PDA

View Full Version : P-63: a UFO????



drose01
01-04-2006, 01:08 AM
Does anyone here consider the p-63 a UFO? (i.e., overmodelled)

Online someone said something to that effect, first time I heard that opinion.

It does have good speed, decent maneuverability but the cannon is hard to hit with and the .50s are weak compared to 20 mm cannons.

I see it as kind of a step down from late war Las, Yaks, Spits 109s and Hayates.

AKA_TAGERT
01-04-2006, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
Does anyone here consider the p-63 a UFO? (i.e., overmodelled)

Online someone said something to that effect, first time I heard that opinion.

It does have good speed, decent maneuverability but the cannon is hard to hit with and the .50s are weak compared to 20 mm cannons.

I see it as kind of a step down from late war Las, Yaks, Spits 109s and Hayates. Got Track? "

HotelBushranger
01-04-2006, 01:17 AM
No, just because a plane performs well, that doesn't mean its a UFO. After all, why would the manufacturers develop a plane with the same performance as the previous ones? Just plain dumb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Freelancer-1
01-04-2006, 01:22 AM
I'm gonna say no. I definitely think it is not a UFO!

It takes some talent to fly, like all the P39/400 series. This thing will kick you in the @ss if you don't handle it with finnesse. The M10 is not a laser beam. It'll flip over and spin in a second and unlike the Spit/109 you can't magicaly pop it out of its spin.

No...not my definition of UFO.

ImpStarDuece
01-04-2006, 01:23 AM
We just have a 1945 P-63C version modelled, not the earlier P-63A, which would of seen the majority of combat with the VVS

The P-63C has a 2 stage, water injected V-1710-117, with a WEP rating of up to 1800 hp. The P-63A had a 2 stage V-1710-93, which was only rated to 1325hp.

So is it a UFO? No. It represents a service type and it hits its performance numbers.

Is it representative of a Eastern Front Kingcobra? Not really. P-63As would of seen service with the VVS in the first quarter of 1944. The P-63C wouldn't of seen service until the first quarter of 1945. There were some 2200 P-63s delivered to the USSR, about 800 of them would of been P-63Cs.

Badsight.
01-04-2006, 03:07 AM
a UFO in a CFS is a plane that performs better than its RL counterpart did

nakamura_kenji
01-04-2006, 04:53 AM
also describe plane I that be use thearte where should no be or much rare ufo.example P-63 in pacific(zeke v wildcat cough) was no russia no only people use during ww2 maybe wrong anyone be have info??

also be call plane ki-84-ic, go-229 bf-109z yp-80 also be ufo for me

Brain32
01-04-2006, 05:24 AM
also be call plane ki-84-ic, go-229 bf-109z yp-80 also be ufo for me
OK, but why Ki84 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif? I mean if ki84 is UFo what is...nah I won't say that because I'll just be flamed, but why ki84 really?

nakamura_kenji
01-04-2006, 06:19 AM
ki-84-IA ki-84-IB are no ufo

ki-84-IC ufo because few prototype build so much rare type should no see online server mean historical

Daiichidoku
01-04-2006, 10:17 AM
not a UFO

wonderful plane, really

as Badsight has stated in past, if the 63 had a 20mm instead of that 37mm, EVERYone would fly it

IMO, though, the DM IS kinda funky...
the engine simply never, ever quits...
fuselage is more indestructible than 2.04 ki84s or 1.22 yaks...
oddly enough, the wings seem to break off quite easily from hits

but the FM seems to be right....

faustnik
01-04-2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
IMO, though, the DM IS kinda funky.....

The P-63 DM has been messed up since it was introduced in PF. The P-63, Fw190, I-16 and Lagg3 are all part of the funky DM club. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JtD
01-04-2006, 12:09 PM
I think the only unknown thing about the P-63 is how the DM works on it. I have seen it falling apart easily, but I have also seen it taking massive amounts of damage more common to heavy bombers.

jds1978
01-04-2006, 02:52 PM
i don't know about the ET thing, but the P39/P400/P63 has got to be the ugliest AC made by Americans...

having said that, they are a real joy to fly

MLudner
01-04-2006, 03:05 PM
Well, beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I have always found the Aircobra to be one of the most beautiful prop fighters ever built.

SpartanHoplite
01-04-2006, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Well, beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I have always found the Aircobra to be one of the most beautiful prop fighters ever built.

Ditto, man.

SH

jds1978
01-04-2006, 03:30 PM
SpartanHoplite
Posted Wed January 04 2006 14:15
quote:
Originally posted by MLudner:
Well, beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I have always found the Aircobra to be one of the most beautiful prop fighters ever built.


Ditto, man.

SH


NO WAY (LOL) P63=the ugliest of the ugly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Don't take that the wrong way as asthetics were the last thing on an engineers mind when they constructed AC for global war

all jokes and thread hijacks aside, the DM should be looked at.

Kenji: I know what you are saying. I'll only fly fantasy planes against other fantasy planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

LStarosta
01-04-2006, 04:15 PM
OK... Your question is in itself an oxymoron.

If you identified the aircraft in question as a P-63, then it is no longer a UFO.

jds1978
01-04-2006, 04:35 PM
Daiichidoku
Posted Wed January 04 2006 09:17
not a UFO

wonderful plane, really

as Badsight has stated in past, if the 63 had a 20mm instead of that 37mm, EVERYone would fly it

very good point. that 37mm belongs on a tank, not an AC...total overkill, like detonating a 10 MT nuke to kill a fly.

raises all sorts of hades against ground targets though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-04-2006, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
OK... Your question is in itself an oxymoron.

If you identified the aircraft in question as a P-63, then it is no longer a UFO.

Not true.

When a term like UFO starts to have a definition, then things can be defined as UFOs, which means, identified. Identified as something which matches the defintion/description of a UFO.

VW-IceFire
01-04-2006, 05:37 PM
Doesn't seem to be a UFO to me...performs to specifications. The DM bug was fixed some time ago (part of the wing could not be hit by bullets) and its been pretty good since.

Its actually an ideal tactical fighter. I realize the USAAF didn't want to support another fighter type and the P-38, P-47, and P-51 were already doing the job quite nicely but had one of those faltered I can see the P-63 being one of the more useful tactical fighter-bombers recorded in history.

LStarosta
01-04-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
OK... Your question is in itself an oxymoron.

If you identified the aircraft in question as a P-63, then it is no longer a UFO.

Not true.

When a term like UFO starts to have a definition, then things can be defined as UFOs, which means, identified. Identified as something which matches the defintion/description of a UFO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you know it's a P-63, it's not a UFO.

BfHeFwMe
01-04-2006, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
was no russia no only people use during ww2 maybe wrong anyone be have info??


Possibly some Free French units near the end of the war, don't know if they flew any combat sorties though.

Unknown-Pilot
01-04-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
OK... Your question is in itself an oxymoron.

If you identified the aircraft in question as a P-63, then it is no longer a UFO.

Not true.

When a term like UFO starts to have a definition, then things can be defined as UFOs, which means, identified. Identified as something which matches the defintion/description of a UFO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you know it's a P-63, it's not a UFO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol

Now I'm waiting for the lock pics to come out.

It's not a P-63 - it's a bunch of pixels labeled "P-63". The question was, essentially - "is it accurate, or way off base".

IF any given plane does not perform to the specifications it's label carries with it, then it IS a "UFO".

As for whether it is or not, I don't have any comment (don't have any data on, and don't really care about, the P-63, in or out of game). But you are trying to shut it down inappropriately with nonsensical statements.

jarink
01-04-2006, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
as Badsight has stated in past, if the 63 had a 20mm instead of that 37mm, EVERYone would fly it

If used correctly, it can be deadly. If you don't shoot it until range is under 150m, you stand an excellent chance of not only hitting, but obliterating your target. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Since all the guns are centerline mounted, convergence is not a factor, either, unless you're using the add-on packs, which are not worth the penalty in performance since they fire with the 37mm trigger. (At the point-blank range you fire the cannon, the wing gun shot dispersal is so wide they're almost guaranteed to miss.)

I will say I was amazed at how fast this sucker was the first time I tried flying it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

jds1978
01-05-2006, 05:44 AM
when i first bought PF (my entry into IL2), the P63 happened to be the first plane i had any ammount of confidence in flying...

then i discovered the Corsair http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

VW-IceFire
01-05-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
as Badsight has stated in past, if the 63 had a 20mm instead of that 37mm, EVERYone would fly it

If used correctly, it can be deadly. If you don't shoot it until range is under 150m, you stand an excellent chance of not only hitting, but obliterating your target. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Since all the guns are centerline mounted, convergence is not a factor, either, unless you're using the add-on packs, which are not worth the penalty in performance since they fire with the 37mm trigger. (At the point-blank range you fire the cannon, the wing gun shot dispersal is so wide they're almost guaranteed to miss.)

I will say I was amazed at how fast this sucker was the first time I tried flying it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mmmm...37mm fires by itself on the cannon trigger. The additional .50cals fire with the nose mounted .50cals. You're perhaps thinking of the .50cal pods on the P-38?

jarink
01-05-2006, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Mmmm...37mm fires by itself on the cannon trigger. The additional .50cals fire with the nose mounted .50cals. You're perhaps thinking of the .50cal pods on the P-38?

I've been flying a VVS P-39 campaign... d'oh!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

I still think the wing guns aren't worth the trouble, unless you're attacking ground targets or bombers.