# P-63: real performance?



## tomo pauk (Apr 28, 2013)

Hello, people,

Following discussion in another thread, I've decided to start a new thread about P-63 performance. Seems like there is a discrepancy between manufacturer claims and actual test results. Also, some charts have projected figures/lines, for future models with future engines. 
Here is Jeff's post, maybe we could use it as a starting point:



CORSNING said:


> ...
> Data for the P-63A-10 came from a graph at Mike's sight. It is titled COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF P-63 AIRPLANES. Its marked CONFIDENTIAL at the bottom and top. Down on the lower left it dated 5 JUNE 1944. Three A/C are listed: P-63A-10, P-63C-1 and P-63E-1. Under the date is the following: HDD,JWA.RHR.FWR.
> It appears to be a military graph but by the date I would guess the C-1 and E-1 are calculated. This is around the correct period for the A-10 testing, so who knows.
> Actually AHT does give the same roll rate at 275 mph as the NACA graph. Look at the graph on page 410. I think the 100 degrees per second on page 416 is a misprint. The graph in AHT takes a nose dive around 320. I think I'll stick with the NACA until more info is published.
> ...


----------



## GregP (Apr 28, 2013)

This is one of the reasons why I don't like online charts that don't have the original document number on them ... the conditions of the test / chart aren't apparent. 
MUCH better to show the entire document so the test, conditionsm weight, % MAC, etc. are known ... along with the actual aircraft flown. I'll look at the P-63 and get back.

As I recall it made about 422 mph at best altitude (around 22,000 feet or so), climbed MUCH better than the P-51 and rolled better, too ... but I'll go check and get back. Memory has proven false in the past. I can tell you this from personal experience, if we had bought it FOR the USAAC, we would not have been disappointed. Solidly built, solid performance, and a good aircraft.

However, if I had been in the procurement function, I might not have bought it for the USAAF in large numbers due to the quality of current equipment in the pipeline and the probability of the war winding down. We had the P-38, P-39. P-40, P-47, P-51, P-61, and P-80 jet and the war was being won. Should you create another logistics chain and train a new bunch of A&P mechanics with the war in the state it was in? Especially with jets on the way? Tough call even thought I LIKE the P-63. 

We'll have one (the Palm Springs bird) flying at our airshow next weekend as fas as I know. Come to Chino and see it and the rest.

We'll taxi our Yokosuka D4Y Judy, fly the Tora, Tora, Tora Val, the Boeing P-26 and Seversky AT-12 (a really great performer in the air), and have a LOT of WWII hardware in the air. We expect 4 or 5 P-38's ... and a P-63. Lotsa' stuff flying!

Might as well come and see it if you are anywhere close.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 28, 2013)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/P-63A_42-69417_TSCEP5E-1938.pdf


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

Hey tomo, 

Back on Spitfire/Hellcat they are still discussing the Allison engine and Aozora posted neat published stuff. But I got out of there before anyone realized that they didn't put Allisons in Spits and Cats and blew up the whole off topic thing.

GregP,
I looked up the Yokosuka D4Y at the museum. One article says it was originally had an Aichi Atsuta Liquid cooled V-12. Is that right? (I know I'm off topic already, but I want to know.)

Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

I read the report on the P-63A-9 42-69417 and studied the graphs. On the performance sheets I've worked up it looks like this:

9/21/44
V-1710-93 / 1,820 hp. / 75"Hg

Height..Speed/Climb
Meters...mph/fpm
S.L........366/3600
.1,000...376/3690
.2,000...385/3655
.3,000...392/3525
.4,000...397.5/3360
.5,000...400/3060
.6,000...394/2695
.7,000...390/2240
.8,000...386/1830
.9,000...381/1460
10.000..377/1045
11,000..370/650
12,000..342/240

Maximum velocity: 400.5mph/16,000 ft.

Combat Ceiling (1000fpm): 33,200 ft.
Operational Ceiling (500fpm): 37,200 ft.
Service Ceiling (100fpm): 40,400 ft.
Combat Weight: 8,950 lbs.
Wing Load: 39.09-lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 4.918-lbs./hp.
Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 28, 2013)

Thanks for the feedback, people.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

One of the graphs on Mike's sight is headed "Bell Aircraft Corp. - SOURCE". The information under the heading Condition 1 reads: P-63A, 8168 lbs G.W., Allison V-1710-93 (E-11), 11.0' SHORT SHANK PROP., WER USED; ARMY FLIGH TEST DATA. I am not sure what to make of this part of the graph dated: REC'D 4 DEC 43 FROM JFP.
Condition 1 works out something like this:
V-1710-93 / 1,460 hp. / ?"Hg

12/4/43
Height...Speed/Climb
Meters....mph/fpm
S.L........347/4000
.1,000...360/3995
.2,000...372/3950
.3,000...382/3880
.4,000...397/3730
.5,000...402/3490
.6,000...409/3070
.7,000...415/2660
.8,000...412/2240
.9,000...404/1850
10,000..393/1430
11,000..382/1040
12,000..N.G./660

Maximum Roll Rate: 110deg./sec.

Combat Ceiling: 36,500 ft.
Operational Ceiling: 40,600 ft.
Service Ceiling: 43,600 ft.

Combat Weight: 8,168 lbs.
Wing Load: 32.935 lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 5.595 lbs./hp.
Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.

Jeff


----------



## eagledad (Apr 28, 2013)

Hello!

From what I have read, the P-63's major problem was that it lacked range on internal fuel. It was this feature that played the biggest role with the US not using the P-63 in a combat role. The P-63A-1/5 carried only 136 gallons of fuel internally, compared to 184 gallons in a P-51B-1, 300 gallons in a P-38J-1, 269 gallons in a P-51B-5, 420 gallons in a P-38J-15, and 305 gallons in a P-47D-20. An Air Force Test run at Eglin AF Base in March of 1944, gave the P-63 a combat radius at 25000 feet of only 65 miles on internal fuel, and 340 miles at 20000 feet on internal fuel + a 75 gallon drop tank. Of course, the P-63's radius would be even greater at a lower altitude.

Eagledad

Eagledad


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

eagledad,

That is absolutely correct. While the P-63 was capable of cruising low/slow for over 2,500 mls and more, BUT once it dropped its exterier fuel tanks it was limited to about 500 - 600 mls.

Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

The following information is taken from GRAPH 52 located in AHT. It is the MFR. data for the P-63A-8.

V-1710-93w / 1,800 hp. / 75"Hg?
No Date given.
Height....Speed/Climb/Time to climb
Meters....mph/climb rate/Time to height
S.L........378/4900/----
.1,000...393/4775/--.7
.2,000...405/4575/-1.4
.3,000...413/4325/-2.0
.4,000...420/3970/-2.7
.5,000...424/3520/-3.45
.6,000...423/2925/-4.6
.7,000...418/2500/-5.9
.8,000...414/2095/-7.35
.9,000...407/1675/-9.15
10,000..393/1180/11.15

Combat Ceiling (1000fpm): 34,060 ft.

Combat Weight: 8,213 lbs.
Wing Load: 33.117 lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 4.56 lbs./hp.
Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.

This graph also includes USAAF DATA, P-63. The numbers look real close to CONDITION 1 numbers from the Bell graph dated 4 DEC 43 that I have already posted. I have done workups on P-63A w/water injection, P-63C-1, P-63D and P-63E-1 but they are all from graphs that were calculated. I am out of time right now but could post those also if anyone is interested.

tomo,
I posted the P-63A-10 on the SPITFIRE/HELLCAT thread, but will post it more completed here if you would like. Let me know.

Thanks for the intrest Guys, Jeff


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 28, 2013)

Bring them on, Jeff, appreciate it


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

I had to go back to the other post and correct the Combat (1,000 fpm)/Service (100 fpm) ceiling numbers. Sorry Guys, I was at work on breaks. These following figures are from the graph COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF P-63 AIRPLANES. It is dated 5 JUNE 1944. This is close to the time that the A-10 would be in the testing stages so I do not know if this is actual or calculated data.

P-63A-10 6/05/44
V-1710-93w / 1,825 hp. / ~75"Hg

Height....Speed/Climb/Time
Meters...mph/fpm/to height
S.L........383/4980/-----
.1,000...394/4825/--.6
.2,000...407/4625/-1.4
.3,000...415/4350/-2.1
.4,000...421/3950/-2.9
.5,000...423/3450/-3.9
.6,000...422/2950/-4.9
.7,000...412/2525/-6.1
.8,000...407/1960/-7.6
.9,000...394/1500/-9.4
10,000..376/1025/11.8

Combat Ceiling: 32,900 ft.
Operation Ceiling: 36,250 ft.
Service Ceiling: 38,500 ft.

Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.
Wing Load: 34.645 lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 4.71 lbs./hp.


----------



## GregP (Apr 28, 2013)

The “A” version of any plane isn’t the best. Even the first Spitfire was a shadow of the ones being flown in 1944. According to WWIIaircraftperformance.org charts, they tested a P-63A-10, P-63C-1, and a P-63E-1 on 5 Jun1944. This site seems to be quoted a lot in this forum, so I'll use it. The results were as follows:

1) P-63A-10: Top speed was 423 mph at 17,500 feet. Initial rate of climb was 5,000 feet per minute. 

2) P-63C-1: Top speed was 434 mph at 18,250 feet. Initial rate of climb was 4,700 feet per minute.

2) P-63E-1: Top speed was 445 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial rate of climb was 4,500 feet per minute.

This is from the second chart down in this page: P-63 Performance Tests . The primary text on this page is about the XP-63A, none of which ever saw service. The charts show which variants are for which curves. The first chart down shows 422 mph. The third chart down is interesting. It shows a comparison of the P-63A, P-63C-1, and P-63D. It shows the P-63A at 415 mph Military power, 431 mph at WER, and the P-63D at 450 mph or so (I doubt this speed and would like to see the test conditions, weights, etc.). The chart says all models had wing guns but there is very little in the way of specifics such as weight, finish, and configuration. I am suspicious of charts without a clearly readable document number. I won't say this chart is wrong, but also won't hang much confidence on it.

Other tests showed the P-63A-10 about 410 mph in some cases and about 420 in others. Ray Wagner in “American Combat Planes” has the P-63A at 408 mph but does not give a dash number. That speed corrresponds within 2 mph with a P-63A-9 test that I have seen. He also has the P-63D at 437 mph, but that was a one-off bubble canopy test mule.

So … the data are all over the place with top speeds from 408 mph to 445 mph depending on variant. To me a 37 mph top speed variation shows these planes were in different configurations and were probably not all that similar to one another. I could be wrong here, but it appears the Bell P-63 series in General wasn't all that well documented, no doubt since most were going to the Soviet Union. The performance of front line fighters was rarely as good as for factory fresh planes since they sat outside, got dirty, and had normal wear and tear glitches. Maybe what we're seeing in these data are a few fresh planes with some well-used and not immaculatey-maintained units thrown into the mix. In any case, all the charts show the P-63 outclimbing the P-51 and being a bit slower at best altitude while being about equal at sea level. All the charts show 408+ mph top speeds ... the text in places simply doesn't agree with the charts.

The Russians loved the Kingcobra and the USAAF never particularly embraced it. Being at the end of the piston fighter era, it never got the chance to show itself to its home country's air force. In retrospect, the Bell P-63 probably wasn't even needed since the war wqas being won with existing equipment.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 28, 2013)

The chart might be dated 5 Jun1944, but that does not mean the curves were result of the flight test - maybe they were manufacturer's estimates. The 1st P-63C was delivered to the USAF in December 1944, the 1st P-63E in May 1945. 
The different versions of the P-63 were equipped with distinctively different engines, so the spread in top speed should be notable, once the planes were above 25000 ft. Not just the auxiliary supercharger drives were different, the placing of the carburetor was changed, and the max rpm was upped to 3200.



> The Russians loved the Kingcobra



Disagree - they insisted the airframe was too weak, so Bell reinforced the fuselage, and produced reinforcing kits that were to be installed on delivered planes.



> In retrospect, the Bell P-63 probably wasn't even needed since the war wqas being won with existing equipment.



+1 on that.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

These figures come from the BELL AIRCRAFT CORP.-SOURCE graph and are listed under CONDITION 2. In this section it also states: WER WITH ALCOHOL-WATER INJECTION DATA CALCULATED MODIFIED TO CORRESPOND TO FLIGHT TESTS WITH RAM.

12/04/43
P-63 W/W.I.
V-1710-93w / 1,800 hp.? / ?

Height...Speed/Climb
Meters..mph/fpm
S.L.......381/4600
.1,000...393/4460
.2,000...402/4280
.3,000...412/4060
.4,000...419/3880
.5,000...427/3440
.6,000...430/3070
.7,000...423/2260
.8,000...414/2240
.9,000...404/1850
10,000..393/1430
11,000..382/1040

Combat Ceiling: 36,500 ft.
Operational Ceiling: 40,600 ft.
Service Ceiling: 43,600 ft.

Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.
Wing Load: 33.266 lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 4.583 lbs./hp.
Combat Weight: 8,250 lbs.

You will notice that climb rates starting around 8,000 m and speeds around 9,000 m are the same as the P-63A without water injection from this graph. No time to height graph was provided.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

There definitely was a problem with the airframe and it was corrected in the A-7 I believe. I don't have time now to look it up but I believe all corrections were made BEFORE large supplies of the A/C were sent to USSR.
AND as far as I can tell ALL weights of the A/Cs are given on the graphs. Keep in mind some of these graphed A/C are calculated.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

V-1710-117w / 1,800 hp.

Height...Speed/Climb/Time
Meters..mph/fpm/to height
S.L.......381/4650/----
.1,000...394/4575/--.6
.2,000...407/4480/-1.4
.3,000...417/4270/-2.1
.4,000...428/3950/-2.9
.5,000...433/3450/-3.9
.6,000...434/2950/-4.9
.7,000...432/2550/-6.1
.8,000...427/2000/-7.6
.9,000...419/1550/-9.4
10,000..407/1080/11.8
11,000..N.G./600/N.G.
12,000..N.G./175/N.G.

Combat Ceiling: 32,900 ft.
Operational Ceiling: 37,000 ft.
Service Ceiling: 39,750 ft.

Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.
Wing Load: 36.02 lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 4.96 lbs./hp.
Combat Weight: 8,933 lbs.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

Its time to set the record straight. The USAAF didn't buy into the P-63 because they just didn't need it. They were covered with the P-51, P-47 and P-38. And then there is the P-80, JETS. They just didn't need another prop venture. The USSR was not disappointed with P-39 because it could match the opposition at the heights they needed it to fight. The P-63 could continue to match the newer opposition and they were made available to them.

Now on the graph thing. I have been studying performance graphs very closely for over two years now. (Looking at them waaaay longer than that). It is extremely helpful if a chart is provided so that the lines on the graph can be more accurately translated. This is not always the case. I have notice that most performance indicating graph lines no matter how narrow or wide, are usually (not always) centered on the exact figure they are representing. Many times I have enlarge a graph 400 % to get more accurate readings. The speeds I have listed are within 1 mph (definitely no more than 1 mph off). The climb rates are much rougher to narrow down and I do the best I can to keep them within 5 fpm. On graphs the right edge of the vertical line is the starting point for whatever number it is representing.

That being said, I can safely say that the climb rates of the A-10, C-1 and E-1 are a lot closer to 4980, 4650 and 4450 than they are 5000, 4700 and 4500 respectively.

You Guys all have a good night. I'm signing off for today, Jeff


----------



## GregP (Apr 28, 2013)

Many charts show speed but don't tell you if it is IAS, CAS or TAS, and some don't tell you if the speeds shown are mph or knots! 

It's much easier to tell if the speeds are in kph since the numbers will jump out at you ... anything over 490 or so has to be kph for a propeller plane in WWII.

I stilil want document numbers that I can find somewhere else besides ONE place on the internet ... but sometimes it just isn't there.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 28, 2013)

GregP,
Do you want numbers that all the publishers are pushing around in publication or do you want the numbers from the original documents that the masses have bypassed in order to get the book published on time? All the charts I have studied are very specific about metric or english measure. I actually haven't seen any authentic ones that aren't. If you wish to believe the P-51D's maximum speed is 437 mph and the P-47D's is 429 mph, go for it. Personally I'm going to do the best I can at digging up the truth even if it hurts. That's exactly what I have been doing for quite some time. I have compiled graph information on several Spitfires, Mustangs, Fw-190s, Hurricanes, Zekes, Tonys, etc. etc. etc..... and plan to continue.

Have a good night, all of you, Jeff


----------



## GregP (Apr 28, 2013)

Corsning, where did that question come from? Almost every post I have ever made in here is searching for the real truth instead of hype. I have compiled some of my own charts, too, and I have seen many charts with missing units and test conditions. Sometimes the test conditions are located in the text, whcih is simply not with the chart, but WOULD be if you had the whole report.

What exactly are you trying to say?

And 437 mph is only the top speed of the P-51D at critical altitude, witha fresh engine and a clean airframe ... in some charts from North American after the dorsal fin was added. At any other altitude and condition, it is slower, just like all other aircraft. They only have one top speed and are slower at all other conditions.

Have a good night, too.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 29, 2013)

GregP,

I owe you an appology sir. I was having a good day yesterday until I checked our medical bills and my wife showed me what she meant by "I hit the car with the lawn mower". She ran over the push mower with the new van I just bought her. Well anyway, It was wrong of me to take it out on you. I am sorry Greg.

Now about that 437 thing. I do not know how that figure became the prime quoted/published figure for the P-51D. Memo Report No. TSCEP5E-1908 dated 6/05/45 contains the Max. figure for the P-51D-15 WITH BOMB RACKS as 442 mph/26,000 ft. at 67"Hg. Without the bomb racks add 8-12 mph. The V-1650-7 was cleared for 75"Hg a year before this report. No racks and increased boost added 14 mph to the top speed of the P-51B-15 with the V-1650-7 engine.

I am planning to post the figures for the P-63D and P-63E-1 when I get home tonight. If youall would like I could post a total comparison between the P-51D-15 and the P-63D (calculated).

See you all later, Jeff


I have seen the AIRCRAFT, MUSTANG IV (P-51D) data sheet that has the 437 figure, but that is the only official document that I have ever seen it on.


----------



## Neil Stirling (Apr 29, 2013)

P-51D racks are not the same as those used by the P-51B/C and account for a loss of 4mph. P51 speeds here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg

Neil.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 29, 2013)

Neil,
Thank you for the information.

Jeff


----------



## GregP (Apr 29, 2013)

Hi Neil,

Thanks for this chart but it's one of those charts I was talking about. No clear document number though it looks period-correct, and is clearly makrked "For comparative purposes only" in the bottom left corner. In the center at the bottom, in the upper white are, it says "Rel figures are preliminary. Subject to revision after flight check." To me, this implies a chart of calculated figures.

In the same area it also clearly states. "Military power available for 15 minutes." 

Most guys very rarely got to Military power except every once in awhile and never, except for test pilots over their own base or factory, to WER unless combat was joined and escape was imperative. They didn't generally use WER for attack, just for defense since blowing up your engine over enemy territiry to kill a Bf 109 was not one of the smarter things you could do in life unless escape and evasion was your primary skill.


Hi Corsning, no problem. I sometimes fire off a reply and wonder why next time I see it. Good luck with the van. 

I've have had several instances where I was reminded not to park anything behind a car since people tend to not look behind the car when they back up. If it doesn't show in the mirror, they just back up. So ... these days, if I'm mowing, I park well to the side of any cars in the drivway. Once I was helping a freind at his house and was using a tractor, and stopped to get a drink of water when his wife came out, started the car, backed up around a corner to leave and hit the tractor. She had to negotiate a 90° corner to hit it and scored a perfect "10" in the "blind backup around a corner to hit a tractor" sports category. 

Hopefully your encounter is cheaper than that one was for them ... it was their car and tractor, and I was more than 80 feet from the car around a corner when I stopped the tractor and got off. I wasn't even in sight of it when she backed into it, but the tractor needed a new wheel and tire and the car needed a new bumper and hatch.

It was not a good thing ... my sympathies. Might as well have a pint.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 29, 2013)

It would be 'Red figures...', not 'Rel figures...'. Ie. the same remark as at many other USAF tables. We do not see any figures typed out in red color - maybe there was none, maybe the black/white print/copy did not that color the justice?
'For comparative purposes' relates only to the P-51D with -3 engine, and such a plane was a rare occurrence (never fielded in ETO? Bill, help!).
As for when pilots were using WER, we can read many reports at the wwiiaircraftperformance.com about people engaging the Packard Merlin to around 70in of manifold pressure in order to close in to their prey, so stating that WER was seldom used for attack is an unfounded claim.

Thanks for the posting, Neil. The table is much more than a performance overview, it is the 'Tactical planing and characteristic performance chart', a part of a bigger document (33rd page of that, would like to see the reast  ). The figures listed there are in the ball park with documented tests, not the manufacturer's sales pitch.


----------



## GregP (Apr 29, 2013)

Tomo, until the document can be identified and vetted, I take it as interesting but not reliable data. I would welcome the vetting of it, not resist it. Since the chart is in black and white as posted, we cannot tell if any numbers are in red, they might all be.

The pilots who give talks every month who flew these things in combat say that nobody with an ounce of common sense used WER except to get away, unless they were testing the setting very briefly over friendly territory to verify the setting worked ... and it's not something I care to dispute. Feel free to think whatever, but the claim is not generally unfounded ... if you believe the guys who flew it.

I happen to believe they were mostly right, but you certainly don't have to.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 29, 2013)

Hi Guys,

Well, I'm sipping on that pint that Greg suggested in post #25. Thanks man, its helping. About that ounce of common sense only using WEP except to get away: F/Lt. G.M. Davis must have been a 17 year old blond. In his report dated 23 March 1945 he states that he was using +25 lbs. (~80.9"Hg) boost to close in on an E/A. I'm just saying....... There are several other reports stating 70-75"Hg over there at www.wwiiaircraft.org also. 

On the P-51D with a V-1650-3 Allison, there may have been some, but so far I haven't seen any documentation proving it existed over seas. I'm just saying again.....


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> See you all later, Jeff
> 
> 
> I have seen the AIRCRAFT, MUSTANG IV (P-51D) data sheet that has the 437 figure, but that is the only official document that I have ever seen it on.



To your point to Greg - P-51D-15 @67" Hg 3000rpm, with racks, *442mph at 26,000,417mph at 10,000, and 375mph at SL.*
Based on serial number this D is about a year old.
Memo Report No. TSCEP5E-1908 
15 June 1945 


Flight Tests on the North American 
P-51D Airplane, AAF No. 44-15342
-

P 51D Performance Test

This Performance report post VE Day for P-51D-15, w/racks at Wright Pat June 15, 1945

*The Neil's point about relative drag between A/B/C racks versus D/K and H racks aerodynamically speaking - I haven't seen a report that differentiates relative Drag - only Load Carrying capability. What I have seen is a constant reference to a '9-10" mph increase in Drag. The ABC was rated at 500 pounds even though 110 gallon tanks were carried by B/C starting in May 1944. The D/K/H rack was upgraded to 1000 pounds.*


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> It would be 'Red figures...', not 'Rel figures...'. Ie. the same remark as at many other USAF tables. We do not see any figures typed out in red color - maybe there was none, maybe the black/white print/copy did not that color the justice?
> 'For comparative purposes' relates only to the P-51D with -3 engine, and such a plane was a rare occurrence (never fielded in ETO? Bill, help!).
> 
> *The P-51H had the 1650-9 which had a modified 1650-3 with Stromberg Carb and WI. I haven't heard of a -3 in a P-51D unless you speak of the two prototypes taken from the B line*
> ...



All the P-51B-1s and -5s and 7s arrived in ETO with 1650-3. I would have to look to see when the P-51B-5 and -7 were sent to CBI/MTO. The change to the Packard Merlin 1650-7 occurred with all production P-51D-5s and IIRC all P-51B-10 and -15s (and C counterparts)


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 29, 2013)

Well.......I didn't get any feedback on the P-51D comparison thing, so P-63D flies solo. That's OK though, this ain't no Mustang thread anyway. The following info comes from the BELL AIRCRAFT CORP.-SOURCE graph.

12/04/43
P-63D 
V-1710-109w / 1,800 hp.? / ?"Hg

Height..Speed/Climb
Meters..mph/fpm
S.L.......388/4970
.1,000...395/4600
.2,000...405/4540
.3,000...410/4410
.4,000...426/4280
.5,000...435/4120
.6,000...444/3860
.7,000...451/3470
.8.000...447/2980
.9,000...441/2560
10,000..433/2120
11,000..425/1680
12,000..N.G./1250

Combat Ceiling (1,000fpm): 41,250 ft. WOW!
Operational Ceiling: 44,900 ft.
Service Ceiling: 47,850 ft.

Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.
Wing Load: 33.333 lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 4.722 lbs./hp.
Combat Weight: 8,500 lbs.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 29, 2013)

Thanks drgondog,
I was just saying, I haven't seen documentation. But. THAT DONT MEAN NOTHIN.


----------



## GregP (Apr 29, 2013)

There are always exceptions to general rules. They are the guys who became POWs if things didn't go just right. And things largely work the same today when flying warbirds.

These things are 70 years old and are reliable but not Cessnas. So ... the smart people follow roads on days of severe clear weather today. People who don't sometimes die. One example was Jim Wright. He constructed a replica of the Hughes racer and flew it awhile. He was told by several people who KNOW that the 2-blade prop was a weak point (well known) and to replace it with a 3-blade even if it wasn't authentic. 2-blades on big enginse of 1,000+ HP and will kill you. The blades simply flex too much when you power up for takeoff on the ground and they will shortly separte from the aircraft. As I said, pretty well know by prop experts. Jim didn't listen and you could see his prop bending whenever he ran it up. On his fatal flight home from Oshkosh he was advised by no less than 3 warbirds pilots to follow roads in case of trouble. He decided to fly direct and wound up breaking the prop in cruise with no place to land. He died avoiding tourists in rocky terrain in a National Park.

I've had a few drinks with Steve Hinton and he passed on that he always flies safe routes and has had to use roads to bring a warbird down on more occasions than he'd like to admit while traveling to or from distant destinations. All but one was a simple repair and the other was a lunched engine that require disassenbly and transport by truck to get it home.

The former WWII pilots say very similar things. Take care of the plane and it will take care of you, Abuse it and it MAY take care of you for awhile, but will definitely bite at some point if abused often. They ALL knew guys who ignored this and most didn't come back until after the war ended, if at all.

If you jockey the throttle around, you'll just kill a radial ... they like constant rpm whenever possible and slow rpm changes. They like a certain starting method and will happily blow out seals with backfires if you don't learn it. V-12's have high stress at idle (main bearings get pounded, especially cylinders 2 and 5 of 6 in a straight line ... not a radial) and they like very slow throttle changes and constant rpm whenever possible. Both like attention to mixture and cylinder head temperatures. Follow some easy rules and you can get to and past TBO. Ignore them and the engines will reward you with silence when least desired at SOME point, well before TBO.

So yeah, there are guys who used WER to do stupid things. But there were LOT more guys who weren't stupid and did it right. 

Enjoy your pint and have another. I don't really care at all if they abused their engines ... it's long past and whatever consequences there were, and I'm not riding with them. I bet FlyboyJ knows the benefits of being easy on the engine in a vehicle that you can't just pull over and park if it stops.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 29, 2013)

These figures come from the graph COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF P-63 AIRPLANES.


6/05/44
V-1710-109w / 1,800 hp.? / ?"Hg.

Height...Speed/Climb/Time
Meters..mph/fpm/to height
S.L.......382/4450/----
.1,000...394/4385/--.6
.2,000...408/4250/-1.35
.3,000...419/4090/-2.1
.4,000...429/3775/-2.95
.5,000...436/3420/-3.75
.6,000...441/3055/-4.75
.7,000...444/2645/-5.95
.8,000...444.5/2215/-7.35
.9,000...442/1830/-8.8
10,000..432/1375/10.9
11,000..N.G./850/13.8
12,000..N.G./365/18.6

Combat Ceiling: 35,150 ft.
Operational Ceiling: 38,500 ft.
Service Ceiling: 41,125 ft.

Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.
Wing Load: 36.02 lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 5.109 lbs./hp.
Combat Weight: 9,196 lbs.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 29, 2013)

GregP said:


> I've had a few drinks with Steve Hinton and he passed on that he always flies safe routes and has had to use roads to bring a warbird down on more occasions than he'd like to admit while traveling to or from distant destinations.



This is for all aircraft. I fly in gliders, so I'm always in "trouble". You have to always know the wind direction, your altitude and the return altitude. I have a friend who is a pilot and flied in a regional airliner over the Amazon Forest. In case a forced landing is necessary, the chances are really not good. Not his case, but you cannot fly single-engined planes in such a terrain (even so many people do).

BTW, I'm curious about the number of single engine planes that went down over enemy territory during WWII due to engine failure.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 29, 2013)

No information to go with the graph. The P-63 is just thrown on the graph with other A/C flying in Russian air space at the time.

There probably is a date on the graph but I finished the first pint and am getting down to the end of the second and don't care.......No just kidding (Hic!).

It appears that the test took place in March 1945.? Engine is V-1710-93 and they have power listed at 1,325 hp. Weight listed is 3822 Kilograms (8427.5 lbs.). Maximum speed listed is 394 mph/24,600 ft. Armament is listed at 1x37mm + 2x0.5in.

Speed taken from the graph are:
323/S.L.
333/1Km
342/2Km
351/3Km
362/4Km
372/5Km
381/6Km
391/7Km
393/8Km

That's that. Those are the graph I have change into figures for the P-63. If anyone has any other graph, I would be glad to do the deciphering of them.

Just a few other A/C graph I have analysed are: P-51, P-47, P-40, P-39, P-38, F4F, F6F, F7F, F4U, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, Spifire, A6M, Ki-43, Ki-61, La-7, Yak-3, J2m3.....etc. etc. etc...... If the graph was out for a WW2 fighter I studied it (if I found it). But all that will have to wait for another thread.

Thanks Guys for putting up with me. Goodnight all, Jeff


----------



## GregP (Apr 29, 2013)

Corsning, were those flight data points or calculated data points?

Thanks!


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> BTW, I'm curious about the number of single engine planes that went down over enemy territory during WWII due to engine failure.



A lot of P-51s early in their career. E/F was on par with LW. Mags, Manifold pressure, coolant loss


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 29, 2013)

Yeah. More time you are in the air, the more risk you have to experience failures. The P-38 has a distinctive advantage here, specially over the water in the Pacific.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 29, 2013)

Greg,
Those were data points from the graph.

Good night Guys and thanks for all the input, Jeff


----------



## wuzak (Apr 29, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> GregP,
> 
> I owe you an appology sir. I was having a good day yesterday until I checked our medical bills and my wife showed me what she meant by "I hit the car with the lawn mower". She ran over the push mower with the new van I just bought her. Well anyway, It was wrong of me to take it out on you. I am sorry Greg.
> 
> ...



The ability to use more boost doesn't necessarily mean higher top speed.

Higher boost tends to lower the full throttle altitude. That is, a Merlin with WEP setting of +25psi boost will reach a condition of wide open throttle at a lower altitude than when running at +18psi boost. Above the altitude where full throttle and +25psi boost is achieved boost will drop off. At the full throttle height for the engine at +18psi boost, it will still be making +18psi boost.

If the full throttle height at +18psi boost is altitude A and at +25psi boost is altitude B, the plane's speed would see the biggest increase at B and below. Between B and A the speed advantage will reduce. At A and above it will remain the same.


----------



## alejandro_ (Apr 30, 2013)

I have plotted the speed measured by the NII VVS test (P-63A-10) with that of the P-63A-9 42-69417. The data are quite different, especially at sea level. A while ago I did a similar comparison with the P-39 data, and the speeds at sea level were again quite different. Manufacturers usually state a performance variation, usually 5-10% IIRC. Is there any reason why the variation should be larger at SL?

1


----------



## alejandro_ (Apr 30, 2013)

Double post, mods please delete.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2013)

alejandro_ said:


> I have plotted the speed measured by the NII VVS test (P-63A-10) with that of the P-63A-9 42-69417. The data are quite different, especially at sea level. A while ago I did a similar comparison with the P-39 data, and the speeds at sea level were again quite different. Manufacturers usually state a performance variation, usually 5-10% IIRC. Is there any reason why the variation should be larger at SL?
> 
> 1



SL is where the greatest density occurs and hence, the highest drag. Variations in engine performance would have an impact.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 30, 2013)

wuzak, you are exactly right about boosted levels.

drgondog, thanks for the explination of performance at sea level.


----------



## alejandro_ (May 1, 2013)

I have scanned a graph with performance data from the book America's Hundred-Thousand, one of the best references for US fighters. Soviet data does not seem to be very different from USAAF's. Note that Soviet graph specified performance for a 15 minute engine setting (military power).


----------



## jmcalli2 (Jun 4, 2018)

alejandro_ said:


> I have scanned a graph with performance data from the book America's Hundred-Thousand, one of the best references for US fighters. Soviet data does not seem to be very different from USAAF's. Note that Soviet graph specified performance for a 15 minute engine setting (military power).


I have a question;

Notice that the P-63D is often quoted as the fastest version, by about 20MPH. Could this be due, indirectly, to the bubble canpy sliding back-this means the induction air intake is further away from the canopy, and, I think, in much better airflow. Any ideas?
Jim


----------



## wuzak (Jun 4, 2018)

jmcalli2 said:


> I have a question;
> 
> Notice that the P-63D is often quoted as the fastest version, by about 20MPH. Could this be due, indirectly, to the bubble canpy sliding back-this means the induction air intake is further away from the canopy, and, I think, in much better airflow. Any ideas?
> Jim



The inlet is further rearwards because the air intake goes to the auxiliary compressor, which is basically attached to the rear of a regular V-1710. Thus the intake is much further back compared.

The D probably had the most powerful version of the engine.


----------



## grampi (Jun 5, 2018)

GregP said:


> As I recall it made about 422 mph at best altitude (around 22,000 feet or so), climbed MUCH better than the P-51



Depends on which version of the P-51...the P-63 climbed better than the D model, probably about equal to the B/C model, but did not climb as well as the H model...


----------



## jmcalli2 (Jun 9, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The inlet is further rearwards because the air intake goes to the auxiliary compressor, which is basically attached to the rear of a regular V-1710. Thus the intake is much further back compared.
> 
> The D probably had the most powerful version of the engine.



The other reason for it being further aft is the bubble canopy on the P-63D slide back to open; it required the intake to be further aft. Still can't help but think it made a difference.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2018)

There were 6 different engines used in the P-63 of which one, the -47, can pretty much be ignored as it was only used in the prototype. and two others (the-133 and the -135) were used in end/postwar versions, the P-63F (2 built) and the RP-63G (32 built). 
Since there were also 4 different propellers used it gets very hard to pick up differences the change in air intake would make, not saying it didn't make a difference, but without company test results specifically addressing the intake we get into speculation real quick.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 10, 2018)

The P63 was another NIH program. It would have been a far more effective ground attack aircraft. Far better than the dedicated fighters. Plus would have had the combat ability to fight back otw home! Much like the P40. It had better range than the P39 but not current long range fighters. The US was afraid the Russians would give them to the North Koreans. The French liked them in Libya and Vietnam.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 10, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> The P63 was another NIH program. It would have been a far more effective ground attack aircraft. Far better than the dedicated fighters. Plus would have had the combat ability to fight back otw home! Much like the P40. It had better range than the P39 but not current long range fighters. The US was afraid the Russians would give them to the North Koreans. The French liked them in Libya and Vietnam.



French liked them in Libya? Where the P-63 came from, so we can sonsider them NIH? 
North Koreans in ww2? Why would the P-63 be an effective ground attack aircraft?


----------



## jmcalli2 (Mar 19, 2019)

wuzak said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/P-63A_42-69417_TSCEP5E-1938.pdf



Look at the graph for the P-63D;
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/p-63-chart-bell-1400.jpg


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2019)

jmcalli2 said:


> Look at the graph for the P-63D;
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/p-63-chart-bell-1400.jpg



Unfortunately the P-63D was never flight tested by AAF, and the Allison was notoriously flawed with WI and boost over 61-63" with WI. If Allison had EVER been able to achieve to its Marketing arm, those performance figures were 'doable'.. kinda like the Allison projections for the Xp-51J and P-82's. There were several major issues with Allison that were so onerous, that NAA was experimenting with preliminary design analysis of both the Continental and R-R in 1941 during the early flight testing of the XP-51 and Mustang I.

It is a fact that the P-63 as tested and reported upon for full scale wind tunnel tests at Langley very closely approached the P-51B for minimum Profile and parasite drag - that said, it is very doubtful that the P-63 cooling/aftercooling radiator/ducting scheme would produce significant reductions in Cooling drag in comparison to all the Merlin Mustangs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 21, 2019)

drgondog said:


> *Unfortunately the P-63D was never flight tested by AAF, and the Allison was notoriously flawed with WI and boost over 61-63" with WI*. If Allison had EVER been able to achieve to its Marketing arm, those performance figures were 'doable'.. kinda like the Allison projections for the Xp-51J and P-82's. There were several major issues with Allison that were so onerous, that NAA was experimenting with preliminary design analysis of both the Continental and R-R in 1941 during the early flight testing of the XP-51 and Mustang I.



Going by the manual, the P-63A was cleared for 75 in Hg with WI. The V-1710 on P-82 was supposed to run at 90 in Hg, IIRC, that will be a tall order for engine without intercooler, 6.65:1 CR, no backfire screens, new type of fuel distribution unit.
No intercooler/aftercooler on P-63.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 21, 2019)

Part of that question is where?

From AHT so check it out somewhere else.

Tat 75in (1800hp) started to disappear pretty quick once you left sea level. At 15,000ft the engine was good for under 1500hp using water injection. under 1400hp dry WEP and and under 1300hp Military rating (54in/12lbs) 

If you are trying to make power up in the mid 20s then more power is being used up in the supercharger/s ans so more power is being made in cylinders (higher pressure and more cooling problems) that making the same power to the propeller at lower altitudes. It needed 25 gallons of water for 15 minutes which is over double the water carried by an F4U or F6F and just 5 gallons less than P-47 carried.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Going by the manual, the P-63A was cleared for 75 in Hg with WI. The V-1710 on P-82 was supposed to run at 90 in Hg, IIRC, that will be a tall order for engine without intercooler, 6.65:1 CR, no backfire screens, new type of fuel distribution unit.
> No intercooler/aftercooler on P-63.



The V-1710 was de-rated to 61" - one of the many reasons Schmued, Atwood and Kindelberger despised Allison. The Allison powered P-82 performed far under the Merlin XP-82/P-82B


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 29, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Unfortunately the P-63D was never flight tested by AAF, and the Allison was notoriously flawed with WI and boost over 61-63" with WI. If Allison had EVER been able to achieve to its Marketing arm, those performance figures were 'doable'.. kinda like the Allison projections for the Xp-51J and P-82's. There were several major issues with Allison that were so onerous, that NAA was experimenting with preliminary design analysis of both the Continental and R-R in 1941 during the early flight testing of the XP-51 and Mustang I.
> 
> It is a fact that the P-63 as tested and reported upon for full scale wind tunnel tests at Langley very closely approached the P-51B for minimum Profile and parasite drag - that said, it is very doubtful that the P-63 cooling/aftercooling radiator/ducting scheme would produce significant reductions in Cooling drag in comparison to all the Merlin Mustangs.



Would you be willing to elaborate on the Allison V-1710 issues?
Very interesting!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 30, 2019)

gjs238 said:


> Would you be willing to elaborate on the Allison V-1710 issues?
> Very interesting!


Several specifics - first, even as a co-GM company, Allison failed to deliver to their own commitments with respect to delivery dates. Not only for the X73 (which flew more than six weeks after airframe completed) which only flew at all because the Army 'loaned' NAA a V-1710-39.

Second, Allison Engineering and Field Service failed repeatedly to communicate the changes made to their own product, causing NAA production issues when 'new placement' of wiring harness, etc caused re-work to the X73, then followed up by sliding deliveries of the -39 by months for the production Mustang I's.

Kindelberger started looking to the Continental and Merlin XX, including design studies, in late 1941 and had a major dust up with GM BOD over Allison's performance.

Third, despite NAA input, Allison was satisfied with their 'bolt on' second stage design, which if accepted by NAA would have resulted in a complete re-design of the fuselage to accommodate the extra length.

Fourth, the design of the second stage without backfire screens for high boost associated problems with fuel-air charge temperatures failed to deliver a reliable engine for both the XP-51J and the P-82D and Subsequent. It was a lousy engine for the XP-40Q causing several engine failures during that program also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------

