Warbird Information Exchange

[quote="RMAllnutt"]Does anyone actually have records which confirm that the Russians actually used P-63's in combat during WWII? I have always thought that they arrived too late to take part. I seem to remember this being written when the P-63's were recovered from the Kuriles a decade or so ago. quote]

No, I don't actually have the records myself, but VVS documentation does verify a late-war shootdown of a Japanese Army Air Force fighter by a P-63 during the Soviet's 11th-hour invasion of Japanese-occupied Korea.

Again, you will not find official VVS documentation concerning the use of the P-63 on the German front, because doing so would have violated the terms of Lend-lease concerning the Kingcobra's use. I cannot recall the pilot's name at the moment, but in his memoirs (published in the 90's) he reveals Pokryshkin's involvement in acquiring the P-63 (which he referred to as the "Supercobra") for use by his unit.

The Soviets were never big on acknowledging the successes of pilots using "western technology." Pokryshkin was definitely a rebel, but his first two "Hero of the Soviet Union" awards came rather quickly while he was achieving success with the Mig-3. His third "Hero" award was a long-time coming once he and his unit had converted to the P-39, and yet the Airacobra is the machine with which he enjoyed the most success and personally preferred.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

I've never read why, but my best guess is that it was an attempt by the Roosevelt administration to "encourage" the Soviets to open a second front against the Japanese.

So, Stalin doesn't want the US to know the Kingcobra is being used against the Luftwaffe, nor does he want to publicly promote the quality of Western technology. Is anyone still unclear as to why NO photos and NO official documentation exists?

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

As I recall, Steve Hinton stated that nothing he had flown except the Zero would stay with the Kingcobra in a continuous turning fight. I think he rather liked the visibility forward and down as well. Alas, he did mention that the max speed figures were a bit on the optamistic side. At any rate, I'd certainly like to see more 'cobras flying today.

If yall know of a rudder bar assembly laying around for a 63 we need one for our restoration. We need the whole assembly, bars, peddles, brackets and anything else that yall can find. I will try and post some pics of our progress soon. If you want to take a look our website is www.dixiewing.org .

Thanks

_________________
Philip Beegle
Dixie Wing CAF

Perhaps they didn't want another example of a laminar flow wing to fall into Germany's hands.

The performance specs in American's Hundred Thousand show that the '63 was a much more capable machine that the '39. The P-63A was the fastest climbing AAF machine late in the war and had the best roll rate below 300mph meaning it could outperform the P-51 at low altitudes. Its a shame we may never know more about its (possible) combat use.

Here's the deal; Back in the "good ole days" an airplane had to look good to fly good and the thought was that if it was ugly it was probably a bad airplane. Look how nice the Spitfire and P-40 are.
Bell Aircraft understood this and all their designs looked supermodern and super fast just sitting on the ramp. They, like the salesmen at Brewster and Curtiss understood how important it was to get the client "liqoured up and taken care of ." They got a lot of contracts for airplanes that were not the best product on the market in the U.S.or Britain at the time.
Look at the Airabonita, airacuda, aircobra and kingcobra and the P-59, it wasn't until the Bell 47 that they hit a real winner.
When I was a kid, Don Whittington told me the P-63 was the easiest of all the U.S fighters to fly. He had one at the Wings and Wheels museum in Orlando at the time.
THe plusses for the Russians were, light, extremely reliable engine and a quality, heavy armament package, easy to fly, and were free from the U.S. Relatively fast compared to their aircraft.
THe minuses were, uses about 4500 feet of runway, or about double the going rate at the time. Expensive, and the wing airfoil is too fat, no matter what engine you put in the P-39 or P-63 will never be able to catch a Mustang or Spitfire, etc. Nosegear poorly suited for advanced/ rough field conditions. Overheats easily on the ground, radiator design insufficient for aircraft. Also particulary the P-39 has a "tumbling" flat spin problem due to the engine being behind the pilot, etc. Both aircraft have some weird stall characteristics.
Last, like many WW II aircraft, the factory's official flight performance data and airspeeds are hopelessly optimistic .

So what you're saying is that no Mustangs participated in the 1946 Thompson Trophy Race?

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

There are two books that cover this subject.I just looked on Amazon and both are available.The first is a superb history of Bell Aircraft in the fixed wing days:

"Cobra:The Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946" by Brian Matthews

The other is a specific history of the Pinball Operation:

"Operation Pinball/The USAAF's Secret Aerial Gunnery Program of WWII" by Ivan Hickman

The Cobra book is available directly from Amazon,the Pinball book is available through Amazon via their subcrontractors.I only mention this part to give an idea of their general availability from other sources.I have copies of both and can recommend them highly,especially "Cobra".

Unfortunately,I'm not in the same location as the books,but ,as I recall,the major drawback that kept the P-63 out of American combat units was its extremely short range on internal fuel.The P-39 had the same basic problem,as it was a small airframe and when a mechanical second stage supercharger was installed aft of the engine in the P-63,there was no room for fuel in addition to relatively small wing tanks.

Of course,the P-51 and other excellent fighters were already available in large numbers.As I remember what the book said,the Russians requested the P-63 specifically because they were quite happy with the P-39's heavy cannon armament and the short range wasn't a problem on their missions.

I

point made ..... but the cobras of the post war cleveland airshow era were totally stripped of armor & ordinance, & hopped up with engine steroids of the era.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Uh,...Tom, so were all the other fighters used in the race.

good point. sound the brain fart alarm!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

i'm sure you can see my point when you dissect what i was trying to say.... bad choice of words i guess... darrrrhhh

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Tom, looks like to me you crawled out on the limb with your first post and the further you go the smaller its gettin' !

Steve Pisano flew with the Eagle Squadron. After the war he was hired as a test pilot for Allison engined P-63. They were trying to improve reliability at high power. The first time the engine blew he glided down for a safe engine out landing. The engineers assured him the bugs were worked out, so a few months later he tried again. This time after about 5 minutes at max power the engine blew and caught on fire. Steve bailed out, and told the boffins next time they got it improved to do the test flight themselves.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK