PDA

View Full Version : Now that we are getting a P-63 KingCobra, what is your opinion on it,Will it manage the TA 152?



XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:25 PM
If you heaven´t seen Gibbage friday update,
you should do that,

Now as we are getting this bird,
How do you think it will performe against
late 109s and 190s and others will it be "THE" dogfighter,
We all know the Aircobra is a monster,
and the p-63 is better in almost every way, it´s faster and climbs better,
(many people even says it´s the best climber of all US fighters) just as manouvreble and has a wery low drag design, and almost all the P-39s problems are solved with the p-63,
I think it will be brutal!



<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5



Message Edited on 08/22/0304:44PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:25 PM
If you heaven´t seen Gibbage friday update,
you should do that,

Now as we are getting this bird,
How do you think it will performe against
late 109s and 190s and others will it be "THE" dogfighter,
We all know the Aircobra is a monster,
and the p-63 is better in almost every way, it´s faster and climbs better,
(many people even says it´s the best climber of all US fighters) just as manouvreble and has a wery low drag design, and almost all the P-39s problems are solved with the p-63,
I think it will be brutal!



<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5



Message Edited on 08/22/0304:44PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:29 PM
I know it was better than it's predecessor in most respects but it was considered outdated by the time it was entering production.
The US never used it in combat and 3 quarters of P-63s produced where sent to the USSR where - much like the P-39- it was liked for it's ground attack capabilities.
I don't know how it will fare in FB but I don't think it should be a match for well flown 109s and 190s.


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:30 PM
I think the P-63 is really a late-war P-39, wich should be great.

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://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:39 PM
hehe, you really want to know?

i think we already have the P63 FM with the actual P39...

All we have to do now is trying to find where the damned original P39 FM has gone /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

time to take cover.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:46 PM
Christos_swc wrote:
- I know it was better than it's predecessor in most
- respects but it was considered outdated by the time
- it was entering production.
- The US never used it in combat and 3 quarters of
- P-63s produced where sent to the USSR where - much
- like the P-39- it was liked for it's ground attack
- capabilities.
- I don't know how it will fare in FB but I don't
- think it should be a match for well flown 109s and
- 190s.

I must say I dissagree, the P-39 was underrated,
Most of the fighting on the west front took plase
up high,but the P-39s engine wasn´t suited for this,
thats why it didn´t do any success there,It was a low alt
fighter,thats why it fitted the eastern front,
as almost all fighting took place down low,
infact many russian aces prefered it against newer designs,
the Americans already had a fighter for the same role as the P-63 (the P-47) and therefore didnt need it,

<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:46 PM
~S!

IMHO the bird will outclass all LW machines of the day below 15,000' in experienced hands.





BPO5_Jinx
C.O. Replacement Air Group
Birds of Prey. 16th GvIAP
http://www.birdsofprey16thgviap.com
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:49 PM
P-63 was a close-support fighter and fighter-bomber.
It was generally similar to the P-39, apart from being larger and with the V-1710 engine more powerful (some 1500-1800HP on later series) than those installed in all P-39s (but the P-39K and P-39L).
Most of them were sold to USSR. USA keep some of them as flying targets (!!!) for USAF pilots' training (utilizing plastic bullets!!!)

In summary, an heavier, bigger and slightly powerful P-39.
Being inside it, not such a difference from P-39.
Being at its 6, just a bigger target!!!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:50 PM
BPO5_Jinx wrote:
- ~S!
-
- IMHO the bird will outclass all LW machines of the
- day below 15,000' in experienced hands.
-
shouldn´t it be pretty good up high to?
Lets bring out the performance charts,




<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5



Message Edited on 08/22/0303:52PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:47 PM
Hoarmurath wrote:
- hehe, you really want to know?
-
- i think we already have the P63 FM with the actual
- P39...
-
- All we have to do now is trying to find where the
- original P39 FM has gone



This is exactly what I was going to say.......The current P-39 has a UFO like FM since the original Il-2. I think that whoever is in-charge of the FM for the P-39 should get back to school & learn the laws of physics & read more accounts of the actual permormance of the P-39 (unless they are themselves from the planet Reebok) from WWII and all would get back to what it should be. Stop re-writing the history with the P-39/63 as by 95% of the accounts, this was a lame aircraft at best. The 37mm cannon was useless, the Allison engine was gutless and troublesome. The handling was nothing short of vicious......The only thing it had going for it was the tricycle landing gear.

Everone knows this but although the P-63 was better than the P-39, it was never used in combat by the US in Europe because they at the time of its appearance, they were already obsolete, and the US gave the bulk of the P-63 production to the Ruskis......as the Germans gave or sold their captured Morane Ms 406 to the Fins & the Italians.....as they had no use for an inferior A/C. The US did use some of them as manned target drones, and this is why I had asked Oleg earlier in this forum if the powerful light at the tip of the spinner was going to be modelled for the P-63 manned target drone in FB....

Do 217P

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:48 PM
Christos_swc wrote:
- I know it was better than it's predecessor in most
- respects but it was considered outdated by the time
- it was entering production.
- The US never used it in combat and 3 quarters of
- P-63s produced where sent to the USSR where - much
- like the P-39- it was liked for it's ground attack
- capabilities.
- I don't know how it will fare in FB but I don't
- think it should be a match for well flown 109s and
- 190s.



Ya your right we north americans build crap planes, like the P-51 and the P-47 P-63ect. Yes your planes are supurrior. Oh whait a min,

didn't the germans lose the war?

Soory man but i just red a story where an american, yes by himself downed 4 german plane's in a P-51. He downed 2 on deck and two at med alt.

The P-51 cant be all that bad a plane, i mean he downed 2 plane's at low alt.


Hey if you want i will go find the story i read and put a link here,


I dout you would read though, but you might.

Reply and say you want the link and i will be happy to give it to you.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:54 PM
Cippacometa

Your in for a surprise if you think it's just a bigger target.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:54 PM
do217s wrote:
- Hoarmurath wrote:
-- hehe, you really want to know?
--
-- i think we already have the P63 FM with the actual
-- P39...
--
-- All we have to do now is trying to find where the
-- original P39 FM has gone
-
-
-
- This is exactly what I was going to say.......The
- current P-39 has a UFO like FM since the original
- Il-2. I think that whoever is in-charge of the FM
- for the P-39 should get back to school & learn the
- laws of physics & read more accounts of the actual
- permormance of the P-39 (unless they are themselves
- from the planet Reebok) from WWII and all would get
- back to what it should be. Stop re-writing the
- history with the P-39/63 as by 95% of the accounts,
- this was a lame aircraft at best. The 37mm cannon
- was useless, the Allison engine was gutless and
- troublesome. The handling was nothing short of
- vicious......The only thing it had going for it was
- the tricycle landing gear.
-
- Everone knows this but although the P-63 was better
- than the P-39, it was never used in combat by the US
- in Europe because they at the time of its
- appearance, they were already obsolete, and the US
- gave the bulk of the P-63 production to the
- Ruskis......as the Germans gave or sold their
- captured Morane Ms 406 to the Fins & the
- Italians.....as they had no use for an inferior A/C.
- The US did use some of them as manned target drones,
- and this is why I had asked Oleg earlier in this
- forum if the powerful light at the tip of the
- spinner was going to be modelled for the P-63 manned
- target drone in FB....
-
- Do 217P
-
Ehum maybe you should read a little more about
the P-39s P-63s and their history on the eastern front,




<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5



Message Edited on 08/22/0304:56PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:06 PM
We already have the P-63.

In FB, it's mislabeled "P-39"


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:08 PM
I Havent gotten the sight with that story i was talking about but i will.
James F. Gebhardt
jgebhardt@kc.rr.com
Leavenworth, KS


Contrary to popular belief, the Airacobra was an excellent air superiority fighter as employed on the Eastern front by the Red Air Force. The high altitude limitations of the fighter were of little importance in that theater because the Luftwaffe was a tactical support, not a strategic bombing air force and its targets were not Soviet industrial enterprises but Soviet ground troops. Many Soviet pilots became aces in this aircraft, the highest single score for the P-39 (50 kills) belonging to Guards Major Grigoriy Rechkalov, who flew the P-39 from the spring of 1943 to the end of the war as a member of 16th Guards Fighter Regiment, 9th Guards Fighter Division. Read all about it in "Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, P-39s, and the Air War against Germany" (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), by Dmitriy Loza.
08/27/2002 @ 21:02

http://www.aero-web.org/specs/bell/p-39q.htm

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:10 PM
must agree with that.



<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5



Message Edited on 08/22/0305:12PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:11 PM
VF_310thSilent wrote:

- Ya your right we north americans build crap planes,
- like the P-51 and the P-47 P-63ect. Yes your planes
- are supurrior. Oh whait a min,
-
- didn't the germans lose the war?


B$. Nobody said anything about american crap planes, nor about mustang and jug. You understood bad. And about germans losing the war, I think it's out of place here.


- Soory man but i just red a story where an american,
- yes by himself downed 4 german plane's in a P-51. He
- downed 2 on deck and two at med alt.
-
- The P-51 cant be all that bad a plane, i mean he
- downed 2 plane's at low alt.


Good argument. It looks irrefutable to me.


- Hey if you want i will go find the story i read and
- put a link here,
-
-
- I dout you would read though, but you might.
-
- Reply and say you want the link and i will be happy
- to give it to you.


Yes you can be proud, not everybody reads, you are part of a small elite.


Read helps spelling better. Keep reading you need it.



<center>http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/arau.txt



|TAO|



Message Edited on 08/22/0305:15PM by TAO-Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:12 PM
VF_310thSilent wrote:
- Christos_swc wrote:
-- I know it was better than it's predecessor in most
-- respects but it was considered outdated by the time
-- it was entering production.
-- The US never used it in combat and 3 quarters of
-- P-63s produced where sent to the USSR where - much
-- like the P-39- it was liked for it's ground attack
-- capabilities.
-- I don't know how it will fare in FB but I don't
-- think it should be a match for well flown 109s and
-- 190s.
-
-
-
- Ya your right we north americans build crap planes,
- like the P-51 and the P-47 P-63ect. Yes your planes
- are supurrior. Oh whait a min,
-
- didn't the germans lose the war?
-
- Soory man but i just red a story where an american,
- yes by himself downed 4 german plane's in a P-51. He
- downed 2 on deck and two at med alt.
-
- The P-51 cant be all that bad a plane, i mean he
- downed 2 plane's at low alt.
-
-
- Hey if you want i will go find the story i read and
- put a link here,
-
-
- I dout you would read though, but you might.
-
- Reply and say you want the link and i will be happy
- to give it to you.
-


?
I'm not sure what you mean.
I know the P-51 was percieved by many to be the greatest a/c of WWII.
But isn't the P-63 our topic here or am I missing something?
Oh, by the way,
I'm not German
Yes, the Germans lost the war
I don't see how that will help us compare a/c capabilities,maybe the 262 sucked as well, after all didn't the Germans lose the war?


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:23 PM
fjuff79 wrote:

- Ehum maybe you should read a little more about
- the P-39s P-63s and their history on the eastern front,


Already done that, BTW, I live half of the year in South Sevastopol - Balaklava area where my family originates from & where many of the battles depicted in Il-2/FB actually took place.......I visited most museums, static displays aircrafts, battlefields in this area & Southern Russia & I have read those accounts long time ago.....:-) All I can say from having discussed this with countless elders that were witnesses or participants in the area is that the accounts on the P-39 and several Russian A/C were largely embellished on a wholesale level.....

Cheers,

Do217P

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:26 PM
It depends on how much they overmodelled it!!!
Historically, it was not such a great bird...

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:30 PM
Imho /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif the P-63 will perform no better than the Pony, that is unless the King is Russianized.

How many P-63Cs of the 797 produced did the Russians get, which had the -117 engine fitted?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
08-22-2003, 06:44 PM
Tired of seeing the old party line about p39 being 'ground attack' - that is pure BS just oft repeated.
Here is a non-vvs site that contradicts it - as if you needed anything more than the fact most of the vvs top aces flew it air to air.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/airacobra_iron_dog.htm
also see here

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm

P63 will outperform the pony in roll, climb and turn in the FB flight envelope. It was not produced because the niche had been filled - and was for long range escorts. It will be match for any german types.

Like the current 39 but faster - better climb and more ammo. Current roll is about right for the 63.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:52 PM
I can't believe that I'm still seeing that old myth about the P-39 just being a ground attack plane in this forum. I thought we had put that to rest--read any Russian account about P-39s and it will tell that it was the best fighter they had until the late Yaks and La5fn/La7. Read any early to midwar German account and it will tell you they feared the Airacobra more than any thing else on the Eastern front. Russia's best pilots flew P-39s and got most of their kills with it. If you love this sim, you must read "Attack of the Airacobras."

In Western Allied use, the P-39 was misused early on and gained a bad reputation. It was supposed to be very twitchy and killed a lot of training pilots--I (and most other longtime P-39 simpilots) actually miss this risk factor from the current version of the sim. In North Africa and Med. it was used for ground attack, using AP rounds in the cannon. The Soviets were never given AP rounds, and only began using it mainly as a fighter-bomber late in the war when it had been superceded by their own aircraft.

The P-39 was bound to be unpopular with U.S. pilots because of its odd center of gravity, and bound to be unpopular with commanders because of its short range and limited ceiling. On the Eastern front none of that mattered much, and Russian pilots were eager to give any fast, well-armed plane with a working radio a chance. They gave it a chance and learned how to put its strengths to good use.

The P-63 will of course not suffer from the limited ceiling of its predecessors, but still has a short range. Not much of a factor in IL2, but a huge factor to U.S. commanders. The U.S. would never have adopted it as a fighter late in the war, as it lacked the range for bomber escort or deep ground attack strikes.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:55 PM
I also think the P39 is overmodeled... but what the hell.

Anyway this link about the P63 says that France used it in Vietnam because the US didn't allow France to use P47. They were used in ground attack roles and suffered heavy losses (shot down and accidents), and as soon as the US let the french use some other planes they were replaced. (by F6F and F8F).

That would lead to think that the P63 wasn't that great in the Air to Ground role.

Says also that French air force received 140 P63, but the stored them and didn't intend to use them until the US forbid the use of P47s.

Nic



Message Edited on 08/22/0310:56PM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:00 PM
"The current P-39 has a UFO like FM since the original Il-2"

Comments like that - show me the money.

we know factually it rolls too fast.

Show me 'ufo' data - where is your tests, prove it.


All these comments, I think one guys hears it in a thread, and it's like some fad to go around saying, "this is uber, that is uber, blah blah".

But from where?





S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

ZG77_Nagual
08-22-2003, 08:17 PM
French use p63 for ground attack in indochine - radial engines hold up better.

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


Message Edited on 08/22/0303:18PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:25 PM
I dont know how anybody could confuse the performance of the P-39 vs P-63, they werent even close.

the P-63 hit about 420 mph below 20,000ft......thats pretty good, infact its the fastest american plane below 20,000ft.

with the water injection and 1,800hp the P-63 climbed well over 4,000 fpm on the chart it looks like 4,500-4,800 fpm. thats better than any other american a/c

It rolled at well over 100 degrees per second at 300 mph and had very good roll at all speed slower than 300 mph. thats better than any american a/c

it out turned the mustang, it could get on the mustangs tail in 3-4 turns, it could get on the 47s tail in 2 turns, it was about equal in turning to the P-38 if the 38 used combat flaps. now thats pretty good turning ability.

the only thing I can see thats bad about the plane is lack of range (which doenst mean a thing for a flight simulation) and the 37mm gun. a 20 mm would be much more effective.

This data comes from "America's Hundred Thousand" by Francis Dean

ZG77_Nagual
08-22-2003, 08:30 PM
It is true - with the p63 - which I have been advocating for since before most of thou were born unto this simm - I shall be one step closer to global conquest.

It has also been shown that women are attracted to men who fly airplanes that have doors and do not stick their noses in the air (not to mention the big cannon).


Back on subject - as to the ta152 H - THAT is an airplane - I imagine in it's domain the '63 will out-roll it - if we get a Ta152C maybe not.

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


Message Edited on 08/22/0303:32PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:03 PM
No chance against 152....unless it`s turnfight IMO.

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

ZG77_Nagual
08-22-2003, 09:07 PM
I'm hearing the 152 turns very well !

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

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:18 PM
James F. Gebhardt
jgebhardt@kc.rr.com
Leavenworth, KS


Contrary to popular belief, the Airacobra was an excellent air superiority fighter as employed on the Eastern front by the Red Air Force. The high altitude limitations of the fighter were of little importance in that theater because the Luftwaffe was a tactical support, not a strategic bombing air force and its targets were not Soviet industrial enterprises but Soviet ground troops. Many Soviet pilots became aces in this aircraft, the highest single score for the P-39 (50 kills) belonging to Guards Major Grigoriy Rechkalov, who flew the P-39 from the spring of 1943 to the end of the war as a member of 16th Guards Fighter Regiment, 9th Guards Fighter Division. Read all about it in "Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, P-39s, and the Air War against Germany" (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), by Dmitriy Loza.
08/27/2002 @ 21:02

http://www.aero-web.org/specs/bell/p-39q.htm


My point is that if the P-63 was an improvement on the P-39
then it would be plane you wouldn't want to mess with.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:20 PM
James F. Gebhardt
jgebhardt@kc.rr.com
Leavenworth, KS


Contrary to popular belief, the Airacobra was an excellent air superiority fighter as employed on the Eastern front by the Red Air Force. The high altitude limitations of the fighter were of little importance in that theater because the Luftwaffe was a tactical support, not a strategic bombing air force and its targets were not Soviet industrial enterprises but Soviet ground troops. Many Soviet pilots became aces in this aircraft, the highest single score for the P-39 (50 kills) belonging to Guards Major Grigoriy Rechkalov, who flew the P-39 from the spring of 1943 to the end of the war as a member of 16th Guards Fighter Regiment, 9th Guards Fighter Division. Read all about it in "Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, P-39s, and the Air War against Germany" (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), by Dmitriy Loza.
08/27/2002 @ 21:02

http://www.aero-web.org/specs/bell/p-39q.htm

If the P-63 was an improvement on the P-39 then it was a Great Bird.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:21 PM
ok we have some un-informed ppl like do217s typing into this thread.....

the P-63 wasnt used by the Americans because of its range ..... they needed planes for the pacific war & range was needed

the P-63 was the best turning American fighter built during WW2

the P-39 had vicous stall atributes at HIGH ALT but was a lot nicer at LOW ALT

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:26 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

The P-63 will perfrom no better than the pony.



James F. Gebhardt
jgebhardt@kc.rr.com
Leavenworth, KS


Contrary to popular belief, the Airacobra was an excellent air superiority fighter as employed on the Eastern front by the Red Air Force. The high altitude limitations of the fighter were of little importance in that theater because the Luftwaffe was a tactical support, not a strategic bombing air force and its targets were not Soviet industrial enterprises but Soviet ground troops. Many Soviet pilots became aces in this aircraft, the highest single score for the P-39 (50 kills) belonging to Guards Major Grigoriy Rechkalov, who flew the P-39 from the spring of 1943 to the end of the war as a member of 16th Guards Fighter Regiment, 9th Guards Fighter Division. Read all about it in "Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, P-39s, and the Air War against Germany" (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), by Dmitriy Loza.
08/27/2002 @ 21:02

http://www.aero-web.org/specs/bell/p-39q.htm


I have to disagree. The P-63 was an improvement on the P-39.

If that dosent tell you something then there is no hope for you.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:46 PM
- Contrary to popular belief, the Airacobra was an
- excellent air superiority fighter as employed on the
- Eastern front by the Red Air Force. The high
- altitude limitations of the fighter were of little
- importance in that theater because the Luftwaffe was
- a tactical support, not a strategic bombing air
- force and its targets were not Soviet industrial
- enterprises but Soviet ground troops. Many Soviet
- pilots became aces in this aircraft, the highest
- single score for the P-39 (50 kills) belonging to
- Guards Major Grigoriy Rechkalov, who flew the P-39
- from the spring of 1943 to the end of the war as a
- member of 16th Guards Fighter Regiment, 9th Guards
- Fighter Division. Read all about it in "Attack of
- the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, P-39s, and the Air War
- against Germany" (Lawrence: University Press of
- Kansas, 2002), by Dmitriy Loza.
- I have to disagree. The P-63 was an improvement on
- the P-39.
-
- If that dosent tell you something then there is no
- hope for you.


Well, the P-39 was inferior to a Bf-109F concerning everything but turning performance, where both performed on quite equal levels. Killcounts that get often cited as an argument amplifier actually say nothing about the performance of an aircraft, it just shows there was someone behind the controls who obviously knew what he was doing. Hartmann estimated that about 80% of his victims never knew that they were about to be attacked, most aerial victories in real life were achieved by bouncing an unaware enemy, and by attacking when holding other significant tactical advantages over the enemy.



============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:53 PM
What kind of nonesense is this? The P-63 sucked in air-to-air because the FRENCH were loosing them on ground attack roles? Thats the most stupid think I ever heard!

Gib

nicolas10 wrote:
- I also think the P39 is overmodeled... but what the
- hell.
-
- Anyway this link about the P63 says that France used
- it in Vietnam because the US didn't allow France to
- use P47. They were used in ground attack roles and
- suffered heavy losses (shot down and accidents), and
- as soon as the US let the french use some other
- planes they were replaced. (by F6F and F8F).
-
- That would lead to think that the P63 wasn't that
- great in the Air to Air role.
-
- Says also that French air force received 140 P63,
- but the stored them and didn't intend to use them
- until the US forbid the use of P47s.
-
- Nic
-
-



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
08-22-2003, 09:55 PM
Oops it was a typo, I meant to say they shouldn't be too good in the air to ground role... sorry about that (It's edited now).

Nic



Message Edited on 08/22/0310:56PM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:55 PM
if it don't disturb you too much, i will believe the naca report on the flight characteristics of the P-39 (A.A.F. N?41-28378)...

if it disturb you, then... too bad, i will still believe the report anyway http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

i have to read the reports i have on the P63...

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:57 PM
By the way how can the P63 turn better and stuff if it's basically the same airframe but heavier?

(just a guenine question)

Nic



Message Edited on 08/22/0310:57PM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:57 PM
As for my thoughts on the P-63. P-39 is my ride of choice. For an early war aircraft, it still does a very good job late war against much more "advanced" 109's and 190's. I even dance with La7's and Yak3's and come out the winner (not all the time). The P-63 had about 300HP more, much better wings and aerodynamics. That means faster, and tighter turning. Also the cannon had 50 rounds and not 31. That means more killings before I need to return home for refuel and ammo.

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
08-22-2003, 10:03 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- By the way how can the P63 turn better and stuff if
- it's basically the same airframe but heavier?
-
- (just a guenine question)
-
- Nic
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 08/22/03 10:57PM by nicolas10

If you read up some more you will see my post where I quoted data from americas hundred thousand. the reason why the 63 turns better than the 51 is simple, it was a lighter plane with a lower wing loading and had more power than the mustang. buy americas hundred thousand its a good read.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:07 PM
P-63 turns better than P-51 but not better than P-39.


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

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:15 PM
"Read helps spelling better. Keep reading you need it"

Ok this is stupid. Why in the world would you mouth about someones spelling if you don't have good grammar yourself? My grammer may not be the best but at least I don't make comments like that. Yes I know I am now but its to make a point.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:20 PM
pinche_gabacho wrote:
- If you read up some more you will see my post where
- I quoted data from americas hundred thousand. the
- reason why the 63 turns better than the 51 is
- simple, it was a lighter plane with a lower wing
- loading and had more power than the mustang. buy
- americas hundred thousand its a good read.

I meant than the P39. I know the P51 wasn't a very good turner anyway, even though it was a great energy fighter.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:25 PM
Oak_Groove wrote:



Well, the P-39 was inferior to a Bf-109F concerning
- everything but turning performance, where both
- performed on quite equal levels. Killcounts that get
- often cited as an argument amplifier actually say
- nothing about the performance of an aircraft, it
- just shows there was someone behind the controls who
- obviously knew what he was doing. Hartmann estimated
- that about 80% of his victims never knew that they
- were about to be attacked, most aerial victories in
- real life were achieved by bouncing an unaware
- enemy, and by attacking when holding other
- significant tactical advantages over the enemy.


It may have been but the P39 was an excellent fighter when flown properply. We all know that the P-63 is animpovement on the P-39. It's faster has more fire power and can fight at high alt plus it turned just as good.

Hence how can some of you say that the P-63 wans't a very good fighter.

You guy's just dont want the plane in FB. Also you guy's are going to keep bashing the plan, thinking it will help to under moddel it.

When we do get the plane you guy's will whine and whine that it is a UFO or your plane's are under moddold and bla bla bla.

Your giving me a headach.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:33 PM
modru2004 wrote:
- "Read helps spelling better. Keep reading you need
- it"
-
- Ok this is stupid.


No, it's true.


- Why in the world would you mouth
- about someones spelling if you don't have good
- grammar yourself? My grammer may not be the best but
- at least I don't make comments like that. Yes I know
- I am now but its to make a point.


His text is a pain in the *** to read. It's not grammer (clever point yours/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )problem is spell lke thes. As for my english faults, you will have to forgive me, or try to write in my language to understand me.




<center>http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/arau.txt



|TAO|



Message Edited on 08/22/0309:35PM by TAO-Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:56 PM
Well WUAF_Badsight,

A better sight could help you to read my post properly....ie.

1. All accounts that have come across mention that the P-63 was not accepted by the US in the European theatre at least, because it was inferior in most aspects to the aircrafts already in use at the time it became available.

2. I never said that the P-63 was not a good turning aircraft.

3. I did say that the P-39 had vicious stall properties, which you acknowledged yourelf in your post...........


Do217P

<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">

JagdMailer </font>


http://www.jagdmail.com/img/buttons/229x76_2.gif (http://www.jagdmail.com/index.htm)
</p>


<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">www.jagdmail.com (http://www.jagdmail.com/index.htm)

Get your email address at one of 225+ domain names based on WWII Luftwaffe most prestigious units!</font>

</p>



<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="https://commerce.apexmail.net/jagdmail/affiliate/join.htm"target="_blank">WW2 sites webmasters, join our referral program!</a</p>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:05 PM
~S!

As has been referred to by others, here's a partial quote from A's 100k.

On turn rate:

" Turning tests against other US fighters showed the P-63 to be relatively good. It was better than the P-38 if the latter didn't use a maneuver flap setting, and about the same if the P-38 did. Against the a P-51B the P-63 could get on the Mustang's tail in three to four turns and P-63 performance got relatively better with increasing turning speed. Against a P-47D the P-63 could get into a stern shot position in two turns. But the stick had to be handled carefully because of potential force reversals."

On the performance curves to partially quote:

" The P-63 could exceed 400MPH at 13,000 to 17,000 feeet depending on whose data you one believed, with the speed increasing to just under 25,000 feet, after which it feel off, but holding at 400MPH at 30,000. Speed set MILITARY power was about 10MPH slower most of the way up. Two versions of WAR EMERGENCY, or COMBAT, power were introduced here, the one without war injection ( dry) and the other incorporating this (wet) feature which allowed higher manifold pressure without incurring engine detonation. In the detail specification Bell indicates a sea level high speed of over 375MPH could be achieved using the 1820 HP attained by water injection. High speed is shown is shown as over 420 MPH at medium altitudes. Manufacturer's data on climb at dry COMBAT power showns Kingcobra climb rates in the 3500 to 4000 foot per minute at low altitude. A rate of 2800 FPM is shown at 21,000 feet and over 1600 FPM at 30000 feet."

Source; America's 100,000 by Francis Dean

It appears that machines best performance is from SL to 15,000 based on this info.

All the Best:





BPO5_Jinx
C.O. Replacement Air Group
Birds of Prey. 16th GvIAP
http://www.birdsofprey16thgviap.com
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:14 PM
VF_310thSilent, i´m as interested as anyone to see each aircraft represented in the game as close to (theoretical) specs as possible within the natural game engine restrictions, anything else would be non logical in an environment with emphasis on a realistic approach. I´m surely one of the last guys you will find lobbying for or against a particular aircraft that is yet to be released. But the more material (i intentionally avoid the term fact) is researched and the more speculations are thrown in, the more likely we approach the truth between two extremes.

============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:16 PM
do217s wrote:

- Stop re-writing the
- history with the P-39/63 as by 95% of the accounts,
- this was a lame aircraft at best. The 37mm cannon
- was useless, the Allison engine was gutless and
- troublesome. The handling was nothing short of
- vicious......The only thing it had going for it was
- the tricycle landing gear.

Yo, Do217s!

Hold it, cool it, slow down! Lay off the P-39, you´re getting personal here, and I just might have to say something bad about your grandmother or your pet canary! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

GreyBeast_P39

ZG77_Nagual
08-22-2003, 11:23 PM
What an interesting bunch of posts!
I'm sure Pokryshkin would not agree the 39 is inferior to the 109f - inasmuch as he flew it throughout the war - by preference.

In fact all the vvs aces who flew it think it was great in all respects relative to german aircraft throughout the entire war. Takes real dedication to dismiss the weight of opinion of that many experienced pilots.

As for the P-63 - it'll be one of the best dogfighters in the simm but will need to be flown well. I know Oleg is looking forward to implementing it - and has been since IL2 was released and he first learned of it's presence on the EF.

Personally - I like to see not-so-well-known planes that were underappreciated.

We know now that most of the p39s bad rap was gained by pilots who
A: had a bad attitude about it before they ever fired it up
B: tried to dogfight zeros in it while simultaneously at a numerical disadvantage against superior pilots.

New tactics were too much attributed to new planes - it was the change in tactics that changed the airwar in the pacific.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:37 PM
TAO-Squadron wrote:
- modru2004 wrote:
-- "Read helps spelling better. Keep reading you need
-- it"
--
-- Ok this is stupid.
-
-
- No, it's true.
-
-
-- Why in the world would you mouth
-- about someones spelling if you don't have good
-- grammar yourself? My grammer may not be the best but
-- at least I don't make comments like that. Yes I know
-- I am now but its to make a point.
-
-
- His text is a pain in the *** to read. It's not
- grammer (clever point yours/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )problem is spell lke thes. As
- for my english faults, you will have to forgive me,
- or try to write in my language to understand me.
-
-
-
-
-
- <center><img
- src="http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/arau.t
- xt">
-
-
-
- |TAO|
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 08/22/03 09:35PM by
- TAO-Squadron


Well I was just pointing out that you had some incorrect grammer and you were telling him to learn to spell better. Yes reading does help spelling and even grammer, I agree 100% in that area. But you were cutting with a double edged sword. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I understand where your coming from though. I speak 2 languages as well and I'm not perfect at either. I hope my posts don't offend you, I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:38 PM
This is my thought about the P-39 and P-63 got bad reputation,
first the P-39s were used in the pasific, were they
met Zeros and Oscars, the Zero was thought to be
invinsible because it wipped *** with the americans planes,
well they who flew the P-39s and others against the Zeros, they did the stupid fault of trying to turnfight with them,
wich is = death, because nothing can turn with it,
It weren´t until the flying tigers came along that
US started whipp the Zeros ***, and that was with P-40s!
the tigers had find the right taktic to handle with them
B&Z , after this the tables started to turn.

both P-39s and P-40s in my opinion has been underrated the
hole time because the americans didn´t know what tactic to use with them from the beggining, so they took the losses
and sh!t for learning the right way to fight, and when the other newer fighters had come along, the americans knew how to use them.

infact I think both (especially P-39) and P-40 really were god fighter planes. they just were missused.
and they got a bad reputation, wich unfortunately
also the P-63 got without a cause, as it was the predessor
to the P-39.




<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:45 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- What an interesting bunch of posts!
- I'm sure Pokryshkin would not agree the 39 is
- inferior to the 109f - inasmuch as he flew it
- throughout the war - by preference.
-
- In fact all the vvs aces who flew it think it was
- great in all respects relative to german aircraft
- throughout the entire war. Takes real dedication to
- dismiss the weight of opinion of that many
- experienced pilots.
-
- As for the P-63 - it'll be one of the best
- dogfighters in the simm but will need to be flown
- well. I know Oleg is looking forward to implementing
- it - and has been since IL2 was released and he
- first learned of it's presence on the EF.
-
- Personally - I like to see not-so-well-known planes
- that were underappreciated.
-
- We know now that most of the p39s bad rap was gained
- by pilots who
- A: had a bad attitude about it before they ever
- fired it up
- B: tried to dogfight zeros in it while
- simultaneously at a numerical disadvantage against
- superior pilots.
-
- New tactics were too much attributed to new planes -
- it was the change in tactics that changed the airwar
- in the pacific.
that was what I was trying to say,
ehum... in my own weird way /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 12:26 AM
I apologize, I am truly sorry that i couldn't afford a secondary education.



Silent out

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:43 AM
The P-63 never had a bad reputation among the USAAF. In fact, it had an extremely good reputation. It's lack of range was its biggest detriment. It's manueverability was lauded by all that flew it.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:43 AM
I think the way to manage the Ta-152 is a swift, relentless ground offensive, strategic bombing against Ta-152 manufacturing facilities, and air superiority through overwhelming numbers.

If the Ta-152's can scrounge enough petrol to take off, then I suppose we'll have to gang up on 'em. They are damn good planes, faults and all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:48 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- The P-63 never had a bad reputation among the USAAF.
- In fact, it had an extremely good reputation. It's
- lack of range was its biggest detriment. It's
- manueverability was lauded by all that flew it.

That's very nifty. Not often that a "hot rod" version of an existing plane (the P-39 in this case) is commended for being very maneuvrable.

Usually when you make a hot rod version of a plane, it gets faster and less maneuverable. Hooray for Bell Aviation. They were brave enough to mount the engine behind the cockpit. They were one of the very few companies to make both fixed wing aircraft AND helicopters. They even made the first aircraft to break the sound barrier (officially, that is....as long as the USAF and General Yeager have anything to say about it). ~S!~

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:45 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- The P-63 never had a bad reputation among the USAAF.
- In fact, it had an extremely good reputation. It's
- lack of range was its biggest detriment. It's
- manueverability was lauded by all that flew it.

BUMP!



<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:31 PM
one of the things we may be forgetting is that I have read that by the time the P-63 was released/ready there had been decisions made on standardizing aircraft for American forces.

I have read various statements that the P-51 was selected as a standardized all round fighter aircraft and that bomber selection for standard was underway in an attempt to reduce types-of aircraft in service and perhaps this was the reasoning that many aircraft which were originally ordered as designs--tests and limited manufacturing runs never actually saw service.........regardless of the aircraft's abilities or potential.........

perhaps another reasoning track to explain the lack of offical intrest in some rather unique aircraft.


wbuttler
cleric

"there is no spoon."

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:47 PM
Baloban wrote:

- That's very nifty. Not often that a "hot rod"
- version of an existing plane (the P-39 in this case)
- is commended for being very maneuvrable.
-
- Usually when you make a hot rod version of a plane,
- it gets faster and less maneuverable. Hooray
- for Bell Aviation. They were brave enough to mount
- the engine behind the cockpit. They were one of the
- very few companies to make both fixed wing aircraft
- AND helicopters. They even made the first aircraft
- to break the sound barrier (officially, that
- is....as long as the USAF and General Yeager have
- anything to say about it). ~S!~


The P-63 wasn't a "hot rod" version of the P-39. It was an entirely new airplane.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 04:16 PM
how was the P-63s speed performance,
down low,compared
2 other
fighters


sorry for my typing,
a accident, liqid in my PC desk,
have to copy/paste in letters


<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5

ZG77_Nagual
08-24-2003, 05:17 PM
Fluff - I just chime in with what I've heard and read - the p63 was very fast down low - one of the fastest - I can't remember the source but somewhere I read it would actually do 400+ on the deck - loaded. can't swear on it though.

Interesting to not that the vvs versions of the p39s were probably never tested by the US - also - did they remove the wing guns from the '63? this would probably improve speed roll, and turn over the America's 100k figures and it is likely.

True about the rep in the pacific - had the p38 showed up then it probably would've been called a junker too - but smart pilots worked out brilliant tactics for it.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:45 PM
so that will make it faster than
the ?

<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5

ZG77_Nagual
08-24-2003, 06:50 PM
We'll have to wait and see how oleg models it! Also maybe some more figures here - others have better info than i.


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

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 09:28 PM
heh i agree.. P-39 has P-63 FM at the moment /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif P-63 should be pretty good, but still not as fast as late war german planes..Basicly exactly the same FB than we have with P-39 now, but a bit faster...

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 09:37 PM
Currently, the P-39 is ALMOST as fast as late war German aircraft. The P-63 has 300HP more, and better aerodynamics. I think it will be faster then late war German aircraft.

Gib

Vipez- wrote:
- heh i agree.. P-39 has P-63 FM at the moment /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif P-63 should be pretty good, but
- still not as fast as late war german planes..Basicly
- exactly the same FB than we have with P-39 now, but
- a bit faster...
-
- ____________________________________
-
-
-
-
- Official Sig:
-
-
-
- <center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.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
08-24-2003, 11:27 PM
Every site I've found on the net says its topspeed was 410mph. Whereas the D-9 could reach 426mph and later 436mph. The D-12 had a topspeed of 473mph. So it wasn't faster than the German fighters at higher altitudes. Down low I don't know.

Here's some nice pics of it. She's a beauty!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.westhoustonsqdn.org/images/p63/p63_j4_2k-879f.jpg


http://www.westhoustonsqdn.org/images/p63/p63_pass_02.jpg


http://www.westhoustonsqdn.org/images/p63/p63_j4_2k-868f.jpg


http://www.westhoustonsqdn.org/images/p63/p63-profile.jpg


http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/robban75/Dora-9-3.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

Message Edited on 08/24/0310:34PM by robban75

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 03:30 PM
bmp

<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 05:13 PM
robban75, nice pics of the single P-63F produced. (43-11719)

It finished 10th in the 1948 Thompson Trohpy races and 4th in the 1976 Mojave races.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 06:38 PM
what P-63 model was the most common in the Russian
airforce?

<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 06:46 PM
I think the C-5. Oleg told me to only model the C5

fjuff79 wrote:
- what P-63 model was the most common in the Russian
- airforce?
-
- <ceter><img
- src="http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT5
- 75.jpg"></center>
- THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5
-
-
-
-



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
08-25-2003, 07:00 PM
There was 585 C-5s built. 43-11133--11717.

The C-1: 42-70686--70860, 42-10893--10932.

fjuff79 wrote:
- what P-63 model was the most common in the Russian
- airforce?
-
-

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:37 PM
Did the Russians modifie them

<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/789603.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:44 PM
ALL C-1's were modified to C-5 standard. They sent Russia the kits for the modified tail.

Gib

MiloMorai wrote:
- There was 585 C-5s built. 43-11133--11717.
-
- The C-1: 42-70686--70860, 42-10893--10932.
-
- fjuff79 wrote:
-- what P-63 model was the most common in the Russian
-- airforce?
--
--
-
<img
- src="http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-s
- tormclouds2.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
08-25-2003, 07:48 PM
I dont know. From what I remember, all were grounded till 1945 when the wintering kits and C-5 upgrades got to the VVS. Thats why it was not so active till late in the war.

fjuff79 wrote:
- Did the Russians modifie them
-
- <ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/789603.1.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
08-25-2003, 08:46 PM
You mean they were grounded until the centreline and wing racks arrived???

I wunder how they flew out of Alaska if they were not "winterized".


Gibbage1 wrote:
- I dont know. From what I remember, all were
- grounded till 1945 when the wintering kits and C-5
- upgrades got to the VVS. Thats why it was not so
- active till late in the war.
-
-

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:57 PM
Hay, I could be wrong http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif You know a lot more about aircraft then I, so I wont doubt you. I also remember something to do with a fuel system problem they were trying to work out. You hear of this?

Gib

MiloMorai wrote:
- You mean they were grounded until the centreline and
- wing racks arrived???
-
- I wunder how they flew out of Alaska if they were
- not "winterized".
-
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- I dont know. From what I remember, all were
-- grounded till 1945 when the wintering kits and C-5
-- upgrades got to the VVS. Thats why it was not so
-- active till late in the war.
--
--
-
<img
- src="http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-s
- tormclouds2.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
08-25-2003, 10:04 PM
Not the racks but structural reinforcement kits for the tail units (problem solved on A-7 version) and ventral fins for A and early C models. Delivery and installation of those kits plugged the ALSIB "pipeline" and largely was responsible for the delay of the introduction of the P-63 in service. All together Russians got 2400 Kingcobras of all A and C versions.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 10:15 PM
Thanks for clearing that up. Oleg wants me to only model the C.

Gib

Bogun wrote:
- Not the racks but structural reinforcement kits for
- the tail units (problem solved on A-7 version) and
- ventral fins for A and early C models. Delivery and
- installation of those kits plugged the ALSIB
- "pipeline" and largely was responsible for the delay
- of the introduction of the P-63 in service. All
- together Russians got 2400 Kingcobras of all A and C
- versions.
-
- AKA_Bogun
-
----------------
- The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction
- has to make sense.
-
-- Tom Clancy
-
----------------
- Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into
- Paris."
- Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore
- grey, you wore blue."
- Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the
- Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."
-
-- Casablanca, 1942
-



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
08-25-2003, 10:56 PM
do u know why?

<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/789603.1.jpg </center>