You guys will run out of late or post war American aircraft to demand eventually you know. It might behoove you to learn about some other country's aircraft and request those.Russian P63s :aok :lol
Russian P63s :aok :lol
:bolt: :bolt: :bolt:
You guys will run out of late or post war American aircraft to demand eventually you know. It might behoove you to learn about some other country's aircraft and request those.
Need the P63, so I can have a hot rodded p39.......ya...while you're flying the p-39q, have nascar running on the television real loud and pretend.
ya...while you're flying the p-39q, have nascar running on the television real loud and pretend.I normally fly the D model.....
-1
You guys will run out of late or post war American aircraft to demand eventually you know. It might behoove you to learn about some other country's aircraft and request those.
also i got a model of the plane and on the box is a japanese twin engine plane. umm if someone could identify the plane for me. that would be great thank you.Ki-46-III.
Ki-46-III.
That would likely be a rare kill for a P-61 as the Ki-46-III was significantly faster than the P-61A or P-61B.
I normally fly the D model.....
1) It is extremely unlikely (but remotely possible) that Ivan used the P-63 against the Luftwaffe. Can't be proved, isn't documented from anything I can find.
2) The P-63 was indeed used in Russian combat operations in squadron strength
3) The P-63 does have a kill record, but it is unimpressive
I've seen this bandied about (specifically, 1 Ki-43 claimed) however I can't recall anyone, when asked, being able to provide any sort of verifiable records as to when and where said engagement occurred.
Soviet Naval Aerial Kills in August 1945
by George Mellinger, Twin Cities Aero Historians
It seems the Soviets generally met little opposition in the air during their brief war against Japan in August 1945, Operation Autumn Storm, and suffered most of their losses to anti-aircraft fire and to non-combat causes. There has been mention of one incident when an Army pilot, Jr. Lt. Miroshnichenko, of the 17 IAP flying the P-63 Kingcobra shot down a Ki-43 or K-27 fighter, while operating on the Transbaikal Front out of Mongolia.. Undoubtedly at least a few other Soviet Army Air pilots managed to score air victories, but no details are known.
There has been mention of one incident...
Undoubtedly at least a few other Soviet Army Air pilots managed to score air victories...
i believe it will be added eventually, but first there are some huge gap fillers that need to be addressed.
for instance the Ki-43
i believe it will be added eventually, but first there are some huge gap fillers that need to be addressed.so instead of A6M2s and A6M5Bs for Rangoon we actually fight what we're supposed to? :aok
for instance the Ki-43
so instead of A6M2s and A6M5Bs for Rangoon we actually fight what we're supposed to? :aok
Interesting nose art on the Soviet P-63.
ack-ack
Interesting nose art on the Soviet P-63.
ack-ack
Interesting nose art on the Soviet P-63.
ack-ack
M-18 :noid
Just wanted to point out that you surely meant P63Fixed for accuracy.
Fixed for accuracy.
Just wanted to point out that you surely meant M-18 :noid:noid
Can we have a p63?
General characteristics
* Crew: 1
* Length: 32 ft 8 in (10.0 m)
* Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
* Height: 12 ft 7 in (3.8 m)
* Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
* Empty weight: 6,800 lb (3,100 kg)
* Loaded weight: 8,800 lb (4,000 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 10,700 lb (4,900 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Allison V-1710-117 liquid-cooled V-12, 1,800 hp (1,340 kW)
Performance
* Maximum speed: 410 mph (660 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
* Range: 450 mi[30] (725 km)
* Ferry range: 2200 mi (3,540 km)
* Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
* Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (12.7 m/s)
* Wing loading: 35.48 lb/sq ft (173.91 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.20 hp/lb (0.34 kW/kg)
Armament
* Guns:
o 1× 37 mm M4 cannon firing through the propeller hub
o 4× 0.50 in (12.7mm) M2 Browning machine guns (two in the nose, two in the wings)
* Bombs: 1,500 lb (680 kg) bomb load on wing and fuselage
From what I understand it was used by the russians a good bit.
The case for the P-63 in Aces High II is to see for ourselves if the last and best attempt by American engineers to develop a single seat, single engine, V-12 powered fighter was just another weapons system footnote as many are lead to believe, or an under appreciated hidden jewel in the arsenal of democracy. Aces High would be the perfect laboratory to prove what Allison and Bell were truly capable of after they were given sufficient time and resources to develop their concepts to their full potential.
Uh, no. This is no case WHATSOEVER for adding the P-63 because it is NOT what is used as criteria for whether an aircraft is added. Because it cannot be conclusively and without argument proven that the P-63 meets HiTech's criteria there is no case AT ALL for adding the P-63. Unless HTC were to add a "What If?" arena, the P-63 is just another almost-made-it that may have a place in history, but has NO place in the game.
Uh, no. This is no case WHATSOEVER for adding the P-63 because it is NOT what is used as criteria for whether an aircraft is added. Because it cannot be conclusively and without argument proven that the P-63 meets HiTech's criteria there is no case AT ALL for adding the P-63. Unless HTC were to add a "What If?" arena, the P-63 is just another almost-made-it that may have a place in history, but has NO place in the game.
It meets the criteria. Squadren strength, shot down an enemy plane.
There has been mention of one incident...
As the saying goes: Pics or it didn't happen.
shot down an enemy plane.
Soviet Naval Aerial Kills in August 1945
by George Mellinger, Twin Cities Aero Historians
It seems the Soviets generally met little opposition in the air during their brief war against Japan in August 1945, Operation Autumn Storm, and suffered most of their losses to anti-aircraft fire and to non-combat causes. There has been mention of one incident when an Army pilot, Jr. Lt. Miroshnichenko, of the 17 IAP flying the P-63 Kingcobra shot down a Ki-43 or K-27 fighter, while operating on the Transbaikal Front out of Mongolia.. Undoubtedly at least a few other Soviet Army Air pilots managed to score air victories, but no details are known.
It did? There is no official confirmation that a P-63 scored a victory during the war against either the Germans or the Japanese. As I posted earlier in this thread.
Unless there is an official confirmation of a kill, there will always be speculation as to whether or not the P-63 ever engaged another enemy plane in combat during the war.
ack-ack
Just curious, What official Russian records do we have? If Pokryshkin's official memior shows official records of active plane strength on the eastern front, and those records show P-63 in service, in 1944-1945 will that count?
Only if those records show the P-63 in service and engaging enemy aircraft or surface targets. It doesn't matter if the thing was "in service" during the war years or not. If it didn't see combat, it's not in. Pretty clear and simple dividing line that's been established by HiTech.
Only if those records show the P-63 in service and engaging enemy aircraft or surface targets. It doesn't matter if the thing was "in service" during the war years or not. If it didn't see combat, it's not in. Pretty clear and simple dividing line that's been established by HiTech.
So we're taking the goon out? :neener:
The C-47 wasn't a combat aircraft.
ack-ack
The C-47 wasn't a combat aircraft.Yet it also did see action with the enemy.
ack-ack
Yet it also did see action with the enemy.
Regardless if it saw any enemy action, it was not a combat plane.
ack-ack
The case for the P-63 in Aces High
AP ammo might make it a good tank buster, but the game would employ Russian designation P-63s and they were not issues AP rounds [ref 6]
[ref6. Attack of the Airacobras, Dimity Loza p. needed]
Regiments of the 9th Guards Fighter Division played an active role in the destruction of these encircled German forces from 26 April to 8 May. The division had 102 Airacobras on hand at the end of April, of which eighty-eight were serviceable and fourteen were unserviceable. Of the 103 assigned pilots, 91 were in units and considered combat-ready; 6 were deemed not combat-ready. A total of twenty-nine P-63 Kingcobra aircraft had arrived in the division during the month of April, received from the 6th Reserve Aviation Brigade. In addition, one P-39 had returned from a major repair shop. The 16th and 100th Guards Regiments were based at Neuhausen airfield and the 104th Guards Regiment at Yuterbog.
You guys will run out of late or post war American aircraft to demand eventually you know. It might behoove you to learn about some other country's aircraft and request those.Well stated,Sir. Case in point: why to this day do we not have the JU-52? If ya want 'boots on the ground' Annie is the answer.
Vink, how much of a difference in performance do you think the 63 would have over the 39Q. I don't think there is any doubt that the 63's achilles heel was the range problem. It couldn't compete with the 51. I remember Widewing talking about possible use on the Eastern Front. At that same time, Kinda like wanting my Spitfire XII and needing it, the 63 is one for me that would be nice someday, but nowhere near a priority. When I get that Cobra mood going, the 39s seem to fill the bill nicely :)
I haven't been able to find anything that indicates the P-63 did see any enemy action of any type. Only thing I've found makes it comparable to planes like the Tigercat or P-51H, in the area but nobody was home to play.
ack-ack
Ack,
In Pokryshkin's menmior he lists eastern front squadren strength and plane types that were active in combat during 1944 and 1945. I'll copy the page from the book and post it. It shows P-63 in those squadrens. I think this is a good place to start digging. I'm tryin gto loacte the co-authors who helped write and publish the book to see if we can get any details about the P-63 use. The book is "Attack of the airacobras" by Dimitiy F Loza
Well stated,Sir. Case in point: why to this day do we not have the JU-52? If ya want 'boots on the ground' Annie is the answer.
By the way,if only the -61 had some +'s painted on it, I'd fly that puppy in a heartbeat. :aok
:rofl
George Mellinger is a local guy who I got to know a little bit through the Twin Cities Aero Historians. I think I still have his number around here somewhere. He's an absolute Russian AF junkie. I'll see if I can get a hold of him and try and get his thoughts on the 63 and it's Soviet use or non use.
George Mellinger is a local guy who I got to know a little bit through the Twin Cities Aero Historians. I think I still have his number around here somewhere. He's an absolute Russian AF junkie. I'll see if I can get a hold of him and try and get his thoughts on the 63 and it's Soviet use or non use.
The 12th Air Army of the Trasnbaikal Front equipped its 245 IAD, consisting of the 940 and 781 IAPS. This Air Army was reinforced after the German surrender by the transfer from the west of the 190 IAD which included the 17 IAP and 21 IAP, both of which replaced their P-39Q and La-5 fighters with the Kingcobra. One of the pilots of the 17 IAP was Captain Viacheslav Sirotin, HSU, a 21 victory ace. On August 15, he and his wingman, Junior Lieutenant Miroshnichenko caught 2 Japanese fighters (either Ki-27 or Ki-43, the records are unclear), and shot down one of them. This was the Kingcobra's only aerial victory - ever.
Don't know where this came from. It is actually referencing P-39s late in the war in a chapter titled "The Airacobra as Shturmovik"
The only reference to the P-63 in the above book is pp 317-318 of the same chapter:
No mention of actual use is made. Of course, it is a book about the P-39 use, not the P-63.
wrongway
Just saw this sorry. Yes it was referencing P-39. Put the point was made in the book that the planes were never used as tank busters, which is a myth the author went out of his way to dispel in the very beginning of the book. He sights the fact the the Russians were not issued AP rounds for the 37mm cannon for the duration of the war. The gun in the P-63 is listed as an M-10 cannon, but everything I've read suggests the only difference was Ammo load [58 vs 30 rounds]. The ammunition was the same. So I don't think P-63 was used to bust tanks either.
Hear anything Guppy?
Ok Guppy, I'll admit I was waiting for your post. :salutesame here lol.
Good luck. George Mellinger is the man.
:cry :cry :cry :cry
I'm curious how a p63 encountered the early war ki27 at all?
I'm curious how a p63 encountered the early war ki27 at all?
That's not his point Pig. Ki-27s in 1945? Surely not a likely scenario, is his point.Right, because at this point they wouldn't use anything they could get into the air. :rolleyes:
A6Ms were both navy and army, if I recall.
That's not his point Pig. Ki-27s in 1945? Surely not a likely scenario, is his point.
The Zero was IJNAF, while the Ki-43 was the Army's version of what was essentially the IJAF's version of the Zero.
The Japanese exported the Ki-27 to the puppet Manchukuo government, which used the Nate up until the collapse of the puppet government.
Do you know when that was? If the collapse was in 1943, for example... not so helpful. If it was in 1945? Much more helpful to support the claim. That could explain it, if the dates match up. But, was Manchukuo even running missions against the VVs at the time in question?
As to kamikaze, I'd say "no" to that because I don't recall any reports of kamikaze attacks in Manchuria or against the Soviets. That was mostly just against US warships. No need for kamikaze bombers over Soviet landmasses. Logically that one is discounted from consideration.
Manchukuo's government was abolished in August of 1945, shortly after the surrender of Imperial Japan. The primary fighter for the Manchukuo Air Force was the Ki-27, so if the encounter did happen with the Soviet P-63, it was most likely a Ki-27 from the Manchukuo Air Force.
Towards the end of the war the Manchukuo Air Force resorted to kamikazi tactics with the first successful kamikazi attack that resulted in the loss of a B-29 after it was rammed by a MAF Ki-27 at the end of 1944. During the last months of the war, the Japanese 2nd Air Army (now in operational command of the MAF) ordered the remaining MAF Ki-27 pilots to begin training for kamikazi attacks against Soviet tanks, though this was never carried out as the war ended before training could be completed and any attacks carried out.
ack-ack
Today we'll talk kill record:
"On 15 August Capt Vyacheslav Sirotin and his wingman Jr Lt I F Miroshnichenko, of 17 IAP were patrolling in their new P-63s. Sirotin was a veteran ace who had flown P-39s (amongst other fighter types) against the Germans and had scored 26 victories during more than 300 sorties, for which he received the HSU in 1945. His wingman appears to have been a novice, however. Spotting two specks at low level in the distance, they quickly identified two Japanese fighters - either Ki-43 "Oscars" or Ki-27 "Nates" - which were hoping to attack Soviet transport aircraft. The P-63 pilots instead made short work of the enemy aircraft, Sirotin allowing his wingman to make the kill. Miroshnichenko succeeded in shooting down one of the Japanese fighters, but the other machine escaped at treetop height.
"Soviet Lend-Lease Fighter Aces of World War 2", George Mellinger, 2006 Osprey Publishing Limited
...True or false claim notwithstanding, I think its unlikely that the P-63 gets in AH any time soon. Too many other a/c that had a much larger impact on the War still need to get in (IMO, but it might be different if all HTC had to do was slap a 4-blade prop on the 39Q, rework the tail and tweak the FM - but I'm afraid sinc the '63 is a physically larger airplane, it would require a whole new 3D model)...
Ok, I quoted myself :rolleyes: but the best reference I've read so far says either KI-43's or KI-27's. Not sure why they couldn't distinguish between the two but perhaps this is one of those "lost in translation" things.
The logic is applied because of the existing planeset......not starting from scratch.
begin training for kamikazi attacks against Soviet tanks
But....Zekes hurris, spits, and Brewesters make up for their lack of speed with exceptional turn radii. The P-39 can't come close to turning with any of those.
Vinkman, your comments about "folks don't fly it because it's slow" don't hold water. Folks fly a lot of slower planes in this game. Spits, hurricanes, zekes, 109s (not counting K-4s), fw190As, C205s, F6Fs, etc. Not all planes you meet in the MA are top-5 speed demons. There are other reasons you don't see people flying them. IMO speed isn't the major problem.
Conversely, one thing the P-39D/Q dohave going for them now is turning radius. The proposed P-63 actually has a worse wing loading than the P-39Q, despite more horsepower. The wing was also designed to be a laminar flow wing. So was the P-51's wing. You know how well THAT wing works at slow speed, right? Meaning it would most likely turn worse. Points to ponder.
You say it "fixes that deficiency" [re:speed] -- but so do many other planes in the existing planeset. You assume that the only "fix" to a slow P-39D is a P-63. What about the 190D9? What about the P51? What about the La7? You're assuming the ONLY fix to this solution is something that resembles the P-39 airframe. That's just foolish thinking patterns. The "fix" to any slow plane in the game is to up any faster plane in the game. To be blunt: If you don't want a slow plane, you don't FLY the slow plane.
The P-39Q did fight up until the end of the war. It was a late war plane. In FSOs it has proven itself a handful against seemingly superior 109s and 190s.
You're requesting the P-63 for erronous reasons. It doesn't "fix" any problems, and doesn't fill any holes.
If one considers 420 mph at 21,000 feet poor performance. Let's face it, 95% of all engagements in AH2 are below 20,000 feet.
The answer to the La-7 is the P-63A Kingcobra. Similar climb and low-level speed, but the P-63 is nearly as maneuverable as the FM-2. Add four .50 cal MGs and a 37mm cannon.
These two fighters would be very equal except that the La-7 could not afford to turn-fight with the P-63, and the P-63 has a big range advantage, plus the ability to haul a 500 pound bomb (or a drop tank).
So, how fast does the P-63A climb? Well, for comparison, let's look at the F6F-5. It requires 7.7 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet. In contrast, the P-63A can get to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes! The P-51D requires near twice as long (13 minutes) to reach 30,000 feet.
When the Soviets first began flying the P-63, they found the tail to be weaker than that of the P-39. Bell developed a kit for strengthening the tail and Bell technicians made field modifications to those planes in service. That change was immediately incorporated into the production line as well.
Pilots who flew the P-63, and had time in the other major U.S. types, generally agreed that the P-63 was far and away the best performer at low to medium altitudes. Not surprising, the pilots flying it at the Joint Fighter Conference differed from rave reviews to outright dislike (the only thing the JFC ever proved was that every monkey prefers his own banana).
Since more than 3,300 P-63s were built, and it saw combat (with the Free French and Soviets) in far greater numbers than the F4U-1C or Ta 152H, I think it would be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the AH2 plane-set someday.
My regards,
Widewing
My gut and the AH2 criteria for inclusion says the P-63 is just barely acceptable for inclusion in the game. Just barely.
I don't want to dispute Widewing but perhaps a bit of amplification of the facts might be in order:
Plane Speed @ 5000', mph Speed @ 15000', mph Speed @ 25000', mph Speed @ 30000', mph
LA-7 (in AH) 370/400*(WEP) 392 393 372
P63A10 361 392 410 437 (C5 model)
The P-63C5 model had essentially the same speed performance as the -A10 version. Unfortunately I cannot find detail on whether the speeds listed for the King Cobra are WEP or not.
Climb rate: P-63A10, 25000' in 7.3 minutes. P-63C5, 28000' in 11.2 minutes.
Combat duration certainly favors the King Cobra, especially if drop tanks are loaded.
My opinion is that the LA-7 is fractionally faster below about 9000' but higher altitude favors the King Cobra. Without doing the detailed math I believe the same conclusion applies for climb rate: LA-7 superior below 9K, King Cobra better above that mark.
Turn-fighting wise, it would be extremely interesting.
So is the King Cobra a game-changer or world beater? Well, probably not but it certainly would fill a niche with competitive results.
Great discussion!
The fact that people are even asking for this over a core aircraft like the Ki-43, Beaufighter, He111, Pe-2 or Wellington is simply absurd.
Here have a look at this and get back to me. Pay attention to wet WEP.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/P-63.jpg)
| V@SL,mph V@5K',mph V@10K',mph V@15K',mph V@20K',mph P-63A-8, "wet", WEP 340* 360 379 396 408 P-63A-8, Military Power 318* 337 355 373 388 LA-7, WEP 380 401 396 391 410 LA-7, Military Power 358 380 396 391 410 *extrapolated from chart 3) For completeness, the mfr data: V@SL,mph V@5K',mph V@10K',mph V@15K',mph V@20K',mph P-63A-8, "wet", WEP 378 398 412 422 421 P-63A-8, Military Power 344 364 382 399 416 4) Rate of climb using the mfr data (USAAF didn't report R/C directly but based on time-to-altitude comparisons, the mfr data is reasonably close) R/C@SL,fps R/C@5K',fps R/C@10K',fps R/C@15K',fps R/C@20K',fps P-63A-8, "wet", WEP 4100* 3900* 3800 3750 2900 P-63A-8, Military Power** 3200 3200 3300 3100 2600 LA-7, WEP 4400 4100 3300 2850 2400 LA-7, Military Power 3600 3750 3300 2850 2400 *"dry"; no data for "wet" **extrapolated from time-to-altitude data |
Bronk - fantastic chart, exactly what I've been searching for - thanks. Do you know the source? If it's from an available publication, I'll buy itAmerica's Hundred Thousand
It isn't that they can't find obscure things, just that they want things that are ever more powerful and thus only request the powerful stuff.
I didn't know that is why I requested it. I thought I wanted it because IMHO it is hands down the sexiest plane of all time. Thanks for setting me straight on that. :aokI think you've mistakenly posted some other plane when you meant to post a picture of a Spitfire Mk VIII or Spitfire Mk XIV.
(http://www.westhoustonsqdn.org/images/p63/p63_j4_2k-868f.jpg)
The fact that people are even asking for this over a core aircraft like the Ki-43, Beaufighter, He111, Pe-2 or Wellington is simply absurd.
Only because in your judgement, historical significance is the only thing that matters. Most poeple pick base on Playablility.You can apply that argument to any proposed addition, thus it is so broad as to be useless.
For example,your favorite the Ki-43 is going to fly like a Zeke. If we have three variants of the Zeke, what difference in Playablity does this plane bring to the game? For folks flying Zekes, is this plane going to be very different? If I'm in an F4U and I come across a Ki-43 am I going to treat it any different than a zeke, or vice versa? This plane doesn't change game play very much.
Pe-2 is from what I've read would be different enough to be something new, etc for the beaufighter, he-111, and perhaps the wellington.
Playability is not an absurd reason to prioritze plane in a game that folks play for fun.
You could stand to be a little less judgemental Karnak. :D :salute
You can apply that argument to any proposed addition, thus it is so broad as to be useless.Tell that to the downed Kind pilot.
The P-63 played NO role in WWII and thus should not be in a WWII game, even if the players only want ever more potent American fighters.
Tell that to the downed Kind pilot.The unconfirmed single kill?
The unconfirmed single kill?Wronnn-gah! The sp16 did! (had about the same amount of kills as a p63, give or take)
My god man, the P-63 won WWII all by itself! How blind I've been.
Wronnn-gah! The sp16 did! (had about the same amount of kills as a p63, give or take)
Wronnn-gah! The sp16 did! (had about the same amount of kills as a p63, give or take)Spitfire Mk XVI had a great deal more kills, if we even had a Spitfire Mk XVI in AH. We have a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe that is labeled as a Spitfire Mk XVI. Not that it matters as other than a 1000ft difference in full throttle height the two were identical as far as AH is concerned.
Wronnn-gah! The sp16 did! (had about the same amount of kills as a p63, give or take)
The unconfirmed single kill?
My god man, the P-63 won WWII all by itself! How blind I've been.
If the person reporting the combat could not tell a ki43 from a fixed gear ki27, then I have a hard time believing it.
Meanwhile, ki44, ki43, and J2m shot down b29s.
Seriously? We're not going to hash over this bit of bullscatology myth again are we, or are you doing a parody of THRASH99?:lol just havin a whizz
ack-ack
A Ki-27 of the Manchukuo Air Force successfully downed a B-29 by ramming it, so I guess you can put Ki-27 amongst the planes you listed.
ack-ack
Sorry Mystery, thought you'd understand that the <>'s stand for []'s
Confirmed Kills - what's the criteria?
Many folks here have deemed the single (?) P-63 kill by Jr Lt I F Miroshnichenko against a Ki-43 or Ki-27 as "unconfirmed".
I'm wondering what would be acceptable critera for confirmation? Miroshnichenko's wingman, Capt Vyacheslav Sirotin, a HSU medal awardee and no slouch himself in the cockpit (26 kills), saw the kill and submitted a report stating just that. This incident has been published by perhaps THE pre-eminent US author of Soviet air force operations, George Mellinger. What else would be required to satisfy those who doubt its veracity? A scan of a Cyrillic-alphabet after-action report by Sirotin? Somehow, I don't think we'll ever see it.
Please, don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to poke the naysayers. But considering the circumstances - a late WWII action by an increasingly less-friendly "ally" in a US-built plane - can we expect more?
Confirmed Kills - what's the criteria?
Many folks here have deemed the single (?) P-63 kill by Jr Lt I F Miroshnichenko against a Ki-43 or Ki-27 as "unconfirmed".
I'm wondering what would be acceptable critera for confirmation? Miroshnichenko's wingman, Capt Vyacheslav Sirotin, a HSU medal awardee and no slouch himself in the cockpit (26 kills), saw the kill and submitted a report stating just that. This incident has been published by perhaps THE pre-eminent US author of Soviet air force operations, George Mellinger. What else would be required to satisfy those who doubt its veracity? A scan of a Cyrillic-alphabet after-action report by Sirotin? Somehow, I don't think we'll ever see it.
Please, don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to poke the naysayers. But considering the circumstances - a late WWII action by an increasingly less-friendly "ally" in a US-built plane - can we expect more?
So yes, with no other conclusive supporting evidence a scan of a Cyrillic-alphabet after-action report probably IS necessary.
How about contributing a meaningful counter-argument to this discussion rather than just a smart-assed edited quote?
Mystery,
The original problem remains: You have the same story being repeated that's already been told, but from what PRIMARY SOURCE is this being taken?
Are we saying that 63 shouldn't be ok for the game because we can't point to a primary source for that kill?
Considering that's the ONE account being used to conclusively state the P-63 saw combat action against the Japanese and meets HTC's criteria? I would say yes, that's pretty important. Everything else posted has only INFERRED the P-63 was involved in combat.So by your logic the meteor should never be included also? If we use your logic then if we use your same logic the c-47 we have should not be in game....well as modeled. Unless you have a pilot shooting down an AC with his sidearm documented.
Of course, the quickest way to resolve this is if hitech were to come in here and say whether that is or is not enough for him to go with. Not sure what the likelihood of that is, however.
So by your logic the meteor should never be included also? If we use your logic then if we use your same logic the c-47 we have should not be in game....well as modeled. Unless you have a pilot shooting down an AC with his sidearm documented.The Meteor was involved in unambiguous combat operations. The P-63, not so much. Both should be very low priority aircraft, but I think the P-63 should be about as far down the list as you can get while still being on it.
The Meteor was involved in unambiguous combat operations. The P-63, not so much. Both should be very low priority aircraft, but I think the P-63 should be about as far down the list as you can get while still being on it.
That said, which performance information is correct? The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?
So by your logic the meteor should never be included also? If we use your logic then if we use your same logic the c-47 we have should not be in game....well as modeled. Unless you have a pilot shooting down an AC with his sidearm documented.
.....
That said, which performance information is correct? The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?
.....show me a primary source that confirms a P-63 dropping bombs on a Japanese tank, bunker, truck park, ice cream stand, WHATEVER, and great--but it's the ONE thing being used to "conclusively" support the P-63's addition....
It's not whether or not an aircraft shot down another aircraft. It's whether that aircraft saw combat operations. The C-47 didn't shoot down an enemy plane, but has a VERY well-documented record of participation in combat operations at D-Day, Market Garden, etc. The Meteor has a confirmed combat record against V-1 bombs and ground-support operations. The ONLY evidence being repeated about the P-63 seeing combat is the ONE "it has been mentioned" story that the P-63 recorded a kill so THAT'S why a primary source is important. We don't know if every repeat of this is drawing from the same primary source, or if it's a literary version "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who was there." It's not the kill itself that matters--show me a primary source that confirms a P-63 dropping bombs on a Japanese tank, bunker, truck park, ice cream stand, WHATEVER, and great--but it's the ONE thing being used to "conclusively" support the P-63's addition.So the claim that the P-63 shot down a KI was not during a combat operation? I know they were up for a joy ride.
Otherwise, the ONLY thing we have to go on is that units equipped with the P-63 were being deployed forward in the last week of the war. That doesn't mean they were actually seeing combat when the war ended.
So the claim that the P-63 shot down a KI was not during a combat operation? I know they were up for a joy ride.
Which is it combat operation or a confirmed kill? You can't have it both ways ....arse.
Keep spinning... it is amusing... pick a bar because if its a confirmed kill? You best start lobbying for an armed skytrain.
How many times are you going to ignore the point of what I'm saying?
1) P-63 supporters are using the same "it has been mentioned" story of a P-63 shooting down a disputed type of Japanese aircraft as definitive evidence the type saw combat.
2) NO OTHER SOURCE EXPLICITLY PLACES THE P-63 IN COMBAT ACTION. This is the ONLY story that directly states the P-63 saw actual combat, everything else only MAY be placing P-63s in-theater. However the F7F and P-51H were ALSO in theater in the last week of the war, but that doesn't mean they actually saw combat (actually, the Tigercat is a good comparison due to a supposed encounter in which it lit an enemy aircraft up on radar before said enemy vamoosed).
3) No one has been able to provide the original PRIMARY SOURCE for this incident.
I'M not the one who originally hinged everything on whether it did or did not shoot down an enemy plane, the guys using that incident to support the P-63's addition did. However that's the ONLY direct evidence given of the type seeing combat. If it can't be conclusively shown that incident ever occurred, then the only thing that can be said is that the P-63 was in or being moved to the theater when the war ended. It can NOT be said that it actually saw combat.
If they did or did not shoot it down .... they had to be up either way.... arse.
That said, which performance information is correct? The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?
That said, which performance information is correct? The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?
That said, which performance information is correct? The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?
How many times are you going to ignore the point of what I'm saying?
1) P-63 supporters are using the same "it has been mentioned" story of a P-63 shooting down a disputed type of Japanese aircraft as definitive evidence the type saw combat.
2) NO OTHER SOURCE EXPLICITLY PLACES THE P-63 IN COMBAT ACTION. This is the ONLY story that directly states the P-63 saw actual combat, everything else only MAY be placing P-63s in-theater. However the F7F and P-51H were ALSO in theater in the last week of the war, but that doesn't mean they actually saw combat (actually, the Tigercat is a good comparison due to a supposed encounter in which it lit an enemy aircraft up on radar before said enemy vamoosed).
3) No one has been able to provide the original PRIMARY SOURCE for this incident.
I'M not the one who originally hinged everything on whether it did or did not shoot down an enemy plane, the guys using that incident to support the P-63's addition did. However that's the ONLY direct evidence given of the type seeing combat. If it can't be conclusively shown that incident ever occurred, then the only thing that can be said is that the P-63 was in or being moved to the theater when the war ended. It can NOT be said that it actually saw combat.
HUH fastest climbing...fastest rolling... second best turn..... late war monster... period.
Still should be near last if not last plane added.
HUH fastest climbing...fastest rolling... second best turn..... late war monster... period.
Still should be near last if not last plane added.
The order of Battle of those involved in August Storm was done by George Mellinger who has been in the Soviet archives.
The burden of proof hasn't changed: Just being in the theater before Japan's capitulation isn't enough (otherwise the 51H and F7F would be in without debate as well). Someone has to show DEFINITIVELY that the P-63 actually saw combat.
Isn't it significant, then, that Mellinger didn't say anything about this incident more conclusive than the same "It has been mentioned" story we've seen elsewhere?
The problem with just having an Order of Battle for that week is it doesn't necessarily mean they actually saw combat. Most of what was posted earlier in this thread about that period is that many of those units were still transitioning into the type from other machines, so they may not have been combat ready yet. Also compare the P-51H, which was also in-theater and flew sorties to familiarize pilots with the type, but never actually engaged in combat.
The burden of proof hasn't changed: Just being in the theater before Japan's capitulation isn't enough (otherwise the 51H and F7F would be in without debate as well). Someone has to show DEFINITIVELY that the P-63 actually saw combat.
The sameargument can be used to include the two YP-80s in Italy as well. They flew in a Combat Theater.
What Saxman is trying to say is, as far as the "evidence" goes, a P-63 allegedly shot down a Ki-something. Otherwise, it was just flying around in a Combat Theater.
Is there any other info of Soviet operations in Manchuria in general otherwise. I know they were there but nothing other.
wrongway
Fair enough. Now I have to know for sure. Got the David Glantz book "August Storm' ordered now :)
There will be an answer to be found
I don't think the P80s are a fair comparison as we're talking 2 that were assigned to the 1st FG, not 6 complete units of P80s like the Soviets had on August 1, 45 for their operations against the Japanese. How much those birds got used against the Japanese is certainly open to question, but it's a bit different in my eyes to a couple of pre-production birds going to a unit for the combat pilots to check out.
I agree. I'm stretching it to the breaking point. But, we have six units of P-63s and the only word of them is a pair allegedly shooting down a single Japanese aircraft.
Ground support? Anything else? Any other air operations?
Bueller?
wrongway
"Re-equipment of Soviet Air Force units with the Kingcobra continued after the end of the war in Europe. The type was used in combat against Japan at the Far East and Trans-Baikal Fronts. The 12th Air Army of the latter Front had its 245th (940th and 781th IAPs) and 190th (17th and 21 IAPs) IADs equipped with Kingcobras. ...Other Soviet P-63-equipped units in the Far East in the summer of 1945 were the Kamtschatka-based 128th SAD (888th and 410th IAPs - the latter having been equipped with Il-2s before as the 410th ShAP) and parts of the 7th IAD of the Pacific Ocean Fleet. In July 1945 the 128th SAD supported the Soviet landings on Shimushu (Kuriles). "
Ground support? Anything else? Any other air operations?
Bueller?
wrongway
Ground support? Anything else? Any other air operations?Soviet air force support of the Kuriles invasion:
Bueller?
wrongway
I know some of the anti Kingcobra crowd won't be happy about this, but I remembered that Hitech had in fact produced a P63C and it has been sitting on my shelf for years now.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/King.jpg)
Then there's acceleration:
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx48/Ironman5459/Accscan.jpg)
ibid
A bit surprising and again, that's most likely without the underwing .50 cal gondolas. But it also lists the P-63 at 1500hp combat power, not the correct 1800hp.
Saw this posted on another forum today. beautiful flying of a restored P63A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY2BGYMAYxo
Saw this posted on another forum today. beautiful flying of a restored P63ABeautiful AC thanks for posting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY2BGYMAYxo
Another significant difference between the P-63 and the Ta152 is that the Ta152 uses much of the Fw190D-9 geometry, making adding it easier, as compared to the P-63 which, despite superficial similarity to the P-39, would need completely unique geometry work. Likewise the P-47M uses P-47D geometry and the F4U-1C largely uses F4U-1A geometry.
The Twin Cities Aero Historians meeting is next weekend and I'm going to be able to attend so I'm hoping to find him there. If I hear something sooner, I'll post it.
He 111Don't even try to hijack once a thread reaches page 5, won't work
Any luck so far, Guppy?
How then did the Kingcobra perform in combat with the U.S. Army Air Forces? It didn’t – the only American use of P-63s as fighters were a few hundred employed as transition trainers in Advanced Training Units. Most, about 2,397, Kingcobras were provided to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease, ferried by U.S. and Soviet pilots via Alaska and then Siberia. As with the P-39, the Soviets used the P-63’s 37mm cannon for attacks on tanks and other armored targets and seemed to have good luck with them in air-to-air combat. However few details have been published about the later.
All this production and delivery effort resulted in the destruction of only one Axis plane, a Japanese fighter shot down during the invasion of Manchuria. The first P-63A regiment, the 28th IAP, was part of the Moscow area PVO, but there had been no raids on Moscow for three years. Most Kingcobras were still in Siberia when Germany had been defeated in May 1945. For the war against Japan in August, they equipped the 190th and 245th fighter air divisions (IAD) on the Transbaikal Front, while the 410th and 88th IAPs on Kamchata supported the attack on the Kuriles, and P-63s served the Soviet Pacific Fleet’s 7th IAD. That division’s 17th IAP scored the Kingcobras sole recorded victory over a Japanese fighter on August 15, 1945.
After the war, P-63s were flown by several VVS divisions and naval fighter regiments, until replaced by MiG-15 jets. As late as 1952, the P-63C was involved in Cold War episodes, when eight were destroyed by P-80s strafing a VVS base near Vladivostok, and those with a Soviet fighter regiment in Siberia unsuccessfully attempted to intercept RB-47 spy planes.
France also had the P-63C-5, receiving 114 from April to July 1945 as the war ended in Europe. From August 1949 to April 1951, four French groups flew ground support missions in Viet Nam.
http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=26 (http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=26)
http://www.americancombatplanes.com/p63_1.html (http://www.americancombatplanes.com/p63_1.html)
Someone go to Russia.
wrongway
We really need to go to Russia or get hold or a russian history expert via the internet. "Attack of the Airacorbas" which chronicles the P-39 use during WWII list active equipment rosters for units fighting the Germans in the Crimia, and lists P-63's in the those units. This reference is one that interests me the most. I will try to find it and post it again.
We really need to go to Russia or get hold or a russian history expert via the internet. "Attack of the Airacorbas" which chronicles the P-39 use during WWII list active equipment rosters for units fighting the Germans in the Crimia, and lists P-63's in the those units. This reference is one that interests me the most. I will try to find it and post it again.
Don't even try to hijack once a thread reaches page 5, won't workre the P=61:
I own that book and, as stated by the title, it is about the P-39 in Soviet service. It has a single reference to the P-63, which I have previously quoted and posted.
wrongway
There will be an answer to be found
Can you find that post? I lent my book to someone and they haven't returned it yet. I posted it here as well. I'll try to search it. I'm refering to the reference that shows P-63s in the Airacorba units. If I recall it was 17 Kingcobras in the squadron.
The only reference to the P-63 in the above book is pp 317-318 of the same chapter:
Quote
Regiments of the 9th Guards Fighter Division played an active role in the destruction of these encircled German forces from 26 April to 8 May. The division had 102 Airacobras on hand at the end of April, of which eighty-eight were serviceable and fourteen were unserviceable. Of the 103 assigned pilots, 91 were in units and considered combat-ready; 6 were deemed not combat-ready. A total of twenty-nine P-63 Kingcobra aircraft had arrived in the division during the month of April, received from the 6th Reserve Aviation Brigade. In addition, one P-39 had returned from a major repair shop. The 16th and 100th Guards Regiments were based at Neuhausen airfield and the 104th Guards Regiment at Yuterbog.
From page 5 of this thread:
That's it in the entire book. Of course it is a book about the P-39, not the P-63.
wrongway
I don't think they would just have P-63s arrive then use them the next day. It was a new craft. It had to be checked out, tested (there's always a ground check and a service flight after receiving new craft), show the pilots the differences, teach the ground crew how to service and replenish it, allow pilots many flight hours of practice to learn stall behavior and spin and other problems, etc... Gunnery practice perhaps....
1) The only planes accredited accredited to [a] pilot's count were the ones shut [sic] down over territory occupied by friendly units.
2) In the other cases the victories had to be confirmed by another unit (for example by ground troops; wingman or same-regiment claims not accepted).
so guys, to sum this 16 page long discussion up,
Does the P63 qualify for inclusion into aceshigh? YES, or NO?
i personally say YES, but im a cobra fan, so im a little biased.
I think it qualifies, barely.
There are a number of planes though that I think would be more important to get into AH to fill gaps in the planeset, and I say that as a big 'cobra fan. I love its looks, would love the performance increase over the P-39, and the ability to try it out in 'what-if' situations. Disappointed they'll be no star and bar skins though.
you know...it'd be great to have the P63 nightfighter...if we had night.
-1
you know...it'd be great to have the P63 nightfighter...if we had night.i believe you just defined what your signature asks :rofl
-1
Where are those <Facepalm> pictures when you need them?best i got.
An interesting website -
"Incompleted list of Soviet WW2 fighter aces" http://www.wio.ru/aces/ace2.htm
Surprise, surprise...there are P-63's referenced as flown by 3 of the aces.
Some interesting rules regarding Soviet kills (and I cannot verify the accuracy of these rules - any comment from the AH community?)
1) The only planes accredited to [a] pilot's count were the ones shut [sic] down over territory occupied by friendly units.
2) In the other cases the victories had to be confirmed by another unit (for example by ground troops; wingman or same-regiment claims not accepted).
It would still be a cool addition.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4648828346_329356e61d_b.jpg)
you know...it'd be great to have the P63 nightfighter...if we had night.
-1
P-61 is you'r friend. :noidI made that model when I was 6, It is A P61 that shot down A KI-46 Dinah :neener:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Northrop_P-61.jpg)
also i got a model of the plane and on the box is a japanese twin engine plane. umm if someone could identify the plane for me. that would be great thank you
.(http://www.swannysmodels.com/images/F15/boxart.jpg)
Have we seen proof that it saw combat yet?
Umm, the Ruskies had LOTS of them. Sure they were told not to use them against Germans, but do you really think they listened?? Hell no.Ok, provide the evidence.
I guarantee they had at leats 50 kills withthem, off the record.
From everything I can see Karnak, it would fit the same parameters as the Meteor. It was used in ground attack during that short Russian offensive against the Japanese. It at least had the one claim. Whether it's a valid 'kill' or not, I don't know we'll ever find out.