P-63 King Cobra

[Karnak]

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.

[Saxman]

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.

 

[TnDep]

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.

[Vinkman]

But he hasn't heard of it, so it must not have been significant to the war.

 

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. 

[Karnak]

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.

[TnDep]

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.   

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.

[Karnak]

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.

[TnDep]

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

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

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.

[Vinkman]

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.

[sandwich]

Is it true it could hold 60 taters?

And another thing, How do you find out the ammo load of the planes?

[Saxman]

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.

[Soulyss]

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/soviet_navel_aerial_kills_augus.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

[straffo]

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]

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.