That sort of goes with my point though, there were aircraft out there already better than the P-63. The Fw-190 was an equal to those planes or better than some, which makes it better than the P-63.
What aircraft (any side) would you develope further
- Thread starter MacArther
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #102
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
Never said they were better (if I did, my bad). What I said was that the US didn't want to reequip all of their fighter bomber squadrons and possibly drag out the duration of the war in the mean time.
No my post was not really directed at you, sorry if it came out that way.
- Thread starter
- #104
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
oh, my bad
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
P63 had the water injection booster from the "C" series (the major part of P63s were "C").DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I said that they compared P63 with P51, not with a foreign aircraft, moreover, even Soviets like it. All incompetents except you?DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Read what I wrote please. I never said that the fact that only Only 385 F8 were built, prove that they were inferior, but that the fact that only 385 F8 were built and and 2.397 P63 were delivered to Soviet Union means that they (both) were too few to make a real comparison with battle statistics. How many air batle between the two fighter do you believe there were been in the russian front?DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
For the pilots: I repeat, soviet pilots like P63 and P39, and they knew front engined fighters too.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
For the manteinance: this is a picture of a P39 without the engine cowling.
Do it seems to you impossible or too difficult to mantain the engine? It is inaccessible? Mechanics prefer to work standing on a stair than standing on the wings? I never heard that complain before. On the other hand, is much more easy to work on the front guns, if there isn't an engine too.
Sitting on a drive shaft is worse? Having enanced view and more firepower in the nose is better.
Why the Luftwaffe used FW-190F pratically only in the eastern front? Cause the requirements in the western europe and in the russian front were different. US needs an escort fighter more than a ground attack aircraft, and, in that role, P51 and P47 were better suited and they fly first than P63, so it was much less expensive to continue to develop them. For the secondary ground attack role, it was much less expensive to adapt the existing planes (think of the spare parts only). Even economic considerations can shorten a war.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
However I have not to demonstrate that P63 was the best fighter, or even the best alled fighter of the war. I never said this. I only said, one more time, that the rear engine was not a bad idea, and and that it could have been developed better.
DogW
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Dogwalker said:For the pilots: I repeat, soviet pilots like P63 and P39, and they knew front engined fighters too.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
For the manteinance: this is a picture of a P39 without the engine cowling.
Do it seems to you impossible or too difficult to mantain the engine? It is inaccessible? Mechanics prefer to work standing on a stair than standing on the wings? I never heard that complain before. On the other hand, is much more easy to work on the front guns, if there isn't an engine too.
Sitting on a drive shaft is worse? Having enanced view and more firepower in the nose is better.
I have to say as an aircraft maintainer and having the opportunity to see a P-39 up close, I think it would of been a real pain to work on. I've changed large recips and I rather have the engine out on an extended engine mount than within a confined "cavern." Bell did provide a lot of access around the engine and cockpit, but I could see engine changes being a real nightmare when compared to more conventional aircraft. Below is a site from a WW2 maintainer who stated you couldn't change a P-39 engine in one day!
Below is a P-51 engine change in Sweeden
http://www.cebudanderson.com/viewfromtheline.htm
As a pilot, the engine being behind me scares me more than the drive shaft between my legs. I flew in a Vary Eazy once and actually thought about flying in a P-39 while sitting in the Vary Eazy cockpit, it made me wonder what happens in a crash!!! As we spoke about this before, the P-39 also had 2 center of gravity requirements that had to be maintained and the CG window was real tight. Bell did this to achieve maximum maneuverability, in essence it made the aircraft somewhat unstable.
I think the P-63 was too little too late. Had the -63 been on the street 2 years earlier I think history would of been written different.
A side note, Chuck Yeager stated the P-39 was the best aircraft he's ever flown....
Attachments
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Thanks for the site. I have to agree with experts 
For the pilot's point of view I have someting more to say.
Given that there were some type of crash landing that IS letal with a rear engine and IS NOT letal with a front engine (I don't know how many frequently it can appen, since a safe crash-landing whit a 4 tons WW2 aircraft is not a simple thing to do, wherever is the engine). From how many WW2 fighters simply were difficult to bail out? How many requires the use of two hands to open the canopy? How many requires that the pilot "climb out" from the cockpit? These are simple things to do for a wounded pilot? Then, how many WW2 pilots were killed from the bad design of their cockpits instead than the position of the engine? And why we refer to the dangerousness of the rear engine when we compare P39 and P63 with any other aircraft (and this is wright, of course), since, in any other comparation I had read here, what can appen to the pilot shot down has pratically no importance?
I think is only cause the design of these two aircraft is unusual, so we tend to wiew more the defects they have, compared to the planes we are used to, and we don't see de defects of the usual design, cause we are used to them.
DogW
For the pilot's point of view I have someting more to say.
Given that there were some type of crash landing that IS letal with a rear engine and IS NOT letal with a front engine (I don't know how many frequently it can appen, since a safe crash-landing whit a 4 tons WW2 aircraft is not a simple thing to do, wherever is the engine). From how many WW2 fighters simply were difficult to bail out? How many requires the use of two hands to open the canopy? How many requires that the pilot "climb out" from the cockpit? These are simple things to do for a wounded pilot? Then, how many WW2 pilots were killed from the bad design of their cockpits instead than the position of the engine? And why we refer to the dangerousness of the rear engine when we compare P39 and P63 with any other aircraft (and this is wright, of course), since, in any other comparation I had read here, what can appen to the pilot shot down has pratically no importance?
I think is only cause the design of these two aircraft is unusual, so we tend to wiew more the defects they have, compared to the planes we are used to, and we don't see de defects of the usual design, cause we are used to them.
DogW
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Dogwalker said:Thanks for the site. I have to agree with experts
For the pilot's point of view I have someting more to say.
Given that there were some type of crash landing that IS letal with a rear engine and IS NOT letal with a front engine (I don't know how many frequently it can appen, since a safe crash-landing whit a 4 tons WW2 aircraft is not a simple thing to do, wherever is the engine). From how many WW2 fighters simply were difficult to bail out? How many requires the use of two hands to open the canopy? How many requires that the pilot "climb out" from the cockpit? These are simple things to do for a wounded pilot? Then, how many WW2 pilots were killed from the bad design of their cockpits instead than the position of the engine? And why we refer to the dangerousness of the rear engine when we compare P39 and P63 with any other aircraft (and this is wright, of course), since, in any other comparation I had read here, what can appen to the pilot shot down has pratically no importance?
I think is only cause the design of these two aircraft is unusual, so we tend to wiew more the defects they have, compared to the planes we are used to, and we don't see de defects of the usual design, cause we are used to them.
DogW
In my view, I think it has something to do with that big chunk of metal behind me, rotating at 2500 rpm and buring gasoline, I think I'd rather see it in front of me rather than behind me....
Then again, you have the situation of say bailing out of a P-38 and hitting the tail and riding a P-39 to the ground. If I had a choice between that and crashing in a P-39, well I guess I'll try not to hit the tail!
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
But, altough to hit the tail of an aircraft bailing out, is a possibility with any WW2 fighter (P-38 is a special case), bailing out was, nearly always, the first choice of a pilot of an aircraft too damaged to fly, so, the possibility of doing it easy (for a wouded pilot also) had at least the same importance of the position of the engine.
The choice is not of bailing out of a P-38 and hitting the tail compared with riding a P-39 to the ground, cause you hav the possibility to bail out of P39 too, but:
1) bailing out of a P39 compared with bailing out of anoter fighter (P38, Bf109, FW190...)
2) riding a P39 to the ground compared with riding anoter fighter to the ground
With the second situation having much less possibility to happen.
Secondary, in case of engine fire, or big losses of oil, i think is better to have it behind me rather than in front of me. No danger that flames, oil, smoke or steam, can blind me.
DogW
The choice is not of bailing out of a P-38 and hitting the tail compared with riding a P-39 to the ground, cause you hav the possibility to bail out of P39 too, but:
1) bailing out of a P39 compared with bailing out of anoter fighter (P38, Bf109, FW190...)
2) riding a P39 to the ground compared with riding anoter fighter to the ground
With the second situation having much less possibility to happen.
Secondary, in case of engine fire, or big losses of oil, i think is better to have it behind me rather than in front of me. No danger that flames, oil, smoke or steam, can blind me.
DogW
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
To me jumping out of a P-39 would be like jumping out of a car, I'm not sure of the benifits, I think it might be easier to ergress from if wounded.
On that point I agree...Dogwalker said:
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
The P-38 was not a big deal if you slide off the wing you will miss the stabilizer by 5-6'. The stabilizer in a P-38 is at the same level in relation to the cocpit as a P-51, P-47, or any other fighter of the war with 1 major difference the distance between the cockpit to the tail in almost all WWII single engine fighters was several feet shorter than the P-38s (this is also why the P-38 has smaller tails than normal there on a longer arm)
The only time it was an issue was
a. in a compressability dive
b. nose up stall
c. radical maneuver
The same conditions that caused high fatality rate in the other fighters. Hitting the tail was very rare in a 38 and certainly no more often than any other fighter, its just a rumor.
The P-39 had a door was that jetonsable?
wmaxt
The only time it was an issue was
a. in a compressability dive
b. nose up stall
c. radical maneuver
The same conditions that caused high fatality rate in the other fighters. Hitting the tail was very rare in a 38 and certainly no more often than any other fighter, its just a rumor.
The P-39 had a door was that jetonsable?
wmaxt
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
I think not. It could be safer to do a simple modification, a counter-wind opening door.wmaxt said:
DogW
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Dogwalker said:
How about the engine being jettisonable?!?
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
if you're bailing out chances are your bird's diving towards earth, proberly approaching 400mph if not more (assuming you were hit in combat), doesn't that sound A LOT easier than it actually is
Dogwalker said:
First of all I am not incompetent. I would not work on helicopters for the last 5 years and keep my job if I was.
Dogwalker said:
I never said it was impossible, how about you read my post again, since you keep telling me to reread yours. I said it would be more difficult. How do I know? I am an aircraft mechanic.
Dogwalker said:
Yes it would suck to sitt on I drive shaft. Have you ever felt the vibrations that come off of them? I have I fly a helicopter that has 2 of them and they go right over my head. Feeling them there, I would not want to sit on them.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Have I ever said that You are? I think that, strange to say, even who tried P63 during the WW2 was not.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
And I repeat one more time: sitting on a drive shaft is worse? Having enanced view and more firepower in the nose is better. Wath's wrong about the statement?DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
DogW
Yes go and try sitting on a Drive shaft. I guarantee you it would not be fun. Now I am sure they balance it to reduce the vibrations, but you are not going to get it all out. Now having the engine placed in the rear is not what is going to enhance your view over an aircraft that is placed in the front. You can put MG's and Cannons in front placed ones also.
I am looking at it from a Maintainers point of view and from teh point of view of someone that flies. I would not want to work on it or fly it. My opinion and the opinion of others also.
I am looking at it from a Maintainers point of view and from teh point of view of someone that flies. I would not want to work on it or fly it. My opinion and the opinion of others also.
Yea that was going to be my point. A jettisonable engine in a Airacobra or Kingcobra would be crazy. With my luck the bolt on the drive shaft would hold and squish the family jewels a second before it cut me asunder. Still the Ruskies flew thousands of them. Them krazy Russian kids!
:{)
:{)
It was a decent aircraft, I just think it was a bit outclassed and it could not go much further, especially with the jet age upon it.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Ok, there are vibrations. I expect to read some pilot's report that say they were so severe. I didn't read it yet. I read this for many others aircraft instead, included the FW-190.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
This is your opinion, I respect it, but a lot of other experts think differently. Having an engine in the front IS a problem for viewing, expecially a radial engine, and expecially the ground viewing. Even the DB or Isotta Fraschini inline engines have the inverted-V configuration (a complication) in attemp of reduce (not solve) this problem.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
You can do a lot of things, but P39 and P63 were the only fighters of WW2 equipped with a 37mm gun firing trough the propeller axis.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
The heaviest armament placed in the nose of a WW2 fighter was that of Me-262. Why? Cause there wasn't an engine in the front.
The heaviest nose armament of an allied fighter apart the "cobras" was that of P38, Why? ...
If there isn't an engine, you can put more firepower there. If you want to have the same firepower with an engine too, you have to enlarge the fuselage or to withdraw the cockpit, whit furter negative effects to the pilot's view.
Another time, it's your opinion and I respect it, other experts worked on it and flown with it. Many pilots appreciated this aircraft, and the difference is that they flown with it, and you not. So I repeat, they were all incompetents, except you?DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
DogW
