P-63 - The Outcast Kingcobra
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2022
- Disliked in the West and sent in large numbers to the Soviet Union, the Bell P-63 Kingcobra ended up seeing little action during World War Two and, consequently, became one of the lesser-known American fighters of the period, especially considering more than 3,000 were built. But was the outcast Kingcobra totally without merit?
Game footage and aircraft models
War Thunder - / warthunder .
00:04 History
8:12 Conclusion and opinion
Disclaimer - This channel is apolitical. We do not endorse any kind of political view.
Corrections
None.
Music by order of appearance
History:
- Beautiful Oblivion by Scott Buckley ssoundcloud.comscottbuckley
Music promoted by httpswww.free-stock-music.com
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
screativecommons.orglicensesby4.0
Conclusion:
-Jack the Lumberer by Alexander Nakarada | www.serpentsoundstudios.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
-USSR | The Grand Score by Alexander Nakarada | www.serpentsoundstudios.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Sources
- The Bell P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra Fighters - Soviet Service During World War II
by Yefim Gordon and Sergey Komissarov with Dmitriy Komissarov
- Bell P-39 Airacobra (Crowood Aviation Series)
by Robert F. Dorr with Jerry C. Scutts
- Dogfight: P-51B/C Mustang - Northwest Europe 1943-44
by Chris Bucholtz
- P-39/P-400 Airacobra vs A6M2/3 Zero-Sen - New Guinea 1942
by Michael John Claringbould
- Bell Aircraft - since 1935
by A. J. Pelletier
- Numerous small sources like aircraft manuals or flight tests
I do not own any of the images used in this video. The owners of such images are identified in the video itself. 
Авто/Мото
I once had the opportunity to speak with a P-39 pilot at my American Legion lodge. He flew against the Japanese and he told me he and the other pilots loved their P-39's.
It was a fine plane. And when nothing else helped, at least its engine could protect the pilot from getting shot from behind.
The P-39 was very welcome in the Aleutian theater. For several reasons, Allied forces in the Aleutians functioned with lower supply priorities than the Central Pacific and South Pacific theaters. Consequently, the Aleutian air forces received more P-40s and P-39s and fewer P-38 Lightnings. The weather frequently created very problematic conditions for tail-draggers like the Warhawk that tricycles like the Airacobra were largely immune to.
American Legion?
Every Allied got tore up and overwhelmed at the start. If Spits had been sent to France in 1940, without radar coverage, the probably would have been torn up too. Superior weapons and tactics, especially on offense, win over everything. With more experience and better tactics, just about all of them at least held their own. The biggest issue with the Cobras once we were on the offensive was range. They just couldn't match the range of the P-40 much less any of the escort fighters.
Cheers!
I've always loved the P-39... and the P-63.
The 39 definitely got a bad rap in the west. Under about 15,000 feet it was an outstanding aircraft! And it just looks sexy, in my opinion.
I love the 39's too they are soooo pretty
DEBUNKING Taiwan, Ukraine
ruclips.net/video/O71K8GpNNNg/видео.html
Did you hear about the P-400?
Its a P-40 with a zero on its tail..
DEAD SEXY
When my dad was a student aircraft cadet in 1942 the P-39 was the darling of the fighter community. He told me that most of the pilots flying them against the Japanese Zeros did not survive.
The bubble canopy, P-63E had a top speed of 437 mph at 30,000 feet, and it could climb to 28,000 feet in less than 11.3 minutes. These are impressive numbers, period.
By that time there were a half dozen designs with better numbers in full production.
@@Caseytify These numbers match those of P-51D, with an Allison engine. While not as fast as the last of the 47s, 51s, and some of the Corsairs, these numbers match or better those of most U.S. fighters in use at the wars end. Strangely, or maybe not, the 63s that were sent to Russia were the slower types. Topping out at 410 mph at 25,000.
As stated in the video, the USAAF was looking for a long range escort fighter that could escort the bombers all the way to Germany. In that respect, the Mustang has twice the range.
Amazing climb to 20,000 feet is useful as an interceptor, but not as an escort fighter that had lots of time to get to cruising altitude.
@@davidtong2776 North American P51 D used a Merlin Rolls Royce 66 supercharged engine built under licence by Packard.
@@davidtong2776 The P-51D never had an Allison.
My father flew this aircraft in Operation Pinball in the Gulf in Texas in which mimicked Luftwaffe fighter attacks on U S bombers to train gunners on the bombers. They used frangible bullets which flashed when they hit the King Cobra, similar to the lights in pinball machines. Hence the name of the training operation. He was 20 years old.
In a funny story, this is one of the only sovit aircraft that was destroyed by America in the cold war. Two f80 shooting stars accidentally attacked a sovit air field by mistake believing it to be a Korean field in 1951.
While the story you relayed is accurate, I’m unclear on your contention regarding the P-63s being “the only Soviet aircraft that was destroyed by America in the Cold War.”
Virtually all of the aircraft shot-down in both Korea and Vietnam were Soviet designed and built. Many “North Korean” MiG-15 squadrons were staffed entirely by Soviet pilots (instructed to only communicate via radio in Korean, which they often failed to do in the heat of combat). The same was true in Vietnam, although to a much lesser extent.
@@I_am_not_a_dog the only plane on Soviet soil destroyed, while in service of the Soviet military.
@@I_am_not_a_dog You really we’re unclear, just being a troll, or are a super accurate historian who lacks common sense?
@@damndirtyrandy7721 No, he is 100% correct- the true extent of Soviet involvement in both Korea and Vietnam should not be understated. And apologists for them should be noted….
Yuh
They have both P-400 (P39) and P-63 at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson AZ. They are both in beautiful condition.
Please don't let them fly into a B-17.
That was a total disaster, they didnt communicate what altitude they would be at beforehand. On the one hand my thoughts go to the families, on the other its sorta their own fault, and they lost a piece of history..
I have seen videos on RUclips about two Soviet pilots who became aces flying the P-39. One went down in a Siberian lake and sat on the bottom for 40 years before being recovered. The pilot was honored for his war record and buried in his hometown.
Yep, you can watch them pull the plane up and his maps and guide lamps are still in their positions. There have been several P-63's recovered with kills painted on them.
There were two models of the P-63. The second model (about 1000 built) had water injection to act as an intercooler. It had performance comparable to the P-51 with a top speed of 440 mph. The earlier model had a top speed of about 406 mph. Bell was developing a P-63 with a top speed just over 500 mph, but the advent of jets put an end to it.
Range. It still didn't have the range.
@@Caseytify Yes, the P-63 did not have the range of the offensive planes the US needed. Similar to the Spitfire, 109 and others.
There were quite a few aircraft and several aircraft engines that never realized their potential during the war. It is sad in a way, as piston powered prop planes had more room to grow. The A1 Skyraider comes to mind when I think of what might have been.
I agree and it is sad that the jet age came as early as it did and snuffed out the piston engine just as the super prop fighters were appearing. Yeah we were at the upper limit of propeller and piston theory but I bet there were a few more mind blowing adaptations still in designers heads.
Check out flight dojo's video on the Rolls Royce Crecy for a great example of exactly what potential advancements were left on the drawing board. I find it interesting that the technology now being used to maximize performance in passenger vehicles was all available in the early to mid 1940s.
When the Air Corps deleted the Turbocharger from the Aircobra, they missed out on the enhancements made to the P-38's turbo Allisons made by Charles Lindbergh, which would have given her the range of a Mustang without the vulnerable radiator. Famously flown by Wonder Woman but considered a handful by mere mortals berift of bullet-time reflexes and telepathic control.
I think it was Curtis came out with a twin engine fighter with foldable wings for the Navy carriers. It was supposed to be really good fighter but, only got to combat at the end of the war. Saw a little service in Korea.
@@zephyer-gp1ju Tigercat?
May the grace of God shine upon the pilots of the airshow accident today between the P63 and the B17 in Dallas. 11-12-22. RIP
at the start of the war in the Pacific , the cobra was used, William F. Fiedler shot down 5 enemy air craft in the p-39, it was a neat plane, I have alwas liked it
So wow of a moment this video was done 3 months ago and a p-63 aircraft crashed in the Dallas Air Show a few days ago I was interested in learning more about this aircraft thanks for sharing this content😢
The P-63 with a Merlin engine definitely would have been interesting to see.
It would be better than the first p51
@@diegofraileadrados4203 true enough. Although it wasn't so bad at low altitude.
We can't forget that the Merlin's main advantage was at high altitude. Below 15K feet, the Allison was just as fast. A Merlin would have improved the 63's performance as a bomber escort.
Merlin engined P-40s were developed but no significant improvement.
It wasn't just the engine; it was the type of turbocharging or supercharging that provided the performance at higher altitudes.
Never heard of the P-63 until today. That you for efforts, regards from Sydney Australia.
Saw one in flight on the wings over houston airshow, man that thing moved fast and the sillouhete on the sky was beautiful
Oof
@@CrotalusKid yeah i heard, saw them both and i bought a cap from Texas Raiders gift shop, really devastating stuff to get attached to things you love and seeing them get destroyed :(
@@JustJohn505 absolutely. I had ridden in the B-17 and met it's crew about a half dozen times. Very sad and unfortunate. The only silver lining is how many people like you and I that they filled with wonder, and that they passed doing what they loved.
So sad losing the b-17 and the p63 in the air show. Shockign :'(
Nice video, I’m Honduran and have seen the static display P-63 in the Honduran Museum of the Air in Tegucigalpa Airport.
Distinguished plane saw action against invading Nicaraguan Forces in 1956.
I like that range wasn't decided by optimal gun convergence. It gave more flexibility for engagement ranges.
I had a supervisor years ago who was trained on the P-39 and was transitioning to P-63 when war ended. He liked both though he never saw combat.
Your post reminded me that Chuck Yeager flew a P-39 as a test venture after the war and remarked that it was the best handling fighter he'd ever flown.
Frank Borman /Nasa. owns a P-63. He said it's deafening in the cockpit. He loves it because its the only one built with a Turbo SC. It is a screamer.. NACA killed the P39 .It was supposed to be built like the p38 with Turbo SCs. It never happened because of fitment issues. The 39 Would have been a beast with Turbo SC and Water injection P63 More so.
The Russians loved this aircraft. They solved the spin problem and nicknamed it Маленькая кобра (“Little Cobra”) The Red Air Force utilized them as very effective Attack Fighters and requested to get as many as possible from the US.
thanks,... interesting considering that were only sent to the soviets, cos u.s.a. did not like them
DEBUNKING Taiwan, Ukraine
ruclips.net/video/O71K8GpNNNg/видео.html
@@alpiekaar Neither did the British.
The Russians loved the P-39 because the 37mm cannon was good on tanks. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about
The P-39 and P-63 were never used by the Soviets as ground attack aircraft. Why would they, when they had the Il-2? The myth comes from a mistranslation of “prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk” which is “coverage of ground forces.” That’s often erroneously seen as ground support, when the actual mission was more akin to a combat air patrol.
I remember reading an article by a “pinball” pilot. I’ve wondered if he was remarkably unlucky to get that assignment or if someone really disliked him
From what I have read several of the pinball pilots were combat pilots rotated home, that must have been some realization. Thinking you’re safe now and nobody is going to be shooting at you only to get that assignment. They needed experienced pilots to make these attack runs realistic though
My father was a Pinball King Cobra pilot. He was actually shot down by a frangible bullet, which got into his engine behind his cockpit and killed the engine! He parachuted into the Gulf and was rescued. He was pissed!
The local airport in my home town was a Pinball base, I have found a picture of one sitting in a hangar on the field. A pretty neat concept even if it was an evolutionary dead end
I've always been amazed at the extreme number of aircraft designs that were produced during WW2 in the U.S. So many overlapping mission parameters, it almost seemed like a waste of manpower, resources, and money. But the U.S. had enough to go around and in increased industry kept people employed and provided a paycheck.
On a more somber note, my condolences to the families of the men who lost their lives at the Dallas air show while flying the P-63 and B-17 last week.
There were two L-39 's built for the US Navy, L-39-1 Bu 90061 and L-39-2 Bu 90062. The 3 blade prop was fitted to the L-39-1to help reduce nose heaviness. They were the first conventional U.S. swept wing aircraft to fly. Bu 90062 was later modified to test the wing design proposed for the Bell X-2. This is the version shown in the second photo.
P63 was a fine evolution of the P39 but by the time it was in production it was unneeded as if there was a plus from a much better aircraft so it no longer filled a role of any purpose. It just got left behind in the dust.
Swept wing version I never knew about. Interesting. Love to see one of those, better yet flying. P=39 is my favorite fighter of WWII. With the new designed tail section, the 63 looks better and proportioned with that dorsal fin added which no doubt aided stability.
Saw one of these last Friday at Oshkosh!
Always fascinated by the Bell fighters - P-39 & P-63. They looked so different than other aircraft of that period. The P-39 had so much potential and by not taking the time to develop it caused it to have such a poor reputation with the American pilots. I agree wth you. The P-63 is what te P-39 should have been.
For some reason, I’ve always loved the P-63. One of my favorite WW2 fighters.
Just found your videos, very very informative.
Whoa whoa whoa I want to know more about "Operation Pinball" and how shooting lead bullets at a target plane with assumably a real pilot was deemed perfectly safe.
They used bakelite bullets
Another excellent video, thanks!
Thank you!
Very insightful.
Bell engineers MISSED an opportunity to develop the world's hottest piston engine WW II fighter!
They apparently did a magnificent job of the engine's rear mounted installation and drive transmission passing under the pilot seat to the propeller in the nose - although you hear a lot of criticisms of the P-39, vibration or failure of this power transmission system is never one of them.
Now had Bell engineers simply put a pusher propeller behind the tail, and installed a second motor in the nose like a Mustang (or other typical inline fighter) they would have had a twin engine, pusher-puller prop aircraft with very little frontal area (equals low drag) and thus very high performance, in addition to a more neutral center of gravity.
Of course the wings, control surfaces, and fuel tanks would have had to been enlarged, but the aircraft would have had gobs of power, would have been very fast, and with such a favorable center of gravity would have been very maneuverable.
The "lowly," unloved P-39 could well have been a twin-engined world beater! It certainly would have been more structurally solid than the P-38 Lightning with those thin, long twin booms and long elevator.
p.s. - yes, I am aware of the pusher/puller Dornier Do335 Arrow... a twin-engined P-39 could have been smaller and faster, and much less complex than the big, bulky Dornier
Its a shame that more of these didn't get passed on to the civilian market.
A number of them were quite competitive in air races after the war flying against Mustangs etc.
I sure would love to have full specs on the Bell L-39 swept wing variant, especially the performance figures
Great video 👍
How about gloster gladiator next!
Nice video! There are quite a few airplanes we wonder what if they got the Packard Merlin, or better yet the "Wasp Major" leaving us with so many "What if's" but truth be told so many aircraft failed because they didn't get the right engine they were designed for and it was a real shame. These Bell planes deserved better but well, history is already written, and by that time the war was already over truthfully. Hitler literally sending everyone he could to suicide for him isn't really what we have in mind when we think about 44 but that is really what it was. Tons of forced soldiers from other countries in those seats. Second rate soldiers lead by war weary soldiers whos dreams had long been beaten and I have to wonder about just how hard was it for us. It was way harder on the ground but still yet, this wasn't the armies of 39-43. Advancements in technology of both sides perhaps furthered the dragging out of the war, and cost a lot of lives. I am not sure squeezing a bit more out of technology either way really mattered.
I doubt there was enough fighting to go around really leaving a lot of people craving war for a long time. Korea maybe changed that as it did for my Grandfather that was too young for ww2.
Can you do a video on the ba.65 CAS aircraft?
One of the aviation magazines ran an article on the P-39 citing it's tendency to "tumble" or roll unexpectedly. I wonder if that is correct? ...and if they fixed the problem with the P-63?
Great video.
Both P-39 and P-63 had car doors, one on each side .. the only fighter aircraft to sport them. The Spits had a flop-down semi-door entrance on the left side, but not the same thing.
Early Hawker Typhoons had the "car doors" too.
Looks slippery and deadly, ANd , more importantly, the P-39 was available at the beginning of the war. Very important.
If I were the Soviets, I might have honored the agreement with the Americans not to use the P-63 in Europe, but for sure I would have yanked the late-model Allison engines out of a good number of them and used them on Soviet aircraft. I would have used the radios too. In fact, all kinds of parts would have been useful in other equipment.
It is one of my favorite American fighters, just because of how unique it is. A center engine, a intake on top, unusual colors? I always was so fascinated with it.
One of the Coolest Fighters of WW2!
Nice video!
Thank you!
Thank you, that was a very good video.
Thank you!
There was a P 63 Kingcobra that cut a B 17 in half during a Dallas Texas airshow copying exactly the scene of a Me109G cutting in half a B 17 in the movie "Memphis Belle" ....there is a video here in Utube of both the real incident and the CGI one of the film
Well presented.
Thank you!
The aircraft was very hard to exit in air by the pilot wearing winter clothes, even if they could jettison the side door in flight. Not enough room.
It is good to remember that the P-39 was conceived as an interceptor and this was the reason why it was installed the 37 mm Browning Arms Company T9 cannon, later produced by Oldsmobile. Actually XP-39 was fitted with the with a General Electric turbo-supercharger but it was deleted from production by the Army despite protest from Bell manufacturers as it relegated to ground attack. Another important issue is that the Allison V-1710 engine had better performance than the Rolls-Royce Merlin at low altitude and was not so vulnerable as the Merlin. Obviously the Rolls-Royce Merlin had much better performance at high altitude. Although very powerful the 37 mm cannon had limited ammo and was prone to jamming. Despite the issues the Russians loved the P-39 as well the the much improved Bell P-63 Kingcobra that resolved many issues and was very fast and possibly even more liked by the Russians. Good job 👍👍👍
Great video. Of course the Soviets used the P-63s... quietly. Im sure I've read about it. I might be tempted to make some disparaging comment about Russians here (sorry mate) but good on them if they did!
Interesting. Didn't know about the spin & tail issues with the design. Also didn't know the Soviets weren't allowed to use the P-63 against Germany. That's a puzzler.
The range was a real killer for USAAF service.
I had a p39 model,it went on a flat spin and crashed,the real one had the same tendency,probably because the engine position,behind the pilot.
My dad flew p40s in ww2and spoke very little about them except to say the original was good but the version sold was a dog compared with his p40. His unit eventually ended up with p38s with one in the group in p47s. My dad loved the jug with the new prop system came out. He was an ace and also flew cargo sometimes and even forward spoters. You had to be able to fly what was available. Pictrues of my dads p40 shot up and flipped on landing amazed us young guys. He walked away without a scratch he said.
Why was it in the Air Show in Dallas, to where it could run into a B-17?
The P-39 was so successful in Russia and the Baltic because due to constant low cloud over these countries, most conflict was at low levels where the aircraft performed at it's best.
When the design of the King Cobra was being considered for the Merlin, the Griffon was in production and would have been a better option, except that Packard only ever produced the Merlin.
Trials were done with the P-40 fitted with a Merlin engine instead of the Allison and it was found that the difference in performance was negligible. Perhaps if the Griffon was considered instead, there may have been an upgraded P-40. Australia soldiered on with the P-40 until the end of the war. In the Pacific, as in Eastern Europe, a lot of fighting was at lower altitudes and the P-40 faired well. The pilots were instructed to do a power dive if jumped by Zeros, because the Zero did not have a strong airframe like the P-40 and if they followed, the wings would fall off. It became a myth that P-40's always dove to outrun Zeros, when it was actually a legitimate fighting tactic. I am old enough to have been friends with pilots who flew them in the Pacific. Brave men with amazing stories. But they did lust after the American P-47's whenever using a US airfield, due to it's sheer size and armament.
Thankyou!
Now the P-63 has become infamous again by taking out a B-17 in peace time. No disrespect to the victims/pilots of that occasion.
1:18 I love it when people use warthunder to explain an aircraft’s structure
Anyone seen anything published that explains the logic/reasoning behind the restriction for the USSR to not use the lend-lease P63s on the EU front?
From a purely aesthetic perspective, these Bell planes were as beautiful as the Mustang and Spitfire.. In combat, of course, how an aircraft looks is of little importance but we gotta admire one every time we look at it.
If they're beautiful they are usually outstanding performance, function follows form?
Hands down the most beautiful American fighter, as the Fw-190 was the Nazi's, the Spitfire the Brit's, the Macci 202-205, Reggiane 2005, and Fiat G-55, the Italian's, and the Mig-3, the Russians'.
All deadly weapons, they were great examples of the aeronautic sculpture of that era
Why in the world was there an agreement for the Soviets to not use it against Germany? That makes no sense since there were no restrictions on other lend-lease planes before it.
Is like to commend the channel for objective, fact-based reviews of the aircraft it covers. The detailed, comprehensive and accurate segments produced are informative and entertaining. Thank you for your attention to quality.
Thank you! I do my best.
It was a great aircraft! Hasn't it been used for years as a Fast Piston aircraft in the USA?
The Fastest Piston aircraft of all time was the Do 335.....
Agreed 100% with this assessment.
Was this P63 type the one lost in the Cleveland air races after WWII ended with them hitting homes under the race course or was it a P39 with even shorter wings? Its the P39 that I think George Welch who may have actually broken the sound barrier days before Yeager in an F86 was so dissatisfied with the P39 he actually bailed out of a few near his field in the pacific to get rid of them faster. At least that what the book about him said.
As the story goes, the British approached North American Aviation (NAA) in early 1940 to build P-40s for the RAF. NAA made a counteroffer to build a brand new, modern fighter of their own design, maintaining that it would take less time than required to setup a factory to produce P-40s. The British took up NAAs offer and the prototype of the new fighter was rolled out in September 1940, just 102 days after the order was placed. This was an unusually fast developmental period. Flight testing did not reveal any significant problems so it could immediately go into production. Thus was born the P-51A. It was powered by an Allison V-12, inline, liquid cooled engine with a single-stage supercharger, giving good performance, but only below 15,000 feet. Performance at higher altitudes was lackluster. In May 1942, Rolls-Royce test pilot Ronald Harker suggested fitting a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine to improve the fighter's high altitude performance and, as they say, the rest is history.
By contrast, the Bell P-39 had the longer, more typical developmental period with typical teething problems, not least of which was the tendency to go into a nonrecoverable, flat spin after stalling. This problem, as you say, was solved only after introduction of the P-63. Like the A model P-51, good performance was limited to below 15,000 feet, but Soviet pilots loved both aircraft, not least because of the 37mm cannon firing through the propeller hub. Moreover most air battles on the eastern front were flown at low altitude. So, there was probably little incentive at Bell to fit license-built Rolls-Royce engines to improve high altitude performance.
All in all, I would conclude that while both the Aircobra and Kingcobra were very competitive at low altitudes, both were relegated to "outcast" status by western air forces primarily because North American Aviation simply out competed Bell Aircraft.
Not sure I agree that because a British pilot suggested a Merlin be fitted to a P-51 and that worked out well means NAA "outcompeted" Bell.
very good!
HEY GREAT VIDEO ...very detailed for sure on a plane, that was over looked again by western allies....one thing for sure, i fly it a lot in sims...it works for me
It is my understanding that the Free French Air Force used the P-63 in the European theater between1944 to 1945. They were a repayment to the French government for the P-39's (P-400's) that the U.S. took control of after the fall France in 1940. Those confiscated P-39's were shipped to the Pacific theater and redesignated P-400's.
What if instead of a propeller and piston engine, it had an axial turbojet and the wings of L-39 (although the purpose was to study low speed handling), the bubble canopy of the XP-63D and a new swept tail ?
Now that you ask, Bell actually built the first U.S. designed jet, the XP-59 in 1942 but it featured straight wings. Experiments with swept wings came years later, the technology was at a fierce pace, interesting overlaps.
Obvious problem with Length information at 2:20. Mentioned 2 feet 4 inches increase do not convert into 2.49 meter increase.
This is a GREAT site!!!
It’s not that the P-63 was a bad aircraft, it was probably as good as any aircraft of its time, it’s just that it wasn’t any great improvement on what was already in use and in wartime what you want is something that’s better than what you already have.
As an aside, not being all that knowledgeable about W.W.II Soviet fighters, was there a reason that most Soviet fighters of the time seemed to have all their guns clustered around their engine, very few seemed to have wing mounted guns.
Perhaps it was easier to design and build the wings without them - a bit like it was hard to fit a 20mm in the Spitfires wings..
It lacked range making it a defensive aircraft which the US didn't need at that stage of the war.
German fighters had the same preference. Guns mounted on or near the fuselage have greater effective range since it reduces convergence problems. But now you have a little more difficulty with maintenance and re-loading plus synchronization to shoot through the propeller. Wing mounted guns are much easier but now you put weight into the wings which will reduce the roll rate of the plane.
@@NockedArrow P-63 actually had wing guns but the Russians ordered them removed. Guess they figured 2 50s and a 37 were enough to do the job. Also easier to aim I would think.
There is a merlin powdered king cobra pylon raceer if you want to see what is is capable with that power plant.
I am willing to bet that some of the Soviet units equipped with the P-39 late in the war, were actually P-63's. As long as the photos didn't show the entire aircraft, you could always claim it was a P-39. This kept the lend-lease agreement "intact." Combat photos and accounts could easily state "P-39's from the 1st regiment engage German fighters" or something similar. You'd never know.
I’ve always wondered why ww2 planes weren’t mice engine
Good story!
Just think if the Merlin would have been installed. The Allison -93 was close so not getting the Merlin was still someone who didn’t want Bell to succeed. Another example they didn’t let Bell use a wind tunnel to trim up the body and made them use that crappy jet engine.
Why didn't they make a jet version out of the later versions with swept wings. Using the p39 as a test bed for the jet. This would have made a formidable fighter in the Korean war.
It, and it's little brother, the P-39, were good aircraft. Had the War Production Board and the Army Air Corps not fiddled with them, they'd have been better.
Excellent presentation. This chap speaks better English than most "native" speakers, who now use american argot; awful.
Thank you!
I checked out the KingCobra, i found it lessened it’s maneuverable, i liked the 39Q for it’s surprising maneuverable which the other Cobras lacked with fire power, the Q got the perfect fire power, maneuverable and speed. Maybe this video will change my mind
If they made the CG safer its going to be less maneuverable
What a terrifying thought--3000 P-63 King Cobras in Japanese hands from November 1944 on to oppose the B-29 high-altitude bombers.
Does asnyone know if there is still a P-63 Kingcobra airworthy today???
That is, after one of them crashed into a B-17
If the government would have kept their hands and thinking off of the 39 and simply kept it as originally offered it would have been an outstanding aircraft.
Kind of like the British ordering the P-38 without the turbo chargers? Government should not try to overthink things.
Birch Matthews says the elimination OF the supercharger was a three pronged decision. GE was having trouble keeping up with supercharger demand, GM Allison wanted to get into volume production on some specific version of the 1710--variations on models for the P 38, 39 and 40 to start recouping some of the development costs of the engine- and Bell, always under financed, was desperate for high volume orders.. So all agreed not to debate NACA on removal of it. I would add the USAAF badly wanted modern fighters and Ben Kelsey was transferred out of fighter development to get him out of the hair of the Bomber Boys.
The big slow firing canon was not a good idea for use against any aircraft. While a single hit with such a projectile probably means an instant kill it is so unlikely that you are better off with the statsicial advantage a number of smaller guns bring.
That being said, this kind of armament would have made the plane he killer for coastal protection.and ground attack. Taking out light armour (And, with the right ammunition, even more serious ones would not hav withstood the impulse of a shell fired at 350+mph, I guess), trains, cargo ships, submarines, landing craft, light speedy warships, any kind of low level attacks. The A-10 of her days.
Lend-Lease? So that would have meant everything needed to be returned after the war?
Politicians, ya know. That and "Arsenal of Democracy". Lemmesee, first used in the US-UK context, we would "lend" Britain 50 of the worst leftover WWI destroyers in mothballs and they would "lease" us their bases all around the world, from Ascension in the middle of the Atlantic to Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. I'm pretty sure we didn't get back any surviving destroyers (one got used up in spectacular fashion in a successful commando raid) and the US still has those bases. Not sure about the lease payments. I think Britain still formally claims Diego Garcia.
The Bell fighters had one significant problem, they were "anti area ruled" in other words the fattest part of the fuselage was in line with the wings, an aerodynamic mistake.
Her limiting factors where No room for wing fuel tanks.
This plane just looks fast.
Looks like it would have been a great tactical fighter-bomber
Atleast in War Thunder (lol at me) I love the P63. It might be slower than the 51 nut the decrease in speed I'll take for the maneuverability. Its still faster straight and level than most other countries' aircraft
Who knows what it would have done with a Merlin. Knowing Merlin increased the P51 top speed by over 20% from its Allison days, if you use that percentage for the P36 it would result in a plane faster than the P51.
I wonder if they were produced in Fort Worth Texas.
WHY would/did the US ban the use of the P-63 in Europe? This question isn't technological but at the end of the day, politico-historical. THIS is the interesting question.,
Instead of a designated fighter both the Air Cobra and King cobra would have made an excellent ground attack aircraft. The engine was somewhat protected from ground fire and the 37 mm gun was a potential tank buster. The poor high altitude performance would not have been an issue either.
The M4 cannon was not a good anti-tank gun. It had much too low a muzzle velocity to have the required penetration. Plus there wasn’t enough ammo capacity to make it worthwhile.
@@kerededyh that's all true but the armour on a tank is usually thinnest on the top, particularly the top of the engine deck. With proper ammo it could have worked.
Tests conducted by the Soviets against immobile targets, with their best test pilots, in ideal conditions, showed that a 7% accuracy was the best result that could be achieved. So most shooting with the limited ammo of the 37mm would result in nothing but a wasted sortie.
@@mikearmstrong8483 there was no ground attack plane that did well against ground targets with any gun with the possible exception of the Stuka with two 37 mm cannons and that was only ok. The Typhoon and the IL 2 as well. Bombs and rockets were the more effective option. The mid engine design offered more protection for the motor giving it a better chance of surviving.