PDA

View Full Version : P-63 outperformes P-51 up to 20.000ft!



XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:42 PM
who would win
with equal pilots

from lowdown and up to 20.000ft

look below

<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788238.1.jpg </center>




Message Edited on 08/27/03â 07:16PM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 08/28/03â 03:50PM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 08/28/0303:53PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:42 PM
who would win
with equal pilots

from lowdown and up to 20.000ft

look below

<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788238.1.jpg </center>




Message Edited on 08/27/03â 07:16PM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 08/28/03â 03:50PM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 08/28/0303:53PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 09:35 PM
P-63 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/789408.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 09:39 PM
Gross picture. oooooooh.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 09:53 PM
If the P-63 would win with equal pilots, then why was it canceled at the end of WW2 and the P-51 stayed in production for about 2 more years? It was also used in Korea and with other 3rd world countries up to 1986.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 10:06 PM
The P-63 out performs the P-51D in every aspect below 20,000ft in terms of speed, rate of climb, roll, and turning ability.

The P-63's real problem was a serious lack of range. the P-63 is america's version of the spitfire if you will.

Just because the P-51 was used in the american inventory after ww 2 and through the 1950s does not mean that it is the best performing aircraft. The P-51 was more numerous than the P-63 and there were plenty of spare parts for the P-51. Also as I stated the P-51 had much greater range than the P-63 and this is why I feel it was used instead of the P-63 after the war.

The P-47 and P-38 would have performed much better in Korea than the P-51, however the P-38 was much more costly to maintain than the P-51 and this is why it was phased out after the war ended. The same can be said for the P-47 (which would have been the best ground attack aircraft for Korea) The P-47 was more costly to operate than the P-51.

The mustang was kept after the war because it was the cheapest aircraft to fly and maintain and there were also a lot of surplus parts for it. after the war economy dictated what we used, not which piston engined aircraft was better.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 10:09 PM
if bolillo loco thinks its the p63 then im going with the p51 to win

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 10:18 PM
Alot of guys think the P-63 was a bad plane because the US didn't use it. The reason the US didn't use it is because there was no place for it. Not because it was a bad plane. I'll pick the P-63 over the P-51.

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 10:46 PM
P-51D: top speed=437mph, climb ft/min=3,475
P-63A: top speed=410mph, climb ft/min=2,900


With these specs alone and the tactics I use, I beat the the P-63 any day of the week. But I must say I'm not a big fan of comparing two planes from the same country in a dogfight, For the reason neither was designed with the thought in mind of who can beat who. Having said that I still take the P-51.
S!
47|FC
4U|FC
51|FC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ultimate-gamers.com/sigs/lulubelle3.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
08-28-2003, 12:50 AM
Need I say more?

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

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:47 AM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- P-51D: top speed=437mph, climb ft/min=3,475
- P-63A: top speed=410mph, climb ft/min=2,900

I do not know what books you used for reference, but I have two books which list data for the P-63. america's hundred thousand IABN 0764300725 and vee's for victory ISBN 0764305611 that list much higher data than what you have posted.

one common problem with general reference books is that they do not list the aircraft's weight at take off, power settings used to achieve this data, nor the condition of the aircraft that is being tested.

rate of climb from americas hundred thousand

P-63A - 8,350 lbs combat power ie wep

Sea Level 4,100 fpm dry
Sea Level 5,000 fpm wet
5,000 ft 3,900 fpm dry
5,000 ft 4,700 fpm wet
10,000 ft 3,750 fpm dry
10,000 ft 4,250 fpm wet
15,000 ft 3,250 fpm dry
15,000 ft 4,000 fpm wet
20,000 ft 2,750 fpm dry
20,000 ft 2,750 fpm wet


P-51D there are two charts for climb in americas hundred thousand

first figures are for 10,100lbs and the second for 10,176lbs

combat power ie wep

sea level 3,475 fpm
sea level 3,100 fpm
5,000 ft the same for both charts
10,000 ft 3,000 fpm
10,000 ft 2,900 fpm
15,000 ft 2,750 fpm
15,000 ft 2,500 fpm
20,000 ft 2,600 fpm
20,000 ft 2,400 fpm

it is easy to see that the P-63 easily out climbs the P-51 even if the P-63 is not using water injection and with the water injection the differences are dramatic

speed at altitudes from americas hundred thousand

sea level

P-63 350 mph dry
P-63 380 mph wet
P-51 360 mph mfr data
P-51 370 mph usaaf data

5,000 ft

P-63 375 mph dry
P-63 390 mph wet
P-51 380 mph mfr data
P-51 390 mph usaaf

10,000 ft

P-63 390 mph dry
P-63 410 mph wet
P-51 400 mph mfr data
P-51 410 mph usaaf data

15,000 ft

P-63 405 mph dry
P-63 420 mph wet
P-51 400 mph mfr data
P-51 410 mph usaaf

20,000 ft

P-63 410 mph dry
P-63 420 mph wet
P-51 420 mph mfr data
P-51 420 mph usaaf data

as you can see the P-51 is not faster below 20,000 ft

rates of roll from americas hundred thousand in degrees per second

300 mph ias

P-63 110
P-51 95

250 mph ias

P-63 110
P-51 90

200 mph ias

P-63 90
P-51 75

150 mph ias

P-63 65
P-51 50

100 mph ias

P-63 50
P-51 40

P-63 has an advantage at all speeds up to 300 mph ias

Vee's for Victory lists P-63A-8 data

speed at critical altitude military power 417/24,000
speed with war emergency power 422/18,000

time to climb

P-63A-8 6.8 minutes to 22,400 ft military power
P-63A-8 4.8 minutes to 20,000 ft war emergency power

P-51D 7.8 min to 20,000 ft
P-51D 9.8 min to 25,000 ft

both books show that the P-63 had an excellent rate of climb when compairing it to the P-51D. it should have been a better climber against the P-51D. the P-63 has 1,820 hp wet and weighs 9,000 lbs with the 4 .50 cal 1 37mm cannon installation.

it has 1,000 more hp than the P-51D and weighs 1,200 lbs less, these figures support that the P-63 should climb much better than the P-51

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:51 AM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- P-51D: top speed=437mph, climb ft/min=3,475
- P-63A: top speed=410mph, climb ft/min=2,900


You rate of climb is unqualified. At what altitude?

At sea-level, the P-63 had a much greater rate of climb than the P-51. At combat power, rate of climb for the P-63 was over 4,000 feet per minute. With water injection, it was even better than that.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:53 AM
Great post, pinche_gabacho. We must have posted at the same time. Your's took longer, obviously.

BTW, I have those books as well and they are fantastic. If you like the P-63, also consider:

"Cobra!: The Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946"
http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/aviationwwii/images/0887409113.gif


also by Schiffer Books.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 08/28/0304:55AM by SkyChimp

ZG77_Nagual
08-28-2003, 02:04 AM
http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 02:06 AM
Like I said. I love the P-51, but i'll take the P-63 against it every time.

Let's not forget the big a$$ cannon on the P-63 either.

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 06:27 AM
nobody cares my opinion, but i am with the Mustang, the best looking (non german/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) Aircraft.

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 06:35 AM
Your getting a P-63 C-5. It had a bit more HP I think. Anyways, top speed and climb does not make a winner. Also, the top speed at what altitude. P-51 reaches its top speed high. P-63 does it low.

My take on this. P-63 down low, P-51 up high.

Gib

VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- P-51D: top speed=437mph, climb ft/min=3,475
- P-63A: top speed=410mph, climb ft/min=2,900
-
-
- With these specs alone and the tactics I use, I beat
- the the P-63 any day of the week. But I must say I'm
- not a big fan of comparing two planes from the same
- country in a dogfight, For the reason neither was
- designed with the thought in mind of who can beat
- who. Having said that I still take the P-51.
- S!
- 47|FC
- 4U|FC
- 51|FC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
<img
- src="http://www.ultimate-gamers.com/sigs/lulubelle
- 3.jpg">
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 04:17 PM
Wohooo! man, the P-63 will be brutal /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788832.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 07:14 PM
pinche_gabacho, you have to take the data from AHT with great precaution, it has way to many errors in it. For example this one with 5000fpm initial climb is plain wrong. Also max speed at sea level is around 350mph not 380mph. Actually King Cobra without water injection barely reached 325mph in russian service.


From value obtained in russian test at 1500hp you can get a good estimation for max speed at 1800hp quite easily:

max_speed2 = max_speed1 * (hp2/hp1)^1/3 = 325 * (1800/1500)^1/3 = aprox 345mph

A proper comparison between Mustang and King Cobra should be made with Mustang at half internal fuel and King Cobra at full internal fuel. Mustang will still be outturned and outclimbed by King Cobra but the difference will be small. And of course Mustang is faster than King Cobra on all altitudes, and it was a much more versatile weapon.

In conclusion King Cobra did not offer any significant improvement in performance over Mustang, at the same ammo and fuel load, so basically there was no need to convert to it.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 07:47 PM
I have one question about the P39/P63 family.

Since the CG must be way aft compared to another plane (aft engine), doesn't it suffer from more inertia at high AOA? Wouldn't it be hampered by this and loose a fair amount of energy in a tight turn?

By the way the P51A was very loved in low and middle altitude. What makes you think the B/D has to be a dog at those alts? Wasn't the Merlin performant there?

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg


Message Edited on 08/28/0308:49PM by nicolas10

ZG77_Nagual
08-28-2003, 08:16 PM
Huck - I'd like to see your Russian Data. Oleg has given the impression he thinks the p63 will be very formidable.
It may be an american plane - but it's still cool because the americans basically discarded it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 09:52 PM
I did'nt post the altitude performance because it doesnt matter to me. If you read what I wrote you would see the words "the tactics I use". And with those tactics and the data given I personal would have no problem defeating the P-63. Ofcoarse all of this is irrelevant until we see how they are modeled in FB. And we all know how that can go.
S~
47|FC
4U|FC
51|FC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ultimate-gamers.com/sigs/lulubelle3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 09:54 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Huck - I'd like to see your Russian Data. Oleg has
- given the impression he thinks the p63 will be very
- formidable.

It certainly is an interesting plane, and a desired improvement of P39. But will it be formidable? No. Don't be fooled by current FM of P39, it's overmodelled in both climb and acceleration.

For P63 you can find the chart on Isegrim's site. See max speed on sea level.

http://mishoga.image.pbase.com/u16/isegrim/large/5250139.fghterchart1.jpg






<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/28/0303:55PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 10:20 PM
The point is that Oleg thinks the P-39 is right. It seems so anyway as it's the same in the patch. With that in mind. He has to make the P-63 better. That would make a pretty deadly plane in FB.

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 10:30 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- I did'nt post the altitude performance because it
- doesnt matter to me. If you read what I wrote you
- would see the words
"the tactics I use". And with
- those tactics and the data given I personal would
- have no problem defeating the P-63.

LoL??????????????????????????


thats taking a bit to much water above your head /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Ofcoarse all of
- this is irrelevant until we see how they are modeled
- in FB. And we all know how that can go.

??????????????????????????



<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788832.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 10:40 PM
Well I dont know about you, but I always take off with 25% fuel except in a 109. Thats in the game. In real life, you compair two aircraft with similar loadouts. If you compair a P-51 with full fuel, then you do the same with P-63 with full fuel no matter the weight. I remember you jumping all over us in many threads because we were compairing a 109 with full loadout to a half empty P-51 because a P-51 would have spended a lot of its gas getting to the 109, and the 109 would be near fresh off the runway.

Gib

Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- In conclusion King Cobra did not offer any
- significant improvement in performance over Mustang,
- at the same ammo and fuel load, so basically there
- was no need to convert to it.
-
-

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 10:52 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- pinche_gabacho, you have to take the data from AHT
- with great precaution, it has way to many errors in
- it.

You consider them errors because you don't want the information to be true. Yet all you can offer are your algorithms to "prove" your points. And when your math doesn't agree with actual test data, you are quick to call the test data wrong.

Your irrational prejudices jades anything you have to say about American planes.



- For example this one with 5000fpm initial climb
- is plain wrong.

And you have documents to to prove this? Oh wait, Eglin AFB testing of the plane was chock full of errors, you have a chart to prove it!



- Also max speed at sea level is
- around 350mph not 380mph.

Wrong yet again.



- Actually King Cobra
- without water injection barely reached 325mph in
- russian service.

You're on a roll, here, Hucky.




- From value obtained in russian test at 1500hp you
- can get a good estimation for max speed at 1800hp
- quite easily:
-
- max_speed2 = max_speed1 * (hp2/hp1)^1/3 = 325 *
- (1800/1500)^1/3 = aprox 345mph

And yet the P-63 could do 380 on the deck for Americans.



- A proper comparison between Mustang and King Cobra
- should be made with Mustang at half internal fuel
- and King Cobra at full internal fuel.

They would be closer, but the P-63 would still be superior in climb, and turn.



- Mustang will
- still be outturned and outclimbed by King Cobra but
- the difference will be small.

Outturned by a signifcant margin, and out climbed to about 15,000 - 20,000 feet.



- And of course Mustang
- is faster than King Cobra on all altitudes, and it
- was a much more versatile weapon.

Faster only at higher altitudes. P-51 more versatile? And your basis for this conclusion is what?



- In conclusion King Cobra did not offer any
- significant improvement in performance over Mustang,
- at the same ammo and fuel load, so basically there
- was no need to convert to it.

Of course there is no need. Huck doesn't want any well performing American planes in FB.



I find it funny you feel qualified to comment on the P-63 at all. You were the one here who cliamed the climb chart in AHT was wrong becasue it didn't show a shift in blower gears. You had absolutley NO IDEA that there supercharger was hydraulically driven and had no shift.

Yet you are here to tell us all about the P-63.


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 10:55 PM
Gib I think you have misunderstood me. P63 had a very small range because of a very small fuel load. Is not fair to compare it with Mustang which had two and a half the internal fuel load of P63.

Anyway very nice job on P63. Are you interested in modelling A-26 and/or B-26 afterwards? They seem a little bit forgoten, though IMO what FB really needs right now is cockpits for bombers already done, rather than new models.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 10:59 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- pinche_gabacho, you have to take the data from AHT
- with great precaution, it has way to many errors in
- it. For example this one with 5000fpm initial climb
- is plain wrong. Also max speed at sea level is
- around 350mph not 380mph. Actually King Cobra
- without water injection barely reached 325mph in
- russian service.
-
-
- From value obtained in russian test at 1500hp you
- can get a good estimation for max speed at 1800hp
- quite easily:
-
- max_speed2 = max_speed1 * (hp2/hp1)^1/3 = 325 *
- (1800/1500)^1/3 = aprox 345mph
-
- A proper comparison between Mustang and King Cobra
- should be made with Mustang at half internal fuel
- and King Cobra at full internal fuel. Mustang will
- still be outturned and outclimbed by King Cobra but
- the difference will be small. And of course Mustang
- is faster than King Cobra on all altitudes, and it
- was a much more versatile weapon.
-
- In conclusion King Cobra did not offer any
- significant improvement in performance over Mustang,
- at the same ammo and fuel load, so basically there
- was no need to convert to it.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>


I have posted the sources of my data. Two books by two different authors and their data supports each other. I do not believe that the P-63 with similar drag than that of the mustang, with 1,000 more hp, and 1,200 - 1,600 lbs less weight would have similar performance to the mustang. I do not see how the mustang could even compair.

You say that Francis Deans work contains errors. Daniel Whitney's work supports what francis dean wrote, how are we to know what is correct or not? What makes the russian data so accurate? How do we know that the russian data is not incorrect?

I do not believe that the mustang climbed at 3,475 fpm nor did 437 mph myself. I personally believe that this data was taken from a light weight mustang that was gone over. I have seen charts where the rates of climb are 3,000 fpm initial and the top speed is 430 mph.

I find it interesting that the usaaf data shows the mustang performing better than that of the manufacturers data. This is break in the trend. usually it is the opposite. I think that it is a case where the usaaf wanted the mustang and they did whatever it took to get it and make other aircraft look bad. If it meant flying specially prepaired mustangs against war weary fighters from other manufactureres then so be it.

This is my personal feeling on the mustang and I cannot prove it before some one else feels the need to point this out. I can not prove this to be true no more than YOU CAN PROVE IT FALSE!

"a proper compairison" lighten up the mustang so it can compete? no matter how you look at it even if you get rid of the rear fuselage tank in the mustang the P-63 is still going to be lighter and have 1,000 more hp. The P-63 had water injection why restrict this aircraft just so that the mustang can compete?

More performance data from Vee's for Victory

P-63C-5

speed military power/altitude 418mph@28,590ft

military climb 8.6 to 25,000ft

war emergency rating 1,565hp @ 3,000 rpm

war emergency speed at altitude 436mph@18,000ft

war emergency time to climb 5 min to 20,000ft

aircraft weight 8,640lbs

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 11:04 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- I have one question about the P39/P63 family.
-
- Since the CG must be way aft compared to another
- plane (aft engine), doesn't it suffer from more
- inertia at high AOA? Wouldn't it be hampered by this
- and loose a fair amount of energy in a tight turn?
-


Actually the CG of the P39 is more the middle of the aircraft.

The P-39 is a MID engine plane not rear as the engine essentially sits over the main wing. Having the bulk of the weight sitting over the wings makes for good turning ability as you don't have the the inertia of having to swing a heavy engine up front around.

The P-39s CG being more aft than front engine planes did give it problems with tumbling and odd spin characteristics compared to other planes though.

P-39 in reality had excellent turning performance. Probably the best of any American fighter.




<div align="center">
&lt;object classid="clsidhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="252" height="100">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf">
<param name="quality" value="best">
&lt;embed src="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf" quality="best" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="252" height="100"></embed></object>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 11:10 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-- For example this one with 5000fpm initial climb
-- is plain wrong.
-
- And you have documents to to prove this? Oh wait,
- Eglin AFB testing of the plane was chock full of
- errors, you have a chart to prove it!

And you have the report from this test? Why don't you post it? Please don't sell the crap from AHT as truth, if you have original documents to support such data please do so. I don't give rats a** on Dean's personal impressions on P63, russians tested and flew the P63, they surelly know better.


-- And of course Mustang
-- is faster than King Cobra on all altitudes, and it
-- was a much more versatile weapon.
-
- Faster only at higher altitudes. P-51 more
- versatile? And your basis for this conclusion is
- what?

In american doctrine range was a much more important asset than the superficial improvements that P63 brought. You should have known that better.


- I find it funny you feel qualified to comment on the
- P-63 at all. You were the one here who cliamed the
- climb chart in AHT was wrong becasue it didn't show
- a shift in blower gears. You had absolutley NO IDEA
- that there supercharger was hydraulically driven and
- had no shift.

Yes at that time I had no ideea about its supercharger because I wasn't interested in P63 (since it's performance looks rather dull - russian also gave it second rate jobs, there must be a reason for it). But now I have changed my oppinion about it and I support the introduction of P63 (though with real performance characteristics, not the ridiculous claims from AHT).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 11:19 PM
pinche_gabacho wrote:
- I do not believe that the mustang climbed at 3,475
- fpm nor did 437 mph myself. I personally believe
- that this data was taken from a light weight mustang
- that was gone over. I have seen charts where the
- rates of climb are 3,000 fpm initial and the top
- speed is 430 mph.
-
- I find it interesting that the usaaf data shows the
- mustang performing better than that of the
- manufacturers data. This is break in the trend.
- usually it is the opposite. I think that it is a
- case where the usaaf wanted the mustang and they did
- whatever it took to get it and make other aircraft
- look bad. If it meant flying specially prepaired
- mustangs against war weary fighters from other
- manufactureres then so be it.
-
- "a proper compairison" lighten up the mustang so it
- can compete? no matter how you look at it even if
- you get rid of the rear fuselage tank in the mustang
- the P-63 is still going to be lighter and have 1,000
- more hp. The P-63 had water injection why restrict
- this aircraft just so that the mustang can compete?


Skychimp, 'see how much flak do I take for defending the Mustang?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I deserve a special distiction or somthing.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 11:24 PM
OK. I thought you were saying that we need to compair a half-fueled P-51 to a fully fueled P-63. Thats not fair in my openion. Yes the P-63 and 39 had very limited range. Fortnatly thats not a critical factor for the VVS. The reason it had so little fuel capasity was the nose guns and engine were taking up the space were the fuel would be, so they put all the fuel in the wings. Add resealing fuel tanks and it nuters its range, but keeps the airframe rather light. The P-63 I am modeling has two hard points on the wings, and one on the center so it can have 3 drop tanks. Still nothing like the range of a P-38 with its two 300gal tanks, or a P-51. Yes, the US did not like the P-63 because if its extreamly limited range. At the time it showed up, B-17's needed escorts, and the Pacific needed a long distance island hopper. No home for it even if it did perform better then anything we had.

Gib

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Gib I think you have misunderstood me. P63 had a
- very small range because of a very small fuel load.
- Is not fair to compare it with Mustang which had two
- and a half the internal fuel load of P63.
-
- Anyway very nice job on P63. Are you interested in
- modelling A-26 and/or B-26 afterwards? They seem a
- little bit forgoten, though IMO what FB really needs
- right now is cockpits for bombers already done,
- rather than new models.
-
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 11:29 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- And you have the report from this test? Why don't
- you post it? Please don't sell the crap from AHT as
- truth, if you have original documents to support
- such data please do so. I don't give rats a** on
- Dean's personal impressions on P63, russians tested
- and flew the P63, they surelly know better.

The basis for the graphs in Dean's book are the USAAF tests at Eglin, Huck. Additionally, Bell data is present in the book as well. Or is that a simple point lost on you? Never mind that data is present in "Vees for Victory", "Cobra" and Putnam's book on the Bell AC corporation.

The Soviets flew it. Americans made it, tested and used it as well. Yet they have no clue.



- In american doctrine range was a much more important
- asset than the superficial improvements that P63
- brought. You should have known that better.

You said versatility. Range is ONE aspect.



- Yes at that time I had no ideea about its
- supercharger because I wasn't interested in P63

But that didn't stop you from you usual pro-German blatherings about a subject you knew nothing about. And even at this late date, you prove you know nothing about it.



- (since it's performance looks rather dull - russian
- also gave it second rate jobs, there must be a
- reason for it). But now I have changed my oppinion
- about it and I support the introduction of P63
- (though with real performance characteristics, not
- the ridiculous claims from AHT).

You want it modelled on the claims made by the Russians. I love this point.

Issy, on regular occassions, bandied about the climb chart for the P-47 that was in a book that summarzed Russian tests. Of course, the climb was lower than that achieved by the USAAF and Republic. Yet that was the only clim rate that seemed to matter.

But on the same page, there was climb chart for the Dora-9 that was equally lowwer that its known specs. But when asked if that was the way the Dora 9 should be modelled, all I heard was crickets.

Ok, Huck, model the P-63 was shown in the Russian test. I'll EXPECT YOU to advocate tuning dowen ALL German planes to come into accordance with the Russian test data. That meeans signficantly reducing the Dora-9s top speed and climb rate.

But you'll nevert do this. You are a hypocrite. It would be against your nature to do the right thing.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 11:30 PM
As for performance, I will leave that up to Oleg. He said he had plent of good "Russian" performance data http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I fly the P-39 a lot, and he uses those "Russian" performance data on that, so I think the P-63 WHEN ITS FIRST OUT will be quite uber. It may be toned down a bit later due to overwealming Luftwhiner response. As for my personal thoughts on its performance, here is my math

Hucks numbers + SC's numbers + Milo's numbers devided by 3. Get the point?

Also, if things go well I will get to fly in a real P-38. I will tell the pilot to show me it dance, and then we can see how it performs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 11:30 PM
But Huckie, where are you and your bud Issy? You let some ruskies call German aces liars but who is defending the aces claims, the ones Issy say are German haters./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- Skychimp, 'see how much flak do I take for defending
- the Mustang?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 11:31 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Skychimp, 'see how much flak do I take for defending
- the Mustang?
- I deserve a special distiction or somthing.


Certificates of appreciation which bear images of swastikas are not permitted on this site.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 01:05 AM
One thing P-51 pilots love to talk about is the wonderful "feel" of the plane, what a joy it was to fly. Listen to Chuck Yeager talk with enthusiasm about his graduation from the mediocre P-39 to the P-51. There was a good reason pilots began to call the 51 the "Cadillac of the Sky".

Unfortunately, a PC game scarcely captures anything remotely approaching the "feel" a certain plane might have in reality.

The P-63 might match a P-51 on paper, and even in video games, but in reality (from everything I have read) the P-51 was clearly the better plane.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 01:28 AM
pinche_gabacho wrote:

-
- it has 1,000 more hp than the P-51D and weighs 1,200
- lbs less, these figures support that the P-63 should
- climb much better than the P-51
-
-1000 more HP thats big difference in HP every where ive seen has the D model around the 1400 hp range

And ill take a corsair thank you





"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:07 AM
What? Some plane out-climbs the P-51D? No $hit Sherlock. Name one that didn't. That is a given, that anyone wishing to make the case that his favorite mount is better than the D model only needs to cite climb rates.

Umm, how about zoom climb, a much more useful tool in close-in fighting. AHT finds that the P-63, though a good zoom climber, was not as good as the Mustang.

Dive. Did anybody mention the dive yet? AHT finds that the P-63, although a good diving plane, was not as good as the P-51, either in initial acceleration, nor top speed.

Acceleration. The Mustang is blasted here fairly often for being a poor accelerator, but the P-63 was worse.

It was nice of the previous poster to leave off roll rates at 300 mph and above. If we are talking about combat below 20,000 feet, this indicated air speed will be exceeded often. The P-63 fades, while the Mustang is well known for a stellar high speed roll rate.

The P-63 was a turning SOB for a US plane. It stalled in a 3 G turn at a lower speed than the P-51. No argument there. However, the Mustang pulled 8 G's down to 265 mph, and was equipped with a G-Suit. Go with the Mustang in a high speed contest.

The armaments on the two types are so different it is difficult to compare. The P-63 had the big gun, and 2 .50's, unless the underwing gondolas were included. These obviously reduced performance. The Mustang had the 6 x 50 cal. The chance of getting a hit was obviously much greater for the Mustang, the P-63 was obviously more lethal if the big gun hit.

Hey, lets compare the BEST Mustang numbers, huh? How 'bout the Brit's Mustang 3 going 405 on the deck? The US P-51B was slightly slower up to 14,000 feet, then faster the rest of the way. The Brit's Mustang 3 was faster or even at all altitudes. P-51B's and Mustang III were both available until VE day, in substantial numbers.

The P-51H is more a contemporary of the P-63C than the P-51D. Compare those two.

The P-63 did a lot of things well. If I was flying in hyperlobby, I'd want it. If I was flying in real life, I'd want it as well. It was so short legged it would fly defensive patrols close to our lines, while the Mustangs flew 5-8 hours into the teeth of the enemy's home.

Now, if I was a general, figuring out how to destroy the enemies air force, there is no comparison.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:36 AM
Suckerpunch11 wrote:
- One thing P-51 pilots love to talk about is the
- wonderful "feel" of the plane, what a joy it was to
- fly. Listen to Chuck Yeager talk with enthusiasm
- about his graduation from the mediocre P-39 to the
- P-51. There was a good reason pilots began to call
- the 51 the "Cadillac of the Sky".
-


Better read your Chuck Yeager bio's again. The P-39 was one of his favorite planes. He never understood why it such a bad rap.

He also commented on how dangerous the P-51 could be with a full rear fuel tank.

Mr. Yeager never thougt the P-39 was 'mediocre'


<div align="center">
&lt;object classid="clsidhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="252" height="100">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf">
<param name="quality" value="best">
&lt;embed src="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf" quality="best" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="252" height="100"></embed></object>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:48 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Certificates of appreciation which bear images of
- swastikas are not permitted on this site.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

You should be banned for this.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:54 AM
Banned for what? NOT saying what I really think?


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/0306:57AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:56 AM
My Dad flew the P-51, and he called it the "Spam Can". All the metal edges in the cockpit were sharp, and gloves were always worn due to this. Anyone who has ever cut their finger on the edge of a can of spam, after using the key thing to open it, knows of what I speak.

Dad also flew the P-47D and N. He says it was a Cadillac. All the comforts, roomy cockpit, good heater, well harmonized controls.

The one thing I remember about Pop talking about the P-51, was his eyes lighting up as he described throwing the stick over and your head hitting the opposite canopy while going 400 IAS. He'll look you in the eye and say the P-51 outmaneuvered and outfought any US fighter in the air at high speeds. When asked about getting into a low and slow he just gives a funny look and says, "Why would you do that?"

When pressed, he'll tell you that any pilot worth his salt, with any ability at all, can keep the fight fast if he has the better plane at speed. Only an idiot gets pulled into the other guys envelope.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:59 AM
If anything, Seversky, then Republic, airplanes were meticulously built. I once had a chance to look closely at a Seversky P-35 and could not believe just how nicely finished it was.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:13 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Banned for what? NOT saying what I really think?

Banned for calling someone a nazi because he doesn't share your views of planes.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:29 AM
nicolas10 wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- Banned for what? NOT saying what I really think?
-
- Banned for calling someone a nazi because he doesn't
- share your views of planes.
-
- Nic


Did I call someone a Nazi? Perhaps you can point it out?

BTW, I have nothing against anyone that doesn't "share my view of planes." I do have a problem with someone that goes out of his way to disparage Americans and American planes, even to the extent of manipulating data on them to prove point.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/0307:31AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:31 AM
If you insist:

SkyChimp wrote:
- Certificates of appreciation which bear images of
- swastikas are not permitted on this site.
-

That's pretty clearly aimed at calling someone a nazi. Finding you accusing Huck of anti american bias in a comparison of two american planes is amusing.

Putting up with your insults is NOT amusing.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:44 AM
nicolas10 wrote:

- That's pretty clearly aimed at calling someone a
- nazi.

I called no one a Nazi. Whether or not I think he's a Nazi wannabe is my business, not yours.


- Finding you accusing Huck of anti american
- bias in a comparison of two american planes is
- amusing.

I have a firm belief that this individual IS biased against Americans and American planes to the extent that he will manuipulate data to prove whatever point he is trying to make. I've seen it time and time again. That's my opinion.



- Putting up with your insults is NOT amusing.
-
- Nic

Oh please, we have a member here that has a signature that says "The only good Indianer is a Dead Indianer." Know what an "Indianer" is? What if I posted a signature that says "The Only Good German is a Dead German."

You have bigger moral menaces out there than me, Nic.







Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:52 AM
Red Spar said:

"Mr. Yeager never thougt the P-39 was 'mediocre'"

BS. He was bashing that plane on the history channel two weeks ago. He was happy to stop flying it.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:07 AM
Suckerpunch11 wrote:
- Red Spar said:
-
- "Mr. Yeager never thougt the P-39 was 'mediocre'"
-
- BS. He was bashing that plane on the history channel
- two weeks ago. He was happy to stop flying it.
-
-


You have to remember what any documentary group does. They tape lots and lots of interview material and then go thru and pick bits and pieces to actually use. Things get said out of context.

If you read Charles "Chuck" Yeager's autobiography you'll find that he had quite a fondness for the P-39 during his prewar days. And then while on a routine flight one day while 'bouncing' some rookies in a B-24 the drive line froze instantly sending his P-39 into a spin. He bailed out and the chute opening broke his back. Fortunately for history it didn't damage his spinal cord. If you read the entirely of the work you'll understand what made him such a great pilot and why he lived thru it all.

He never hated or disliked any aircraft, but showed it the respect and admiration each one deserved and never asked it to do something it wasn't capable of doing. He loved and respected the P-51 in much the same way as the P-39. Often commenting in the chapters about during the war how they would run off the rear tank until it was dry and then switch to the drop tanks because if that rear tank was full it was like 'driving on ice' as he called it.

As to his all time favorite 'dogfighter' it was and still is the F-20 Tigershark. There is a reason why this man is still consulted by design bureaus and flys new aircraft for the military in that he's practically the only test pilot not to have taken a dirt nap from it.


http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:50 AM
Children!!!!
Play nice, or dont play at all!
U sound like a bunch of teenagers comparing D*** size (u know who you are /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )

Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:51 AM
Well, Yeager being happy to stop flying the 39 was not because of the fact that he hated the aircraft, but because that move put him in the cockpit of a 51--according to the interview. The less favorable things he said about the 39 was in the context of comparing it to a 51.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:56 AM
Suckerpunch11 wrote:
- Well, Yeager being happy to stop flying the 39 was
- not because of the fact that he hated the aircraft,
- but because that move put him in the cockpit of a
- 51--according to the interview. The less favorable
- things he said about the 39 was in the context of
- comparing it to a 51.

P-51>P-39 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<ceter>http://www.dalnet.se/~surfcity/swedish_aviators/images/whirlwind_1.jpg </center>
Ralph Häggberg one of 5 Swedish
pilots flying for the RAF

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:10 PM
Did the russians modify the P-63s in any way,
like arnament ectr

<ceter>http://www.dalnet.se/~surfcity/swedish_aviators/images/whirlwind_1.jpg </center>
Ralph Häggberg one of 5 Swedish
pilots flying for the RAF

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:21 PM
All Soviet P-63's had the wing mounted .50 cals removed. Thats the only mod I know of.

Gib

fjuff79 wrote:
- Did the russians modify the P-63s in any way,
- like arnament ectr
-
- <ceter><img
- src="http://www.dalnet.se/~surfcity/swedish_aviato
- rs/images/whirlwind_1.jpg"></center>
- Ralph Häggberg one of 5 Swedish
- pilots flying for the RAF
-
-
-
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:42 PM
that makes it 58kg+ lighter
I wonder how much this affect its performance

<ceter>http://www.dalnet.se/~surfcity/swedish_aviators/images/whirlwind_1.jpg </center>
Ralph Häggberg one of 5 Swedish
pilots flying for the RAF

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:57 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- All Soviet P-63's had the wing mounted .50 cals
- removed. Thats the only mod I know of.
-
- Gib


Gib, I don't think so. The Americans removed the wing guns themselves from later P-39Qs because they knew the Soviets didn't want them. But they left the guns on the P-63s. I think the Soviets used the wing guns on the P-63. But I don't have any pictures of the P-63 in Soviet hands (although I do have them in Soviet markings prior to delivery).

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 05:03 PM
I have quite a few pics of P-63's with soviet markings (I dont think the US put the markings on them) and every single one had no wing guns. Even the profiles had no wing guns for the Soviet ones, but the US and French P-63 profiles had them. I have been trying hard to find a Soviet P-63 WITH wing guns because I want them. They add a lot of hitting power to it. The Q-1 is great for wearing down the enemy and then finish them, but the Q-10 is not. I also found a bug with the nose .50 cal in 1.1B that makes them even less effective. Oleg himself is checking it out.

Gib

SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- All Soviet P-63's had the wing mounted .50 cals
-- removed. Thats the only mod I know of.
--
-- Gib
-
-
- Gib, I don't think so. The Americans removed the
- wing guns themselves from later P-39Qs because they
- knew the Soviets didn't want them. But they left
- the guns on the P-63s. I think the Soviets used the
- wing guns on the P-63. But I don't have any
- pictures of the P-63 in Soviet hands (although I do
- have them in Soviet markings prior to delivery).
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
<img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.
- jpg">
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:02 PM
What does it matter on what Yeager thought od the P-39? I thought we were talking about the P-63 here?

Some guys seem to think because they look almost the same. That it's the same plane. Hardly.

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:12 PM
I am looking at a pic that says there is over 100 P-63C-5 at Nome. They seem to have a red star inside a white star.

Another photo taken at the Bell factory has only white stars.

Not official Soviet markings.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:13 PM
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p63-3.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:15 PM
I have several photos of P-63s either being flown by Bell pilots or sitting on Bell's tarmac in Soviet markings.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 11:14 PM
The P-63A-6 had a 1,350 hp Alison engine
Absolute seiling of 46,000ft and a service seiling of 44,600ft, it could carry three droptanks and could carry four mgs, and the one 37mm cannon.
The P-63A-8 had a 1,500 hp Alison engine and could do everything the early model could but slightly better.

and the C model was very different from the A's in many respects but the C model suffered from a lack of armament.

Also, the Alison is just as good as a Merlin, the Merlin has a two-stage two speed blower and a supercharger, but the Alison had a two stage one speed blower and a supercharger, see it wasnt the engine it was just the blower witch Bell didnt want on the engine, the government made those changes.
And one more thing, an Alison is alot thougher than the Merlin, and to prove it, if you watch or know about those Reno air racers, like Dego Red, Voodoo, and Strega, they use Merlins but the rods in them are Alison.
Alison rods can stand upto 100 inches of manafold pressure but the Merlin can only hold about 65-75 depending on the model of engine.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 11:59 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- The point is that Oleg thinks the P-39 is right.

Buzz, has Oleg stated that the P-39 FM in 1.1b is final? I missed that.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 12:35 AM
No he didn't, but he made the FM pre patch, and in the patch. Is he going to admit that he was completely wrong now?

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 03:12 AM
Buzz,

We've seem some FMs change a lot, case in point the Hurri. I wouldn't be surprised to a few SMALL changes to the P-39 (less climb & roll). I'm also hoping for increases in those attributes to the P-40 and P-47. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 02:36 PM
Priller, the problem with carrying lots of droptanks is that you must be careful not to fly so far out that you can't get back after dropping them. Internal fuel is THE limiting factor in range. The P-63 had short legs.