14:30 - Did I just simultaneously offend every single Bell chopper from the Iroquois (Huey), Cobra and Kiowa. Look, they are voodoo machines, they shouldn't be able to fly in the first place and I will die on this cloud.
How I wish my grandfather hadn’t died just before I was born. He joined the USAAC in 1940. In 1941 he was flying the P-39. His unit, the 52nd FG, was sent in June of 1942 to the UK without its aircraft where it was equipped with the Spitfire MkV. (His flight log shows that he flew a P-39 on June 24th, 1942 and his next flight was in a Spitfire on July 26th.) After almost a year flying the Spitfire in North Africa, he was sent back to the states to command a training unit. From this point his log is a fascinating mix of USAAF aircraft - mostly various marks of the P-39, P-40, and P-51, but there are a few others including a single hour in the P-63. I miss not getting to know him for many reasons, but oh the questions I wish I could have asked him.
Damn that's interesting. Could you perhaps ask your parents what they know? It will never be the same thing but they might know a bit. My grandfather served in ww1 as at a hospital, and while he never told dad much, the horror of unrestricted chemical warfare was successfully passed down to me.
I was lucky enough to live with my grandfather for almost two decades. He was doctor with in the U.S. Navy (rank commander I believe) and almost all I know about his service in WW II was that he was in Panama working on helping service men from both theaters during WW II. He almost never talked about his service other than having a great distain for death and suffering. I need to check his service record because I really should know the full extent of his service. I wonder if you were able to know your grandfather better, if he he would have been forthcoming about what he saw, many WW II vets were not and felt very badly when they did discuss it. So don't feel to bad about not being able to speak to him about the war. Although I will say this, I miss my grandfather and wish I knew him better and talked to him more often because he was a great man, much like your grandfather I suspect.
@@scottperry7311 , my impression is that he, like many combat veterans of the war, had seen more than he wanted and was quite ready to put much of that behind him. However, there are a few stories that were told to his wife and daughter and therefore passed to me. Living on an RAF base with RAF personnel in England in the summer of 1942 made an impression. Apparently at some point he was asked in front of my grandmother if he had ever been in a dogfight. He responded with a story about being in a turning fight with a 109 in which neither he nor the German pilot could gain the advantage. He said that he and the other pilot eventually broke off - saluting each other as they departed. Maybe there is some truth to that, but it also sounds like a story appropriate for the ears of his wife and daughters. His logbook records several strafing missions - and a claim of a victory of a 109 - which seems to have been credited officially as “damaged.” These sorts of stories were not shared. Other records suggest that he crashed a Spitfire on takeoff or landing at some point. On the other hand, he seems to have been proud of his service. I have a large painting depicting “his” Spitfire that a friend made in the 1960s. He named a beloved hunting dog “Major” - and it seems some close friends referred to him by that rank after the war. I tend to think that had I known him when I was a teen, I probably would not have been told of the real horrors of war, but I might have gotten a few airplane stories. And I would have had a chance to know the man.
Yeah the problem was they didn't have enough get up and go at high altitude...however with that cannon in the nose they would have made pretty good fighter bombers...I've often used both the P-39 & 63 in that roll on War Thunder and killed quite a few tanks with them.
This comment is pretty much describe this plane, soviet use it on frontline and have a huge success with it even double aces love it too. so it not a bad pane it's just not what us need it.
Bell got jacked by the Army. They were told to add no boosting at all in the 39. So as built the P 39 had no high altitude performance at all. In the Pacific 39's were utilized as excellent ground attack plane. But they were useles in air to air combat.
The unimpressive Airacobra series did well in the fighter bomber roll...Ive always wondered if the BF-110 was rescued from its ill advised roll as a day fighter and the Germans went totally in as a fighter bomber especially on the Russian front,if it would have done far better like the cobra.
One of the commentators mentioned that the Army specified that the P-39 was not to have a supercharger making it a low altitude fighter when the rest of world aviation was wanting high altitude aircraft capability. That sounds like typical army air corps stupidity of that era. The commentator also mentioned that it was a lousy fighter. The reality is due to army incompetence the aircraft couldn't meet the requirements of the PTO effectively. The pilots loved to fly it. The Soviets used it to its full potential. Many of their aces flew the P-39 and doubled or tripled the kills of the Allied aircraft in Europe against the same German aircraft. Either the Soviet pilots were vastly superior to Yank or Brit pilots or the P-39 outperformed the Allied aircraft at the lower tactical airwar the Soviets waged. Since 80% of the ETO was fought on the Soviet front, the P-39 was one of the most decisive fighter aircraft of WWII. Any Best of fighter aircraft not listing the P-39 is irrelevant.
Given that the P-51 was still seeing extensive service in Korea in the early 1950s, it clearly 'checked a lot of boxes' for USAAF/USAF. Given the comfort that decision-makers had with the P-51, any successor would have to be a major improvement to overcome institutional inertia.
Although the role it played in Korea (ground support/attack/interdiction) was one it was NOT ideally suited for, and the Air Force was stuck with Mustangs in this role because it had overcommitted to them as THE legacy fighter during the jet transition period.
The real issue was that the p47 was like almost twice the price of a p51? They still used them in Taiwan for a while, I'd argue it was superior to the rest of the prop fighters at the time.
My father-in-law was a mechanic and then pilot in the Soviet air firce. He flew the P-39 and P-63 in the early post-WW2 years. He told me the big problem with the Bell planes was a vicious, hardly correctable stall and spin. There was also an overheating problem if take-off was delayed with the engine running. Some pilots failed to understand that the altimeter was marked in feet rather than metres, and thus flew dangerously, or fatally, low.
I've heard that too, likely because they weren't used to flying a plane with mid-engine design. It throws a lot of pilots off. We lost a few USAAF pilots who had not become used to how it feels and flies. However, I also heard that Soviet pilots loved the P-39's. They called them the most comfortable fighter in the Soviet Air Force.
@@onewaynestreet that's the value you get when crew comfort was a design consideration. the biggest thing I believe was that it had a cockpit heater which I'm sure was very appreciated on the eastern front.
The aerodynamics, airfoil and W&B of the P-39 were causes of the tumble and spin problems. P-39 training units had a very high casualty rate compared to the P-40 units.
The Americans were always so relentlessly pragmatic in WWII, so many promising cool projects just not happening because of this. So unlike the Germans.
We have to be careful how we interpret what is pragmatic. If we have 10bil to spend on planes, buying a 1000 cheap planes could possibly be better than 100 expensive ones. But we have to look at that in some depth to assess it. Yes, it is helpful to just have more stuff. But you also need more pilots, more fuel, more runways, etc. Even if the cheap fighters are (per dollar) exactly as effective, you have to put ten times more planes in the sky all the time to match the opposition. It's very very hard to assess stealth as an outsider (and even for those in the service) because we've never actually fought a proper war with stealth involved. But, to look at it purely pragmatically, if stealth works "pretty well" (ie, it reduces the effective range of radar and BVR missiles by a meaningful margin) then it probably is the right choice to pursue it for the front line air force. I say that because technology is a force multiplier, and success compounds. You lose fewer aircraft while succeeding on more missions, and then you have more aircraft to keep sending out so they can keep being successful. If stealth makes no difference at all, then sure the F35 is trash. But we are as sure as we can be that stealth has at least some impact. The only time when stealth makes no difference to the mission is when you have air superiority, but achieving that is very very difficult and stealth definitely does help with that. At any other time, when the opposition has any air force and any SAM capacity, stealth helps keep your guys alive and forces the enemy to spread resources very thin. While of course the F35 has cost too much damn money, it is also the only game in town in terms of being stealthy and also a useful multirole fighter.
I volunteer at the Legacy Flight Museum now and again, and I was completely blindsided to see the planes I am so familiar with starring in one of my favorite aviation channels!! Like, I was gearing up to write a little of what I knew about P-63's, only to see the exact airfraime I was picturing in my head show up on my screen! It's just such an unexpected and surreal experience; it really made my day!
The P-39 & P-63 were saddled with the single stage supercharger. The Allison was a solid engine if one looks at the high altitude performance of the P-38 that had the Allison engine with turbocharging.
Had the Allison gotten the 2-stage supercharger they were supposed to get, the P-51 never would have used the Merlin, and the 2-stage Allison Mustangs would have blown the Merlin mustangs out of the water in terms of performance, including having longer range, higher speed and climb rate. North American only looked at the Merlin after realizing they weren't going to get the 2-stage supercharged Allison they wanted. And North American started the work to install the Merlin 6months prior to the British first mentioning the idea of putting a Merlin into the Mustang.
@@mattgbarr Yeah, I also remember the P-63 had the auxiliary stage supercharger. Not packaged as compact as the Merlin 2-stage supercharger, but definitely added altitude performance. Allison's aux supercharger also had a variable speed hydraulic drive coupling, so it could smoothly perform altitude compensation instead of the sawtooth profile the step-ratio Merlin had.
I had a friend that lived in Rexburg. On a visit, I had a P-51 pass over me just before touching down. We went and checked this museum out. What a treasure trove for an aviation enthusiast! That P-63 is a beast.
As you pointed out, institutionally the USAAF and American industry was already well behind the likes of the P-47 and P-51. Also a lot of crucial fighting the USAAF was doing was high altitude, so the P-51's higher performance there is a big plus in her favor. The P-39 that preceded the P-63 did well in lower altitudes where the Soviets were finding most of their action at in the Eastern Front. They absolutely adored the P-39.
In 1942 and 1943, my father was the Chief Engineering Officer for a squadron of Bell P-39's based at Madden Field, Panama to protect the Canal and the dams that supply water to it. Tasked with intercepting every bogey detected in the air or on the sea, their squadron had excellent readiness and sortie completion records. He found the P-39 to be reliable and easy to maintain, despite the inconvenient mid-engine layout. The through-the-hub cannon was a giant pain, and most were removed and sand bags affixed inside the nose for weight and balance. The pilots generally liked the P-39 and found them maneuverable and fast enough down low. Because of their outstanding readiness and maintenance records his squadron was reassigned to learn to fly and fight the new Bell jet, the P-59 Aircomet. The delays in that program caused the USAAC to assign his group P-51-B 's which everyone loved. They became the 2nd Air Commandos and quickly went to fight the Japanese in India and Burma, where they had remarkable successes which are little noted today.
During WWII my father, a pilot himself serving in Ceylon was transiting the Suez and Mediterranean in a convoy headed for the UK. The convoy came under attack by Ju-88s. A flight of Aircobras was seen flying towards therm to intercept. My dad (remember, he was a Flying Officer himself) witnessed the JU-88s just throttle up and boot out of there leaving the hotshot Aircobras flying by themselves in empty space.
It wasn’t a bad plane. It just wasn’t the right plane. That tends to be the case for a lot of the “bad” planes in history; few of them are irredeemably terrible, but they were overshadowed by something else that fit the role a little better.
You should. I live in the area and occasionally when I don't have anything going on I'll volunteer there for a day. As far as flight museums go it's on the smaller end, but the staff are very engaging and super passionate.
I seem to recall that the P-63 was used in combat by the USSR on the eastern front to some effect, but I agree that it wasnt the fighter America needed at the time
The Kingcobras arrived too late to have any appreciable impact on the Eastern Front. The majority appear to have been retained by air defense units, usually stationed around Moscow (e.g. 17th, 27th, 821st Fighter Air Regiment). However, they were used against Japan during the USSRs short Far East campaign.
P-63 arrived too late to do much, but the Russians operated the P-63 into the Korean war, and a famous incident occured with a US pilot got lost and strafed soviet P-63s at a soviet airfield inside russia.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I don't remember where exactly I read this, so take it with a whole shaker of salt. However, I vaguely recall reading that the US specified P-63s were to be saved for the far east campaign, so the soviets logged any P-63 frontline units/kills/etc as being "P-39"s. Again, no idea if that's true and would be difficult to verify, even if it was.
@@djbiscuit1818It wouldn't surprise me if some was done, but on a large scale it doesn't make a whole lot of sense given the timelines. In smaller numbers, it makes total sense. Getting experience using them in combat would be hugely useful. No amount of training in the Far East could compare to actual combat experience. I am also skeptical of the claims about them being common because of how unreliable identification of specific aircraft and vehicles and such was throughout the war.
Loved your presentation of this largely forgotten aircraft. My dad was still a teenager in Minnesota during WWII, but he remembers seeing P-39's and later, P-63's being ferried towards Alaska to serve in the Soviet Airforce. I want to do a shout out to another great museum in Palm Springs California. The have a fully flyable P-63 on display. In fact, most of their aircraft are in flyable condition and are regularly flown (I was there when they lit up the Grumman Tiger Cat..wow!). I always thought that the P-39 was still a 'handsomer' plane than the P-63. The rudder and tail assembly on the P-63 just looks a bit out of place to me. I realize that the larger assembly was needed due to yaw control problems with the older airframe. It should also be noted that the P-63 is the favorite airplane to fly at Palm Springs Air Museum. All the pilots consider it a joy to fly.. Considering all the details, your presentation was spot on. I would love to talk BF-109 lore with you someday!!
Agreed. Thank you for your wonderful videos. The P51 just checked all the boxes. Can do the tasks while also being cheaper than other airframes. But most importantly it was already there
Love to see the Rexburg Air Museum get this attention! For the comment section- all the planes in this museum (except the skyhawk) still fly. This P63 is one of the very few still flying.
the V-1710 was producing 1850HP at 70" MAP in 1942, and 2200HP at 70" MAP by 1944. Allison tested and verified this, even if the official manuals stated lower. And reports from both the British and US leadership documented that Allied pilots were known to be pushing the engines to 72-75" of MAP regularly.
@@bobsakamanos4469 that is due to teh turbocharger itself, not the engine. this is a known and documented issue. the hot air from the turbocharger was the limiting factor. go read the reports from WW2, watch greg's video on it, etc.
@@SoloRenegade No, not according to the Wright Field report. The Allison continued to have detonation problems, etc. The LAST thing anyone should do is to argue based on the gregvideos. He refuses to acknowledge or correct mistakes, omissions or untruths.
@@bobsakamanos4469 "The LAST thing anyone should do is to argue based on the greg videos. He refuses to acknowledge or correct mistakes, omissions or untruths." fair point, as I've called him out before many times using his own source materials and he threatened to block me for it. But he does a good job overall. but the key is to look at his sources more than his personal claims, assumptions, or opinions. My sources are the same as his, but I've also been able to talk to people who have and still are working on the merlin and Allison engines, and they all swear by the allison for numerous reasons not in the books. I've also talked with authors of some of the books people cite. Detonation was not an engine issue. mostly carb, turbo, and pilot skill related to engine mixture control were primary issues. the other allison aircraft largely did not suffer these problems due to different mixture controls, no turbo, etc. And Allisons remain the preferred engine of restorations today.
Excellent analysis. This aircraft was built as a backup that thankfully was not needed. It did see some success in post-war air racing where its low-level handling speed had certain advantages. (Along with the P-36)
Hi Chris, another insightful and balanced video. The content is excellent. I do want to request a change to the delivery. Please consider increasing the duration of the graphics. The picture might not be worth 1000 words, but some more time to view and assess these would make them more valuable in my opinion. See you in the sky is a great sign off!
Obviously the War Department/USAAF wanted to have have some redundancy in the pipeline in case of hiccups, but that inevitably meant that some manufacturers were just along for the ride. The government could and did screw contractors regularly.
Good analysis. The P-63 might be a good airplane, but the Allies had plenty of those. Your big picture view shows that there was no actual need for the platform by the time it would have been available in numbers. There's an "economy of scale" factor that shows that focusing on a few capable platforms (as long as they sufficiently meet your needs) allows more to be built at a lower cost. That was a lesson WWII Germany should have learned.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I'm happy to do so. I've been a student of military aviation since I saved up my allowance to start acquiring William Green's first volumes on Fighters of WWII starting in 1962. I appreciate your scholarship and enjoy your sense of humor and the way you keep your presentations informative and entertaining. My thanks to you as well.
The CAF flies a restored model out of Peachtree City, GA. Pilots say it is very similar to the P-51 in performance. The Russians still had them in service at the time of the Korean War.
@@guaporeturns9472*most important to the majority of operations for the USAAF For the era, as pointed out by Winkle Brown, speed was the most important in combat. Plus, the USAAF nearly deployed a squadron for D-Day, but that was cancelled due to production delays
If you read Bud Anderson's book "To Fly and Fight" he talks about a very dangerous flaw with the p-39. The engine in the center of the aircraft did very bad things to its center of gravity and the plane liked to go into unrecoverable spins. The Mustang actually had a similar problem when the center fuel tank was full so Mustang pilots drain that tank first. I think that is also a reason the USAAF said no to the P-39.
The p39s tail spin was actually recoverable, it was written in the manuals on how to recover from it. The problem is that with a lot of aircraft, people got comfortable with riding right on the edge of a stall in manoeuvres. This is because the typical weight distribution means that the stall would come on gradually, and be very saveable due to it just nosing down (giving speed and recovering from the stall). The P39s could actually rotate better due to their centre of balance and get closer to a stall with less of the symptoms of a stall, however this meant a stall would appear to come on suddenly and violently. It is a bit like a front engined car and a rear engined car in that way. Front engines are a lot more user friendly, but rear wheel drives have better performance with a worse temperament. If you respect the stall speeds and understand the aircraft, it's a very very capable fighter. The pilots that understood this learnt they could get great turns and balance as long as they didn't brute force it in turns like a traditional plane.
@pluemas If you read Bud Anderson book, who had 300 hours in the P-39 it was very difficult to recover and very often unrecoverable and fatal. His unit even had a song about it Augering in. Thanks but I'll believe the triple ace that actually flew them. I was actually in the Army and I can tell you that equipment manuals aren't worth the paper they are written on in practicality in the real world.
@@Captain_Deadstick Congratulations, many people were in the military. We are also specifically talking about the air force. There are also many pro P39 accounts. Particularly soviet pilots who lived its low altitude performance and were more than willing to adapt to it's quirks. It's centre of gravity being where it is did bad things specifically in stall conditions, so if you kept it out of those conditions it was a non issue. The centre of gravity also meant it was an extremely agile and easy to "point" aircraft which had very high firepower for its time. Manuals are not perfect, but the vast majority of the time people who just wholly discount them are making a mistake. I saw it personally with training on the SA80, where the instructors didn't read the manual, made assumptions, and completely ruined rifles by poor maintenance based on their assumptions. In some cases, this training got people killed. The techniques described in the manual for the P39 tell people how to avoid the flat spins, the conditions that are likely to cause the spins, and the techniques that you could use if you did end up in one of the spins. To discount those is foolish, as they do work for the P39.
@pluemas How many flight hours do you have in a P-39? Lol I'll take the Triple Ace and test pilots like Bud and Chuck word on it. They say it had a flaw, who are we to argue. Also thanks on the congregations only 1% of the population has served and they also know that equipment manuals fall short in real world experience 😉. Ok bye-bye
@@Captain_Deadstick Enjoy your ignorance I suppose. Reading a pop history book is not equivalent to looking into the manual and doing research on the systems flaws and effectiveness. 1% is still 3.4 million people. Which is around the size of LA. I'm simply pointing out that being ex military is not particularly special, and does not confer greater knowledge than someone who has done equivalent or more research. I have also been through military training, and have read military manuals for my nation. I can tell you that whilst they are dry and sometimes inflexible, they give best practice guidelines compiled with ungodly amounts of man hours of statistical analysis. Some boot thinking they know better is just that, some boot with an ego. Reading and understanding effective utilisation of the manuals, be it for FIBUA or on the vehicle you are using, is vital to being a capable soldier. Otherwise you're just a liability.
As always, thank you very much, awesome topic! I really love to hear details about those lesser known or successful designs, sometimes it corrects some false claims or misunderstandings. I really hope that you will come up with some of my favorit planes some day, The F86 Sabre, the A4 Skyhawk, the Ju 88, the Fiat CR.42, the Sopwith Camel, the Polikarpow I 153 and I 16 ... I know, a long list...but i can wait, and who knows...maybe one day😁 Stay healthy!
Listening to this brings to mind Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Superiority", which depicts what happens when one is too focused on development and not properly tackling challenges of new idea roll-out. Danke schoen.
The Soviets used to say, quantity has a quality of its own. By simply being a decent aircraft and increasing the numbers of allied planes in the sky, it made a significant contribution to the war effort.
I don’t think that applies here. The cobras were not liked by the soviets just because they provided more quantity. They were excellent on the eastern front which definitely can’t be said for every lend lease aircraft they received. For example the spitfire was seen as a poor fighter by soviet pilots. So no, it wasn’t just a “decent aircraft” for them, it was very good. P-39/63 being better than the “legendary” Spitfire or other western aircraft like P-47 seems weird but it makes sense considering soviet doctrine at the time.
King Kobra was well received by the Red Army because it had no competition The Spitfire had a short range and was very sensitive to the Russian winter / and it was fighter And the King Cobra was an ideal fighter/bomber for ground support It was not as good as the Il-2 or Thunderbolt, nor as good as the Mig fighters but he was in between he dropped bombs and then either chased German fighters or shot at German tanks The 37 mm cannon in the nose was not to be ignored and the Russians could get it in large numbers And it was good enough to distract the ME109s from attacking the ILs
@@tihomirrasperic I think that the King would have been as good as the Thunder remember the King had a 37mm cannon as well as 50cal machine guns. It was a smaller target and more nimble.
Nice video Chris, like so many planes, it was good, but really didn't offer much more than the existing in service aircraft. BTW, geeking out over aircraft is why we come here, no need to apologize!
I would also disagree with you. It was not late to the party as it was a development of the airacobra and a very similar story to the hellcat. But the series lacking high altitude performance meant that it was too limited in what roles it could perform and it was simply easier to produce more mustangs and thunderbolts. It was however an excellent backup project and it was put to good use through lend lease.
@@WALTERBROADDUS A rejected export spec’ version, it had Australian fittings oxygen equipment so it couldn’t fly above 10,000 feet in USAAF service. They were probably British made guns which in 1942 were reliable. A very small number made it into P-51A/A-36s.
I suspect the Red AF was grateful for every P-39 and P-63 flew. Sometimes you gotta fight with what is available. After all we started with sticks and stones. Have always loved the lines of that lineage.
Given the doctrine that the army Air corps was flying under at the time, and the fact that the next front was going to be the Pacific, it's seriously makes no sense at that time to go for the p63. I don't see any holes in your argument, not because there aren't tactical usages that would have made it beneficial, but because those benefits were minor compared to the major expense for either introducing or sustaining or gearing up. You covered all of this, so I'm not really of much use as a critic)))))
Thanks for another informative, and, entertaining video. I enjoy your commentary. I learned something new, in that water injection was used on this engine design. I knew about it being used with turbojet engines, specifically the J-57. Different engine designs, but using the same principle. Makes sense!
Hi @MilitaryAviationHistory can you do an episode on "Bf-109G and Bf-109K: How bad were they?" that looks at the aircraft design, the fuel, the construction quality and the experience of pilots.
It makes perfect sense. The P-63 would've been a great classic point defence interceptor in theaters where the combat didn't happen at high altitude. But that's not what the US needed then in WW2 or for the foreseeable future.
I suppose that the P-63 could have found a use in the CBI. But again, it didn't offer any advantage over the existing proven designs. It is a fine looking aircraft though.
My 2 cents: Packard V-1650 engine swap (for altitude performance) Take out the cannon (useless amongst high and tight fighting) for 2 extra 50 cals and some fuel to ballast an aft fuel tank where the Allisons supercharger after-thought was 👍 . They seemed to have had the time to do this, and the P-39 would have tought them much about Allisons limitations. It would have been worth the investment having the P-38 fire concentration, and ground handling virtues, without T-charger weight and complexity. This could have left the P-51 to pure fighter escort roles with dedicated F/B and ground attack being refined away to P-47, P-63, and P-38's.
Perfect illustration of the french concept of DORESE - acronym for "Doctrine, organisation, human resources, equipment, force support, training". As Olivier Schmitt said in an article entitled" Innover dans les armées : les enjeux du changement militaire", "military change is never simply a matter of defining and implementing new combat equipment and platforms. On the contrary, for military change to be successful, it must combine four dimensions: a new technology that can be used in combat, an appropriate employment doctrine, a reorganisation of structures and appropriate training."
What the P-63t did have an advantage in is a 37mm cannon. But by that time in the war, the US didn't have to worry about bomber interception and a cannon to shoot them down, which it could have excelled at. So your conclusion is spot on, the P-63 was a good aircraft that couldn't find a niche to fill.
The U.S. production of Hispano 20mm cannon mirrored its WW1 production of (American designed!) Lewis guns, sorted out properly just in time for the surrenders.
It's's a woefully underestimated aircraft in WarThunder Air RB. Great Climb, good armament, nose mounted guns, and low altitude performance are all what WarThunder Air RB wants. He who can climb fastest and he who can perform at lowest altitude often matters more than top speed, high altitude, or fuel range. The P-63 (A-10) variant has, I believe, the best 0-6000 meter climb. You'll be up there at/before some of the 109's.
I fully agree with your conclusion. While the US could “easily” meet recommended production numbers it was fairly clear that shifting manufacturing focus was a detriment.
If I remember the speed/altitude graph correctly the performance at altitude was great. She had a two stage, variable speed supercharger with barometric controls. So the supercharger was always running at optimal RPM and the pilot didn't even have to fiddle with the controls. She could out climb and out manouver a P-47 but she was a solution looking for a problem. At this time short range interceptors weren't needed any more. For details see: American's 100.000 by Dean.
A fair judgement for Europe. The P-39 was useful in ground attack in the Pacific and in the early years when the Allies needed every aircraft they could use.
At 3:56 the roll rate data of the P-51 and P-47 is wrong. From the SETP 1989 test the P-47D Bubbletop was 66 dps under 3 G and 74 dps at 1 G. The P-51 was about 55 dps under 3 G and a similar 75 dps at 1 G. P-51 controls were very heavy in pitch and roll. The P51 was slower (not hugely critical) and there is no way the D model came anywhere near 90 dps. The NACA 868 chart is entirely calculated. Below 250 mph (where it matters most), the P-51, similar to the Me-109G, preferred left turns, while the FW-190A also preferred hard left turns, but was more symmetrical in sustained turns, so it badly out-turned it in prolonged right turns.
Great video, even if they weren’t the fav of the USAAF, still think they are cool planes but I totally agree - the P-51 was the standard plane for the Air Force and for it to be adopted - it would need to go at least 50 mph at high altitude and have a better range than the P-51 for it to have a change. It would have done a great job at CAS but P-47s and P-51s were great at that too.
The Soviets did not like the Spitfire. They liked the P-39 Since the foreign policy of the U.S. was heavily favored towards the Soviet Union I believe that the P-63 was designed with Soviet preference in mind.
@@viridisxiv766 I heard that the Brits diverted planes needed to defend Singapore to the Soviets. Remember the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were lacking air cover. I don't know if that would have been prevented by Spitfires, but I do know that a huge amount of material was sent to the Soviet Union. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the material sent from England.
@@viridisxiv766 there was a great Brit video about "What is wrong with German airplanes" Cannons, Spitfires don't need cannons! The Soviets loved cannons, and the P-39 had a 37mm cannon as did the P-63
They sent nearing obsolescence high altitude ONLY _tall geared_ *single speed* supercharger Spitfire Mk Vs out, the Soviets didn’t do high altitude fighting and the Mk Vs had to limit the throttle opening at low altitude to avoid the tall geared supercharger over boosting and destroying the engine. The single speed Mk Vs were also rubbish against up to date two speed FW 190As, Zeros and Oscars.
Agree overall. Supposedly a significant number of KCs sent to USSR unclear how they did not well documented. As Greg told, the P39 was ideal for eastern front (low to medium altitudes, short range)
Thanks again. The P-39 and P-63 are absolutely beatuful to look at which I believe is behind much of the interest in them. I like how you incorporate the timeline. If the Kingcobra's development was shifted 12 months earlier it *MIGHT* have been a different story. However, this "great, but 12 months late" argument is lame. By the same argument the Bell P-59 Airacomet would have been the best fighter at the start of the war had Bell only pushed it's development up by 60 months. Given the same knowledge base and buyer needs, Bell was good enough to make the playoffs but was beaten by rivals in the early rounds.
Greg's automobile's level of technical expertise is out of my league. The King Cobra: I think, it ought to be possible to add an extra-stage supercharger. After all, mustang flew with Allison & Merlin engines. The late-war spitfire was a case of a certain Greek ship compared to early war. But: the US has the Mustang & Thunderbolt with good performance already. The real 'death sentence' for US air force usage is the limited range. (in my noob opinion). The US navy had 'traumatic' experiences of being outranged by the Japanese aircraft, and the US army also operated in the pacific theater and were looking for long-range capability over the vast pacific. escort-range to Berlin must have been a consideration also, but it was basically Churchill whom pushed for Europe first, Pacific 2nd timing. The US certainly planned ahead for the pacific, they knew their own carriers were at risk and were setting up airfields all over. If the KingCobra would have had better range than the Mustang, I bet the US would have looked at giving it better high-altitude performance.
One of the greatest pilots ever, Chuck Yeager, wrote in his book that he loved the P-63 and it was one of his favorites to have flown. (correction: Gen Yeager flew the P-39, from which the P-63 was developed)
That immigration hurts countries where people emigrate from? Brain drain is real? If asylum seekers have the money to travel around the world through 10 different countries, maybe it’s not really asylum but greed that they seek? I’m an immigrant myself but I’m cool with the country I live in being poorer than the country I was born in.
I love WWII aircraft, including the ugly ducklings like the Buffalo, P-39 and yes the P-63. Great explanatory video! What would have happened if the P-39 had gotten a 2 state supercharger? Would that have helped the P-63? The Soviets did well with both aircraft.
I'm from Buffalo, where Bell built these planes, and I've seen the KingCobra in Arizona, and I have to agree with you that the P-39 and the P-63 weren't anywhere near as good as the P-51. I think the P-47 was ok for ground support, since the P-51 was just better in so many ways for high altitude escorts. I'm glad the Sovs could use them.
The soviet's loved the COBRINSKI as they called it, if you notice, a lot of their early aircraft copied the Aircobra. I talked to a old WWII pilot, and he actually liked it. He said you could make use of the spin as a fighting tactic once you knew how to recover. I think it all boils down to a pilot that knows his machine.
A consistent issue with aircraft manufacturers who build fighters for the military is. The manufacturer is told by the military 'the plane needs to fly this fast..go this far on x amount of fuel..carry x amount of ordinance...the manufacturer meets or exceeds the requirements for a 'fighter'...and thats when the trouble begins...now the military wants a 'one all-be-all-do all' plane and start demanding changes usually to increase range,speed,and role...instead of a sleek,fast,powerful fighter built to take on other 'fighters' we now have a fighter platform thats been hobbled with roles,weapons and missions it wasnt designed to do. Fighter tactics developed by the military...instead of the tactics being developed and dedicated to the traits of an aircraft...the military day dreams and wants an aircraft designed around unrealistic,untried combat tactics...so everyone is forced to compromise...a plane thats a jack-of-all-trades-..master of none. Possibly this is why the P39 and P63 didnt perform as expected
Should the KIng Cobra had been introduced a year earlier, there would have been a better chance of being adopted into the Army Air Corp arsenal. The P-51 had trouble meeting requirements until the Rolls Royce engine was adapted as the power plant. The P-51 had difficulties with the supercharger in the original engine also. The King Cobra came into the picture during a time when transition to jet engines was taking place. The King Cobra is a very good aircraft, just too late arriving.
As I understand the issue the basic problem with the P-63 was that mid-engine configuration meant all the volume round the centre of gravity was occupied by engine, radiators, landing gear, pilot etc.. Unlike more conventional layouts there was no way to safely add extra fuel tanks as it would reduce stability as the weight of fuel changed. (The P-51 also offered exceptional fuel economy due to extremely low drag, and very efficient radiator design converting radiator drag into a low temperature ramjet).The Russians liked both the P-39/P-63 as they concentrated on shorter range missions.
The USAAF did not make use of the P-63 because it was seriously plagued by a lack of range. The P-39s were still in service - mostly with our allies - the USSR natch, also Free French and Italian pilots that switched sides. The Soviets received the P-63 but high altitude combat wasn't much of a factor in their front and they were making good use of their P-39s. Also the Red Air Force by early 1944 was getting large numbers of new fighters (LA-5 and Yaks) that were putting the P-39s in the shade.
The Russians sure liked the P 63 A. It represented a major step up from the P 39 G. At low and medium altitudes it was more than a match for the Bf109G 10 and Fw190A 8. Therefore, it represented the ideal choice for the type of air fighting that was witnessed on the Eastern Front. It was also a pretty decent close air support aircraft. Unfortunately, its less than stellar high altitude performance precluded it from being employed in the big leagues of the European Theatre, where high altitude performance and range were at a premium. Likewise, the P 63's lack of range would have proved an inhibiting factor when it came to the Pacific. In that theatre long legs were paramount. When it came to the Pacific, aircraft like the P 38 L set the gold standard. It is worth noting in this respect, that Gen. Kenny who commanded the 5th Airforce in the South West Pacific, held the P 38 in very high regard due to its range, overall performance, firepower, and twin engine layout, which he believed enhanced the P 38's overall survivability when it came to conducting long over water operations. In contrast to the P 38, due to its lack of range and it's single engine, the introduction of the P 63 into the Pacific would have represented a retrograde step, even though it was superior the P 38 at low and medium altitudes where most of the combat in that theatre took place. In short, the P 63 was introduced at a time when aircraft of similar capability were already in service. It could be said that the P 63 was the orphan child of the USAAF By the time it entered service there was no need for it. Its belated introduction into widespread squadron service would have only complicated the airforce's already stretched training and supply networks. The abortive saga of the P 63 might have been completely different if it had arrived on the scene two years earlier. Who knows, it might have become one of America's premier fighter planes. It certainly would have replaced the P 39 and the P 40 on the frontline? Anyway, it was not meant to be, such is the vagueness of fate?
Your thesis is correct as far as you went. The "but" in this is, the aircraft was designed in 43 and at that time the P 51 was just getting its Merlin engine, the Russians were just starting to push back the Germans and there was no guarantee that the P 51 would be the game changer. The USAAF orderd the P 63 into production as a Back Up or Contengency aircraft to just have more options. North American had thewinner Bell had the also ran. But both were just horses in an endurance race. The P 39/P 63 was a good low altitude fighter that did extremely well on the Eastern Front where the fight was at lower altitudes than the ETO. They were excellent at ground attack and filled that role till the end. It was just not what was needed in Europe, they would have done well in the CBI, even in Mc Authers campaigns up New Guinea and into the Phillipines. By the time it was flying, as far as the ETO was concerned, it was useless.
The Soviets flew the majority of there missions below 20,000ft. The P39 and P63 suited their combat tactics and the majority of locally made fighters were built to those standards.
But it remains a fact, the Bell P-63 was tied with the P-38 as the highest-scoring USAAF fighter aircraft when it came to shooting down Fu-Go balloons over the continental USA. The P-47 and even the esteemed P-51 cannot claim this title.
Soviet pilots actually met with Bell execs and senior technicians to refine design specs, so to a large extent it wasn't even designed for the Americans. It was designed for the Soviets.
Whereas the USAAF couldn't find a use for the P-63, it made a lot more sense to give it to the Russians as they had much more logistical support for it (P-39). They certainly made good use of it.
Given the P-39s performance in the SWPA against the Zero and KI-43 Oscar, it was no surprise the AAF trashed the Kingcobra as totally useless. If I was a fighter pilot flying the P-63, I'd d raise a ruckus and told Bell to get a supercharger that could help it perform better at high altitude engagements, and possibly redesign the airframe for better fuel requirements, then I'll fly where I'm ordered. But Bell went into helicopters and that changed history for them.
I think you are right. It was a good aircraft, but there wasn’t enough need for it to justify putting it in the field. To this end, it was similar to the F7F.
How would the P-63 performed in Fall Bodenplatte? On each side. (Flying for the Luftwaffe. If they were shooting down their own 109's and 190's P-63's would have been nicodynium flak magnets.) But that one 4 hour period would have been its shining moment. Just enough range and everyone down on the deck where it was the beast. Of course the Americans would have taken 10 minutes longer figuring out how to get the King Cobras started because they only received them yesterday; so for the reasons Chris described they likely would have missed their big moment there.
It sounds like the Allison engine was the main point of failure for this aeroplane. Unless I am very much mistaken the P51 originally suffered the same lack of high altitude performance until it was engine swapped to use a licenced version of the Rolls Royce Merlin. If this fighter had been engine swapped likewise it would probably have been a decent interceptor but with the other fighters available at the time it makes little sense to invest in developing such an upgrade, especially when factoring in the lack of fuel capacity. It would have been a different story if it had been developed a few years earlier but with the timeline as it actually happened it makes no sense to use this fighter.
For WWII the ceiling limitation and short range issues fail for the Western Europe bombing escort and Pacific missions, but neither of these are a drawback at the Soviet front where the fight is local air superiority against ground attack aircraft. However the Soviet’s already had the IL-2 etc, so it was just extra production of an aircraft for them.
