What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree that bell designers were not fools, but I personally dont think the design could be much more developed than it was. The P-63 was good improvement of the P-39 and yet was not a match for the Bf-109 and Fw-190.

[Dogwalker]

Soviets used P63 as a ground-attack aircraft, in this role it was probably better than both Bf-109 and Fw-190, with the effective possibility of chasing them if properly used.
Even in the task of destroying bombers, a P-63 is probably far more effective than a P51.

DogW

[the lancaster kicks ass]

since when was the P-51 used as a bomber destroyer? and the Fw-190 was one of the premier single engined ground attack platforms of the war.............

[Dogwalker]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

since when was the P-51 used as a bomber destroyer?

Never. Every plane has his task. This is what I mean.

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and the Fw-190 was one of the premier single engined ground attack platforms of the war.............

In the dedicated versions "F" and "G" wing armament was sacrificed for two hardpoints, and extra armor was added to "F" model.
I don't think that, with theese modifications (Maximum speed: 634 km/h; Service ceiling: 10,600 m) the Fw-190F was still so effective as fighter, and surely it had a little less firepower than P63 as ground-attacker.

However, I never said that P39 or P63 were the best chaser, or ground attack platforms of the war (they had several problems, especially in handling), but only that P39 was basically a good idea, and that it could have been developed better.

DogW

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I disagree the Fw-190 was a better ground attack aircraft in all respects to the P-63. It had better performance and armament. Plus once it drops its bombs it can go up and shoot down all the P-63s it wants by outlflying them.

[Dogwalker]

A ground-attack aircraft is not only a chaser that can occasionally be used to drop some bombs.
Among soviets, P63 was famous for its sturdiness, and the capacity of absorb a lot of damage and continue to fly (we can talk about the visibility from the cockpit however. Not a secondary thing when you have to hit a target below you), similar to that of the armoured Il-2 (to have to absorb a lot of damage is normal when you fly over enemy lines). No FW-190's version, apart the "F", can do that, and the "F" had no better flyng charateristic or armanent in respect of P63, on the contrary, it was slower and less armed.
However, it can be that all the ground-attack work could be done better from the existing versions, and Focke Wulf designers were fools when they prepared the "F" as ground-attacker.

DogW

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Dogwalker

Among soviets, P63 was famous for its sturdiness, and the capacity of absorb a lot of damage and continue to fly
DogW

So could the Il-2 but it would not win a fight with a Fw-190 and the P-63 would stand a better chance but it is still outlcassed by the 190.

Lets compare the Fw-190A/F since the F was just a A model built for ground attack to the P-63.

Fw-190F-8

Max Speed: 416 mph
Range (Maximum Fuel): 1,370km (850 miles)
Range (Maximum Bomb Load): 610km (380 miles)
Climb to altitude: 9.35 Minutes to 6,100m (20,000 ft.)
Endurance:
2 Hours at 2,000m (6,500 ft.) at 280 mph (450 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 10,360m (34,000 ft.)

Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Two 20mm Mg 151/20 wing mounted cannon.
Two 13mm Mg 131 fuselage mounted machine guns.
Up to 2,205 lb, generally consisting of:
1 × 1,102 lb (SC-500) bomb centerline
2 × 551 lb (SC-250) bombs or 8 × 110 lb (SC-50) bombs under wings
plus Rockets

P-63

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 408 mph
Cruising Speed: 280 mph
Service Ceiling: 43,000 ft.
Range: 450 miles

Armament:
One 37mm cannon
Four .50 machine guns
Up to 1,500 lb on 3 hardpoints. Typical load-out would be either 3 × 500 lb bombs, or 1 × 500 lb bomb plus rockets

So lets see the Fw-190 wins in performance except for cieling and we are talking about ground attack here so they would be at low level. The Fw-190 also wins on bomb load and I would say the P-63 wins on cannon armament.

Overal the Fw-190 was the better aircraft. Oh and lets not forget about sitting on a damn drive shaft in the P-63, that is unsafe and would hurt!

[Dogwalker]

I knew F8 entred in service only on april 1944. Moreover You posted the speed record of the original A8 series (a lot of sources report that the maximum speed for A8 was 408 Mph however). The enhanced armour of F8, logically, affect speed as all the others fliyng charateristic. To my sources, it's max speed was of 635 Km/h (394 mph)
Moreover, to expect that the overweighted F8 has the same handling of the A8 is not logical. American test pilot instead, speak favourably of the maneuverability of P63 even compared with P51 (of course, P63 was not superior), and only the soviet test pilots reported the orizontal spin problems (but they like the plane). So, for me, in an air combat between P63 and FW 190F-8, the advantage goes to P63, with other advantages, in the ground-attack role,coming from the enanced view of the pilot (it's strange to see, that the aircraft that could carry the larger payload, had the worse ground view).
However, this is only a teorical debate. Only 385 F8 were built, and and 2.397 P63 were delivered to Soviet Union. In a such dispersive war teatre, they were too few to make a real comparison with battle statistics.
Finally, the only fact that we can debate of wich of them was superior, demonstrate that the rear engine was not a bad idea, and and that it could have been developed better.

DogW

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay even if the speed of the F-8 was only 394 with the MW50 boost it would have put it higher for shorter periods of time.

As for American test pilots talking about how great a P-63 is, does not doubt me, because they talked about how great every US built plane was and downtalked everything built buy other nations.

Fewer F8 being built than P-63s does not prove anything (check out the bomber threads for this argument)

As for the rear engine or front engine placement, I think everyone including pilots and maintenance will tell you that front placement is better. Rear is more difficult to install and maintain, it is more dangerous in a crash sequence, and the pilot is sitting on a drive shaft.

Lastly if the P-63 was so good, why did the US not use all that much if at all? Hell they designed and built, why did they not use it?

Fw-190 over P-63 all the way, every day!

[MacArther]

The US never used the P63 because by the time it came around there were fighter bombers that had taken its job. It would be a logistical nightmare to reequip almost every US ground attack squadron with the new plane. Still, this does not mean that the P63 had worse perfomance than its fellow American aircraft. Also, as to the german nitro boost, one has to question how effective it would be at low altitude, as well as how damaging to the engine it would be at lower altitude. This stems from the fact that the engine has to work harder at lower altitudes, so boosting it is going to cause quite a bit of wear and tear.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

[MacArther]

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.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No my post was not really directed at you, sorry if it came out that way.

[MacArther]

oh, my bad

[Dogwalker]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Okay even if the speed of the F-8 was only 394 with the MW50 boost it would have put it higher for shorter periods of time.

P63 had the water injection booster from the "C" series (the major part of P63s were "C").

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

As for American test pilots talking about how great a P-63 is, does not doubt me, because they talked about how great every US built plane was and downtalked everything built buy other nations.

I said that they compared P63 with P51, not with a foreign aircraft, moreover, even Soviets like it. All incompetents except you?

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Fewer F8 being built than P-63s does not prove anything (check out the bomber threads for this argument)

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?

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

As for the rear engine or front engine placement, I think everyone including pilots and maintenance will tell you that front placement is better. Rear is more difficult to install and maintain, it is more dangerous in a crash sequence, and the pilot is sitting on a drive shaft.

For the pilots: I repeat, soviet pilots like P63 and P39, and they knew front engined fighters too.
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.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Lastly if the P-63 was so good, why did the US not use all that much if at all? Hell they designed and built, why did they not use it?

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.

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