Actually, I think it would enhance the quality of the thread if explained it here
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Actually, I think it would enhance the quality of the thread if explained it hereIf you want to learn that we can take it to PM, it's easy but there's no sense in interrupting the flogging of a deceased equine.
Dimlee Not the article I read, but this does state Soviet pilots were training with 601 squadron, not unreasonable to think they had a senior person in charge of it all.
Airacobras in the Soviet Union
Quote. Soviet pilots had first seen the Airacobra in Great Britain, when a group of pilots was sent to No. 601 Squadron at RAF Duxford for training. The British had found the Airacobra unsuitable for their own use and were more than happy to turn over their Airacobras to the Soviets, and some 212 of the 675 Airacobra Is ordered by the RAF were diverted to the USSR. The Airacobras first entered service with the Soviet Air Force in May of 1942.
Actually, I think it would enhance the quality of the thread if explained it here
I thought we made some progress today.Just 920 more pages and we will have eclipsed the picture of the day thread.
I spoke with someone who has flown both a P-39 and a P-63 about the radio on top of the engine cover.
Unfortunately, he doesn't know how hot it gets because neither of the aircraft he flew had a functional radio in that area and there was absolutely no reason to check the heat there. Everyone expects an engine to get pretty warm and trying to check the temperature of a surface next to an engine that has just been operated at temperature is like touching and exhaust pipe to see if it gets hot ... nobody does that. Also, access to the surface in question is not something a pilot would normally need right after a flight. A mechanic might, but only if there was an engine complaint or engine service was needed / required after the flight.
So, unknown at this time.
The P-63A seems like a pretty good climber at 75" MAP, with a rate of around 3,680 fpm at 2000 to 6000 feet and still climbing at 2,680 fpm at 23,000 feet. Service ceiling was 40,400 feet. Speed was 400 mph at 16,000 feet and 378 mph at 25,000 feet. Not too bad, but the test was run on 1945, when other airplanes in service were a bit faster. Still, it looks like the P-63A had decent performance at decent altitude, coupled with better roll than all other fighters in service with the U.S.A. From wwiiaircraftperformance.org. No test results for range there. To me, the P-63 was optimized for Russian operation. They only needed short range due to their method of employment to effect air support from close to the front lines for both ground and air missions.
P-63A climb at normal power was around 2,500 fpm, not much different from other front-line fighters. Their best climb rates were also at high MAP, as everyone knows. The tests were run at weights around 8,168 to 8,500 pounds.
Testing mentioned that the airplane had a dangerous characteristic in that the stick force per g was dangerously low at the CG flown. They tried a bob weight (as in the P-51) and it helped, but the flight restrictions remained in effect and it was stated that an acceptable solution was to increase the stick force per g without a bob weight. So, it appears that the P-63A has some rearward CG issues, as we all know it did and have discussed.
The P-63 was flown in the 1944 Fighter Conference and most of us can access that information. My copy has pilot comments that say:
Visibility to the rear was not very good, but that if the visibility could be improved, it would be good from a performance standpoint. Comments said it was not up to most other fighters, but was better than "the old P-39." It needed an aileron trim tab. Engine roughness and vibration was miserable. Heavy aileron forces, but the airplane was "what the P-39 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN, too late now" (exact words). Excellent at high speeds for maneuverability. Visibility is good; stick forces light (so, some pilots disagreed with one another). Climb is good at normal power, excellent above normal power. Not as good as an F6F or P-51 as an all-round fighter. Not suitable for combat.
So, pilot comments are a mixed bag. Of 21 pilots, 1 rated if good for combat, 4 rated it bad, 6 chose "other" and made comments, and 10 left the combat qualities blank. All in all, they seemed to like the airplane, but not really for combat.
What I never understood about the P-63 was with a 15% larger wing how it only managed 130+ gallons of fuel. And why podded machine guns? Plenty of room for more fuel or armament in that big wing.I spoke with someone who has flown both a P-39 and a P-63 about the radio on top of the engine cover.
Unfortunately, he doesn't know how hot it gets because neither of the aircraft he flew had a functional radio in that area and there was absolutely no reason to check the heat there. Everyone expects an engine to get pretty warm and trying to check the temperature of a surface next to an engine that has just been operated at temperature is like touching and exhaust pipe to see if it gets hot ... nobody does that. Also, access to the surface in question is not something a pilot would normally need right after a flight. A mechanic might, but only if there was an engine complaint or engine service was needed / required after the flight.
So, unknown at this time.
The P-63A seems like a pretty good climber at 75" MAP, with a rate of around 3,680 fpm at 2000 to 6000 feet and still climbing at 2,680 fpm at 23,000 feet. Service ceiling was 40,400 feet. Speed was 400 mph at 16,000 feet and 378 mph at 25,000 feet. Not too bad, but the test was run on 1945, when other airplanes in service were a bit faster. Still, it looks like the P-63A had decent performance at decent altitude, coupled with better roll than all other fighters in service with the U.S.A. From wwiiaircraftperformance.org. No test results for range there. To me, the P-63 was optimized for Russian operation. They only needed short range due to their method of employment to effect air support from close to the front lines for both ground and air missions.
P-63A climb at normal power was around 2,500 fpm, not much different from other front-line fighters. Their best climb rates were also at high MAP, as everyone knows. The tests were run at weights around 8,168 to 8,500 pounds.
Testing mentioned that the airplane had a dangerous characteristic in that the stick force per g was dangerously low at the CG flown. They tried a bob weight (as in the P-51) and it helped, but the flight restrictions remained in effect and it was stated that an acceptable solution was to increase the stick force per g without a bob weight. So, it appears that the P-63A has some rearward CG issues, as we all know it did and have discussed.
The P-63 was flown in the 1944 Fighter Conference and most of us can access that information. My copy has pilot comments that say:
Visibility to the rear was not very good, but that if the visibility could be improved, it would be good from a performance standpoint. Comments said it was not up to most other fighters, but was better than "the old P-39." It needed an aileron trim tab. Engine roughness and vibration was miserable. Heavy aileron forces, but the airplane was "what the P-39 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN, too late now" (exact words). Excellent at high speeds for maneuverability. Visibility is good; stick forces light (so, some pilots disagreed with one another). Climb is good at normal power, excellent above normal power. Not as good as an F6F or P-51 as an all-round fighter. Not suitable for combat.
So, pilot comments are a mixed bag. Of 21 pilots, 1 rated if good for combat, 4 rated it bad, 6 chose "other" and made comments, and 10 left the combat qualities blank. All in all, they seemed to like the airplane, but not really for combat.
All in all, they seemed to like the airplane, but not really for combat.
I still haven't figured it out.
Like how to quote just one sentence
instead of the whole post.
My bold/italics.So, pilot comments are a mixed bag. Of 21 pilots, 1 rated if good for combat, 4 rated it bad, 6 chose "other" and made comments, and 10 left the combat qualities blank. All in all, they seemed to like the airplane, but not really for combat.
I spoke with someone who has flown both a P-39 and a P-63 about the radio on top of the engine cover.
Unfortunately, he doesn't know how hot it gets because neither of the aircraft he flew had a functional radio in that area and there was absolutely no reason to check the heat there. Everyone expects an engine to get pretty warm and trying to check the temperature of a surface next to an engine that has just been operated at temperature is like touching and exhaust pipe to see if it gets hot ... nobody does that. Also, access to the surface in question is not something a pilot would normally need right after a flight. A mechanic might, but only if there was an engine complaint or engine service was needed / required after the flight.
Maybe Chuck Yeager would take it into combat but would he want his wingman to be flying one?My bold/italics.
Now a guy like that would probably do alright in it but I doubt he would want to take it above 20,000 feet and fight. Who would?