PDA

View Full Version : P63 Question



Zen--
02-16-2004, 10:57 AM
For all you familar with the plane, I'd like some comparisons between our VVS P39 in game and the US P63.

In particular I am curious about the climb rate of the P63...will it be better than the P39 and more importantly will it be better than the VVS P39 we have in game? My understanding is that the VVS P39 was stripped down in many ways to make it lighter. Under the assumption that the P63 is the pure US version, will the 63 outclimb the P39 we have in game?


No flames please, I don't care if the current P39 is overmodelled or not and don't care if the P63 will be overmodelled or not...just want some serious information on the differences between the two.

Thats one of the reasons I come to the forum, to be educated by those with more knowledge.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Zen--
02-16-2004, 10:57 AM
For all you familar with the plane, I'd like some comparisons between our VVS P39 in game and the US P63.

In particular I am curious about the climb rate of the P63...will it be better than the P39 and more importantly will it be better than the VVS P39 we have in game? My understanding is that the VVS P39 was stripped down in many ways to make it lighter. Under the assumption that the P63 is the pure US version, will the 63 outclimb the P39 we have in game?


No flames please, I don't care if the current P39 is overmodelled or not and don't care if the P63 will be overmodelled or not...just want some serious information on the differences between the two.

Thats one of the reasons I come to the forum, to be educated by those with more knowledge.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2004, 11:10 AM
Only a guess, but I'd expect the P-63 to be better in all respects than any P-39, Soviet or American.

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Only a guess, but I'd expect the P-63 to be better in all respects than any P-39, Soviet or American.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will be interesting if someone will bring the numbers, opinions I had enough.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2004, 01:59 PM
Couple of sites have some basic information:

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/fighter/p63/p63_en.htm
http://www.fighterplanes.net/kingcobra.html
http://m2reviews.cnsi.net/reviews/korean/cleaverp63c.htm
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p63_5.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp63.html

They don't all seem to have the full picture however...but it seems pretty close to give you a bit of an idea.

Maximum speed is listed as 410 mph at 25,000 feet. Thats fairly impressive...similar to the P-38 and close enough to the Mustang.

Everything that I've read indicates that the P-63 was a total redesign of the P-39. It took into account the problems with the P-39 and improved on the design. It was better balanced, more stable (thus the larger tail), had a more powerful engine, had better high altitude performance (the laminar flow wing did wonders for the P-63 as it did for the Tempest), and it had much better range. Infact it seems to have similar range as the Mustang...but without the supercharger.

Alot of sites seem to suggest that had the Mustang not come about (had the British not asked North American to build a fighter for them and then suggested use of a Merlin engine) then time probably would have been spent on developing a P-63 that would have been the USAAF's long range escort fighter. As it stood, the Soviets were interested in it enough and high altitude wasn't really an issue so it was the perfect fighter for them.

I think the P-63 will be a nasty surprise to quite a few. At a distance it may look like a P-39 but once you actually meet it in combat it'll be a very different picture.

Sorry Zen that I can't compair specific abilities but it looks like the P-63 will be quite a bit better than the P-39...so much so that its a different airplane to begin with and may be better compaired as the Mustang that never was.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

kyrule2
02-16-2004, 02:05 PM
Just some info from a book I have, not much of a comparison but just putting some numbers up,

Speed: 408mph (656km/h) at 24,450ft.
Time to 25,000ft = 7.3 minutes (nice!).
Ceiling: 43,000ft.
Range (clean): 450 miles.
Empty weight: 6,375lbs. (about 700 more than U.S. P-39Q I believe)
Power: P-63A (1,325hp), P-63C (1,510hp). About 125+, and 310+hp more than P-39Q I believe.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2004, 02:28 PM
Yup. A P-39 with a decent climb rate. *shudder*

Almost seems like the original FB P-39-N and -Q we all decried as an ueberplane.

Zyzbot
02-16-2004, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Couple of sites have some basic information:


Maximum speed is listed as 410 mph at 25,000 feet. Thats fairly impressive...similar to the P-38 and close enough to the Mustang.

and it had much better range. Infact it seems to have similar range as the Mustang...but without the supercharger.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The specs I can find indicate that the P-63 had about half the range of the Mustang. About 450 miles vs about 900 miles on internal fuel.

Since it was slower than the Mustang (about 410 mph vs about 437 mph) and had less range...there was no compelling reason to add yet another aircraft (with its own supply requirments and its own maintenance requirements) to the system.

Zen--
02-16-2004, 03:26 PM
Thanks for the info gentlemen, Ice that was a great post (nice photos too).

Kyrule, 7.3 minutes to 25000 feet?

The Dora is DOOOMED! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I appreciate the responses guys, I am mostly concerned with the climb rate since my online style is all based on energy performance. I can probably deal with a million new TnB planes, but new uber climbers is going to be a real challenge.

(I believe the challenge will be significant enough that I have started flying the A4 and A5 on late war servers just to get used to be outclimbed by everything, which btw has turned out to be an extremely entertaining endeavor to say the least. Try it!)

I am hoping that someone can elaborate on the differences between the P39 USAAF version, the P39 VVS version and the P63 USAAF version...if you can, I'd love to hear about it for reference sake.


For in game considerations, as I said, ultimately it really makes no difference about the modelling accuracy one way or the other, I just wanted to get an idea of what was likely to be put in game. I have an irrational fear of the P39 lately and the thought of a sooped up version is well, unsettling somehow.


I probably just ate some bad cheese or something, I'll snap out of it.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Cajun76
02-16-2004, 03:35 PM
Have to disagree, IceFire. In the hypothetical "Mustang Not" scenario, I believe the task of long range escort would have fallen to the backbone of the US fighter forces, the P-47. Imo, the developement of both the P-47M (XP-47M first flew mid-1943) and N (developement started in Nov. 1943, first flight June 22, 1944) would have been accelerated. P-38s would also have been used, but due to cost, pilot training and what not, the T-bolt M/N combo would seem to be the logical choice.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

horseback
02-16-2004, 03:40 PM
"Alot of sites seem to suggest that had the Mustang not come about (had the British not asked North American to build a fighter for them and then suggested use of a Merlin engine) then time probably would have been spent on developing a P-63 that would have been the USAAF's long range escort fighter. As it stood, the Soviets were interested in it enough and high altitude wasn't really an issue so it was the perfect fighter for them."

Ive heard similar types of comments applied to the P-40Q. My own opinion is that the P-47D's range would have been improved enough sooner so that in conjunction with the later model P-38J/L, the long range fighter issue would have been solved in roughly the same time frame even if the Merlin Mustang had never been developed.

The P-63 was another potential backup that could find a market with one of the Allies if something better didn't develop from one of the major types, or jets, didn't pan out right away.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

ZG77_Nagual
02-16-2004, 03:51 PM
Can't source it but I believe the p63 has very fast performance on the deck. It's if anything more aerodynamic than the very aerodynamic p39 and should have very good combat speed and acceleration. It has the highest roll rate of any US ww2 fighter and better performance at alt than the p39; ala - supercharger. It's turn is second only to the FM2 wildcat -(presumably the brewster turns better - but i don't think it was in america's 100k) making it the second best turning US fighter of the war (again -brewster caveat) My guess is it'll be comparable to the dora in speed, and climb - with way better low speed charachteristics and turn and perhaps a bit better accel - particularly in a shallow dive, and quite good e retention. High speed handling should be much better than the p39. We're getting the C5 which has 1800hp with boost. It's shortcomings were, I believe, timing and range - the niche was filled and we didn't need a dogfighter.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2004, 05:03 PM
Just to backup a bit of what I said about range. This site (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp63.html)
suggests that the P-63A-10 had a range of 2575 miles maximum and a range of 450 miles typical. The typical range isn't too special and I assume that the maximum range is with fuel tanks and optimal engine settings. I was under the impression that only the P-47N had a similar range and that the P-51D wasn't quite as far.

Its certainly a good point...there was P-40, P-47, and P-38 versions all as candidates for the role that the P-51 filled. Also in terms of P-63 speed there was a version called the P-63D which had an extra 30+ mph over the P-63C speed which brings it into range of the P-51D as far as speed goes. As already stated...the Mustang was already in production and there was no need for another escort fighter. Practically the P-63 was not useful to the USAAF.

My overall point is that its not a second rate fighter. It was a little late to the field and thats probably the thing that worked against it the most...but in an online battle on a free for all dogfight server its certainly going to make an impression on others in the server. I'm just hoping not too many people will be shocked and cry Wolf at it stating that its overmodeled when it outperforms the P-51 at low altitude. At high altitude...it should be entirely another matter.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Zyzbot
02-16-2004, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
suggests that the P-63A-10 had a range of 2575 miles maximum and a range of 450 miles typical. The typical range isn't too special and I assume that the maximum range is with fuel tanks and optimal engine settings. I was under the impression that only the P-47N had a similar range and that the P-51D wasn't quite as far.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Maximum range for the P-51 is listed as 2,600 miles by several sources I found.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2004, 05:19 PM
So very close then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Capt.LoneRanger
02-16-2004, 05:26 PM
As the pilots in the pacific said:

A P63 is a P39 faced with a Zero.

It's lighter armed, but should be more agile and have a better climb rate due to it's reduced weight. It also has less armor to it's tail and wings, adding more maneuverability to the cost of durability.


greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

kyrule2
02-16-2004, 05:33 PM
Good point about the climbers Zen. I do pretty well online but it seems lately that most of the time I get shot down it is a P-39. I know the FW-190 is faster in all years but it certainly doesn't seem like that at all. They seem to have no energy bleed whatsoever but who knows. The "get hit with 2 bullets and fly like a truck" bug for the 190 doesn't help either. I got hit the other night in an A-4 with very few .50 cal rounds from a great distance and my max speed quickly dropped to 440km/h with 110% throttle, radiator closed, and manual prop pitch (100%)! Hopefully the upcoming complex DM for the 190 will eliminate this. P-51's, P-47's, La's, Yaks, etc., no problem. Its the damn Airacobra that gives me the most problems as of late, the thing just seems to have an anti-gravity device installed. Maybe when the Soviets removed the armor that is what they replaced it with. But again, who knows.

Needless to say this whole P-63 thing has got me a little rattled. It's gotta be the cheese http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

VW-IceFire
02-16-2004, 06:29 PM
I went out for a little practice with the P39 a few hours ago on the AFJ server. Great time...but the P39 is definately much harder to handle than before. I flew the Q-10 which is pretty much the ultimate version we have...

1) Most planes can get away from you but its got a decent drive rate over short distances so you can catch most opponents.

2) It actually doesn't hold energy terribly well (in comparison to the P-47 or the FW190). If you make a hard turn it can sustain it better than a FW190 or most 109's but not much better. You can perhaps follow a La-7 over the short term but in a sustained turn the P-39 stalls out and tends to want to spin...something the FW190's do much less of (snap roll yes, spin out no).

3) It spins...god forbid if you get hit with a MK108 in a roll or high AoA manuver...it can easily make you spin.

The thing has excellent roll rate, its pretty fast, it climbs well, and the 37mm when you make contact is deadly. I even managed to get some kills with the cowl mounted .50 cals...which was impossible before (one was at a range of 700 meters!!).

While in previous patches it was fairly easy to fly...the P-39 now is much more difficult. Its got some great attributes...but its also got some serious vices. Respect to anyone who can competently fly this bird...I may fly it more often however...its a good challenge these days.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

SkyChimp
02-16-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
I am hoping that someone can elaborate on the differences between the P39 USAAF version, the P39 VVS version and the P63 USAAF version...if you can, I'd love to hear about it for reference sake.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zen,

According to Cobra! Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946 by Birch Matthews, Schiffer Books, there was no difference between P-39s delivered to the USAAF and those delivered to the VVS except that Bell removed the underwing gun pods from some models.

Here is a run-down of P-39 models and their substantial differences:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/types1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/types2.jpg

Here are normal gross weignts for the different models:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/allweights.jpg

Here is a weight summary of the P-39Q-1:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/weight.JPG

Now, I don't have a list of all that was stripped from the P-39 by the Soviets. I don't think that there were any set guidelines. I think it was all done in the field according to unit or pilot preference. Nevertheless, there were items that could be removed. The British juggled weights of their P-400s by removing and adding things. Here is a British chart that gives a good idea of those components that could be removed, and some of the things that were added:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/weightreduc.jpg

IIRC, some Soviet units removed gearbox armor and oil tank armor, as well as windsreen armor. See the P-39Q-1 chart for weights.

These charts and docs, and a little time with a pencil and piece of paper, should give you a pretty good idea as to what could be done with the P-39. I suspect, however, that there was no real standard VVS procedure with regards to reducing P-39 weight.

One more thing that is worth mentioning, the weights listed for the P-39 in the planes-page of this site have weights listed that are pretty close to normal US gross weights (IIRC).

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
02-16-2004, 09:12 PM
i was reading soviet pilot accounts that relayed they liked their P-39 more than the P-63 they got to test ?

if so why ?

BTW if the P-39 could be given the Hispano20mm it would be my main FB ride
, as its moddeled its a great DFer but that cannon requires expert aiming

T_O_A_D
02-16-2004, 09:23 PM
That and if they would of gotten rid of the doors and put on a true buble caopy it would be the best American ride out there for all around usefulness.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
i was reading soviet pilot accounts that relayed they liked their P-39 more than the P-63 they got to test ?

if so why ?

BTW if the P-39 could be given the Hispano20mm it would be my main FB ride
, as its moddeled its a great DFer but that cannon requires expert aiming<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
131st_Toad's Squad link (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
2.11 drivers (http://home.mchsi.com/~131st-vfw/NaturalPoint_trackIR_2_11.exe)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

SkyChimp
02-16-2004, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
That and if they would of gotten rid of the doors and put on a true buble caopy it would be the best American ride out there for all around usefulness.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did it. P-63D. Only 1 or 2 made, IIRC.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

T_O_A_D
02-16-2004, 10:03 PM
Well then when can we have it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Do you have any pics.

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
131st_Toad's Squad link (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
2.11 drivers (http://home.mchsi.com/~131st-vfw/NaturalPoint_trackIR_2_11.exe)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

Gibbage1
02-16-2004, 10:36 PM
Well the P-63 will be very good down low and at medium altitudes. The Luftrunners wont be able to run unless they are in a Jet. Not even the vaulted Ta-152 will be able to run.

It will be more nimble then the P-39, BUT you wont have a stall warning due to the Laminar flow wings.

More firepower because it has a LOT more 37MM ammo. So I wont need to "stair the rod" when tagging a flopping FW-190.

It will be rather..... Nasty and I guarantee there will be a rather large fallowing of anti-King whiners in here after the release of the add-on when people find the K-14 cant out-climb it, G-6 cant out-fly it, and the D-9 cant out-run it. It will change how the Luftrunners fly, BE SURE!!!

Gib

Copperhead310th
02-17-2004, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well the P-63 will be very good down low and at medium altitudes. The Luftrunners wont be able to run unless they are in a Jet. Not even the vaulted Ta-152 will be able to run.

It will be more nimble then the P-39, BUT you wont have a stall warning due to the Laminar flow wings.

More firepower because it has a LOT more 37MM ammo. So I wont need to "stair the rod" when tagging a flopping FW-190.

It will be rather..... Nasty and I guarantee there will be a rather large fallowing of anti-King whiners in here after the release of the add-on when people find the K-14 cant out-climb it, G-6 cant out-fly it, and the D-9 cant out-run it. It will change how the Luftrunners fly, BE SURE!!!

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well thank God for that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

& to all the ones are are gonna Pi$$ & whine about it..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

WUAF_Badsight
02-17-2004, 02:45 AM
we already got a plane to do just that Copperhead

the KI-84 !

& yes people moan & whine about it

we are going to get Spit haters & P-80 haters & P-63 & TA-152 haters even more than we do now

BTW a D12 & Spit22 would also be great to punish Bf109s with

kyrule2
02-17-2004, 06:42 AM
Icefire, I think you are one of the best posters on this board but to say the P-39 doesn't hold energy particularly well....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/