P-39 Airacobra and P-63 King Cobra

[Daryl J.]

Royal Navy SeaCobra with folding wings, X-dark Sea Grey/Dk. Slate Grey/Sky?    

RAF PR.IVg with Daybreak Pink and a photog schnozz for dicing missions?  B)

A Finn or Romanian variant to serve with the Hurricanes?

USMC version for Korea w/ upgraded manoeuverability and ground attack capability?   Wingtips modified along the line of the Spit Mk.I-XIX changed when it became the .21,.22.24 etc. and a tail enlargement although different than the P-63.

Interim replacement for the Grumman Wildcat before the Hellcat came online?  Hooked and heavy duty gear.

Post-war Spain to fly along with the He-111 instead of the Buchon?

[John Howling Mouse]

mmmm. . . folding wings: great idea.

I'll throw in a T-Tail on mine...!    

[Gary]

I'd love to see the prototype done up, all in polished aluminum. Sigh...

[B777LR]

How about a P39 with teh engines placed in the front of the plane?

[jcf]

How about a P39 with teh engines placed in the front of the plane?

Bell had a design that preceded the Airacobra that looked somewhat like a front-engined P-39.

The Model 3 with V1710, 25mm cannon and two .50 MG.




Cheers, Jon

[Maverick]

More Thunking

Whilst 'housekeeping' in my profile folder, I wondered on the Bell Kingcobra (fighter).  More than an upgraded Airacobra, the Kingcobra lost its chance with the USAAF because of ground attack aircraft like the Thunderbolt (fair choice, the Jug was a winner).

What if however, the P-63 had a Merlin installed?  Would this have been feasible from an engineering POV.  I noticed that both the P-39 and P-63 both used Allison engines of differing sizes.  Given the Mustang became with war winner it was by the fitment of a Merlin instead of the Allison, could the same be said for the Kingcobra?

Over to the techs.

Mav

[GTX]

John,

Stuff the Merlin, what about a Griffon instead?

Regards,

Greg

[Burncycle]

Why not go all the way and design a version around the Napier Sabre  :ar:  

[Maverick]

Ok,

Engineering would be an issue probably and let's be honest, either Cobra wasn't going to win a fly-off 'gainst the P-51 or Jug, but given the fact that the engine was centrally mounted, wouldn't it have been preferrable from a ground attack point of view to the P-51 especially?  Added to that the 37mm up front would have to be a bonus for the role.  Thus, if the engineering could be worked out, one would think that as a pure ground attack machine she'd be the bomb.

As for Griffons or Sabres... Yikes!

Mav

[jcf]

Didn't need a Merlin..particularly not for low-level attack. The Allison engined Mustangs were faster than the Merlin powered versions at low and mid-altitudes.

Anyhow...
one P-63D built, modified P-63C with a 1,425hp V-1710-109 engine, bubble canopy and enlarged wing (span increased 10 inches), 437mph at 30,000'...similar performance to the P-51D so no production order.

The P-63E was basically identical except for retaining the car-door canopy and being slightly slower, 13 were built, orders for 2,930 more canceled after VJ-Day.

The planned XP-63B was never built, it would have been a P-63A re-engined with a 1,400hp Packard-Merlin V-1650-5.

Two P-63s had V-tails installed and were designated XP-63N.

Contrary to what many seem to believe, the Allison was not a crap engine.

Actually few of the experienced hands in the halls of power in the US had any illusions about the Soviets and the face of post-war Europe...the US political and financial power structure had been actively involved in opposing the Soviets since the time of the Revolution along with opposing Marxist Socialists and the Anarchists since at least the 1890s.

Jon

[monkeyhanger]

I'm sure I've seen a picture of a mock up of a Merlin installed in a P39. Fighters of world War 2 (classic publication in the 1960s, covers all the nations) but of course, its in storage!

About the soviet Union as allies. Churchill said he would make a pact with the Devil against Hitler. I don't think anyone had any illusions about 'Uncle Joe'.


Robert

[Mossie]

John,

Stuff the Merlin, what about a Griffon instead?

Regards,

Greg

Or mid-mount a Griffon in the Mustang like the FTB version.  Link to Kitnuts models:

http://moneycentral.groups.msn.com/TheWhat...rrmustangs.msnw

[GTX]

Hi folks,

I know this thread is about the P-63, but I thought it was worth highlighting something about it's predeccessor, the P-39, that many often overlook (if you don't then my appologies now).  Contary to popular belief, the P-39 didn't start out with the performance (or lack thereof) that many have come to associate it with.  In fact, the original XP-39 (see pic) was quite a performer - the prototype reaching a speed of 390 mph at 20,000 feet. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 5 minutes, quite impressive climbing performance for the time. Service ceiling was 32,000 feet.

It was only when the XP-39 was modified that things 'went of the rails'.  the most serious change, was the elimination of the turbosupercharger, and its replacement by a single-stage geared supercharger. This change was a result of a shift in philosophy on the part of the USAAC. The USAAC believed that the widths of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans made the USA virtually immune from high-altitude attack by enemy bombers. Therefore, the development of high-altitude interceptors was curtailed in favor of strike fighters optimized for low-level close support (interestingly, this probably why the Russian pilots found the type so useful - this being exactly the type of role they used it in). The 1150 hp V-1710-17 (E2) of the XP-39 was replaced by a V-1710-37 (E5) engine rated at an altitude of 13,300 feet.

The removal of the turbosupercharger was to have fateful consequences for the future of the Airacobra. Although the Allison engine was more reliable and more easily service when the turbosupercharger was eliminated, the engine only performed well at low and medium altitudes and lost power quite rapidly at altitudes over 15,000 feet. Even in spite of the improved streamlining, the XP-39B suffered a severe degradation in high-altitude performance. Maximum speed fell from 390 mph at 20,000 feet to 375 mph at 15,000 feet, and it now took 7.5 minutes to reach 20,000 feet rather than five minutes. However, there was an increase in low-altitude maneuverability because of the reduced wing span, and the decrease in low-altitude performance was only marginal.

Note the XP-39 has the side intakes where as the XP-39B has the dorsal intake.




Now, back to your normal program.

Regards,

Greg

[Maverick]

It's a bit like the P-38 that ended up (briefly) in RAF hands.  No turbo meant it flew like a dog, but that was actually removed prior to sending over.  Wonder what possessed Lockheed, the USAAC or whoever to do that?

[Archibald]

It's a bit like the P-38 that ended up (briefly) in RAF hands. No turbo meant it flew like a dog, but that was actually removed prior to sending over. Wonder what possessed Lockheed, the USAAC or whoever to do that?

Try Joe Baugher website    http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_7.html

Both the British and French delegations insisted that the Lockheed fighters be equipped with Allison engines without turbosuperchargers and with strictly right-handed rotation. This was

- because they wanted the engines to be interchangeable with those of the Curtiss H.81A Tomahawk which had been ordered by both Britain and France in great numbers.

- In addition, the Committee wanted to optimize the aircraft for medium-altitude combat as was currently the dominant mode of aerial warfare in Europe, rather than the high-altitude role for which the P-38 had originally been designed.

- The Anglo-French delegation was also aware of the problems currently being experienced by the War Department in the delivery of turbosuperchargers, and did not want to run the risk of costly, time-consuming delays since they wanted all the planes delivered in less than a year. It turned out that this decision was particularly unfortunate.