B-17 and P-63 midair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tins

Reports state the single was a P-63. Kingcobra. Engine in front. Seems to be borne out by the videos.

---

No - all of this family of aircraft had the engine behind the cockpit. As a result the front of the aircraft was very narrow and streamlined.

See this link where you can see the engine exhausts behind the cockpit.

Bell P-63 Kingcobra

As ex aircrew I love to see these old aircraft flying but unfortunately, from time to time these type of accidents do happen and valuable, rare old aircraft are lost, let alone the sad loss of life.

I am in two minds, should these old aircraft just be retained for static display like the G for George Lancaster in the Australian War Memorial or should they continue to fly and unfortunately run a high risk of an accident further reducing the number of airframes available.

As I said, I am in two minds and want these aircraft to survive but is to stop them flying the way to do it?

Garry

This is the priceless P-63 that was lost. So sad for aviation and the families affected.

P-63 Kingcobra Walkaround Tour - YouTube

Yes. The P39 was a late 1930s concept to improve maneuverability by putting the major mass closer to the centre of gravity, and pilot visibility by putting the engine behind the pilot. Primarily because of the lack of an American engine with power/weight comparable to European engines at the time, the performance was disappointing. And because most of its initial deployment was in the tropics, it soon became apparent that the cooling system did not like hot weather. However, the Russians, who got them via lend-lease, loved them, and this is where most ended up.

Because of these problems the P39 was redesigned as the P63 with a lot of changes, including increased size, and a change to the wing section, and better engines. But still the same basic layout. Not very many made though, mainly because by this time better designs were being mass produced (e.g P47), and jets were in the wings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS

No - all of this family of aircraft had the engine behind the cockpit. As a result the front of the aircraft was very narrow and streamlined.

See this link where you can see the engine exhausts behind the cockpit.

Bell P-63 Kingcobra

---

Apologies. You were quite correct. Still a long nose though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SBD4

This bloke does a fairly good job of analysing the accident:

https://youtu. be/Sceufd1Xutc

Space added in link to avoid googles scrutiny and to protect the forum.

---

Is there a problem now with adding YT vids on the forum? Serious question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Yes. The P39 was a late 1930s concept to improve maneuverability by putting the major mass closer to the centre of gravity, and pilot visibility by putting the engine behind the pilot. Primarily because of the lack of an American engine with power/weight comparable to European engines at the time, the performance was disappointing. And because most of its initial deployment was in the tropics, it soon became apparent that the cooling system did not like hot weather. However, the Russians, who got them via lend-lease, loved them, and this is where most ended up.

Because of these problems the P39 was redesigned as the P63 with a lot of changes, including increased size, and a change to the wing section, and better engines. But still the same basic layout. Not very many made though, mainly because by this time better designs were being mass produced (e.g P47), and jets were in the wings.

---

I remember reading Samurai! by Saburo Sakai. He described the P-39 as easy victims of the Mitsubishi A6M in New Guinea. It wasn't all one sided though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tins

I remember reading Samurai! by Saburo Sakai. He described the P-39 as easy victims of the Mitsubishi A6M in New Guinea. It wasn't all one sided though.

---

No - the P39 had two advantages over the A6M - firstly it had a lot more armour, secondly, instead of rifle calibre machine guns, its primary armament was a 37mm canon, supplemented by two 0.5" machine guns. These meant that the A6M usually had to hit the P39 with a lot of bullets to have much effect, but a single shot from the P39 would see the A6M disintegrate. Of course, the fact that the A6M could fly circles round the P39, being faster, higher climb rate, and far more maneuverable meant the the first of these was more common.

And would have become more common after the Japanese lost most of their experienced pilots in a series of disastrous naval actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

And would have become more common after the Japanese lost most of their experienced pilots in a series of disastrous naval actions.

---

Sakai noted this also. Like many operational pilots, on all sides, he was not a fan of his High Command. I doubt he felt at liberty to say so at the time.

Samurai! is a surprisingly "human" book, coming from one who was born into a traditional samurai family. Interesting read if you ever come across a copy. I've lost mine in the course of many moves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

This is why air show organisers have learned (by tragedies) that all operations must be choreographed, and pilots must follow plans.

---

That's what I find myself wondering about most. Either this was set up with a fatally small safety buffer or one (both?) of the crews went way off script.