P-63 KingCobra......again

[bozon]

I would be more afraid of the yak3p than of any other prop-plane due to its combined performance.

Especially if it inherits the suspicious FM of the Yak3.

[Randy1]

Maybe the answer is planes like the P-63 are in but they can not acquire perk points. 

[bozon]

Maybe the answer is planes like the P-63 are in but they can not acquire perk points. 

Who cares about perk points? Half the planes that used to be perked are now unperked and it does not look like new ones are going to be perked. I am accumulating perks at an alarming rate and soon HTC will have to patch AH to make the variable that stores my perk account a double integer. The only use for my perks is to fly jets to prevent others from flying jets.

I'd happily pay perks for P47-M/N, Mossie XXX (if added), loadout of bombs larger than 500lbs, etc. Until that happens (never it seems) perks points are useless.

[Butcher]

Who cares about perk points? Half the planes that used to be perked are now unperked and it does not look like new ones are going to be perked. I am accumulating perks at an alarming rate and soon HTC will have to patch AH to make the variable that stores my perk account a double integer. The only use for my perks is to fly jets to prevent others from flying jets.

I'd happily pay perks for P47-M/N, Mossie XXX (if added), loadout of bombs larger than 500lbs, etc. Until that happens (never it seems) perks points are useless.

I agree, I kept screenshots of all my perks before I quit playing, I was roughly around 14,000 fighter perks (after only 1 1/2) years of playing before I terminated my account. Before that I had roughly over 10,000 fighter perks again before I quit.

Perks are easy to come by, GV perks for example - every time I lost 15 perks in a Panther I'd get it right back in a T34 or PAnzer 4 F. So technically I always "Gained" perks in a tour rather then lose even if i used a panther the entire tour.

[Megalodon]

ME-163... In
TA152... In
P-47M... In
P-63... Yes. 

 Absoooolutely!!!....... we can call them the "1 month club"  .....If we look at the Ta and its intended flights we could call it "1 and done"   

[Tank-Ace]

P-63 got kills, served in combat strength and in combat. JagdTiger did as well, and Ferdinand, and He-162 and G-10.

Do-335 however, sorry it wasn't in production. It cannot be a prototype, while the Jagdtiger's numbers were low it did serve in combat on numerous areas of operation. However - fuel and Allied tactical planes posed more of a threat to the J.tiger then anything else rendering it "useless".
Ferdinand was used in Kursk Operation, it was deemed a failure - although massive armor and an awesome gun was plagued by a simple lack of a machine gun, maneuverability and it guzzled gas like no tomarrow.

Not sure why you would want the G-10, Its inferior to the K-4 (which was in production) and marginally better then the G-14 if any at all (I can't recall). Its nothing like in the old days of Aces where the G-10 had the K-4 engine with a 20mm option.

He-162 is a questionable problem, while it was in squadron strength (A training squadron) They simply had no fuel to fly. I cannot recall if it ever flew combat missions, most likely it did because I lobbied for it a while back along with the Meteor.

What kills did the P-63 get? Unless I missed something, there's a few stories floating around about the P-63 maybe shooting down a Japanese fighter in the far East.

That's even less credible than the stories about the Maus being used; they, at least, remain consistent about what happened for the most part.

And I want the G-10 because (IIRC) it had a bit higher critical altitude, and could break 425mph at alt.

[Megalodon]

What kills did the P-63 get? Unless I missed something, there's a few stories floating around about the P-63 maybe shooting down a Japanese fighter in the far East.

That's even less credible than the stories about the Maus being used; they, at least, remain consistent about what happened for the most part.

And I want the G-10 because (IIRC) it had a bit higher critical altitude, and could break 425mph at alt.

 The 152 was never flown for it's intended purpose go bark up that tree.

 Why does it have to have kills? Never heard that as part of the criteria and I'm certainly not saying it doesn't have any. The Boomerang dosn't have any kills  but was used  for 3 years.

The Russians had 2400 P-63's. You also know about the Russian record keeping. According to you they drove them around the field and played "Russian Roulette" in them or something.  


Ridiculous,

[Ack-Ack]

You completely missed my point. And I mean completely.

I'm saying that if we introduce a plane with zero kills, who is to say squadron strength is a requirement then? Hell, you're opening the door to the Do 335 and all its ilk, and you damn well known it.

The P-63 saw combat, not just flew combat operations but actually engaged on combat in the close support role.  Because the P-63 did see combat and flew in squadron strength, it does deserve to be added to the game eventually but I don't think it should be a high priority as the P-63 does nothing to fill in the existing holes in the plane set.

ack-ack

[Shifty]

Absoooolutely!!!....... we can call them the "1 month club" 

Looks better everytime I read it. 

[Butcher]

What kills did the P-63 get? Unless I missed something, there's a few stories floating around about the P-63 maybe shooting down a Japanese fighter in the far East.
That's even less credible than the stories about the Maus being used; they, at least, remain consistent about what happened for the most part.

Actually your wrong, the P-63 is far more credible as its proven it was in combat and flew in combat strength. The Maus never seen combat. Period. End of story. The V1 (first Maus produced) had no gun and a wooden turret. The V2 was blown up by its crew after trying to evacuate and the tank broke down. It did not fire a shot, fact is the tank was blown apart from internally either from the crew detonating something inside or the fuel tanks. Either way it was not in combat.

What is sitting in the Russian Moscow Museum is a Maus tank (The body of the V1 and the Turret of the V2) (or the other way around?) either way it was pieced together for testing purposes by the Russians.
There are hundreds of myths behind the MAUS, the most credible thing I can actually find about it - that Hitler wanted to use the MAUS to plug holes in the Atlantic Wall because frankly the MAUS was nothing more then a stationary pillbox with big guns.

P-63 Seen combat, was in multiple squadron strength. If the luftwaffe bothered to put planes in the sky in 1945 then the P-63 would have a kill sheet, fact is however after Operation Bodenplatte the Luftwaffe virtually didn't exist. Operation Plunder and Operation Varsity are key examples of what pure airpower do,
the western allies tore apart what was left of the luftwaffe as well as any transportation structures left in Germany.

How can the P-63 have an impressive kill sheet if neither the Luftwaffe or japanese bothered to go up in the air? Simple fact is neither could, if they did they were quickly shot down.

[Tank-Ace]

If the P-63 didn't get aerial kills, I think it's lower on the priority list than almost most aircraft that did get kills.

And the Ta-152 not being used in its intended role is entirely irrelevant. No B-29's in Europe means none are there to intercept. But it still got kills, which is seemingly more than the P-63 can say.

And the Spit16 still got kills, as I understand it. No reason the P -63 couldn't have gotten at least 1. If it didn't, that's a damn shame, but circumstances don't change anything.

[Vinkman]

If the P-63 didn't get aerial kills, I think it's lower on the priority list than almost most aircraft that did get kills.

And the Ta-152 not being used in its intended role is entirely irrelevant. No B-29's in Europe means none are there to intercept. But it still got kills, which is seemingly more than the P-63 can say.

And the Spit16 still got kills, as I understand it. No reason the P -63 couldn't have gotten at least 1. If it didn't, that's a damn shame, but circumstances don't change anything.

they do because Combat is the criteria, not "got a kill". If combat meant ground support then his point is, add it based on that, and if people mostly use it as a fighter, than it will be the same as many AH planes that are used differently then how they were used in the war.

[Vinkman]

The P-63 saw combat, not just flew combat operations but actually engaged on combat in the close support role.  Because the P-63 did see combat and flew in squadron strength, it does deserve to be added to the game eventually but I don't think it should be a high priority as the P-63 does nothing to fill in the existing holes in the plane set.

ack-ack

thank you ack. I just think the plane will add more to the game (usage, fun) than some of the gap fillers so I would but on the next vote list. 

[save]

he162 had kills and where shot down ...

[Karnak]

And the Spit16 still got kills, as I understand it.

Many kills.  The myth that the Spit XVI barely got any use (39 hours of combat I seem to recall being claimed) or kills is based on a single Spitfire Mk XVI's service record out of more than 1000 built.  And that completely ignores that the Spitfire Mk XVI is nothing more than a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe with an American built Merlin 266 instead of a Rolls Royce Merlin 66 of the same power output.  The different mark number is for maintenance purposes because the Merlin 266 needed different tool sizes than the Merlin 66, the two fighters are otherwise identical and rolled off the production lines side by side with mark not being determined until the engine was installed.

About 3,000 Spitfire LF.Mk IXe/Spitfire Mk XVI's were built starting in late 1943.