Unlikely Adversaries !
- Thread starter MikeGazdik
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Dcazz7606
Airman
It was on another site almost a year ago. I've gone back and can't find it now. My thread question was that I have seen numerous photo's of
Russian P-63's lined up in Alaska ready for delivery but I had never heard a word on their combat record. One responder sais they were only used in the east and only shot down one plane, a Ki-84. It might be a good research project.
Russian P-63's lined up in Alaska ready for delivery but I had never heard a word on their combat record. One responder sais they were only used in the east and only shot down one plane, a Ki-84. It might be a good research project.
- Thread starter
- #63
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
From what little I have read, I believe you are correct. Plus, because the silhouette of the Kingcobra was the same as the Airacobra, they would surely be mistaken in any Luftwaffe report. The Russians would not report any use of the aircraft outside of the agreement, the U.S. would never know, and the main adversary would have no idea . PERFECT.
Dcazz7606
Airman
I agree as well. My guess about why the US wanted the P-63 in the east is that when these planes were being delivered there was no (public) discussion about ending the war with the atom bombs. My guess is that the US wanted a strong Russian air force in the east to supress Japanese airpower and troop movement in the event the invasion of Japan became reality in 1945-46. This force of Kingcobras would be devastating to this effect.
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
I might have enough information (graphs) to do a work up on the Ta.152H-1 vs 109K-4/6. I do not have any graphs for the Fw-190D-9. But, I could probably locate graphs on the later Bf.109Gs. Does any one have a 190D graph that they could post? Any other ideas on A/C to be compared?
Who did?
P-63 was developped from late 1943 altogether with soviet engeneers, scientists, test pilots. The full wind tunnel results were sent from TsAGuI to the Bell company, as well as static resistance trials report (one pre-serial P-63 airframe was broken in USSR), and also spin trials performed by soviet pilots both in USA ans SU.
And in 1943, someone said, when Europe was not reconquested by allied forces, told that P-63 shoud not be used in ETO?
Hard to believe that...
Anyway, P-63 served in IA PVO, the fighter aviation of the Anti-Aircraft Command (it was an independent command in USSR from soviet VVS- Air Force). They had rather poor chances to meet german planes over Moscow, Novossibirsk and Gorki in 1945...
As frontal fighter the P-63 was rather pathetic (515 km/h with 15 min CP at SL) compared with the best soviet ones: 597 km/hat max cruise (635 with 20 min CP) for the La-7.
But at high alts tables were turned both P-63 (and Spit IX) provided a marked edge over soviet fighters optimised for low alt missions.
Altogether with powerfull and reliable radio, clear canopy (high quality glasses), easy T'O' and landing made it ideally suited for interception duties.
Unfortunatly, the Achilleses heel of the P-63 was never resolved, it was hard (often impossible) to recover it from a spin...
Regards
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Wow Altea, whatever makes you believe that? The first P-63As without water injection could reach 558km/h at SL.
Even the later P-39s starting with the N could manage 528-575 depending on how they were equiped. It is true that the P-63 had a restriction on the pilots not to perform intentional spins, but so did many front line fighters. Altea, have you read this whole thread? Let's just see how pathetic the P-63 really was when compared to what was probably the USSR's best indigenous all round fighter of the war:
Height.......La-7(late)....P-63A-10
meters......mph/fpm.....mph/fpm
------0......383/4,762....383/4,980
-1,000......397/4,762....394/4,825
-2,000......411/3,936....407/4,625
-3,000......408/3,660....415/4,350
-4,000......401/2,952....421/3,950
-5,000......405/2,952....423/3,450
-6,000......418/2,499....422/2,950
-7,000......414/2,007....412/2,525
-8,000......405/1,495....407/1,960
-9,000......NG/---984....394/1,500
10,000......NG/---472....376/1,025
By the time the VVS received the P-63 in 1944 the only "Achilleses heel" the Kingcobra had was its lack of range on internal fuel. But the VVS did not care that much. To put it into perspective, range on internal fuel compared:
La-7: 410mls. P-63A: 587mls.
The later P-63As, Cs and Es were not "rather pathetic" fighters at all.
Once again, Altea, what are you basing your statements on?
Even the later P-39s starting with the N could manage 528-575 depending on how they were equiped. It is true that the P-63 had a restriction on the pilots not to perform intentional spins, but so did many front line fighters. Altea, have you read this whole thread? Let's just see how pathetic the P-63 really was when compared to what was probably the USSR's best indigenous all round fighter of the war:
Height.......La-7(late)....P-63A-10
meters......mph/fpm.....mph/fpm
------0......383/4,762....383/4,980
-1,000......397/4,762....394/4,825
-2,000......411/3,936....407/4,625
-3,000......408/3,660....415/4,350
-4,000......401/2,952....421/3,950
-5,000......405/2,952....423/3,450
-6,000......418/2,499....422/2,950
-7,000......414/2,007....412/2,525
-8,000......405/1,495....407/1,960
-9,000......NG/---984....394/1,500
10,000......NG/---472....376/1,025
By the time the VVS received the P-63 in 1944 the only "Achilleses heel" the Kingcobra had was its lack of range on internal fuel. But the VVS did not care that much. To put it into perspective, range on internal fuel compared:
La-7: 410mls. P-63A: 587mls.
The later P-63As, Cs and Es were not "rather pathetic" fighters at all.
Once again, Altea, what are you basing your statements on?
Hello,
Let the beliefs outside of the thread and stay on facts, please.
For the La-7 i gave you the test results of the La-5 "etalon of 1944 year" S/N° 39210506, from febrary 1944 trials. Due to some poor manufacture standards serial planes were worse of course, but not for all of them: many had less than admitted 2.5-3% performance loss compared to required standars (680 km/h) and were not object for further test and complaint reports.
For the first i don't know, maybe from publicity leaflet? Even from manufacturer flight manual delivered with the plane it was 514:
Bell P-63 Kingcobra.
I don't know about what front line fighters, Yaks and Las and Spits were prone to recover from a spin, with about 500 m hight loose, commands on neutral position. The airacobra/kinkobra spin was of un unstable serial caracter. Example: one slow turn, two violent ones, three flat, one fast etc...There were no garantee to recover from it. Moreover it needss pilots action with gaz and rudder playing. Larry Bell was perfectly aware of that, it' why "he" offered an Irving parachute to Kotchétov that left a P-63 on a flat spin during his trip to america.
There's no special reason to extend P-63 own problems to the other "gentle" planes at spin as Spit IX, Yak-9, Hurricane...
For sure, but obviously in the real life "soviet" P-63 A-10 from march 1945 during LII-VVS tests reached no more 612 km/h (but 522) at SL than "british" Bell P-400 395 mph (but 355-359) in 1941 from RAE AFDU trials.
On LII-VVS test trials, easily availble on web, with minimal efforts.
Regards
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Hi Altea,
The information I have posted here for the P-63s is from graphs at Mike Williams sight and from Americas Hundred Thousand. The information for the La-7 comes from a VVS test. I am not home so I am unable to give you the aircraft number of the Lavochkin at this time. I apologize, I am not that good with a computer yet and do not know how to pull pictures/information from another sight or sight area. I agree with you on the Yaks, Las, and Spits being much more forgiving in a spin. And to be quite honest the P-39 is the only A/C I can think of off hand that was worse in a spin than the P-63 (that's only because I have a lousy memory). I was not extending the P-63s problems to any "gentle planes". Just meaning to state that most high performance fighter A/C had there drawbacks in the first years of production: P-38 dive, P-51B guns jamming in negative Gs, Spitfire engine cutting in negative Gs and so on.
About the chart you have posted: well, it doesn't give any details (weight, power settings or exact dates of the planes tested). I also use these USSR charts when there is nothing else available.
I wonder if the manufacturers flight manual(s) post military power figures on level speed (I ask because I actually do not know)? I do know this though, the VVS pilots exceeded the power setting on many of the US aircraft they received. I doubt very much this would reflect on any VVS charts because the higher brass and politicians of the USSR frowned on foriegn equipment being publicised as better than their home made equipment.
Oh just one more thing, I did not say the P-63A-10 had a sea level speed of 612km/h. I said it was 616.4 km/h. And that IS from the graph marked CONFIDENTIAL on Mike Williams sight. P-400 reached 395mph?? It would have to have been diving and being pulled by a band of angels.
The information I have posted here for the P-63s is from graphs at Mike Williams sight and from Americas Hundred Thousand. The information for the La-7 comes from a VVS test. I am not home so I am unable to give you the aircraft number of the Lavochkin at this time. I apologize, I am not that good with a computer yet and do not know how to pull pictures/information from another sight or sight area. I agree with you on the Yaks, Las, and Spits being much more forgiving in a spin. And to be quite honest the P-39 is the only A/C I can think of off hand that was worse in a spin than the P-63 (that's only because I have a lousy memory). I was not extending the P-63s problems to any "gentle planes". Just meaning to state that most high performance fighter A/C had there drawbacks in the first years of production: P-38 dive, P-51B guns jamming in negative Gs, Spitfire engine cutting in negative Gs and so on.
About the chart you have posted: well, it doesn't give any details (weight, power settings or exact dates of the planes tested). I also use these USSR charts when there is nothing else available.
I wonder if the manufacturers flight manual(s) post military power figures on level speed (I ask because I actually do not know)? I do know this though, the VVS pilots exceeded the power setting on many of the US aircraft they received. I doubt very much this would reflect on any VVS charts because the higher brass and politicians of the USSR frowned on foriegn equipment being publicised as better than their home made equipment.
Oh just one more thing, I did not say the P-63A-10 had a sea level speed of 612km/h. I said it was 616.4 km/h. And that IS from the graph marked CONFIDENTIAL on Mike Williams sight. P-400 reached 395mph?? It would have to have been diving and being pulled by a band of angels.
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Your probably right about the C-1 and E-1 Vincenzo and the A-10 maybe a calculation also. Although June '44 was around the time the A-10 was being tested.
Hello,
Weight: 3822 kg
Exact dates no, probably some 10 -15 days in march 1945.
Power settings are indicated in the graph (15 min combat power). Maybe the V-1710 -93 had also higher 5 min WEP.
The P-63 had a good ToT vs best german fighters at 1000m height : 21s
And a shorter turn radius too (272m vs 295). Even if it had a best advantage over them at about 7 000 m altitude, not 1 000 as it was used during tests.
I have red Corky Meyer memors, flying at the same speed, wing by wing with a Corsair, his Hellcat had IAS with 20 mph less !!!
The same with the french tested Bf-109E with rather optimistic IAS compared with the french pitot tube of the D-520.
I bet examples were numerous.
What about soviet politicians, they made their jobs hidden american help behind a wall of silence afterwar. After the collapse of the soviet union, russian archives and pilots testimonies revealed another picture.
Soviet test pilots and engeneers participating from the beginning (end of 1943) to the developpement of the "King" made their best too. But until something else would be discovered, did not get more from a P-63 A than values obtained in russian archives. (You will excuse me, if i don't remember the exact serial number, even it's available in some articles.)
Might be sometime, somewhere results were more impressive, but under different test conditions...
631 km/h was the Bell company figures for the early P-39A, B or something like that. When the british commission required some explanations they were told that this figure was concerning a much lighter plane (2600 kg) with reduced tail etc...
The morality of the fable, aftertought, you can always find all valid or biaised arguments as you want.
Regards
There is also a table with it.
Weight: 3822 kg
Exact dates no, probably some 10 -15 days in march 1945.
Power settings are indicated in the graph (15 min combat power). Maybe the V-1710 -93 had also higher 5 min WEP.
The P-63 had a good ToT vs best german fighters at 1000m height : 21s
And a shorter turn radius too (272m vs 295). Even if it had a best advantage over them at about 7 000 m altitude, not 1 000 as it was used during tests.
It's true that test pilots used the engine power, exactly -but no more- as they were allowed in plane manuals. I'd rather trust the LII-NKAP and NII-VVS tests as they were made with extreme rigor, calibrated laboratory instruments, and AFAIK controled by land based theodolits and radars. Also the "clouds of points" obtained were linearised by a justified statisticall low. I would say the same for british RAE, AFDU, even french CEV and CRAS tests fr american planes. All of them had lower values than official american ones, but were closer to the serial or mass-serial planes real capabilities.
I have red Corky Meyer memors, flying at the same speed, wing by wing with a Corsair, his Hellcat had IAS with 20 mph less !!!
The same with the french tested Bf-109E with rather optimistic IAS compared with the french pitot tube of the D-520.
I bet examples were numerous.
What about soviet politicians, they made their jobs hidden american help behind a wall of silence afterwar. After the collapse of the soviet union, russian archives and pilots testimonies revealed another picture.
Soviet test pilots and engeneers participating from the beginning (end of 1943) to the developpement of the "King" made their best too. But until something else would be discovered, did not get more from a P-63 A than values obtained in russian archives. (You will excuse me, if i don't remember the exact serial number, even it's available in some articles.)
Might be sometime, somewhere results were more impressive, but under different test conditions...
631 km/h was the Bell company figures for the early P-39A, B or something like that. When the british commission required some explanations they were told that this figure was concerning a much lighter plane (2600 kg) with reduced tail etc...
The morality of the fable, aftertought, you can always find all valid or biaised arguments as you want.
Regards
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Thank you Altea for the information about the graph. Could you post the table with test weights or any other information applying to the graph(s).
I remember reading about the speed discrepency of the F6F. If I remember correctly it was contributed to the air speed tube. I think it was decided that it was not worth disrupting production to correct the problem.
As for VVS pilots following the plane manuals exactly, in a Conversation with N. Golodnikov he openly admits to over boosting the P-39 engine to get better performance.
Once again, thanks for the enlightenment on the graphs Altea.
I remember reading about the speed discrepency of the F6F. If I remember correctly it was contributed to the air speed tube. I think it was decided that it was not worth disrupting production to correct the problem.
As for VVS pilots following the plane manuals exactly, in a Conversation with N. Golodnikov he openly admits to over boosting the P-39 engine to get better performance.
Once again, thanks for the enlightenment on the graphs Altea.
You're welcome
For Golodnikov, that's true, but 57-58" pressure unstead off 51" is still in standards.
Some other information from Avions n° 90. (V Kotelnikov)
So: What about soviet politicians, they made their jobs hidden american help behind a wall of silence afterwar. After the collapse of the soviet union, russian archives and pilots testimonies revealed another picture. I said.
From soviet ODB, there are on may 1945 the 1st:
3078 Airacobras on line in soviet aviation, 700 of them in the IA PVO.
691 marine Airacobras are not included in that number.
The P-39 use was extremly intensive, 2 202 of them lost (not definitly for some of them*), from previous number 887 in 1944**.
The historian Alexeïenko gives more precisions:
1466 P-63 in soviet air force, 5 in active army (for more than 1000 first line P-39s), 1313 in (internal) military districts, 54 in IA-PVO, 94 on the way to, 7 lost.
So there were P-63 in front line units (only 5) for experimental purposes in may of 1945. 51 P-63 were serving in the 28th IAP over Moscow. The only german planes they could cross at that aera were from NII-VVS experimental center.
No P-63 equipped the 4th GIAP, despite on rumors, the regimental account showing arrivals of late P-39 Q-20 and + serials, to complete losses.
The good-looking P-63 A-10 N°S 42 -7640 was fully tested in USSR, in the beginning of 1945. I don't know if test results were conservated or published...
Regards
* 3078 + 691 + 2022 does not make 4 940 recieved P-39 !!!
** 378 did not returned, 58 shot down in airfights, 35 by Flak, 4 destroyed on airfields, 243 by accident, 169 from wear.
Probably some of 378 that were classified as "did not returned", went back themselves or were recovered later...
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Thanks for the chart Altea. That helps put the graphs in perspective. Any information given on the Russian or German aircraft?
Weights, engine used, armament, etc...? Thanks again Altea, chart helps a lot.
Weights, engine used, armament, etc...? Thanks again Altea, chart helps a lot.
- Thread starter
- #76
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Greg P's post about Eric Brown's book, and the Hellcat got me thinking about this classic would-be duel. F6F Hellcat VS Supermarine Spitfire.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Doggone it Mike, I'm still struggling with the Fw-190D vs Bf.109K-4 comparison. Almost have something put together and you throw that one at us. OK then, the condensed version the F6F-5 with water injection max speed: 409mph. Spit IX: 400-416mph. So Max speeds are close (have to do a workup to see comparison at different altitudes). Climb goes to the Spitfire. Ruggedness goes to the Hellcat. Dive: ?, Initial is probably fairly close. Accelleration: Spitfire. Roll Rate: Spitfire. Turn Rate: Not sure, but would probably be a slight edge going to the Spitfire. (The FM-2 Wildcat turned easily inside the Hellcat). Spitfire XIV is out of the Hellcats league performance wise. Though the Hellcat had range and ruggedness. If I was going to be mixing it up with a Bf.109 at 25,000ft. I'd take the Spit IX. If I was mixing it up over the Pacific with Zeros, Id take the Hellcat. Two different animals made to different specs.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
cimmex, Thanks for the sight. It is amusing and the figures are fairly close on some A/C. I will probably play with the sight from time to time but I prefer actual military and manufacturers charts.
Vincenzo, I thought that also until I saw test data. The problem is I posted that from data I saw quite a while ago. I'll have to try and dig that up when I get a chance. I remember 391mph from Mike Williams sight.
Now doggone it guys, as soon as I get a chance, I'm going to post the D-9 vs K-4
(at least what I have) and then I'll dig into my Grumman files. I'm working on it, but I'm at work now and have to DJ tonight. I'll try to get the D/K info together tomorrow. (Unless It takes me longer than I'm anticipating to fix my law mower.)
Vincenzo, I thought that also until I saw test data. The problem is I posted that from data I saw quite a while ago. I'll have to try and dig that up when I get a chance. I remember 391mph from Mike Williams sight.
Now doggone it guys, as soon as I get a chance, I'm going to post the D-9 vs K-4
(at least what I have) and then I'll dig into my Grumman files. I'm working on it, but I'm at work now and have to DJ tonight. I'll try to get the D/K info together tomorrow. (Unless It takes me longer than I'm anticipating to fix my law mower.)