PDA

View Full Version : Did the P-63 KingCobra really have the best turning and climb performance of all US fighters?



XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:26 PM
Many people have said this,
I dont have any good statistics of
the P-63s climb & turn performance,
I just know it was a underestimated fighter,



http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2pics/ww2bellp63-0.jpg


<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/SigFS.jpg?0.6257472972436022 </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:26 PM
Many people have said this,
I dont have any good statistics of
the P-63s climb & turn performance,
I just know it was a underestimated fighter,



http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2pics/ww2bellp63-0.jpg


<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/SigFS.jpg?0.6257472972436022 </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:38 PM
I'm not huge on AC stats but I think the P-38 was the best US climber of the war.

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)

ZG77_Nagual
06-30-2003, 02:44 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvmry

Threads been locked but according to America's 100,000 - the p63 was second best turner next to the fm2 wildcat and, I believe, had the highest rollrate. Also - I believe, a very high rate of climb at low alts.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:44 PM
Compared to contemporary US fighter planes at low level, it had both, best climb, best turning radius.

Later, with introduction of planes like the Bearcat I don't know.

michapma
06-30-2003, 02:46 PM
I got a technical book on the P-39 and P-63 at home. If I can remember, I might post some info on it later. Sorry can't give more now.

Mike

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center"><font color="#">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project</font> (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%"><font color="#">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</font></td><td align="center">

<font color="#">SKULLS_Chap

<a href="http://www.skulls98.netfirms.com/il2/index.html" target="_blank" style="color: #191970; font-size: medium">The
SKULLS</a></font></p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"><font color="#">Hardware issues:
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:46 PM
Yeah well, I don't believe it is the super-fighter that some forum-members are making it.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://members.chello.se/ven/ham-pin.gif

ZG77_Nagual
06-30-2003, 03:06 PM
No - just very very good. I think the mkxiv spit will be better. It is, however, a great and unsung plane that should be in the game.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

fluke39
06-30-2003, 04:47 PM
If it was so good how come the only ones America hung onto were used as target practice? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/ffluke.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 04:58 PM
fluke39 wrote:
- If it was so good how come the only ones America
- hung onto were used as target practice?

Just no need for it. Production lines were already churning out other late war fighters and there was no unfulfilled role for a new fighter. And jets were ready to be the next great thing.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 05:05 PM
I am wondering how it would stack up against the F8-Bearcat... from what I have read about the plane it was awesome.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 05:29 PM
Lack of range, and it came to late. By the time the P-63 came along, the P-38, P-47 and P-51 were doin the job. It did see service under the red star. I think it was US's forgotten uber-plane.

Gib

fluke39 wrote:
- If it was so good how come the only ones America
- hung onto were used as target practice? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
-
-
- <center><img
- src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/ffl
- uke.jpg>
-



"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 05:50 PM
I'd think the 51 or F4U would have the best turning, but thats just me.

<img src=http://www.Super-Guppy.com/jg2899.jpg>
Executive Officer- I./JG28

ZG77_Nagual
06-30-2003, 06:04 PM
Russians reported the '63 superior in horizontal maneuvers to the yak9/yak3. America's 100,000 - which is based on actual tests - says only the fm wildcat turned sharper (p63 turns much sharper than mustang or corsair - according to the tests)

The aircraft didn't see much action with the us because the market was for long range fighter escorts - not interceptors. There is also some political stuff in their with Bell and whatnot - that's a little hazy though - but the upshot is it didn't have the range they were looking for. The brits needed interceptors - but they had the spit.

It's worthwhile to note that the p39 had a bad rep with the usaaf. But that this rep was formed when it was up against early-trained japanese pilots in zeros and oscars - the training and experience these guys had was incredible and they were phenomenal pilots. The requirements to even get into training in the japanese air forces was unbelieveable. Proper tactics were never really developed until later models started to come along - so the p39 probably suffered as much or more from the time and place where it first saw action as from any actual inadequacies it may have suffered from.

I allways thought the p39 was a beautiful plane, but, obviously a piece of junk. What I've learned since this simm came out has completely revised my view as I learned about how the vvs pilots flew this bird.

American sources do not, in general, provide much other than the party-line relative to these aircraft. They basically all just quote eachother.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg


Message Edited on 06/30/0301:07PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:32 AM
Just my opinion but being different ddidn't help eaither. Taht engine in the middle thing & then getting kicked around by the Japanese ("I mean is has to be the plane!")

and Americans rearely took anything off of a plane to lighten it like the Russians did. So once P-39 got a bad rep the P63 never really had a chance...




"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this earth." -Roberto Clemente

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:37 AM
Back in KIEV, we have a P39 plane in a open-air museum along with LAGG3, YAK3, and a Mig3.

It is very much considered a hardcore VVS plane at least in the circles i dealt with.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 11:18 AM
Quote : ""If it was so good how come the only ones America hung onto were used as target practice? ""
it had a limited range that is useless when you have hugh distances to patrol I.E. the PACIFIC OCEAN planes to patrol this was the focus to begin with of the american plane manufactures

quote : "" I'd think the 51 or F4U would have the best turning, but thats just me. ""

the P-63 ate them both at Turn Fighting .... just because the P-51 is a well knowen plane dosent mean it was a great dogfighting plane ... it was beaten in turn fighting by a lot of planes ... the F4U Corsair however was a awesome Turn fight plane .... both were beaten by the P-63

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 01:00 PM
fluke39 wrote:
- If it was so good how come the only ones America
- hung onto were used as target practice? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif -

For the same reason that if the P47 was so good
they basically scrapped them after WW2?

Post war you make economies. It seems they decided
that the P-51 (later F-51) was about the only
WW2 prop fighter worth hanging onto and simplified
maintenance by scrapping, dunping, mothballing, or
using the rest for target practice.

Another example is the B26 - lowest loss rate
of any US bomber AFAIK. Didn't last long after
WW2.

When you have a lot of types on your inventory,
and there is no longer a war you make rationalisations.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 03:16 PM
does anyone have any real prints from books or else that proves
that the P-63 really was this good against other
US and foreign fighters.

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/SigFS.jpg?0.6257472972436022 </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:05 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Lack of range, and it came to late. By the time the
- P-63 came along, the P-38, P-47 and P-51 were doin
- the job. It did see service under the red star. I
- think it was US's forgotten uber-plane.

Also with the French post war in Indochina.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 06:18 PM
bump

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/SigFS.jpg?0.6257472972436022 </center>