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.
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 in the US had a very high casualty rate compared to the P-40 units.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!!
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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!
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
8:18 the First combat sortie of a P-51 was in Jan 1942 with the RAF (the Very first mission was a gorund attack mission inside Germany, the first time in WW2 any Allied fighters had entered German airspace). and the US was operating the P-51A and A-36 in North Africa in 1942. The first P-47 combat sortie was in Jan 1943.
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)
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)))))
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.
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.
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.
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.
The handling problems of the P-39 were not addressed in the P-63 design, but should have been. It still had unacceptably low stick forces under high g's and the tumble & spin problem was actually addressed by the Soviets rather than Bell who was then obliged to modify the CG. The Allison still did not have the induction cooling required to handle the aux supercharger. Bell wanted the Merlin engine but they were not available.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
The way I saw both the P39 and P63 was they were both effective ground attack aircraft that came too late to be utlized in the arena where they could be most effective.
@@tomhart837 Never said they weren't. That's how I've always interpreted them based on their specs. Given both planes poor performance at altitudes normally inhabited by bombers (especially from 1942 on), it should have occured to Bell directly that neither plane was well suited for them initially intended role.
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.
Yes. A major point you made was the Air Force Standardization on the P-51. For Korea - where they were no longer using the Mustang for Long Range Bomber Escort - the Americans would have been a lot better off keeping the P-47's but they had just gotten rid of the last ones in the Pacific Theater and the only people retaining them were Air National Guard. So - standardization on the P-51 ( or F-51 at that point) was a mistake but - the Air Force by that time had a P-51 mind set. The basic Idea was that the P-51 had saved the 8th Air Force over Germany - and that mattered more than anything else. Even for the Invasion of Japan - where they had the P-47N's - the Mustang was going to be the first plane they thought of because of it's range. The fighter planes they put on Iwo Jima - were P-51's. I would say that it's kind of like inertia. They get set doing something - so - they keep doing it - even when it's not the best solution any more. The P-51's thing - was Long Range Bomber Escort. It was a lousy ground attack aircraft. It had a liquid cooled engine and a limited bomb load. The P-47 with a an R2800 Radial engine was much more durable and could carry a much heavier load. With 8 .50 cal. machine guns - it had better armament than the Mustang. The P-38 - a pre-war aircraft - had liquid cooled engines - but - it had TWO of them - and it could carry a substantial amount of ordnance more than the Mustang. With Drop tanks and the modified tuning of it's engines it had a fantastic range as well. So - the Air Force should have kept either of those two aircraft in preference to the P-51's - as the Long Range Bomber Escort function the Mustang had been so good at - was over. But through Bureaucratic Inertia - they didn't. _Mustangs, Mustangs, Mustangs!_ That was the Air Force mentality and so that is the one they kept - much to the misfortune of the American Pilots using it for Ground Attack in Korea. .
But you are basing that entirely on hindsight. If a war with the Soviet Union had commenced in the late '40s or early '50s, those long range escort fighters would have been a critical component of the USAF, both in the West and the East. And that was, quite reasonably, the primary focus of the military at that time. In addition, that was a role that early jets were not good at, they could much more easily take over interceptor and ground attack missions than long range escort. The right decision doesn't always lead to the ideal outcome.
Love it, I always loved the engineering aspect of the P-39 and P-63. Part of the P-39's poor reputation is that it was flown by largely inexperienced US pilots against Japan's best pilots. Who would not want a forward firing 36mm gun in their aircraft? What kinds of ammunition did they load that gun with? Did they have an armor piercing round in the belt? What was the cost of the P-63 compared with the P-51 or P-47? Basically it was too late to the war, but it would have been a game changer in North Africa against Rommel's troops if available.
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.
I would like to say that Bell made more than a few of the most famous choppers. You had the Model 17, the UH-1, the AH-1, the Jetranger, and the Model 222 aka Airwolf. The P-63 was very much in the same boat as the P-40Q, P-49, and the later models of the P-47, and P-51 good but not really that much better than what was already in service. The best use for the P-63 would have been suited to low-level air-to-air and ground attack. Except the P-47 was very good as was the A-20 and later A-26 at ground attack and the P-40 was actually pretty good at low altitude.
Better the Devil you know vs the Devil you don’t. At the point it was introduced, it wasn’t worth relearning a new platform when you have capable aircraft already on hand. Who would have known how it could have been modified in service? Whether aerodynamics could have made it more competitive thanks to its other capabilities, whether tricks to improve it could have overcome other types? With the number of aircraft introduced late in the war its curious which didn’t make the cut and which did. Regardless, the P-63 is still my favorite airframe of the era. Beyond just its real world capabilities the innovations the type introduced have not been replicated since. Thats worth something.
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.
Unlike Germany at the time, the Allies (e.g. the US) were loath to dilute resources, throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. Logistics win wars and having too many front line fighters would tax logistics. I think a greater argument could be made in favor of the P-47 being made the premiere front line fighter (air cooled, could absorb massive damage, great fighter etc just not as sexy as the Mustang). It's a wonder the P-63 was produced in the first place. I do ponder what would have been if longer wings were used (think Ta-152). Meh. Jets were coming which makes any piston fighter argument moot.
The Allied approach also shifted over time. Early in the war they WERE throwing stuff at the wall, with a lot of redundancy. By late '43, though, they had kind of sorted stuff out, both technologically and operationally, and knew what they needed and what was worth investing in. Case in point: the Hellcat. It wasn't cutting edge, but it was winning the war. And, yeah, jets, so WTF.
Its mostly the airfoil it used. P-47Ds and P-51Ds were properly tuned for high altitude flight, just so much less drag that their more powerful powerplants could capitalize on. The irony tho on how that nature became less important in the closing stages of the war
The history of WW2 aviation is full of aircraft which arrived to late. Towards the end of WW2 there was some excellent piston engined aircraft but with the end of the war and the arrival of the jet they rarely got a chance.
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?
Excellent work, but is there not an additional factor of cost, both unit cost and maintenance? This can be tricky to pin down, but the figures I have seen suggest that in 1944 the P-51D was costing c.$50,000 a copy, the P-63 $65,000 and the P-47 nearer $83,000. The P-51 was also probably the least expensive of the trio to operate and maintain. Its performance was far from the only thing in the Mustang's favour.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
🐝
Just had The Force disturbance with Marines and 1 or 2 USN sailors about the Bell Cobra and upgrades. But all good. Cris.
MATH - Military Aviation History Thursay. Might have a better, more memorable ring to it.
They don't fly, they beat the air into submission!
Could keep MAH Day as MAD. Just dedicate that day to talking about helicopters.
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.
That’s cool.
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.
Wow, what a service record!
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.
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 in the US had a very high casualty rate compared to the P-40 units.
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.
I built a model kit of that fighter in South Korean markings before. Very cool build 😎 It was called a different name than the P-51 though
@@jagtoneBut a P-47 Thunderbolt requires more high octane fuel to operate, which often would need to be shipped overseas.😉
@@martijn9568 They were already shipping jet fuel overseas.
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.
Glad to hear Greg mentioned. Lovely channel. The Bell fighters weren't bad. They just weren't what the US needed.
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.
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!
Thank you for your volunteer work, y’all do an excellent job with your aircraft!
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.
I do believe that the P-63 did have a remote second stage blower, unlike the P-39.
@@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.
@@SoloRenegadeTHANK YOU for mentioning the merits of the Allison. The USAAF vetoed the development of the 2stg, 2spd even a 3spd version.
gasping for breath above 15,000 feet
Love the shoutout to Greg's Airplanes!
Love his videos!
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.
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.
Agree, great place to visit!
Love you’re in defense of videos. Thanks for taking a look at this unique fighter.
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.
The Americans were always so relentlessly pragmatic in WWII, so many promising cool projects just not happening because of this. So unlike the Germans.
Relentless pragmatism wins wars.
@@rand0mn0 this is true
That should teach us something especially with the issues with the f35
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.
@@ericwethington The F-35 is the best fighter in the world?
Yup, Greg's A&A has good in-depth ww2 airplane performance discussions.
Several Soviet fighter squadrons in the Far East were equip not with Yaks or Lagg but with P63 as late as 1950
pretty ironic after the cold war was in full swing.
Yeah even had NATO code name Fred
I love the Elmer Fudd silhouette for 'Strong Firepower'. "Be wery, wery quiet. I'm hunting Panwers. Huh huh huh huh!"
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
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.
The later Allison in the P-38L couldn't take 70" MP. Earlier engines certainly couldn't either and had lots of failures, fires, and detonation.
@@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.
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!!
P-39 and P-63 are my favorite aircraft of WWII, loved the design and the layout. I liked it for how similar and yet how different it was.
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.
I agree 100% and the Museum looks fantastic
Chris, I keep watching your channel simply because you are the best! You are no holds barred reviews about aircraft! Please keep it up!!
From everything else I’ve heard and seen about this aircraft I’d say that your analysis is pretty accurate.
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)
Good video. The limitations worked against the P-63 and the problems you mentioned are absolutely correct.
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.
I guess he didn't see the Spitfires flying top cover for the P-39s.
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.
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.
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.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory
That’s awesome. Thanks for the additional information, y’all! I’m off to learn more about that aspect of their career.
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.
Another great video
Thank you. Your analysis is spot on in my opinion.
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.
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.
Except the most important statistic.. range.
@@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
Happy to see Greg's channel mentioned, it's great stuff
A great 100% impartial evaluation of how 100% perfect the P-47 was and how everything else was 100% rubbish unless it came from Germany.
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!
I'll have to go to the Legacy Air Museum as it's only a few hours drive away and has one of the few remaining P-63s.
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.
@@pyronuke4768 Thank you. I will and then in a few years when the grandkids are old enough to benefit from the long drive.
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.
Thank you, and thanks for supporting for over 3 years! Appreciate it so much, that's just...wow!
@@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.
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!
Bell also had a somewhat significant aircraft after WWII, The Bell X-1.
Bell made money, not much value though.
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!
Given its best performance was at low altitude, it is no wonder it was a darling of the Soviets.
The thing I like about the aerocobra and the kingcobra was the armament. In that respect it was a great design.
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!
Pro - a big gun at the front - one can't beat a big flying gun
Con - late to the party
I would disagree with you. Not a particularly great gun. And you have the need to synchronize your other guns.
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.
A high rate of fire, high muzzle velocity 20 mm (imported and therefore reliable version) Hispano would have been far more useful.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 my memory is fuzzy but, I do recall there was a version of the P-39 with one. They call them p400s.
@@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 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.
Love the shout out for Greg, you guys both make great content
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.
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.
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 very good balanced analysis Chris. Not right for the time/circumstances doesn't make it a bad aircraft.
Great presentation, enjoyed it!!
Glad to hear it! Thank you!
@@MilitaryAviationHistory keep up the great work!!!
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."
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.
(Deleted)
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.
8:18 the First combat sortie of a P-51 was in Jan 1942 with the RAF (the Very first mission was a gorund attack mission inside Germany, the first time in WW2 any Allied fighters had entered German airspace). and the US was operating the P-51A and A-36 in North Africa in 1942. The first P-47 combat sortie was in Jan 1943.
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)
39
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Thanks for the correction!
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)))))
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.
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.
Not to mention a bonkers a low altitude speed meaning you'll outrun almost everyone . Turns good at high speed however low speed stall isn't the best
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.
After 50 years of loving the bird... You are correct.
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.
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.
The handling problems of the P-39 were not addressed in the P-63 design, but should have been. It still had unacceptably low stick forces under high g's and the tumble & spin problem was actually addressed by the Soviets rather than Bell who was then obliged to modify the CG. The Allison still did not have the induction cooling required to handle the aux supercharger. Bell wanted the Merlin engine but they were not available.
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)
This is great. I get to volunteer at the Legacy Flight Museum in Rexburg, Idaho. And I have a lot of photos of the P-63 flying
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.
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.
I adore the P-63, its such a neat design. I'd love to make a model of it but it seems like hardly any model company has touched it
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.
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.
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.
I love the Legacy Flight Museum! I’ve been multiple times and I also once got to ride in the Bob Hoover Ole Yeller mustang! It was amazing
So cool! I got to sit inside Ole Yeller, what a feeling! The flight must have been legendary
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.
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 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.
The Kingcobra's 37mm Cannon was......the "King-Grapefruit-Shooter."
I would love it if Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles made a video on the P-63
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.
But it did find a niche to fill in the Soviet Air Force where they were used to protect ground troops at low levels where it's performance was ideal.
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.
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.
thats because they were given the old knackered ones that the british didnt want anymore.
@@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.
The way I saw both the P39 and P63 was they were both effective ground attack aircraft that came too late to be utlized in the arena where they could be most effective.
Neither was meant to be ground attack. The 39 was originally speced and designed to be a bomber interceptor
@@tomhart837
Never said they weren't. That's how I've always interpreted them based on their specs. Given both planes poor performance at altitudes normally inhabited by bombers (especially from 1942 on), it should have occured to Bell directly that neither plane was well suited for them initially intended role.
I for one agree. Bell did a great job making an aircraft America didn't need.
Nice video! Personally I would have liked to have more technical data, I don't think Greg has covered the Kingcobra yet.
Uh...the P63 IS the KingCobra.
@@ERAUsnow I believe he's talking about Greg's Automobiles and Airplanes.
Greg has talked about it a little. Maybe 1 video.
The P-51 Mustang was designed by a German Austrian and the same gentleman designed the F-86
And the P-47 was designed by a Georgian from the Russian Empire, Alexander Kartveli.
Is that supposed to mean something?
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.
Soviets loved their Cobras, their top Ace Pokryshkin got most of his kills in P-39 and P-63
Yes. A major point you made was the Air Force Standardization on the P-51.
For Korea - where they were no longer using the Mustang for Long Range Bomber Escort - the Americans would have been a lot better off keeping the P-47's but they had just gotten rid of the last ones in the Pacific Theater and the only people retaining them were Air National Guard.
So - standardization on the P-51 ( or F-51 at that point) was a mistake but - the Air Force by that time had a P-51 mind set. The basic Idea was that the P-51 had saved the 8th Air Force over Germany - and that mattered more than anything else.
Even for the Invasion of Japan - where they had the P-47N's - the Mustang was going to be the first plane they thought of because of it's range. The fighter planes they put on Iwo Jima - were P-51's.
I would say that it's kind of like inertia. They get set doing something - so - they keep doing it - even when it's not the best solution any more.
The P-51's thing - was Long Range Bomber Escort. It was a lousy ground attack aircraft. It had a liquid cooled engine and a limited bomb load.
The P-47 with a an R2800 Radial engine was much more durable and could carry a much heavier load. With 8 .50 cal. machine guns - it had better armament than the Mustang.
The P-38 - a pre-war aircraft - had liquid cooled engines - but - it had TWO of them - and it could carry a substantial amount of ordnance more than the Mustang. With Drop tanks and the modified tuning of it's engines it had a fantastic range as well.
So - the Air Force should have kept either of those two aircraft in preference to the P-51's - as the Long Range Bomber Escort function the Mustang had been so good at - was over. But through Bureaucratic Inertia - they didn't. _Mustangs, Mustangs, Mustangs!_ That was the Air Force mentality and so that is the one they kept - much to the misfortune of the American Pilots using it for Ground Attack in Korea.
.
But you are basing that entirely on hindsight.
If a war with the Soviet Union had commenced in the late '40s or early '50s, those long range escort fighters would have been a critical component of the USAF, both in the West and the East.
And that was, quite reasonably, the primary focus of the military at that time.
In addition, that was a role that early jets were not good at, they could much more easily take over interceptor and ground attack missions than long range escort.
The right decision doesn't always lead to the ideal outcome.
Love it, I always loved the engineering aspect of the P-39 and P-63. Part of the P-39's poor reputation is that it was flown by largely inexperienced US pilots against Japan's best pilots. Who would not want a forward firing 36mm gun in their aircraft?
What kinds of ammunition did they load that gun with? Did they have an armor piercing round in the belt?
What was the cost of the P-63 compared with the P-51 or P-47?
Basically it was too late to the war, but it would have been a game changer in North Africa against Rommel's troops if available.
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.
I talk with an elder gentleman who flew both aircraft. His chief compliant was the vibration of the driveshaft.
Damn you were in my neck of the woods in Idaho and I didnt even know! Hope you had fun here haha
It was awesome!
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Heck yeah brother you are always welcome here🤙🏼🇺🇲
I would like to say that Bell made more than a few of the most famous choppers. You had the Model 17, the UH-1, the AH-1, the Jetranger, and the Model 222 aka Airwolf.
The P-63 was very much in the same boat as the P-40Q, P-49, and the later models of the P-47, and P-51 good but not really that much better than what was already in service. The best use for the P-63 would have been suited to low-level air-to-air and ground attack. Except the P-47 was very good as was the A-20 and later A-26 at ground attack and the P-40 was actually pretty good at low altitude.
Really good video, very informative.
Better the Devil you know vs the Devil you don’t. At the point it was introduced, it wasn’t worth relearning a new platform when you have capable aircraft already on hand.
Who would have known how it could have been modified in service? Whether aerodynamics could have made it more competitive thanks to its other capabilities, whether tricks to improve it could have overcome other types?
With the number of aircraft introduced late in the war its curious which didn’t make the cut and which did.
Regardless, the P-63 is still my favorite airframe of the era. Beyond just its real world capabilities the innovations the type introduced have not been replicated since. Thats worth something.
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.
There was an aircraft the Curtis Wright came out with before the P36, it was an interceptor with good maneuverability, can you do a show on it?
Unlike Germany at the time, the Allies (e.g. the US) were loath to dilute resources, throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. Logistics win wars and having too many front line fighters would tax logistics. I think a greater argument could be made in favor of the P-47 being made the premiere front line fighter (air cooled, could absorb massive damage, great fighter etc just not as sexy as the Mustang). It's a wonder the P-63 was produced in the first place. I do ponder what would have been if longer wings were used (think Ta-152). Meh. Jets were coming which makes any piston fighter argument moot.
The Allied approach also shifted over time. Early in the war they WERE throwing stuff at the wall, with a lot of redundancy. By late '43, though, they had kind of sorted stuff out, both technologically and operationally, and knew what they needed and what was worth investing in. Case in point: the Hellcat. It wasn't cutting edge, but it was winning the war. And, yeah, jets, so WTF.
Its mostly the airfoil it used. P-47Ds and P-51Ds were properly tuned for high altitude flight, just so much less drag that their more powerful powerplants could capitalize on. The irony tho on how that nature became less important in the closing stages of the war
Agreed! Thank you love your outlook good work
The history of WW2 aviation is full of aircraft which arrived to late. Towards the end of WW2 there was some excellent piston engined aircraft but with the end of the war and the arrival of the jet they rarely got a chance.
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?
Excellent work, but is there not an additional factor of cost, both unit cost and maintenance? This can be tricky to pin down, but the figures I have seen suggest that in 1944 the P-51D was costing c.$50,000 a copy, the P-63 $65,000 and the P-47 nearer $83,000. The P-51 was also probably the least expensive of the trio to operate and maintain. Its performance was far from the only thing in the Mustang's favour.