# Was the P63 King Cobra a missed opportunity in NW Europe post D-Day?



## pattle (Dec 6, 2013)

How do I word this question correctly? Was the Bell P63 a missed opportunity in the ground attack role in NW Europe post D-Day? I ask this question because I understand that the P63 was a good low level performer that was apparently sturdy and carried a heavy armament that appears to have been just the ticket for use against ground targets such as vehicles and locomotives. I understand that the P63 was not as versatile as either the P51 or P47, but would relatively small numbers of the P63 have been brought benefits if used purely as a ground attack aircraft?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2013)

It probably wasn't worth the cost. You need a whole new maintenance and supply chain. The ONLY thing it brings to the table is the 37mm gun and the 37mm gun also doesn't bring much to the table. MV was 2000fps which really limits it's armor piercing ability. 

In fact it's AP round is listed as a 753gram projectile at 556m/s compared to the British 40mm aircraft gun rounds of 1130 grams at 615m/s or 1360grams at 570m/s. Rate of fire is about 165 round per minute or 2.75 per second. A "normal" burst was considered 5 rounds and the max length burst was 15 rounds (5.5 seconds) in which time a 300mph airplane will cover 800 yds. 

While a hit is very damaging it is no sure thing against heavy armor and multiple 20mm guns offer a much greater chance of hits against anything less. ( A Typhoon can fire 120 20mm shells in just 3 seconds.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Dec 6, 2013)

As SH6 wrote, not worth of it, but if deployed, why as a GA plane, again, it would not have brought much extra capacity. If deployed in spite of logic why not as a tactical fighter, at low and middle altitudes it was the best USAAF fighter at that time, climbed and turned better than P-47 and Merlin P-51s.

See Results of the Soviet turn times tests - Juhan Sotahistoriasivut. 1944 US planes are way down, P-63A 360 deg turn time was 20.5sec at 1000m.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> It probably wasn't worth the cost. You need a whole new maintenance and supply chain


BINGO!


----------



## Mike Williams (Dec 6, 2013)

Juha said:


> See Results of the Soviet turn times tests - Juhan Sotahistoriasivut. 1944 US planes are way down, P-63A 360 deg turn time was 20.5sec at 1000m.



Very nice site Juha!! Added to favorites


----------



## pattle (Dec 6, 2013)

To be honest I only really put this topic up because things had gone a bit quiet on here and I know the best way to liven things up is to mention an American aircraft. I understand that it was USAAF policy to keep the number of types in each theatre to a minimum as much as possible and this makes perfect sense. I haven't ever really bothered to read a great deal about the P63 so I only know a little about it, it does seem however that it was pretty useful at low altitude and my general train of thought was that with the lack of Luftwaffe opposition and the refocusing of fighter aircraft from air targets to ground targets an aircraft like the P63 may have come into it's own. I post this thread as a proposition and not as an assertion, so I feel no need to defend it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2013)

No big deal, if you don't know, ask. Hopefully we can teach without preaching


----------



## davebender (Dec 6, 2013)

What level of armor protection surrounded the pilot and fuel tanks? Protection against 7.92mm AP ground fire is probably the minimum acceptable for a 1944 CAS aircraft.

How stable was P63 as a gun platform?

What iron bomb CEP could be expected from P63s flown by average pilots?

What was typical combat radius of P63 carrying bomb weighing at least 500lbs?

How good was downward visibility from P63 cockpit?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2013)

> What level of armor protection surrounded the pilot and fuel tanks? Protection against 7.92mm AP ground fire is probably the minimum acceptable for a 1944 CAS aircraft.



Since nothing short of an IL-2 had ALL ROUND protection of cockpit, engine, and fuel systems from 7.92mm AP ground fire it seems this requirement is a little severe. Of course if you are willing to take the performance hit you night be able to sling a bomb underneath one of the armored target versions which carried 1410lb of armor over and above the normal armor. 



> How stable was P63 as a gun platform?



It seems to have been pretty good but there were a number of changes to the tail and horizontal surfaces so not all models handled the same. 



> What iron bomb CEP could be expected from P63s flown by average pilots?



It's not a dive bomber with dive brakes, it is probably little different than most other "fighter-bombers"




> What was typical combat radius of P63 carrying bomb weighing at least 500lbs?



With or without the under wing drop tanks? for the A-7 version onward there were three hard points that could take a 500lb bomb EACH or a 75 gallon drop tank. 

So with your "at least 500lbs" bomb load the P-63 had 126 gal internal and 150 gallons external. Or two 500lb bombs and 75 gallons external or for short range missions three 500lb bombs. There was also a 64 gallon self sealing "slipper" center tank available. 



> How good was downward visibility from P63 cockpit?



Probably no worse than any other inline engine fighter and better than some. Cockpit was actually further forward in relation to the wing leading edge than the P-39 but if you are looking down just in front of the wing leading edge you are about to pass the target by. P-63 had a shorter nose, no cylinder heads in the way and a better sight line over the nose than most front engine fighters even if only a few degrees.


----------



## davebender (Dec 6, 2013)

If it's no better then P-40 for CAS then what's the incentive to introduce P63 CAS aircraft into service?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2013)

It's competition in 1944 was NOT the P-40 but the P-51 and P-47.


----------



## Maxrobot1 (Dec 6, 2013)

Weren't P-63s flown by Free French Squadrons? Or was that post war?


----------



## davebender (Dec 6, 2013)

Post WWII France employed F8F for CAS in Vietnam. What did they use to fight insurgency in North Africa?

Grumman F8F Bearcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The first combat for the F8F Bearcat was during the French Indochina War (aka First Indochina War 1946-1954) when nearly 200 Bearcats were delivered to the French forces in 1951.


----------



## Airframes (Dec 6, 2013)

davebender said:


> Post WWII France employed F8F for CAS in Vietnam. What did they use to fight insurgency in North Africa?
> 
> Grumman F8F Bearcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



French E.A.L.A in Algeria used the T-6 initially, followed by the T-28S Fennec.


----------



## GregP (Dec 7, 2013)

So according to the Soviet tests, the P-63A turned with or out-turned the Bf 109E-3, G-2 and 4, Hurricane IIB and D, LaGG-3 series 1, 3, 23, 29, 32, and 37, the Yak-7A, the Fw 190A-5, the Fw 190A-8, the Fw 190D-9, the Mustang Mk I, the MiG-3, and the P-47D.

Sounds to me like the P-63A was a pretty hot ticket with hard-hitting armament and a decent turn of speed … about 25 mph less than a P-51D at its BEST height. The climb rate I see on Wiki is ludicrous and is the climb rate at what might be cruise power. Nothing with a weight to power ratio of 5.0 lbs per HP climbs at only 2,500 fpm. At WER it was well above 4,500 fpm according to pilots who flew it. At military it was well above 3,500 fpm.

I don’t see a downside to the P-63 from these tests except no data for high altitude, which the P-63 could get to and then fight quite well.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 7, 2013)

Maxrobot1 said:


> Weren't P-63s flown by Free French Squadrons? Or was that post war?



By the end of the war a couple of the French Airacobra Squadrons were starting to receive King Cobras, but none of the Squadrons were fully converted over (as far as I know) before the war in Europe ended.


----------



## pattle (Dec 7, 2013)

I was also thinking would the P63's engine have been better protected being behind the pilot rather than in the nose like most other aircraft ?


----------



## Juha (Dec 7, 2013)

pattle said:


> I was also thinking would the P63's engine have been better protected being behind the pilot rather than in the nose like most other aircraft ?



In GA work yes, against fighters, no because fighter attacks usually came from rear.


----------



## pattle (Dec 7, 2013)

Juha said:


> In GA work yes, against fighters, no because fighter attacks usually came from rear.



In which case the pilot would of had a nice chunk of armour behind him, although I am not sure what is worse an engine bursting into flames behind you or in front of you, logically I assume that if the burning engine was behind you then at least the flames would be blowing away from you rather than in your face.


----------



## pattle (Dec 7, 2013)

Anyways the P39 and P63 looks like an interesting airplane so I may well invest in a book on them. I have always sort of written these Bell fighters off until now thanks to poor reviews from the USAAF and RAF, but obviously these fighters had hidden depths and strengths that it seems only the Ruskies were aware of.


----------



## Juha (Dec 7, 2013)

GregP said:


> ... The climb rate I see on Wiki is ludicrous and is the climb rate at what might be cruise power. Nothing with a weight to power ratio of 5.0 lbs per HP climbs at only 2,500 fpm. At WER it was well above 4,500 fpm according to pilots who flew it. At military it was well above 3,500 fpm...l.



Yes, according to Dean's AHT P-63 was the best climbing late war USAAF fighter.

There is info on P-63 testing on Mike's and Neil's site P-63 Performance Tests


----------



## davebender (Dec 7, 2013)

P63 was probably a decent short range fighter aircraft. Could replace P-40 in that role. Just don't confuse it with a proper late war CAS aircraft.

USN had the right idea for CAS. Late WWII USN employed F4U in that role. Which were replaced by A-1 Skyraider during Korean War.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 7, 2013)

pattle said:


> Anyways the P39 and P63 looks like an interesting airplane so I may well invest in a book on them. I have always sort of written these Bell fighters off until now thanks to poor reviews from the USAAF and RAF, but obviously these fighters had hidden depths and strengths that it seems only the Ruskies were aware of.



Interesting article here:
Early Cobra's in Soviet Aviation


----------



## Conslaw (Dec 8, 2013)

The Skyraider didn't so much replace the Corsair in Korea as supplement it. As to why the US didn't fly the P-63 in combat, there was neither the need nor the supply. The P-51 was clearly a better escort fighter. The P-47 was a competent escort fighter and a top-notch close-air-support fighter. The P-47 could carry a heavier load farther or longer, was more survivable in the face of enemy fire, and Republic was delivering them in massive quantities. Further, by mid-1944, when the P-63 became available, the P-47 had already been in theater for a year. The limited capacity that Bell had to deliver the P-63 was mostly taken up by Soviet allotments. The training command could make better use of the leftovers than to assign the planes to combat in Europe (and establish an overseas logistics network for parts and service).


----------



## GregP (Dec 8, 2013)

First hand accoutns from pilots who flew it tell me it was a GOOD fighter. Where did I GET the first hand accounts? From people who came through Joe Yancey's shop when I was helping overhaul Allisons for a year and a half.

The P-63 flew quite well against ANY US fighter according to it's pilots, and had a lot in common with the P-39 as far as great roll and good handling, but could fly and fight much higher. People who put it down are NOT experienced with the aircrfaft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Dec 8, 2013)

P-63 simply arrived too late and was too short ranged for USAAF liking. Maybe also the overadvertisement of P-39 had spoiled somewhat the reputation of the Bell Co in the eyes of the USAAF top hierarcy.


----------



## pattle (Dec 8, 2013)

I am a big P47 fan also, it was an absolutely exceptional aircraft against ground targets.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 8, 2013)

"....overadvertisement of P-39 had spoiled somewhat the reputation of the Bell Co in the eyes of the USAAF top hierarcy."

The same hierarchy had no trouble entrusting the development of the first jet - the Airacomet - to Bell.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 8, 2013)

From Greyman's article:

" ... It is not an exaggeration to say that Soviet pilots and engineers, front-line troops and researchers, gave their maximum effort to turn the Airacobra into a fully capable combat aircraft. And in doing so they saved the Bell firm from great unpleasantness associated with the production of a series of "unfinished" aircraft. But more about this in the following chapters..."

That's the _Soviet _story .... I wonder if the pilots and crew at Henderson Field shared the same low opinion ... they also flew P-400's.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> That's the _Soviet _story .... I wonder if the pilots and crew at Henderson Field shared the same low opinion ... they also flew P-400's.




I don't know about the pilots and crew at Henderson Field but lets remember _why_ the Russians got P-39s in the first place. The British tried them, tried to equip one squadron with them and said "thanks but no thanks, please don't even bother to unload them at the dock, just send them on to Russia." This is in the fall of 1941 and these are aircraft _paid_ for by the British pre-lend lease. 
There were a number of serviceability issues in addition to the aircraft failing ( by a large margin) to meet it's "advertised" performance numbers. The plane as "all-electric" flaps, landing gear _and prop pitch_ which meant a major electrical failure doomed the airplane. The forward bulkhead wasn't sealed well and let a dangerous, if not lethal amount of gun gas fumes into the cockpit when the nose guns were fired, Firing the nose guns would also knock out the compass (not good anywhere, but over France??) and a few other "little" problems 
I don't think there is much dispute that the Russians had their hands full with the P-39s but then a few of their own aircraft were a "little less" than finished by western standards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2013)

The P-400's earned, and richly so, the moniker "Iron Dog" at Guadalcanal.

As to the excellent climb rate for the P-63, it was the equivalent of the P-51B at low altitude but fell far short above 20,000 feet and in particular when the P-51B acquired the 1650-7 and 150 octane fuel to boost to 72".

Having said that Yeager is one of those that admired the P-39 and P-63 and indicated that he would have had no problem going to war in either. I never had the chance to ask him about that comment or put it into context of going to ETO and fighting LW in it at 25000 feet. I would hope he would have reconsidered in that context.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Dec 8, 2013)

Hello Bill
thanks for pointing that, checked Mike's and Neil's site for P-51B and you are right. Dean seems to have used Bell's data for P-63A-8 in his USAAF late-war fighters' climb comparison and in the P-51 part of his book the 61" MP graph for P-51B.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2013)

Juha - you're right about Dean. He didn't account for performance increases due to the 150 Octane. IIRC, even the 61" would be correct only for the P-51B-1 with the 1650-3 which was great at 29,000 FTH but not so great from SL to 24000 per the 1650-7 and 67"


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 9, 2013)

I think the success in the Airacobra with Russia is that the airplane was what they needed, when they needed it. Despite any mechanical problems with the early aircraft. The P-39 was used by the Russians in the altitudes it performed best. It also allowed Russia to have a first rate aircraft, for that theatre, and allowed them the time to develop aircraft of their own designs that ultimately were very capable themselves.

I love the Airacobra, still one of the sweetest looking planes to me.

Getting back to the original question though, I do not think the P-63 would have helped the U.S. in anyway. Mostly because it had no range compared to other designs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 16, 2013)

If you're going to open another supply chain, probably better off doing it for the F4U.


----------



## GregP (Dec 16, 2013)

I think the P-63 would have been a good addition if it was used to its strengths. It would have needed a supply chain but, then again, ANY aircraft would. There were NONE which were effective with no spares. A great example is the Ta-152.


----------



## Glider (Dec 17, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "....overadvertisement of P-39 had spoiled somewhat the reputation of the Bell Co in the eyes of the USAAF top hierarcy."
> 
> The same hierarchy had no trouble entrusting the development of the first jet - the Airacomet - to Bell.



Remember that the UK gave the job to Gloster whose most recent in production design was the Gladiator. I sometimes think they were looking around for a design team that didn't have much on, instead of which design team is likely to do the best job or has the most experience of designing high speed aircraft.


----------



## pattle (Dec 17, 2013)

Glider said:


> Remember that the UK gave the job to Gloster whose most recent in production design was the Gladiator. I sometimes think they were looking around for a design team that didn't have much on, instead of which design team is likely to do the best job or has the most experience of designing high speed aircraft.



Gloster Aircraft were part of the much larger Hawker Siddeley Group with Armstrong Whitworth, a bit like Supermarine was part of Vickers.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 17, 2013)

Hmmm, some what-ifs about Supermarine or North American jets?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "....overadvertisement of P-39 had spoiled somewhat the reputation of the Bell Co in the eyes of the USAAF top hierarcy."
> 
> The same hierarchy had no trouble entrusting the development of the first jet - the Airacomet - to Bell.



The contract for the P-59A was actually signed in October 1941. Hap Arnold gave bell a "no-bid' contract for 3 aircraft. All this happened before the shortcomings of the P-39 were realized.


----------



## GregP (Dec 17, 2013)

Despite the fact that we are restoring one, the P-59 Airacomet was not a great plane. We have a flight report on our very tail number and, if you read it, you would not want to fly it ... at least not often.

I MUST give Bell their due. When the contract was signed, they didn't give Bell an engine or tell them the projected thrust. They gave them a big block of wood and said the engine would not be any larger. They didn't even indiacte the engine mount locations until after the design was mostly done.

If nothing else, the 66 Airacomets DID teach our piston pilots how to fly turbine aircraft before they transitioned into P-80's. Well, at least 64 of them did. Two had a head-on collision and didn't do much teaching atfer that. We have had at least two pilots who flew our tail number visit the museum. They were happy it would fly again and wanted to be there when it did, if they live that long ...

We hope it will fly in 2014 and it looks set to do that. The trailing edges are finally near the end of redesign / rebuild and new control cables are on order for the rudder (frayed cables inside near the braided loops at the rigging turnbuckle). When we get the controls rigged, it will be time to roll the YP-59A into Fighter Rebuilders, get it inspected / updated as required and on to the flight test program.

The majority of the restoration was done before I started on it 8 years ago, so I was helping with finishing touches, more or less. One "finishing touch," the sliding canopy, took 3 of us 2 1/2 years of Saturdays to build from scratch, with no drawings. A new windscreen was also a challenge as we had to make the solid metal top windscreen bow from a 6-inch diameter rod of 7075 Aluminum using a balsa piece as a model and carve it out on an old manual end mill. At Steve Hinton's suggestion, we used a Tigercat emergency canopy release modified to fit. 

Hopefully I'll have some YP-59A pics when it rolls out ... I'd say the people who have worked on it, about 50 or so still around, are ALL very interested in seeing it fly. Many of them drove hundreds if not thousands of rivets and did the real legwork for this proiject. A great bunch of guys and all are quite ready to see it fly or at LEAST taxi before flight test. Once it is moving under it's own power, flight is just a matter of paperwork and money.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 18, 2013)

GregP,
Very cool, keep us posted!
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Jugman (Dec 18, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The contract for the P-59A was actually signed in October 1941. Hap Arnold gave bell a "no-bid' contract for 3 aircraft. All this happened before the shortcomings of the P-39 were realized.




You really think with ~750 P-39s built by October 1941 that the shortcomings of the P-39 weren't realized? In any event the only shortcoming, that i can think of, that can be blamed on bad engineering is the P-39's high sensitivity to changes in its center of gravity. 

Bell was most likely chosen because they never proposed a conventional aircraft design. Who better to build the first US aircraft powered solely by turbojets?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2013)

Jugman said:


> *You really think with ~750 P-39s built by October 1941 that the shortcomings of the P-39 weren't realized?* In any event the only shortcoming, that i can think of, that can be blamed on bad engineering is the P-39's high sensitivity to changes in its center of gravity.



I do - at least by the USAAF and only what they were seeing stateside. By the summer of 1942 the AAF realized that P-39 was not suited in many of the roles it was being operated. The British operated the P-39 from August 1941 until March 1942 and as we know they had no love for the aircraft.

You say "bad engineering." Care to explain IYO? The aircraft was built to an AAF specification and was eventually accepted based on that specification. The AAF changed operating requirements on Bell several times during the aircraft's early development and was probably more to blame for any downfalls in this design. 

As mentioned many times on this forum, Chuck Yeager loved the aircraft and I think it was because of its instability, something you actually want in a fighter in some regards.




Jugman said:


> Bell was most likely chosen because they never proposed a conventional aircraft design. Who better to build the first US aircraft powered solely by turbojets?


 They were chosen by Hap Arnold, probably because he knew Bell had nothing beyond the P-39 (and P-63) and they had floor space and engineering staff readily available. Again I state, the P-59A contract was awarded September 1941, months before the US got into the shooting war.


----------



## muscogeemike (Dec 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> Despite the fact that we are restoring one, the P-59 Airacomet was not a great plane. We have a flight report on our very tail number and, if you read it, you would not want to fly it ... at least not often.
> 
> I MUST give Bell their due. When the contract was signed, they didn't give Bell an engine or tell them the projected thrust. They gave them a big block of wood and said the engine would not be any larger. They didn't even indiacte the engine mount locations until after the design was mostly done.
> 
> ...


I grew up in S. Cal (Azusa, Covina and Brea) and had relatives in Chino. I remember going to your "Museum" in the 50's when it was just a hanger or two and some deteriorating planes on static display.

I went back to in S. Cal in the mid 90’s (after retiring from the Army), living very near March AFB (I wisely went to TX as soon as I could). I visited their museum often and was ask to leave when I questioned a guide (I was chaperoning my sons school group) when he told the students that their static P-59 was based on technology brought back from Germany after the War!

I'm so happy to see your facility succeed as it has and hope to visit (for probably the last time) next year, hope to see the P-59 in flying condition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 18, 2013)

The VVS thought very highly of the P-39/63 design. A large number of their significant aces chalked up impressive tallies with them, including Pokryshkin 

Pokryshkin's first usage of the P-39 occurred during Kuban campaign. It was here that he chalked his most significant contribution to the war effort and the most impressive kill record for him came during the battle for the Kuban region in 1943 flying mostly the P-39. It is worth noting that Pokryshkin was a higher top scorer than any allied ace of the war and that the Sopviet verification system was possibly the most rigorous of any nation, at least at the operational level. at a political level, there was some interference, admittedly. The Kuban had seen heated air combat in the months that led to the Soviet assault on Crimea itself, where Kuban-based Soviet air regiments went against Crimea-based Luftwaffe Geschwader. Pokryshkin's regiment are known to have flown against such well-known German JG units as JG 52 and JG 3 'Udet'. The area saw some of the most heated fighting of the Eastern Front, with daily engagements of up to 200 aircraft in the air. Pokryshkin's innovative tactics of using different fighter types stacked in altitude, the so-called 'pendulum' flight pattern for patrolling the airspace, and the use of ground-based radar, forward based controllers and an advanced central ground control system led to the first great Soviet Air Force victory over the Luftwaffe and utilised to a high degeee the strengths of the aircobra.

No doubt, the air campaign in which Pokryshkin debutswas assisted when, in the spring of 1943, the 4th Air Army which Pokryshkin was a part of, received the first mobile radar stations. They were tested in aiding over-water interceptions of German and Romanian aircraft, and they proved highly successful.

In early January 1943, 16 Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment was sent to 25 ZAP (Zapasnoy Aviatsionyy Polk = Reserve Aviation Regiment, a unit tasked with checking that home-made and lend-lease aircraft were ready for combat service) near the Iranian border, to re-equip with new aircraft, and also to receive new pilots. Many of these had to be ferried over from Iran. It was at this time that the unit converted to the P-39 Airacobra, which when all had arrived, turned the unit into a 3-squadron regiment. 16th Guards received 14 P-39L-1s, seven P-39Ks, the very last of which was assigned to Pokryshkin, and 11 P-39D-2s. The unit returned to action on April 8, 1943.

During the remainder of the month, Pokryshkin was credited with 11 Bf 109s and one Ju.88 destroyed.

He was credited with a Bf.109 destroyed on his very first Airacobra mission, on 9 April 1943, and scored four Bf.109 kills on 12 April 1943, one of his more successful days. He scored again on 15, 16, 20, 21 and 24 April - one Bf.109 on each day, adding a Ju.88 (probably in fact a He.111) on 29 April, plus one more Bf.109 on 30 April.

One of the most famous engagements he was involved in took place on 4 May 1943. Eight of Pokryshkin's Airacobras were directed by ground control towards a large group of enemy planes. Three whole squadrons of Junkers Ju-87 Stukas were being escorted by a full geschwader of Bf-109s. Attacking from the sun, a pair of P-39s attacked the fighters while the remaining six dived through the bomber formation, repeating the attack twice using Pokryshkin's method of swapping dive directions. Twelve Stukas were claimed shot down, with Pokryshkin claiming five (he was officially credited with two). Later that same day he shot down another Bf.109.

In most subsequent fights, Pokryshkin would usually take the most difficult role, attacking the leader of the German fighters, who usually was an aggressive experte. As he learned in 1941–42, shooting down the flight leader would have a very strong demoralising effect on the enemy and often cause them to scramble home. Taken that into account, almost certainly among his preys during the month of May were some of such experten: On 6 May 1943 Pokryshkin shot up a Messerschmitt, probably the Bf.109G-2 of 9-kills ace Unteroffizier Heinz Scholze (4./JG 52), who crashed while trying to land at Kuteinikovo. Two days later, his victim was the Bf.109G-4 of Leutnant Helmut Haberda (an experte of 5./JG 52 with 58 victories to his credit), even when Luftwaffe credits the loss to the Soviet flak, this is not confirmed by Soviet sources, and there were no dedicated Soviet Flak units in the area he was shot down .

Pokryshkin received his first Hero of the Soviet Union award on 24 May 1943, and was promoted to major in June, having become commanding officer of his squadron. On 23 June, he exchanged his old P-39K-1 BuNo 42-4421 "White 13", for the famous -and, incidentally, unmarked by any victory stars- P-39N BuNo 42-9004, "White 100", which he flew for the rest of the war, excepting the test of the Berlin autobahn as a runway in Konstantin Sukhov's "White 50", which was much photographed.

The point is that for the right purpose, with the right pilots and the right support echelons, the P-39 9and by extension the P-63) could be argued as one of the most effective allied fighters operationally, in the period after 1943. because it wqas not significant in the allied inventory, this fact is often overlooked.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 18, 2013)

Great summation of both the man and the machine.

He was an 'up close and personal' fighter pilot ... and his 2 50s were wired to fire with the 37mm canon. His 'vertical plane' tactics - basically boom and zoom - were perfect for the P-39 and for the theatre - 11,000 feet and_ down_. Mostly _down_ since they were top cover for the Sturmoviks

But, parsifal, did the P-63 ever get used by the Soviets against the Germans .....  ... _that_ is the question???


----------



## pattle (Dec 18, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Great summation of both the man and the machine.
> 
> He was an 'up close and personal' fighter pilot ... and his 2 50s were wired to fire with the 37mm canon. His 'vertical plane' tactics - basically boom and zoom - were perfect for the P-39 and for the theatre - 11,000 feet and_ down_. Mostly _down_ since they were top cover for the Sturmoviks
> 
> But, parsifal, did the P-63 ever get used by the Soviets against the Germans .....  ... _that_ is the question???



I think that there will be some disagreement over whether it was or not.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 18, 2013)

"...I think that there will be some disagreement over whether it was or not."

As far as US 'terms of provision' goes, the Soviets were 'forbidden'. But I can't believe that some of their hot pilots didn't use it. There were 'sightings' over Berlin and over Konicsberg, IIRC.


----------



## pattle (Dec 18, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...I think that there will be some disagreement over whether it was or not."
> 
> As far as US 'terms of provision' goes, the Soviets were 'forbidden'. But I can't believe that some of their hot pilots didn't use it. There were 'sightings' over Berlin and over Konicsberg, IIRC.


Yes and it is not like the Russians couldn't get away with saying they were just P39s, aircraft were very often mistaken in combat .


----------



## GregP (Dec 18, 2013)

Hey Mike,

When you come, ask which hangar is the restoration hangar and ask for Greg. I'll show you around, assuming I'm still here. Thanks for the nice thoughts and I'm sorry the museum guise way back then got it wrong.

The P-59 Airacomet was 100% USA except for the engines which were initially 100% British. The first three P-59's, the three XP-59A's, had direct copies of Frank Whittle engines in them (the GE I-A engines). They had about 1,200 pounds of thrust. The YP-59A's had GE I-16's in them (1,600 pounds of thrust and the first American improvement to the Whittle engine). Later P-59's had the J-31, which was basically the same engine upgraded again to get 2,000 pounds of thrust.

Again, look me up when you get here!

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 18, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Great summation of both the man and the machine.
> 
> He was an 'up close and personal' fighter pilot ... and his 2 50s were wired to fire with the 37mm canon. His 'vertical plane' tactics - basically boom and zoom - were perfect for the P-39 and for the theatre - 11,000 feet and_ down_. Mostly _down_ since they were top cover for the Sturmoviks
> 
> But, parsifal, did the P-63 ever get used by the Soviets against the Germans .....  ... _that_ is the question???



well its a very good question and anybody that answers it flippantly is going to get it wrong. This is my best take on the issue

The first version to be supplied in quantity to the USSR was the P-63A-7 with a higher vertical tail, and reinforced wings and fuselage. Deliveries began from either the end of 1943 or early 1944.


Air Transport Command ferry pilots, including U.S. women pilots of the WASP program, picked up the planes at the Bell factory at Niagara Falls, New York, and flew them to Great Falls, Montana and then onward via the Alaska-Siberia Route (ALSIB), through Canada, over Alaska where Russian ferry pilots, many of them women also , would take delivery of the aircraft at Nome and fly them to the Soviet Union over the Bering Strait. A total of 2,397 such aircraft were delivered to USSR. So in my mind, there is no question that they were delivered to the Soviets

However, amazingly, by a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East for an eventual attack on Japan. However, there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that P-63s did indeed see service against the Luftwaffe. 

This is where it gets ionteresting and confusing. One of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GIAP was secretly converted to P-63s in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. One account states they were in action at Königsberg, in Poland and in the final assault on Berlin. There are also German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show nothing but P-39s used against German.

The cited story about the "disallowance of P-63 use in Europe" does not sound at all credible to me. 

Some sources claim , "4 GIAP" is not recorded as ever having used P-39 or the Kingcobras; 4 GIAP according to these sources in 1944 belonged to VVS KBF (Baltic Fleet Air Force, ex-13 IAP, which used La-5s from 1943 and converted to La-7s in autumn 1944). Furthermore Pokryhskin had NOTHING to do with the Soviet Naval AF. 

4th Guards Aviation Regiment of VVS RKKA was an Bomber Regiment (ex 31 PBAP). It is possible there is yet another 4 Guards FIGHTER Regt, and this may have been equipped with the P-39, and by extension the P-63.....

To the best of my knowledge the story of P-63s in USSR is as follows (sourced from the book Red Stars Vol 4 - Lend-lease aircraft in USSR): 

"Bell P-63 Kingcobra

Over two-thirds of the total Kingcobra production was sent to USSR over the ALSIB-route. The total number of Kingcobras allocated was 2421 of which 2400 arrived in Russia.

As mentioned above in the Airacobra section, a number of mid-air disintegration accidents with Airacobras, and in particular A.G.Kochetkov’s narrow escape during a test flight at the Bell Factory in Buffalo, N.Y. with P-63 A-10 Kingcobra 42-68939, led to reinforcement of the rear fuselages of all early Kingcobras (P-63A-10 subtype included) in USSR as required by strength analysis made by TsAGI. Only the later P-63C subtypes (with considerably redesigned tail) fulfilled Soviet g-load requirements as delivered.

Only a handful Kingcobras joined VVS regiments in the European theatre during WW II (e.g. 6 GIAK got six Kingcobras in March 1945, used by 67 GIAP in the Berlin operation). In the short Manchurian campaign against Japan in August 1945 several of the fighter regiments of the Pacific Fleet were equipped with Kingcobras, which remained in service until the early 1950s.

A total of some hundreds of two-seater Kingcobra modifications were produced in various VVS Aircraft Repair Depots (ARP). The two-seater Kingcobras (called P-63 UTI or UP-63) were used for intermediate pilot training during conversion to nose-wheel MiG-15 fighters in VVS TOF, where the pilots performed 6-12 training flights in UP-63s before independent MiG-15 flights.

From July to December 1947 comparative air combat exercises were performed in GK NII VVS between MiG-9 (c/n 106005), La-9, P-63 C-1 Kingcobra, Spitfire Mk. IX, Jak-15, “156” with afterburner and Tu-2.

Identified Kingcobra operators:
6 GIAK: 
- 273 IAD: 67 GIAP (ex 436 IAP, Berlin 1945)
PVO: 17 IAP (Aug 1945-), 28 IAP (Moscow, spring 1945-), 39 IAP (Moscow, 1945-), 821 IAP (Aug 1945-)
12 VA: 
- 190 IAD (June 1945-): 17 and 21 IAP;
- 128 SAD (July 1945-): 410 and 888 IAP
- 245 IAD (1945-): 781 and 940 IAP; 


VVS TOF: 7 IAP (Aug 1945-), 37 OAE, 43 AP, 19 ABr, 50 AP, 27 AP, 888 IAP

Post-war:
81 IAP (fighter unit for comparable testing of Soviet and Lend-Lease fighters, 1945)
VVS ChF: 6 GIAP, 11 GIAP
VVS KBF: 314 GIAP (ex 21 GIAP), 246 GIAP

Other identified units: 
- 53 SAK: 307 and 308 IAP (Kurile islands, early 1950s) 
- 83 IAK (Port-Arthur) 
- 1 GIAD (East Germany), 
- 5 GIAD (Baltic Military District)
- 6 GIAD (Ukraine)
- 269 IAD (Armenia)
- 329 IAD: 57 GIAP (Peenemünde May-June 1945), 66 IAP (Peenemünde May-June 1945), 101 GIAP (Peenemünde May-June 1945)
- 18 IAP (PVO Khabarovsk, June 1950-)
- 28 GIAP (Brüster Ort, East Prussia; 1945-1947)
- 81 GIAP (Lvov 1947)
- 116 GIAP (1946)
- 149 GIAP (PVO, Chirlik 1950-52)
- 307 and 308 IAP (Kurile Islands)
- 821 IAP 54 VA (Vladivostok, Primorsk, early 1950s)
also Soviet fighter regiments in Moldavia, Austria, China."

(Notes)

The Kingcobra "disallowance" reminds me of the oral information of the Finnish Diplomatic Mission in Washington D.C. in 1941-1943 (it is a remarkable - albeit virtually unknown - fact that USA and Finland had diplomatic relations until Jun 1944, and USA never declared war on Finland, athough both countries had allies which were in war with each other, i.a. USSR and Germany!).

According to this story (as published by Lt.Eng. N-E. Stenback, Finnish Assistant Military Attache in USA 1940-1943) President Roosevelt promised the Finnish diplomats that no Lend-lease weapon system delivered to USSR shall be used against Finland. However, when Stenback in the 1990s wrote his memoirs (published 2000 in Finnish and Swedish) he was unable to find any documents to support this information. The fact is that Airacobra fighters, Mitchell and Boston bombers, Sherman tanks, Studebaker trucks etc. were widely used against Finland by Leningrad and Karelian Fronts of the Red Army, ADD, Baltic Fleet etc.

I would be most grateful if someone can draw light on the above mentioned obscure allegations of "disallowance" 
1. to use Kingcobras aganist Germany
2. to use Lend-lease weapons at all against Finland"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Dec 19, 2013)

According Yefim Gordon’s Soviet Air Power in World War 2 (2008 ) P-63 arrived too late to meet the LW and according to Gordon’s and Sergey Komissarov’s US Aircraft in the Soviet Union and Russia (also 2008 ), which mentions the pilot memoirs which claimed that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to P-63s in 1944, “all Soviet records show nothing but P-39s used against Germany.” They coincluded that given the lack of corrobating evidence, they will stick to the generally accepted story that P-63s were not used against Germany.

The 4th GvIAP which used La-5s was a Naval AF unit , to be exact a unit of VVS KBF.

I'm not sure if Shermans were used against Finns, there were few Churchills participating the Summer 44 offensive in Karelian Isthmus, but they were of course GB made tanks. But in addition planes listed by Parsifal also P-40s, both early and late versions, were definitely used against Finns.

Juha

PS Some P-63s were deployed in the European parts of the SU during the war, e.g. at Moscow Air Defence units, some even served with the flights intended to provide cover for frontline airfields.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattle (Dec 19, 2013)

It seems a little strange that the USA would only provide the USSR with P63s on condition they were not used against Germany, I haven't heard of this agreement being applied to other equipment and I have often heard it said that the USA was most concerned by the prospect of the USSR taking over former Japanese held territory and extending its influence in that region.


----------

