airacuda was a turkey, and it had eaten up most of the Bell's expendable capital. However, Larry Bell was smart enough to recognize that he had to bend if the P-39 was ever to advance beyond a single prototype.
My regards,
Widewing
-
So you compared the p39 to the p63? I stated that the p39's prototype was closer to the p63 than the p39 ever was to the prototype.
And you statement is completely incorrect.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wikipedia under the russian use of the plane is very quick to state that many of the russians removed the wing guns as a modification to help it fly in a manner that they felt was better. also I came across this bit of tid bit info looking for info on a forum called ww2 aircraft.net and I found it to look very legit in detail but I can prove nothing it is a combat record of the p63 I found this looking for examples of a p39 being modded but I am having trouble locating with search anything that isnt a game mod or racing mod even though I know I read in one of my p39 info searchings a breif mention of how many of the russians liked to mod their planes from removing wing guns to simply modding their guns to all fire with one button press.
P-63 Combat Record
Total P-63 production was 3,303 airframes. 2,421 of these were shipped to the Soviet Union and just over 100 to the Armee d l'Air. The USAAF held on to a few for training.
The USAAF's interest went no further than target practice for bomber gunners after their High Command realised the shortcomings of the bombers' ability to defend itself using gunnery. This was Operation Pinball and entailed a P-63 being shot at with frangible rounds that lit up a light on the a/c when strikes were recorded.
Two P-63s were sent to England, where considerable interest in the merits of laminar-flow led them to take delivery of a P-63A-6 (42-68937) and a P-63A-9 (42-69423) to the RAE at Farnborough. In the course of its study, the A-6 was fitted with the streamlined bubble canopy. This a/c was damaged in a landing accident and was SOC on 18Oct45. The rest of the laminar-flow study was undertaken by the A-9 and it was finally scrapped Sep48.
One Central American country received a batch of P-63s, this being Honduras, taking on charge 5 P-63E-1s and along with 6 P-38Ls made up the mainstay of their airforce for over 5 years. One of these was damaged and provided the surviving 4 with much-needed spares. Two more were damaged and eventually all of them were replaced by F4Us.
P-63s were ferried to the Soviet Union in larger numbers than all other recipients combined, starting with the P-63C, pausing at way-stations in Alaska and Iran (imagine that). It is widely held that the P-63's reputation was short-changed as it never received the local press of the Ilyushin-2 Shturmovik, despite its proven abilities in ground attack and tank-busting.
The Soviets continued military action in the Far East, furthering their acquisition of Manchuria by annexing Sakhalin Island and parts of the Kuriles chain. The Japanese, though exhausted from WWII, fought back and destroyed 62 Soviet aircraft of all types, including 1 P-63, the details of which are unknown.
Just before the end of WWII, the USAAF began transferring P-63s to France for use by the Armee de l'Air. All a/c supplied were the penultimate P-63C-5 model.
The French originally placed an order for 300 a/c though this was later reduced to about one third of that. An initial contract for 40 a/c was signed on 03May45 and a second for 70 a/c on 04Jun45, totalling 112 a/c to which two more were added.
The P-63 was originally intended to directly supplant the existing P-39Q and L fighters but some went straight from the docks into storage. Others were used to equip several Armee de l'Air squadrons; GC9 based in Meknes, Morocco became the first to fully equip on the type.
Trouble brewed for the French in Indo-China, where the locals felt they had earned the right to govern themselves after contributing to the ousting of the Japanese during the previous war. The colonial powers had other ideas and armed conflict was on the cards.
85 P-63s were shipped to Indo-China between July and October 1950 for use by 5 Groupes on a rotational basis.
Most of these were the a/c that had been shipped straight into storage. All were armed with the standard centreline M-10 37mm cannon with 58 rounds plus 4 x .50cal machine guns, 2 in the nose and 2 in underwing gondolas. A 175gal contoured belly tank was usuallly carried and this could be supplemented by 75gal tanks outboard of the underwing guns. This fuel could be swapped for napalm or 2 500lb bombs. The centreline rack was wired for bomb release and provision was made for paired wing launchers for up to 4 HVAR rockets.
30 August 50: Ground attack sorties by 5 P-63s against Viet Minh troops.
04 September: Strafing missions against guerilla hide-outs and storage dumps; their cannons and machine guns were used to deadly effect.
Further shipments of P-63s were made to Saigon and the French had about 50 a/c in-theatre with about 10 held at an MU, Parc 482.
10 January: Less than spectacular debut for napalm
19 January: Loss of first P-63 to flak
The Viet Minh, by now being supplied by the Chinese, were getting stronger and French installations were occasionally overrun in the frequent attacks.
13 February: Air support for the garrison at Phu Loc failed to prevent it from falling
3 August: Having flown 3,703 hours of combat sorties in their P-63s, GCI/5 prepared to return home. II/5 and III/6 maintained the pressure on the guerillas but without appreciably decreasing the Viet Minh's hold on the country. The Armee de l'Air found themselves frustrated by an enemy who rarely went 'toe to toe' with them in pitched battles.
9 August: P-63 lost to flak
4 October: P-63 damaged by flak in the same area
6 October: A detachment of P-63s was sent to Lang Son to provide cover for a supply route favoured by the French.
17 October: Lt Perrotte made an emergency landing on Lang Son after being hit by small-arms fire and his a/c started streaming glycol. The French had to abandon Lang Son quickly and another P-63 was sent to destroy Perrotte's machine with a strafing run.
Normandie-Niemen arrive in-theatre, commanded by Capitaine Billoin.
3 November: III/6 moved to Cat Bi near Haiphong, where it steadily increased its sortie rate against an increasingly tough enemy who had gained control of the countryside, if not the towns.
12 February: III/6 had flown its 1,000th sortie.
March: Normandie-Niemen P-63s used for napalm against large-scale attack on Viet Minh infantry at Tra Vinh.
5 May: Loss of P-63 to flak
14 September: Loss of P-63 to flak
22 October: Loss of P-63 to flak
By the time of that last loss, the P-63 was being supplanted by the F8-F
December: Enough F8-Fs in-theatre, P-63 sorties began to tail off
January 51: 8 P-63s attack ground targets at Cho Phong
19 January: 2 P-63s fly armed recce along Thai Nguyen, flak claim one a/c
20 January: Loss of P-63 to flak
28 January: 2 P-63s failed to return from rocket strike south of Thai Nguyen
In 76 missions, I/9 lost 8 pilots and 9 a/c.
Viet Minh troops were now engaging crack French regiments in pitched battles, the P-63s supported with bombing, strafing and rocket attacks against troops and strongholds wherever they could be found. Eventually, the F8-F and F6-F completely replaced the P-63s and the F8-F in particular proved its superiority over the P-63 in the harsh conditions of Indo-China.
30 April: 24 P-63s bombed Quynh Lu, 21 of the 24 bombs hit the target.
At the end of their service 25 P-63s had been lost on ops or in accidents, 20 were SOC as war weary and 40 still in good condition were earmarked for shipment to Africa.
Sources
Bell P-39 Airacobra
Robert F Dorr & Jerry C Scutts
Crowood Aviation Series
ISBN:1 86126 348 1
Pages 134 - 144
not typed verbatim
-
As for any solid info on actual modifications I will get back to you on that. I found this awesome website that seems to have some very educated folks of ww2 happenings and I have recently registered and made my first post hopeful I can get some good sources and input on this forum that will help me track down some good info.
-
Sorry about the small combat log I posted of the p63 I just red it a wee bit more theroughly it seems to be detailing events that happened about 1950's still fairly interesting stuff though but doesn't help with its involvement in ww2 much
-
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=140
This little site excerpt has alot of the info I have blurted before without this source as I forgot it but I found it again and quickly favorited it and placed it down.
-
The XP-39 was fitted with a turbocharger, and at altitude flirted with 400 mph.
Seen this ?
http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/SuperchargingAllison.pdf (http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/SuperchargingAllison.pdf)
Quote: "The NACA put the aircraft in its wind tunnel and determined the problem was largely due to the poor configuration and integration of the turbosupercharger with the engine. From this it was determined that the airplane would never meet its requirements with the turbo.."
It seems to have been far from 400mph.
-
"This little site excerpt has alot of the info I have blurted before without this
source as I forgot it but I found it again and quickly favorited it and placed it down."
I can't even begin to say what I think about wikipedia articles. They're worse
than these so called "documentaries" put on by the History channel in the U.S.
Anyway that article you cite on the militaryfactory site has all the substance as
anything else posted anonymously on the internet. It is an opinion piece until
it's backed up by references. Hell, it's not even credited to anyone nor signed
with an author's name.
Sorry dood. Just because you read it on "the internet" doesn't make it factual.
-
"This little site excerpt has alot of the info I have blurted before without this
source as I forgot it but I found it again and quickly favorited it and placed it down."
I can't even begin to say what I think about wikipedia articles. They're worse
than these so called "documentaries" put on by the History channel in the U.S.
Anyway that article you cite on the militaryfactory site has all the substance as
anything else posted anonymously on the internet. It is an opinion piece until
it's backed up by references. Hell, it's not even credited to anyone nor signed
with an author's name.
Sorry dood. Just because you read it on "the internet" doesn't make it factual.
Very true. But the one I keep coming back to is the Russiam pilot who, in his memior says they has a squarden of P-63s fighting the Nazi's. I'm not sure why that does't count as documented. Agreed there are levels of proof, such as serial numbers etched on parts that were found at crash sites. But that can't be the only acceptible proof?
-
Very true. But the one I keep coming back to is the Russiam pilot who, in his memior says they has a squarden of P-63s fighting the Nazi's. I'm not sure why that does't count as documented. Agreed there are levels of proof, such as serial numbers etched on parts that were found at crash sites. But that can't be the only acceptible proof?
That isn't the only proof. You can also have things like records of sending aircraft to certain units, loss records of aircraft and such. Official documentation.
-
Seen this ?
http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/SuperchargingAllison.pdf (http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/SuperchargingAllison.pdf)
Quote: "The NACA put the aircraft in its wind tunnel and determined the problem was largely due to the poor configuration and integration of the turbosupercharger with the engine. From this it was determined that the airplane would never meet its requirements with the turbo.."
It seems to have been far from 400mph.
That table in Dan Whitney's piece appears to reflect NACA's speed estimates based upon wind tunnel data. I believe that all flight testing by the Army was done at Wright Field. A now deceased friend of mine was there at the time. He was a test pilot involved with testing the YP-37 and YFM-1.
I have seen test data for the XP-39. Test pilot Jimmy Taylor reported 390 mph (corrected airspeed) on April 6, 1939. He also stated that XP-39 had gone even faster later in the flight test program (he estimated 398 mph).
Whitney also states that the P-63 was "an enlarged version of the P-39 fitted with a laminar flow wing." This is incorrect as the two aircraft were similar in layout, but even more different than the P-47 was from the P-43. Virtually no commonality of airframe components.
My regards,
Widewing
-
That isn't the only proof. You can also have things like records of sending aircraft to certain units, loss records of aircraft and such. Official documentation.
Yes. Alas that seemed to be the great ptoblem with P-63 records is the strange agreeement that said they couldn't use them in western front. Maybe that needs to be researched. Can that possibly be true? and why whould it be so? I've accepted that wit hout seing any documentation on that which should be findable since it would be U.S. documents that say it. Hmmm. I smell research project.
-
I think we can all agree that Stalin would not hold to any agreement that would mean less weapons to use against Hitler. In short he ordered the records Falsified. :noid
-
I think we can all agree that Stalin would not hold to any agreement that would mean less weapons to use against Hitler. In short he ordered the records Falsified. :noid
I disagree. Stalin held to some agreements and broke other. We'd need evidence.
In any case, the P-63 cannot be argued for as anything other than an extremely low priority for AH.
-
I believe the highest scoring allied pilot flew the P-39 and refused flying the P-63. :airplane:
Incorrect, he flew La-5/La-7
-
Yes. Alas that seemed to be the great ptoblem with P-63 records is the strange agreeement that said they couldn't use them in western front. Maybe that needs to be researched. Can that possibly be true? and why whould it be so? I've accepted that wit hout seing any documentation on that which should be findable since it would be U.S. documents that say it. Hmmm. I smell research project.
There's these goofy things called books :)
Two great resources no the 39 and 63. Both on my shelf at home
"Cobra's over the Tundra" by Everett Long. Covers the lend lease stuff. Nice shots of Russian 39s and 63s on their way to Russia
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1245337842&searchurl=kn%3DCobras%2Bover%2Bthe%2BTundra%26sts%3Dt%26x%3D46%26y%3D12
"Cobra! The Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-46" by Birch Matthews. Covers development of both the 39 and 63 with all kinds of stats on performance, might have beens, which birds went where, etc.
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1245337842&searchurl=kn%3DCobras%2Bover%2Bthe%2BTundra%26sts%3Dt%26x%3D46%26y%3D12
-
I have seen test data for the XP-39..
I would like to see it also.
Test pilot Jimmy Taylor reported 390 mph (corrected airspeed) on April 6, 1939. He also stated that XP-39 had gone even faster later in the flight test program (he estimated 398 mph).
Source ?
Whitney also states that the P-63 was "an enlarged version of the P-39 fitted with a laminar flow wing." This is incorrect as the two aircraft were similar in layout, but even more different than the P-47 was from the P-43. Virtually no commonality of airframe components.
Trying to shoot the messenger here ?
Pretty childish.
-
I would like to see it also.
Source ?Trying to shoot the messenger here ?
Pretty childish.
A copy of the factory test data is available in the National Archives, College Park, Maryland. Another copy on microfilm is available in the New York City NARA Microfilm Research Room, where I read it and took notes in 1995.
You can also check Dean, page 192 (America's Hundred Thousand). Bodie and Bowers also reference the same test data. Bowers had interview notes with Larry Bell as well. 390 mph @ 20k is well documented.
NACA and the Army's Fighter Branch were far from infallible. NACA's speed estimates for the XP-39 were far off of reality. They were responsible for the useless mass/balances on the P-38's elevators when the cause was actually turbulence from the wing to fuselage mating. Fillets were the actual cure for the incorrectly diagnosed "tail flutter".
Let me ask you a question, Timofei... Why are you dogging every post I make? You puffed out your chest on the P-40 discussion and were proved wrong. When I asked that you post a document that proves your claim, you stated the copy was too poor...
Thus, in the ignore list you go...
-
Let me ask you a question, Timofei... Why are you dogging every post I make? You puffed out your chest on the P-40 discussion and were proved wrong. When I asked that you post a document that proves your claim, you stated the copy was too poor...
Thus, in the ignore list you go...
He doesn't know your pedigree. :rofl
wrongway
-
He doesn't know your pedigree. :rofl
wrongway
He's simply a troll... Read his various posts. With few exceptions, they're trolls, looking to generate heat rather than light. Thus, I placed him into my ignore list.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Daniel D Whitney's "Vees for Victory - The Story of the Alison V1710 Aircraft Engine 1929-1948" pp79-988 has a bit to say on the development of the P-39 and the removal of the turbo.
-During 1937 when Alison had sold only 15 V1710 they pushed to develop altitude rated rather than turbo versions as they felt that their sales problems were partly due to Air Corps focusing on inadequately developed turbo charging.
-XP-39 Flight testing was delayed several months while Alison fixed vibration problems, resulting from torsional vibration of the extension shafts, found during ground running tests. This had "been only partially alleviated by first flight so certain RPM had to be avoided.
-He says "It is clear from recently located NACA test reports on the XP-39 that it was not meeting the contracted performance guarantees. While it has been reported that the aircraft was able to climb from takeoff to 20,000 ft in five minutes, and that the maximum speed at that altitude was 390mph, with the airplane weighing 5550 lbs the data does not show it.
...
"Furthermore, given that General Arnold was hurriedly arranging to hava NACA put the airplane in its wind tunnel for drag reduction tests only a month after the first flight, suggests that all was not well."
-The XP-39 was 10% overweight at 6104 lb on official weigh in versus a contracted 5550 lb.
-Flight testing had shown inadequate cooling of oil, Prestone and intercooler. NACA found for example the radiator required 10,250 scfm and that during climb at 160mph only 7,880 scfm was provided.
NACA tests showed that the various air inlets were badly arranged with internal constrictions from the way the aircraft had been packaged (wing spars, landing gear obstructions etc) reducing air flow.
A table of drag breakdown is given showing turbo charger related drag (Turbo + waste gate + intercooler)was about 16.4 % of the aircraft total.
Intercooler air flow was ony 1,600 scfm at high speed while 5,000 to 7,000 was required if the engine was to achieve full power without detonation.
External arrangement of air inlets was causing asymetrical stalling with the left wing root stalling at several degrees angle of attack before the right.
As received by NACA they estimate speed to be 340mph at 20,00ft with 1150bhp
Following testing of modifications recommened by NACA drag was reduced to a level where it was estimated that 392mph at 20,000 if 1150 bhp was provided by the engine.
NACA considered an altitude rated V1710 and and with the other changes this was expected to give about 402mph at 13,200 feet with the elimination of the drag from the turbocharger and intercooler even before allowing for the reduction in weight from the removal of the turbo. NACA estimated that the performance at 20,000 feet would be "about the same" as the turbo version
NACA recommendations were
- Improve streamlining of wheel well doors
- Lower the canopy
- Remove turbosupercharging due to high installation drag.
- Relocate carburettor scope from left side of fuselage to just behind the canopy.
- Install the altitude rated engine.
To me this indicates the 390 mph at 20,000 ft is a probably a myth, being the NACA predicted value if the sum of all recommendations had been applied and that the V1710 provided 1150 bhp at that altitude.
Other aviation writer Ray Wagner:
http://www.americancombatplanes.com/p39_1.html (http://www.americancombatplanes.com/p39_1.html)
"The original X-609 specification called for a minimum top speed of 290 mph at sea level and 360 mph at 20,000 feet, but 400 mph was the desired goal. Bell guaranteed a top speed of 330 mph at sea level and 400 mph at 20,000 feet, climbing to that altitude in five minutes, but this was for a weight of 3,995 pounds empty and 5,550 pounds gross.
After the XP-39 was moved to Wright Field in December 1938, Army inspectors listed the actual prototype weight as 4,545 pounds empty and 6,104 pounds gross. Air intakes protruded behind the engine, the left side to cool the oil radiator, the right side for the carburetor and for the turbosupercharger intercooler, The first test flight was made at Wright Field by James Taylor on April 6, 1939. Drive shaft vibration curtailed tests and excessive airframe drag limited speed to nearer the minimum than the desired level. While detailed reports are not available, one Army chart stated top speed was 365 mph at 20,000 feet."
The above quotes from two known aviation authors.
I see Widewing has dedicated a whole webpage to the "P-39 USAAF/NACA -conspiracy".
But the only actual proof he presents is "I took notes". For me it is easy to decide who to believe.
And no, I'm not troll, but I admit I'm a graduate from John McEnroe Charm School.
-
A few facts...
NACA's estimates didn't come close to reality. The much modified XP-39 (now the XP-39B) barely reached 375 mph, but could not sustain it due to overheating. The YP-39, fitted with the "altitude rated V1710" managed only 368 mph at 13,600 feet. A far cry from their estimate of 402 mph at 13,200 feet. As to performance being equal to the XP-39 at 20,000 feet... Delusional. The YP-39s could do no better than 332 mph at 20,000 feet.
Larry Bell specifically stated in an interview with Pete Bowers that, "We expected that NACA's wind tunnel testing would help up clean up the airframe. We didn't expect that NACA would recommend what amounted to a complete redesign. We were appalled, to say the least. We objected to NACA's findings, my Engineers finding that much of their calculations were based not upon actual test data, but mathematical models. We argued back and forth for weeks with no result. The political reality was that the staff at Wright Field had cast their lot with NACA. That left me with two choices; redesign according to NACA's recommendations or have the plane canceled. This could not have come at a worse time for us. We had to reassign most of the Engineering staff working on the XFL-1 to the XP-39B. I feel that this was a great contributor to the failure of the XFL-1 as we simply didn't have the depth of resources to devote to both aircraft. The elimination of the turbosupercharger was a heartbreak. We had hoped that the Army would fund further development, instead they ordered us to remove it, which meant that the core of our effort was for no gain."
From Peter Bower's interview of Larry Bell, October 1953.
Again, I'll point to Whitney as being an Engineer who writes history of engines. His research into the aircraft is spotty at best. You put much credence in Whitney's research, so let's look at one example where he gets it all wrong.
Whitney has written, "As a way to expedite development of both the V-1710 and turbosupercharger the Army then issued a new requirement for an in-line powered, turbosupercharged Pursuit, the Curtiss XP-37. This airplane preceded a contract for 13 YP-37s, intended to introduce the high-speed, high-altitude fighter type aircraft to the US military, along with its integrated engine and turbo installation. As a group these aircraft were successful, although the primary lessons learned were that combining the turbosupercharger with a high performance engine/airframe required a much more sophisticated control system than was available at the time."
According to the XP-37/YP-37 test pilots, the aircraft was a nightmare. One specifically told me that the turbo installation was horrible. The engine would routinely overheat. His first flight of a YP-37 nearly killed him at Langley Field. I had several conversations with this pilot, Erik Shilling (later of AVG fame) specifically about this aircraft. He described the YP-37 as "badly engineered." Erik was my friend and a mentor. He recounts his YP-37 experiences in his book, Destiny: A Flying Tigers Rendezvous With Fate. Only 1,000 copies were published. I have number 627, with a hand written dedication from Erik. Curtiss' Edward Elliott, who also flew the XP-40 on its first flight, stated that, "The XP-37 was the only Curtiss airplane I came to despise."(*related by Herb Fisher, Curtiss test pilot)
Maybe Whitney should have talked to the test pilots.... If the XP-37/YP-37 was successful, it would only be so as an example of how not to design a turbo installation. The fact is that the XP-37/YP-37 was an expensive failure. Whitney is an Engineer. Engineers routinely spin failure into a positive by claiming that lessons were learned. However, the reality is that the lesson learned was as simple as poor design, bad analysis and failure to anticipate. How do I know this? I'm an Project Engineer/Manager for a fast growing aerospace company.
As to Ray Wagner... He quotes Larry Bell as being glad the turbo was removed.. Too bad Bell states otherwise. I also looked at some of his other writing on WWII fighters on his web page. It's riddled with errors. Here's an example: "Two XF6F-6s with the 2,100-hp R-2800-18W and four-bladed propeller were first flown July 6, 1944, but this advanced power plant was reserved for the F4U-4."
Absolutely incorrect. The F6F-6 was not built for one very simple reason. Leroy Grumman and Bob Hall thought that the F8F-1 was far superior and that they could not get F6F-6s to the fleet before February of 1945 anyway. The Navy agreed and the F6F-6 was canceled.
Wagner also states: "Meanwhile, the expedited production contract hadbeen changed to the F6F-3 model, the first flying October 3 with an R-2800-10, three-bladed Hamilton propeller without spinner, a simplified landing gear, and six guns. Ten F6F-3s were delivered by 1942’s end, and production accelerated rapidly, the 2,545 Hellcats delivered in 1943 being enough to equip every fighter squadron on the fast carriers. There was little change in the basic configuration, although the R-2800-l0W with water injection for emergency power was introduced in January 1944."
Again, Wagner is incorrect. Beginning with BuNo 40634, delivered in October of 1943, all F6F-3 aircraft were fitted with the R-2800-10W and water injection. By January of 1944, the majority of F6Fs in service were either manufactured with the R-2800-10W or had been retrofitted with the engine and ADI tank kit in the field.
The fact is that Wagner doesn't do any original research (I don't see any), but relies on the work of others. Not unlike what Joe Baugher does. That's fine. They both produce general works that are aimed at the general market. These guys borrow from Bowers, Bodie, Tillman and others. I've worked with most of these guys, and I have done research for Eric Hammel as well. I count these and others such as Boyne, Rob Morris and Bob Dorr as friends. Hell, we all network through Facebook, where we have public and private groups.
Yet, you throw Whitney and Wagner out and tell me that, "For me it is easy to decide who to believe."
Pfftt.. I've wasted enough time on you.. We're done.
-
Fascinating reading reminds me of Good Will Hunting & the THEM APPLES scene.
-
The elimination of the turbosupercharger was a heartbreak. We had hoped that the Army would fund further development, instead they ordered us to remove it, which meant that the core of our effort was for no gain."
Wide,
The P-38 seems, to my limited and non-expert knowlege of the Warbirds of the era, to be the only V-12 Turbocharged engine in the American line up. I assumed this was the same Powerplant the XP-39 was supposed to use. Any info on why Bell had so many problems with it? In looking at the Lightning, it would seem one boom houses An engine, Turbo, and intercoolers, and radiators. It also seems there would be enough room in the aft fuselage of P-39 to fit the same hardware. Interesting also that P-63, redisigned to be larger, still avoided the Turbo and went with the two speed Supercharger.
-
A few facts...
Always a good way to start a post if you want to impress.
I count these and others such as Boyne, Rob Morris and Bob Dorr as friends.
..
Yet, you throw Whitney and Wagner out and tell me that, "For me it is easy to decide who to believe."
..
Yet, a long post just to discredit two of your "friends". Heck, I don't want to be your "enemy" near you.
The point of my original post was that if the goal of 400mph/20k was only 10mph short as you claim, there would not have been any need for drastic design changes.
I'm done too. Pfftt...
-
Just use the tape measurer :rofl
-
You puffed out your chest on the P-40 discussion and were proved wrong. When I asked that you post a document that proves your claim, you stated the copy was too poor...
Off topic, but I found a better copy of P40D&E:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40FOIC.pdf (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40FOIC.pdf)
I also found that you have posted the same document before in this forum.. :(