The almost best fighters that never flew in WWII

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi Juha,

I have benn able to find very little information on the D-3803 other than the engine, dimension, and general specs. There appear to be only a few pics, too, and I wish tehre were a few more. The same can be said for the Swiss P-16 jet fighter (from which teh original Learjet was made) ... just a few lics and general specs, but not much else.

Anyway, The Doflug was built in both tyrtledeck and bubble canopy versions. I simply wish for a bit more data on the type.

I can't even fing but a few lines about the Saurer engines. I understrand they were based on the Hispano-Suiza, but that is about all I can find on them.
 
The Saurer engines were based on the Hispano-Suiza. After WW II there were at least three different developments of the Hispano "Z" series. One was French, one was Spanish and the other was the Saurer. How much inter action or sharing there was between the three programs I have no idea. Depending on exact model of each there were differences in superchargers, supercharger drives (one speed, two speed, and variable drive) and different fuel injection units. These engines may have no connection with the late model Russioan engines that started off based on the Hispano.

There are a few entries in late 40s editions of "aircraft engines of the world" by Wilkinson.
 
I read a USAAF report that stated the Fw-190D could outroll all AAF fighters except the P-38L and P-80. Just food for thought on the P-80 vs. Me. 262. Vampire was excellent also....but back on topic: My choice would have to be the F8F...at this time (subject to change). My studies, at this time, are on the Bell aircraft. Mike Williams (bless his heart) has one of (best in my opinion) the best WW2 aircraft information sights on the web. ww2Aircraft.net has THE BEST informative discussion sight on WW2 A/C. Where was I...?...oh yea, P-63. Its major fault was the lack of internal fuel. It had a ferry range of over 2,500 mls. but once it dropped its exterior tanks it was time to head home. It had structural faults until October (?) 1944. BUT, It had extremely excellent handling qualities. From what I have read to date, It was a dream to fly. (Just printing what I've read). The P-63D had excellent visibility for the pilot. The stats that Mike has recently posted were most (pleasantly) surprising:
S.L. 388mph/4970fpm
1Km 395mph/4600fpm
2Km 405mph/4540fpm
3Km 410/4410
4Km 426/4280
5Km 435/4120
6Km 444/3860
7Km 451/3470
8Km 447/2980
9Km 441/2560
10Km 433/2120
11Km 425/1680

Combat Ceiling (1,000fpm): 41,000ft.
Wing Area: 255sq.ft.
At a weight of 8,740 lbs.

Specs are fairly awesome, but, I'm sticking with the F8F at this time.

Had to edit: The P-63 had excellent rolling qualities at any speed.
 
Last edited:


Do you really believe those numbers, for me these are fantasy numbers. Every source I found says max speed 410 m/h and 2500 f per min climb
cimmex
 
There was only one P-63D that was loss in a incident. idk if that were test speed or calculated (estimed) speed but nothing too strange for a 1945 prototype

i just read best the docs all but 1st configuration (P-63A 8168 lbs) are calculated value
 
Last edited:
uh...yes, I believe these numbers are closer than anything published so far. 8,800 lbs., 1800 hp+, 1943-44 ability. Yes, I do.
 
Last edited:
cimmex, Your right. Most published figures (Ray Wagner, William Green...etc.) do state the P-63 at 410mph. They also state the P-51D at 437 and P-51B at 440. The D was capable of 448 for US service and the B was capable of 450+ in interceptor form. Think about the most published figures. P-63A 410 and P-63 later As and Cs with water injection at 410mph. Yea, right. I haven't seen any published books stating amount of boost used. This and the fact that a lot of military tests were done at the weights that the AAF intended to use the aircraft. Not at the weights they would have been if they were going to be in interceptor mode. If you want to get a good idea how one aircraft performs against another in pure interceptor form, you must deck them out that way. Then let the games begin.
 
Hello GregP
There was a article on D-380x planes with some photos and drawings in an old Air Enthusiast and also in another issue on P-16.

Juha
 
CORSNING said:
cimmex, Your right. Most published figures (Ray Wagner, William Green...etc.) do state the P-63 at 410mph. They also state the P-51D at 437 and P-51B at 440. The D was capable of 448 for US service and the B was capable of 450+ in interceptor form.
Click to expand...
I have never seen any test reports showing the P-51B/D doing 450+. Please show your source.


It is true that many publications do not reflect the latest high octane performance so you may be correct. I don't think it was particularly fast though.
 
cimmex said:
Do you really believe those numbers, for me these are fantasy numbers. Every source I found says max speed 410 m/h and 2500 f per min climb
cimmex
Click to expand...

Vincenzo said:
There was only one P-63D that was loss in a incident. idk if that were test speed or calculated (estimed) speed but nothing too strange for a 1945 prototype

i just read best the docs all but 1st configuration (P-63A 8168 lbs) are calculated value
Click to expand...

CORSNING said:
uh...yes, I believe these numbers are closer than anything published so far. 8,800 lbs., 1800 hp+, 1943-44 ability. Yes, I do.
Click to expand...

We have a misunderstanding here.
The only P-63 available in 1943 (1st delivery Oct 1943, 'weak airframe' - stated by the Soviets, so it received reinforcements in 1944) was P-61A. It was able to make 410-417 mph (wing guns attached), all without using the water injection (ADI) in WER. With ADI, the plane clocked 420-430 mph (differnt charts show different values)
The P-63C was slightly faster (step-up ratio for auxiliary stage was incerased, adding to the FTH some 2600-2700 ft). Max speed circa 435 mph, WER + ADI. Availability? 1945.
The engine's carburetor of the P-63Ds and P-63Es was located between the supercharger stages, and equipped with crankshaft having 12 counterweights. Net benefit being further increase in full throttle height, FTH being at 28000 ft this time (nor ram effect for all FTHs). The max speed on WER + ADI was some 450 mph at 27-28000 ft. Availability? Around VE day; the P-63D was built as single prototype.
 
WWII Aircraft Performance
Mustang Mk.III FA.953 with V-1650-3 at 67" boost and 9,200 lbs.=450 mph./28,000 ft. I believe 5-10 mph. more at 72" and 75" is not unreasonable. There is another test showing 455 mph. with a Merlin 100, but I do not know if this engine was ever used in a production Mustang.
The P-63A-10 was not as fast as the mustang over all but it held its own in climb:
Height (Km)....Speed(mph)/climb(fpm)
Sea Level........383/4980/----
1,000............394/4825/-.6 minutes
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 minutes.

The P-63C-1 could reach 434 mph./6,000 km.

tomo pauk is pretty much dead on the nail head right.
 
Last edited:
In Axel Urbanke's Book "First in Combat with the Dora 9" it is stated that a P-63 was able to escape from a Dora-9 by climbing.
 
Interesting. Could you please post a tad more about that - was that a post-war testing?
 
No, it was no post-war testing. The book deals with the german fighter squadrons JG 54 and JG 26 which were the first to receive the Fw 190 D-9 and is a comprehensive account of the action the pilots of those squadrons went through with this aircraft late-war. Some comparisons with allied fighter aircraft were stated among them this incident with a P-63. E.g. the Yak-3 was superior in vertical and horizontal turns, but was outclimbed by the german machine (is that true?).
Also soviet late war fighter pilots were not afraid to engage in a dogfight even when they were outnumbered and in a disadvantageous position (like their predecessors) showing their confidence in their new mounts.
The general consensus is that the D-9 could hold its own against the latest marks of allied fighters.
It is also said that while the longnose Focke Wulfs seemed to have an almost legendary reputation as a top-tier fighter plane, its combat record was not that outstanding which might also be influenced by the rookie pilots who were thrown into combat with hardly enough experience to fly it and being easy meat for enemy pilots thus causing a very high mortality rate among them (I guess you all know this already).
But first and foremost this book is about the pilots of those JGs and their fates.
A read to be recommended..
I
 
How they knew that it was a P-63, there is no sure info that Soviet used P-63s in VVS units operating against Germans.

Juha
 
I believe the USAAF never really looked at the P-63 because they had no use for it - there was nothing the Kingcobra could do that couldn't already be done by the existing fighters in the ETO and Pacific theatres. It was realised from the outset that the USSR was going to be the major user and the plane was tailored accordingly as a low to middle altitude fighter. I think one of the conditions of delivery of the P-63 was that the Soviets not deploy it on the Eastern Front but its generally assumed this proviso was ignored.
I guess in many ways the P-63 was the machine the P-39 should have been, a case of a sound design denied development through circumstance and short-sightedness, which finally came into its own only to find itself matched or bettered by later competition.
Re the Fw190D, Eric Brown rated it a slightly better dofighter than the P-51D and slightly inferior to the Spitfire XIV. It's high loss rates were undoubtedly due to poor pilot quality and the fact that it was simply overwhelmed by greater numbers of Allied aircraft.
 

Not Quite. The P-63 showed the limits of the basic design concept. A bit too much was compromised to get the 37mm cannon into the plane. Putting the engine on the center of gravity may have helped agility but it limited available volume for consumables (like fuel) near the center of gravity which resulted in a rather short range. Perhaps not bad for the original specification or for certain nations but a liability for a US fighter and it only got worse as the "fronts" expanded and called for even more range.
 
Last edited:
On anothe rforum i asked about the use and combat record of the p-63 as I had seen many photos of the plane in Alaska in Russian colors but never heard a thing about it's combat record. The answer that came back was that it only flew in far eastern Russia and had one kill, a Frank Ki-84. Any more info would be interesting.
 
What I don't really understand are the wings of the P-63.
Despite being of area comparable with P-51, and at least as tick, they housed only some 70% of the fuel aboard the P-51's wings. The HMGs needed to go out of the wing (only one per wing side), with 250 rpg carried. The whole part of the wing between the HMGs and radiator intakes was 'free' (not containing the fuel, undercarriage, armament), yet the designers overlooked the possibility to install the fuel tanks there. That part of the wing was housing the water/methanol for the engine needs (ADI), but still a better part of that was 'free'.

The fuel tanks are red outlined (both for smaller (P-39) and bigger (P-63) wings*), HMG ammo is blue outlined, the never-installed fuel tank is cyan-outlined in the 'free' part of the wing. So instead of having 200+ gals available, the P-63 was stuck with cca 140 gals internally - won't take it much further, if further at all, vs. the P-39 on internal fuel alone.
Or we might ditch the wing guns, meaning even more fuel (the leading-edge fuel tank now looks as cloned outboard tanks from P-38J/L), go for belt-fed 20mm 'stead of the 37mm, with staggered fuselage HMGs (for more ammo)...

*in the front half view of the P-63 the red rectangular is for the never-installed tanks
 

Attachments

  • cowings.JPG
    33.4 KB · Views: 131
  • cobra front.JPG
    12.4 KB · Views: 130
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
bf109xxl
T
Airships in the WWII era
Replies
8
Views
2K
Dimlee
Regarding the true combat performance of the P-38 (and other advanced US fighters) in the PTO from 1942-44
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
13K
beers
S
Wing shapes of Russian fighters
Replies
15
Views
1K
wrathofatlantis
W
The last dogfight of WWII
Replies
5
Views
2K
Gnomey
Menu
Log in
Register