P-63 Kingcobra Warbird Wednesday Episode 37

[@barryervin8536]

The P-63 actually wasn't originally designed for the Allison V-1710, it was designed to use the Continental I-1430 inverted V-12 which was being developed under the "hyper" engine design program. The 1430 never went into production so the Allison was used instead, with a remotely mounted second stage supercharger added. A couple of other airplanes being designed to use the Continental engine were switched to other engines or never went into production at all. My mother built P-39s and P-63s at Bell Aircraft during the war until she was moved into Larry Bell's office as a secretary. She always said he was a really nice guy and a great boss, BTW.

[@christianmotley262]

Interesting. Great story.

[@jasonrusso9808]

Buffalo NY here

[@jacobnugent8159]

That Alison engine sounds great

[@SEVNTIGERS]

Thanks for posting this! I love to learn about the Cobras - my favorite fighter of all time. :)

[@kenty2831]

First class production an editing, thank you so much for the history

[@Factiverse_Facts]

The p-63 is a true beauty

[@stoneylonesome4062]

Chuck Yeager once remarked that the Oldsmobile-Browning M4 37mm Auto-cannon’s ballistics were like pitching a grapefruit at the aircraft in front of you. Definitely was better suited for the Motor Patrol Torpedo boats.

[@edwardpate6128]

Agreed, it had a very low velocity. The PTs loved it! It was very effective against Japanese motorized barges!

[@jeffleake1960]

The fact the Russians admitted liking this plane speaks volumes about it as they bitched and moaned at just about everything else we sent them . That in the early years we desperately needed ourselves , specially in the Pacific theatre

[@tomhart6568]

We sent them about 5000 P39s and another 2500 P63s

[@christianmotley262]

My favorite aircraft. I would have ditched the cannon, though. It flies and lands well in simulation.

[@edwardpate6128]

They should have went with the 20mm version as used in the British P-400. Much better ballistics and a lot better ammo capacity.

[@dginia]

The War Production Board was totally in charge of which plane got which engine. Only they had long term viewing. Anyhow, besides the P-51, the P-40 also got Merlin engines. The granting of super charging and how many speeds, or turbo charging seemed to make or break the aircraft's mission, to my limited observations.

[@edwardpate6128]

The Soviets loved them. At the altitudes fought in the Eastern Front the P-39 was right in its element and could perform very well compared to the 109 and 190.

[@Drunken_Hamster]

I wonder how much power these aviation engines would gain from something like tuned long tube headers. Aside from that, imagine one of these with a modern turbocharging system, an XM301 in the nose as the only armament (removed wing guns for more fuel capacity), and a proper bubble canopy. Hell, the modern turbo might just bump power up enough that it'd need a 5-blade spitfire prop to take advantage of all that extra ass, lol.

[@longjohnsilver5179]

The appearance of the King Cobra is intimidating and it's one of the best looking fighters of WW2. (Designers during WW2 outdid themselves to come up with the beautiful fighter designs they created to include the USA, Germany, Japan Britain, Russia..I can't even say which is the best looking fighter. I could say the Mustang or Spitfire but I like the Flying Tiger, Messerschmidt and Val Dive Bomber just as much). The King Cobra is right up there with the rest. I'm not talking about best performance. I'm talking about beauty. Thank you for this excellent presentation. Lastly Chuck Yeager states in his autobiography that the P-39 was one of his favorite fighters to fly.

[@martentrudeau6948]

Test pilot Bob Hoover, Chuck Yeager's good friend, also liked the P-39 and said it was a good plane.

[@et76039]

There was also the time American planes destroyed several Soviet P-63s on the ground at Vladivostok, during the Korean War. The Soviets executed the base commander, and demanded (unsuccessfully) that we court martial the American pilots involved.

[@billallen4793]

I always dreamed of making a P39/P63 kit plane with a Chevy LS for power. There's even some guy's in Australia who make a V12 LS using aluminum blocks cut and welded together using a custom crank....from Wyoming USA 🇺🇸 🤠

[@christianmotley262]

They use Falconer V12 engines in the Thunder Mustangs, based on the Chevy engine, I believe. No need to cut, saw, and weld.

[@et76039]

That 37mm gun was quite noteworthy, both for what it could, and could not, do. The WarBirds flight simulator game has the P-39, predecessor to the P-63. As the narrator inferred, two or three hits would be enough to immediately put almost any airborne adversary out of flying status. However, the slow rate of fire and trajectory made the gun nearly useless against other fighters. The ballistics meant that attacks against any airplane in flight required a much higher skill level than if machine guns were used. On the simulator, at least, this meant using machine guns to first weaken the opposing aircraft, then use the 37mm if you simply got a lucky opportunity to thoroughly finish off your target with a single hit. A diving attack using the nose gun against a bomber might succeed, due to the slow, steady nature of such planes. The mid-engine/front heavy gun emplacement did have an unexpected impact on survivability, at least on the simulator. Strikes to the front of the plane did not impact the flyability (unless the propeller was damaged), although the gun might be put out of action. The thick metal of the gun also served as a de facto armor for the pilot. Where this gun seemed to excel (again, on the simulator), was in strafing attacks against ground targets, as the strength of the 37mm projectile could be compared to a hand grenade. A well-placed shot would be sufficient to neutralize an artillery piece or heavy machine gun emplacement. Contrary to the misinformation traceable to poorly translated Soviet documents, this gun's main capability against tanks would be harassment or immobilization. Thin-skinned vehicles, however, would be meat on the table. In the final analysis, though, a battery of eight .50 caliber machine guns would do a more credible job against most targets, and service the target with a greater total weight of projectiles in a shorter amount of time. The same could be said of the battery of 4x20mm cannons carried by the P-61 and some F-4U Corsairs.

[@davidmcleod7757]

the 37mm was better suited on pt boats

[@et76039]

@@davidmcleod7757, you are probably right. It would have done a credible job of damaging unarmored ships and servicing ground targets without imposing a serious weight penalty. A good backup weapon for when a torpedo is not ideal. Uncertain of the recoil force, as that would impact the mounting point and structure.

[@leneanderthalien]

i dont known the performances from the 37mm canon, but the similar placed 20mm Hispano Suiza HS404 canon from the Morane 406 and Dewoitine D520 (fitted with the famous Hispano Suiza Y12 "canon engine") was VERY efficient against fighters, but fit only 60 drum magazine ammo, so the pilots use it only in high chances of impact combat configurations, but they love this canon far more effective than the 2 or 4x 7,5mm machine guns, but the brits had the same problem with they 7,7 machine guns on Spitfires and Hurricanes and they switch very fast on 20mm HS404 canons (the HS404 fit in the wings was modified, because the standard model did jam in the wings becasue icing (was not a problem in the heat from the engine)

[@ginandtonicboy]

Good one Gov. When I come back to work we might nuance that (British) accent a bit.

[@janehill9764]

the russians did not use the cobra as close support, the p-39-63 series was used for fighter interception. there were a more than a few russian cobra aces...

[@marcbondura2987]

Do you mention why the engine is mounted mid fuselage? Because the original p39 had the engine mounted supercharger AND a turbo supercharger aka turbo and they needed a lot of room for piping back in the era when they just started being used in planes. Bell after NACA found the p39 had almost the same amount of drag as a Grumman biplane and Brewster Buffalo helped Bell design several aerodynamic changes but Bell most likely bc of financial problems just deleted the entire turbo and kept the single stage supercharger only. The USSR uses most of both the p39 and p63 and half the Soviet top 10 aces flew p39s. Without the turbo the p39 had no performance up mid and high Altitudes. The p63 changed this but the US saw no real substantial performance increases over the already fielded mustang and thunderbolt at that late stage of the war to order for themselves substantial numbers. They went to the soviets mainly again. Thru lend lease

[@dopium1770]

I thought it was mounted back to allow room for the cannon?

[@jamesredman1263]

The original design for the P39 had twin turbochargers that would have given it more power and higher altitude performance. Then everyone else got into the decisions. Some bureaucrat decided to replace the turbos with a single supercharger that was underwhelming, so above 12,000 feet its performance started to fall off. And by the time all the armaments and armor were added, it was heavy as well. The Russians drastically modified it. They pulled some of the armor and even some of the guns to increase the climb rate and maneuverability. All this in its P39 form.

[@stanhathcoat920]

Whoops, my bad! The P51 Merlin was what I was referring to.

[@mecomingtomo6933]

22:26 that reminds me of the Normandy Nieman squadron, I saw a great documentary about them, definitely add to the watchlist

[@leneanderthalien]

Yep but the Normandie Niemen squadron flow only with soviet fighters like the Yak 1 and Yak 3: the soviets give it the choice between american or british fighters and these soviet fighter and they choice without hesitation the soviet fighter to honour the soviet union who give it the possibility to fight, 4 of the french pilots was recipient from the highest soviet medal "hero from the Soviet union" ,and the soviets did never forgott the Normandie Niemen squadron who is up today very popular in Russia, whe see this during the last visit from they Rafale in Russia in 2012. The interresting story about the Yak fighters is that they Klimov 105 engines and they 20mm ShVak cannons was evolutions from the french engine Hispano Suiza Y12 and Hispano Suiza HS404 canon who fit the Morane 406 and Dewoitine D520 fighters (soviet union did buy the built license before WW2)

[@bbb8182]

No one explains EXACTLY how the Soviets used these planes. I hear hints like against tanks or against German aircraft but never stories or stats other than a few aces numbers.

[@PalmSpringsAirMuseum]

The Soviets used them as an air superiority fighter. The reason for this was simple. Thier airfields were very close to the front and they did not have the range issues the Allies did on the western front. In that role the planes did very well.

[@BryanPAllen]

@@PalmSpringsAirMuseum and thus fought at lower altitudes where this plane was at its best.

[@stanhathcoat920]

Another note. The Allison V1710 was a workhorse of an engine, however, it also suffered more failures than any other US made aircraft powerplant in WW2. Known as the "Allison time bomb" by P38 pilots in the ETO, it never really overcame the lack of high altitude weakness. But, the Eastern front was a different scene in regards to altitude, & Russian pilots were extremely aggressive with the Bell Cobra line of aircraft.

[@AlanRoehrich9651]

🤣🤣🤣🤣 The Allison V-1710 is by far the most rugged, most reliable, and most fuel efficient liquid cooled engine in U.S military aircraft in World War II. It produced more power per cubic inch, while burning less fuel. It had an excellent oil system, which was not prone to combat damage, and it could survive a damaged cooling system for an extended period of time. It was also capable of going longer between overhauls, and running far longer at both 100% military power and at War Emergency Power. Whatever you read about the Allison, throw it in the garbage. Buy better source material.

[@stanhathcoat920]

@@AlanRoehrich9651 Try looking up official records, Bobo. 🤣 It was great engine, but certainly had its flaws, or it wouldn't have been called the "Alluson time bomb" by veteran P38 pilots at high altitude over Europe. I'll believe them over an arrogant bunghole like you any day. The info is free to find, close your mouth, open your eyes, research, & get over yourself!😁 This was not a personal opinion Bobo! The engine had oil flow & turbo problems at high altitude, I guess you're ignorant of that? As an opinion, my thoughts are that since the Allison V1710 saw combat in virtually ALL combat conditions, from freezing weather to hot, dusty deserts, to high humidity in the Pacific, the fact that it failed more often is quite understandable. But, that's probably deeper than you wanted to go, right!?🤔🤔🤔🤪🤣🤯

[@emersoncaicedo3146]

That's not really true at all. P38's were not very good in the European theater mostly because of turbocharger limits and carburetor air temperature limits that caused knock and limited manifold pressures. It had NOTHING to do with the engine. Essentially, it did not have enough cooling for the turbocharger. With the introduction of the p38J model with the larger chin intercoolers, It significantly improved cooling and enabled more manifold pressure. When the p38J came out, carburetor air temperature limits were no longer a problem for P38s in the european theater. Also, the v1710 was an absolute tank, it wasn't really a "ticking time bomb." The Australians operated p40s during the war (had the V1710) and operated them at 70 inches of manifold pressure. Tests showed that it took the punishment quite well. The p40s in the North African theater were operated at 62 inches of manifold pressure, almost 1600 hp, which is A LOT for a p40. Perhaps a ticking time bomb in the application for the p38, but the V1710 is a rugged and reliable engine that produces very good power within its operating envelope.

[@stanhathcoat920]

@@emersoncaicedo3146 So, you know more than the pilots who referred to Allison engines in the P38s as "Allison time bombs"? I understand there was an oil flow problem, specific to the P38s, at high, cold altitude, which of course, had no bearing in Pacific Lightnings. I do appreciate your input, the P38 was a great aircraft, had the props been updated as they were on the P47s, they would have been even better.

[@michaelrunnels7660]

According to the video, Bell took the P-39 and made it bigger, added a bigger tail, made the cockpit visibility worse, and added a LOT of armor, which dramatically increased the weight . Since the P-39 was a notorious under performer as a fighter, making it bigger and much heavier must have made the P-63 almost unflyable with terrible performance. It seems to be a step backwards. Why did they make it at all?

[@PalmSpringsAirMuseum]

Many times a company will try an update to solve the problems with the first version of the plane. Pilots I have spoken to who flew the P-39 liked its mid-altitude performance. The problem in Europe was the fighting took place at higher altitudes and there simply were better designs for that effort. If I were to be critical of the P-63 the main issue I would have with it is lack of range - it simply did not carry enough fuel on-board to compete with the follow-on P-51' and P-47's that were the bulk of the European fighter force at the end of the war.

[@michaelrunnels7660]

@@PalmSpringsAirMuseum P-39s were used in the Pacific Theater as target tows for P-38 gunnery practice for most of the war. Most P-38 units had a couple of them. If you read books, stories, and accounts of P-38 pilots flying P-39s in the Pacific in non-combat roles, they will all tell you that the P-39 was the most dangerous airplane they ever flew....at low level. It was downright scary! This opinion was written by double and triple aces. Read "Bill, A Pilot's Story" by triple ace Bill Harris. He writes about coming closer to death several times in the P-39 with no enemy around than he ever did in the dozens of dogfights with Zeros. It had more problems than poor performance at high altitude and short range. I can't help but think that the P-63 must have been frightening to fly, let alone fight in. I could be wrong, but I tend to believe the experts who have the most experience in flying and fighting in fighter aircraft.

[@PalmSpringsAirMuseum]

@@michaelrunnels7660 That may be so - But I have had the opportunity to talk directly with guys that flew that flew them and they liked the plane. Also - we regularly fly our P-63 and it is a fairly simple aircraft to fly and operate. Having said that, the aircraft does have a laminar flow wing (the same as a P-51) - if you get the plane slow and low you are gonna have a problem. On your comments about the Zero you are correct - but any early generation Allied fighter in the Pacific had problems with the Zero. The Japanese design was ground breaking and could out fly anything the Allies had early war. Great comments - thank you.

[@ryankm48]

Why dont you guys get a super charger for it? The C had a water injection for 1800hp too

[@3_Gold_Coins]

You are lucky that Greg did not get you Jones soda thanksgiving edition flavors. Happy thanksgiving.

[@fridgemagnett]

Why not stick a supercharger, or a turbocharger, on it?

[@stanhathcoat920]

Ok, nice aircraft. A few notes. This aircraft used a US Packard built Merlin, not Rolls-Royce. The FW190 was far earlier in regards to an "electrically controlled" fighter. And you stated the "Russians kept us in the war"??? They made great sacrifices(of course Stalin didn't)! The USA sent over 14,000 aircraft, 40,000 trucks, untold numbers of jeeps, etc, & untold amounts of war & humanitarian supplies to Russia in WW2 to keep them war worthy. Tremendous respect for the Russian people, but, they didn't "keep us in the war". Interesting point about the Russian designer who aided in the conception of the Kingcobra. Your aircraft is a fine specimen, especially since it's still flying!

[@tomhart6568]

They didn't keep us in the war but they killed an awful lot of Germans for us. Something like 70% of German casualties were on the East Front.

[@stanhathcoat920]

@@tomhart6568 Your correct, Germany lost more troops on the Eastern Front than in all other fronts. One of Hitler's greatest blunders, he actually had a peace treaty with Stalin before Operation Barbarossa. The Russians(all factions) were hardy, tough people divided by some 100 dialects or so but came together to defend "Mother Russia"! But, there were also a number of Russian pilots who flew for the Luftwaffe, simply because they hated Stalin so much. Russia had allowed Germany to clandestinely train pilots & war exercises in remote areas before Barbarossa, since Germany was under the Versailles Treaty at the time.

[@michaelvollmer9491]

@@stanhathcoat920 absolutely correct. The Russians lost more people to fight the war then all other Allies together. And the second point is that Hitler did make the greatest strategic failure whose could be made: if you are the aggressor you have to avoid a 2 Front War which he didn’t

[@loneranger5349]

That's the ugliest shiny green paint WHY?

[@SoloRenegade]

they shot down an awful lot of those superior German fighters though, didn't they?

[@650thunderbird]

. 👍🏻👍🏻

[@ParadigmBlaster]

Dude, please split the "Franken Food" segments off into their own channel(!)...Thanks!

[@matthewmoore5698]

Is this some sort of stand up routine? Sorry

[@snobear41]

you ramble too much- the Russian wanted design changes- ???

[@PalmSpringsAirMuseum]

yes they sent a rep to Bell to upgrade the P-39 - the P-63 was the result. Both aircraft were provided to the Russians under the lend lease program. I will try and "ramble" less...

[@scottmurphy650]

3:32 cell going off, AYFKM??? That is soooo unprofessional. It makes you guys look like assholes. It did not have "a couple of .50 caliber machine guns on each wing". There was a SINGLE Nifty Fifty in a pod under each wing in the P-39Q and two .30 machine guns one each wing in the P-39N. The P-39 NEVER had the .50 cal and .30 cal under the wing simultaneously, thought that certainly would have presented with a very high level of armament.

[@jimbochungus]

Sneed