P63

[Vinkman]

The logic is applied because of the existing planeset......not starting from scratch.

I kind of agree with your logic, in that I would put more priority on planes that provide something new and different from a performance or combact perspective. I would also priotitize LW rides, because LW gets the most action by far.
I like dog fighting more than anything and spend almost all my time in single seat fighters, so for me new LW fighters are of the most interest.

A lot of folks try and love the P-39, but it's too slow for LW and eventually they give it up because of that liability. I think this is most of the reason the plane get's little use. The P-63 fiixes that deficiency, carries twice the ammo for the cannon [the fun gun] and can out turn a P-38, 51, and P-47. So I'm more optimistic that it would get more use. I like dog fighting in P-39. It's nimble and has plenty of tricks. It just runs out of E against LW planes. I think the extra power [1800hp vs 1300hp] and ammo [58 vs 30 rounds] that the P-63 provides, would push this plane past a lot of rides in the LW stable and give the players a competive Cobra that they would pick quite often. The gun package, visibility, and handling characteristics make this plane very unique, fun, challenging, and different dogfighting experience compaired to LW fighters. The P-39, can't fill this roll, because unfortunately it's just not a LW fighter.

 

[Krusty]

begin training for kamikazi attacks against Soviet tanks

Now that is surprising. And the epitome of closeminded foolishness on their part. Even trading 1 for 1, they had maybe a couple hundred (most likely a lot less) against 50,000 Soviet tanks.

They'd still have about 49,800+ tanks rolling over their border.

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.

As an aside to previous comments: The P-63 is also not based on a P-39 at all. It won't minimize the work because it's similar to the P-39. Not 3D nor flight model is remotely the same. The P-63 was larger in all dimensions from the P-39. Despite superficial similarities, it was a totally different airframe, wing (laminar flow more like P-51 design, perhaps hinting at how efficient it would be with turn fighting), tail, etc. Center of gravity was moved much more forward, and other balances were changed/modified. It would be a from-scratch flight model.

[Vinkman]

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.

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.
But....But...every 109 except the Emil, and every 190, C205, F6F, will all equal to or faster than a P-39. (and out turn it if you do catch them). The P-39 can out turn a Pony and all 190s.

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.

I was careful not to say the P-63 out turns a P-39. I think they are close but I have not seen a camparison. The data I have seen in B.Mathew's book shows the wing area increased by 15% but the weight is up by about that much too, so I assumed the wing loading was a wash. the move to laminar from standard might negatively impact it as you said, But the book also says it easily out turns a P-38, and a P-51 (it's "laminar" but a very different design), but doesn't publish turn rates vs Speed vs Flaps so I have no idea what that really means. However, I agree it probably isn't better than a P-39, but I don't think it's degraded back to P-51.

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.

I said it fixes that deficiency in a Cobra. I don't want to lose everything about the cobra just to go faster. If there's a faster Cobra I'd get to fly Cobras. Otherwise your logic suggests all we need are Ponies and Zekes because you either want to go fast or turn. Are you asking why would anyone fly anything else but the bookends?

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.

All the little atributes of a plane make them unique. That's the fun. But a 500hp and 60mph increase is not a small increase. That's as big or bigger than the difference between a P-51A (alison) and The P-51B (merlin) version. If all we had was the P-51A would you make the case the P-51B wasn't different enough? 

[icepac]

I believe most motivation for flying an earlier war ride in the arenas that's not a speed demon is either turning ability or fiepower......or both in the case of the hurricane.

[Bronk]

Instead of the hyperbole master lets see what a respected board member had to say about the Kingcobra.

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

[Mystery]

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!

[Hap]

My gut and the AH2 criteria for inclusion says the P-63 is just barely acceptable for inclusion in the game. Just barely.

me163 nufsed.  i've no dog in this fite, but my basic phil is the more the merrier.

[Karnak]

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.

[moot]

They don't know any better and can you blame them?  Those planes are simply obscure.  Whether or not that's the fate they deserve from an wingnut and historian POV.

What could work is to make some kind of .. whats the word.. centerfold?  For the best of these most-needed planes, in either GD or AC forum, for those guys' benefit.  Myself I don't know more than the names and for some of em what they roughly looked like.. Ki 44, 43, 45, 46, J2M..  Some of those names are probably wrong and I'm pretty sure those aren't the top ones we need.

[Karnak]

P-63 is more obscure than the Wellington and He111 for sure and certain.  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.

[moot]

The He 111 is iconic for sure but myself I have no idea what a Wellington is.  I did hear about the P63, probably could recognize its shape pretty easily before I knew its name.  I don't know anything about the Japanese fighters. 

I'm saying it's very easy to not know about them.  They lost the war, aren't particularly the kind of animal that best fits US wingnuts/pistonheads' tastes, and overall don't get much/any coverage compared to iconic types..  It's probably hard to not know about em if you do have more than passive enthusiasm for warbirds, but even then (e.g. me) it's very easy to never find out about them.  I probably came across each of them a few times, but because they weren't what I was looking for, the name/mugshot never stuck.

Anyway, if they're that significant and interesting in their own right, a thread for all/each of them as a kind of expose would go a long way in fostering the interest they deserve.

[Karnak]

The Wellington was the most produced British bomber of WWII, over 11,000 built.  I am sure our British and German friends in the game would be vastly more likely to recognize the Wellington than they are the P-63.  Many a thread has been posted, but due to them not being "superplanes" the guys who ask for jets and P-63s and the like don't read them.

[moot]

.. So that's what that thing's called huh

IMHO the dearth of eclectic information as the above post (gist + nice pics, and maybe detailed specs and historical context* below such a brief intro) serves only to reinforce that ignorance of and apathy to the non-uber WWII fauna  


* and I dare anyone to find an aircraft type that saw significant action in WWII, that doesn't have at least one or two read-worthy AARs or something.

[Tyrannis]

to me, the p39 isent flown much in the LW arenas because its a plane that doesnt perform well at high altitudes, its main battleground is low alts. but most ppl in LW (not saying ALL) are alt monkeys and fly planes suitable for that. ive flown the p39 awhile ago, landed 7 kills in a furball. i consider it a vastly underestimated plane.



i dont think the D model gets flown much in EW because most ppl in EW fly ether spits or hurricanes, in which both planes can outperform the p39D except in a dive.  the D is more used for deacking in there.


 i feel the best arena to fly the p39 is MW. it seems to do well in there for some reason.


on a sidenote, on the episode "great planes" of the P39, it stated that the p39 was sent to britain for there consideration into there airforce, when matched against the spitfire, the british concluded that a p39 COULD outturn a spitfire, but couldnt outperform it in the vertical. and this is why they went with the spitfire over the p39, anyone know how accurate that statement is?

[Bronk]

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!

Here have a look at this and get back to me. Pay attention to wet WEP.