PDA

View Full Version : What do you thnk of the P63?



Jex_TE
11-04-2008, 03:48 AM
I flew this the other night online and loved it. It seems really fast and a 57(?) shot cannon. Cockpit is a little annoying but ok. I downed 2 bombers - it's all I seem to shoot at the moment - i just keep coming across them. Did the P63 see much action in WW2?

McHilt
11-04-2008, 03:57 AM
Nice A/C! I love to fly it.
Landing can be a bit tricky though... because of the long nosewheel.
Good dogfighter but I don't like the rearview as it's blocked out.

VVS used it a lot.

dirkpit7
11-04-2008, 04:22 AM
I have flown this plane very little but one thing I know it has terrible visibility from the cockpit.

Check the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63) for (brief) operational history.

general_kalle
11-04-2008, 05:28 AM
if you fight contemporary planes i prefer the predececcor the p39 as it will have better odds against contomporary planes.

when you pitt the P63 against lat japanese planes or russian Yak9 and La7 its hard to come out on top...however its an exellent bomber killer. Same goes for the P39

Enforcer572005
11-04-2008, 08:34 AM
The VVS used it in combat in the closing yr of the war, but info on said use seems to be a bit lacking in detail.

I like the machine myself, but you need to keep your speed up and some altitude so you can dive away, like in the P-39. It also doesn't like to climb very fast, but it's better than a P-39, both in the sim and reality.

The American accounts of its performance that I've seen are very sporadic, but they seem to like its performance at low alt, and I've even seen comparisons to Allison powered P-51As at low alt, but Americans never used it in combat.

I certainly feel it's a better fighter than any of the P-40 variants, both in the sim and reality.

I always use the wing guns though, as the two 50s in the nose just aren't enough.

I've used it a bit in my current 1947 east west cmpn project, and if you let your guard down, the AI (average and vet) will clobber you.

Divine-Wind
11-04-2008, 08:44 AM
The P-39/-63 are all very fun to fly, at least for me. I prefer the -39 though as there are a million loadout options. And .50 caliber gunpods.

Jex_TE
11-04-2008, 10:20 AM
I counted 57 cannon rounds from it which i thought did come from the nose? What I was firing was taking wings of bombers with one hit and the fire rate was just under 1 a second with a default loadout.

Wildnoob
11-04-2008, 10:46 AM
if someone know, why the US do not allowed the VVS to use it's P-63s in the war in europe ?

the planes were only allowed to be used only in the far east against the empire of japan. and they whe actually used there during operation august storm.

but as I previosly asked, why this restriction ?

the VVS used the P-47 in very small numbers in the war against germany, but used it. altougth I already hear that maybe secretly some units used this aircraft. but it's a contradiction, because soviet reports show the P-63 used only in operation august storm.

I was thinking about this but can't find a reason.

cited the P-47 because it was a first line US figther. if the P-47 was allowed to be used agaist the axis in europe, why the P-63 not ?

jarink
11-04-2008, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Jex_TE:
I counted 57 cannon rounds from it which i thought did come from the nose? What I was firing was taking wings of bombers with one hit and the fire rate was just under 1 a second with a default loadout.

That would be the 37mm cannon firing through the propeller hub. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

The P-63 is pretty fast and maneuvers well enough to be competitive with other contemporary late-war fighters.

Where it fails is in the armament. At first it appears to be comparable to a late BF-109 (2x12.7mm MGs and a 30mm Mk-108 all in the nose), but the 37mm used on the P-39 and P-63 is not as good as the Mk-108. Sure, it packs a good punch, but it is a much slower round and it's trajectory is more like a mortar shell than a MG round. On the few times I tried flying it, I found that I did better when I used the cannon and .50s separately, especially if there was any kind of deflection shooting involved.

Aaron_GT
11-04-2008, 11:04 AM
The main issue with it in the game is that the nose cannon can sometimes lead to graphical stutters.

A few times I've had luck with it at long range shooting, but with the trajectory you have to get in close with the 37mm against fighters, but then the P-39 was really designed to be a high altitude bomber interceptor and a long range cannon lobbing shells against large lumbering targets made sense. All the stuff to give it decent high altitude performance got removed before the P-39 entered service, though.

berg417448
11-04-2008, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
if someone know, why the US do not allowed the VVS to use it's P-63s in the war in europe ?

?

I've never read about such a restriction. Where did you see it documented?

I have read that by the time the war in Europe ended there were only a very small number of P-63s delivered to the Soviets and worked up with operational units so they could not have made much use of them there.

SterlingX
11-04-2008, 01:36 PM
Engine mounted 2x .50 cals alone are plenty for a PK or engine kill, and it's not that difficult to get those with some deflection, without specifically aiming for them. Hop into a SBD and turn fight or BnZ a 109G-6, and you'll see.

The M-4 needs one and a half times more deflection than the MGs, but that's still much less than what the mk108 needs. The mk108 has a much higher rate of fire, but has only 6 sec of firing time and the M-4 has 30 sec.
Overall the M-4 is better, high deflection shots are possible, plus you can take single shots all day and not run out of ammo.

As a plane, the P63 can easily hold its own against 109s and 190Ds and dives well (unlike the Las and Yaks). It also has a fairly good view over the nose, the gunsight is higher than in most other planes.

Wildnoob
11-04-2008, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
I've never read about such a restriction. Where did you see it documented?

"By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East for an eventual attack on Japan."

source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra

I know that many people don't see Wikipedia as a good source, but the article as excellent quality and references to it's creation.

berg417448
11-04-2008, 02:52 PM
I wouldn't take Wikipedia as a reliable source without any footnoted citations. I'd prefer a citation of an actual document.

ImMoreBetter
11-04-2008, 03:04 PM
The P-63 is a great plane in my opinion.

Except for the fact that even sneezing practically tears it in half.

VW-IceFire
11-04-2008, 10:17 PM
Good plane...plenty fast at low altitudes, good diving and decent climbing...its a solid contender that gets ignored most of the time.

Works well enough against German and Japanese late war fighters although it suffers from being a larger target (typical of American fighters) and the armament is sub par for fighter-fighter combat. I think its best used as a tactical fighter...drop the bombs, use the main gun on anything that it can handle...and then keep the machine guns for shooting fighters on the way back.

WTE_Galway
11-04-2008, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
if someone know, why the US do not allowed the VVS to use it's P-63s in the war in europe ?

the planes were only allowed to be used only in the far east against the empire of japan. and they whe actually used there during operation august storm.

but as I previosly asked, why this restriction ?

the VVS used the P-47 in very small numbers in the war against germany, but used it. altougth I already hear that maybe secretly some units used this aircraft. but it's a contradiction, because soviet reports show the P-63 used only in operation august storm.

I was thinking about this but can't find a reason.

cited the P-47 because it was a first line US figther. if the P-47 was allowed to be used agaist the axis in europe, why the P-63 not ?

Such an agreement would explain why they were mainly assigned to Moscow defense but its the first I have heard of it.

Possibly the Americans were trying to induce Russia to take on Japan. The Soviets were very wary of engaging the Japanese while the war in Europe continued.

Whatever the reasons, despite several thousand p-63s being delivered to the USSR only one soviet combat kill was ever recorded by the type, from memory a single ki was shot down in Manchuria.