P63

[Mystery]

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.

I'd love to see the Ki-43, Beau, He111, Pe-2 and Wellington included, ditto the A-26 and Me-410. Plus some more of the YAK models and perhaps even the P-61 and at least one other Ki-84 variant, the Do-217 and others. With luck, clean living, a candle in the window and HTC's efforts I think we'll see all of them eventually.

The thread category is "Wishlist" and I'm wishing for the P-63. Less historically significant than others listed above? No doubt. Saw less action? Yes, think so. Meets criteria for inclusion? Yes - but not by much. "Core" - sadly, no. But I'm still wishing.

[Mystery]

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

(Image removed from quote.)

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 it

[Mystery]

From the chart Bronk posted, some impressions and comparisons:
1) WOW what a difference between Mfr Data and USAAF data.
2) Let's use the less-favorable USAAF data and compare speed against the LA-7 as modeled in AH.

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

Conclusion 1:
If you accept Mfr's data as correct, the P-63A-8 is nearly competitive with the LA-7 below 10K and faster above 10K at WEP output.
If you accept USAAF data as correct, the P-63A-8 is much slower than the LA-7 up to about 12K and is then a match but at WEP output only.

Conclusion 2:
The P-63A-8 is nearly a match for the LA-7 in rate of climb below 7K and climbs better than the LA-7 above that mark.

Sooooo...depending on whose data you chose - Widewing is correct, I'm correct or we both are  

Thanks again Bronk for the chart

Sorry for the table format; can't quite make everything line up

[moot]

Mystery, for tables:

1 line up your table
2 take each item for the top row and stick em in <td></td> brackets
3 take the whole top row and stick it in <tr></tr> brackets
4 do 2&3 for each following row
5 then adjust the inside each of the top row items with blank spaces to pad the columns left or right.

[Bronk]

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 it

America's Hundred Thousand

[Pigslilspaz]

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.   

[Karnak]

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.   

(Image removed from quote.)

I think you've mistakenly posted some other plane when you meant to post a picture of a Spitfire Mk VIII or Spitfire Mk XIV.

[oboe]

Oh Pig there is something odd about the height of the tail in that picture.   Looks too tall - doesn't it?   Here's a more normal looking tail:

[Bronk]

Dead sexy!



 

[Guppy35]

The tall tail P63 is the only produced P63F.  Didn't make it to production.

[tf15pin]

If the P-39 did not take flap damage on the first ping from anything I think I would fly it a lot more; the same thing goes for the P-40. Disengaging in a slow plane is difficult, disengaging in a slow plane with the flaps stuck down is torture.

[Vinkman]

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.

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. 

[oboe]

Truth is, I still think the older sister is the better looking one.   But having the '63s performance available might well end most of the MA sorties in the '39, so it would become as much a hangar queen as the P-40B.

I think a lot of people ask for planes based on what they think would benefit the game - filling holes in the planeset so substitutions aren't necessary, etc.  Other people ask for planes just because they have a thing for them personally.   

[Karnak]

Only because in your judgement, historical significance is the only thing that matters. Most poeple pick base on Playablility.

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. 

You can apply that argument to any proposed addition, thus it is so broad as to be useless.

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.

[STEELE]

I'm on to your trix, Wildcat    U want the Ki43 becuz it's twin 13mil mg's would have a heck of a time taking down an F4F or FM2