It’s actually a very good plane….you’d
just be wasting your time. Here's why. This video is sponsored by War Thunder. Hey, there, welcome back to Military
Aviation History – my name is Chris and for those that don’t know, in my “In Defense
of Series” I look at aircraft that have been popularly dismissed or maligned,
I explain the facts and context, and then it is up to you to decide whether
a planes reputation was truly justified. If you want to have a look at previous
episodes, you will find them in the description: Oh, and while we are doing the whole
YouTube mumbo-jumbo: like, subscribe, hit the bell so you don’t miss new episode every
Thursday – That’s Military Aviation History Day: MAHD – yeah the branding still
hasn’t improved…then share the video, you know how this YouTube thing works, I don’t
have to explain it but it is a great help. Alright so, what’s the problem with the
P-63 Kingcobra? Afterall, it’s a good plane, and that’s not me saying it – but many pilots
at the time. Here are a few examples. : The P-63 is easy to handle and
responsive, quite delightful all around. The P-63 was an entirely different
flying machine than the P-39. The P-63 proved a real improvement (over the
P-39) with more cockpit room, more power, and more manageability.
It was a dream to fly. With flaps down part way the P-63 was
superior to most anything else in the air. An honest aircraft.
This plane is shaping up to be a remarkable machine, yet the USAAF
didn’t use it….as a fighter – it used it as a target [Pinball]. Why is that? One way to answer
this is to talk about the pure tactical level – that is a bit of a top trumps discussion but
stick with me, it’ll make sense. The other way is to look at the force disposition, and the
more strategic level. I will do both – together, that gives you the full picture, and
then you can make your mind up yourself. Throughout this video, I’ll also show you some
great footage from my recent trip to the Legacy Flight Museum in Rexburg, Idaho – I filmed a full
Inside the Cockpit episode on the Kingcobra – if you are a Patreon or Channel Member you already
have access. Visit that museum btw, it is great and tell them I sent you, say hey from me –
they are great folk who were very accommodating for filming and very understanding of my
propensity to nerd out over all the aircraft. Ok, tactical level – let’s
talk about performance.. The Kingcobra is a solid performer on paper.
The P-63 was powered by the Allison V-1710, a liquid cooled engine producing a maximum
1500 hp at 3000 RPM / 61 in MP for Combat Power. With this it achieved a maximum
which holds up well compared to other fighters if we assume no external
stores and a light airframe – and especially look at the WET figures that
include the water injection of the P-63. Equally, to climb to 10.000 and
15.000 ft the P-63 does very well. Let’s check out maneuverabilty - Though
maneuvering speed is more individual than aircraft performance, we can see that
the Kingcobra does well in this category. These are respectable numbers and
compare well with most fighter planes of the time. But it is not the full
story, here is how one pilot phrased it. The P-63 is a good fighter against the P-38,
P-47 and P-51. At low altitude it could out-maneuver and out-climb the P-51. Higher
up performance suffered against the others. We can see how the performance differential evens out and falls against the P-63
as we go to higher altitudes. Here we must consider that America was
flying high altitude bombing missions into Germany – and you needed a high performance
high-altitude escort fighter to protect them. The Kingcobra did not have the high-altitude
optimisation and, it had a major flaw which was limited range. The internal fuel load
was around 120 US gals – with externals, the range could be increased but not
as much as with the other fighters. There was no way to add more fuel to the plane –
I explain this in my upcoming Inside the Cockpit video which Patreons and Channel Supporters can
already watch. It was these two concerns – the lack of high altitude performance and the lack of
range that ultimately resulted in the Kingcobra not being judged operationally suitable. Though
we could suggest using it for different roles, I will address why this is would not have been a
good investment in the later half of this video. Of course, I could say more about a performance
comparison, the different planes and the Allison engines performance at these altitudes and
the iffy supercharger but to stay on track, I will pass a long format performance discussion
off to Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles. The main point for me is that the P-63 doesn’t
offer a major selling point over the P-51 or P-47 on a performance level at altitude – with
the caveat that we are playing top trumps here in order to get the main point across. I am
aware of that, which is why I think it is better to consider why the Kingcobra doesn’t add
anything on a force level. And as I go into that, consider this your chance to fly in a
P-63 and check out the aircraft yourself! The King Cobra is one of thousands of vehicles
that you can use in War Thunder. Experience a fantastic collection from World War 2 all the way
to modern jets. In War Thunder you can even take to the skies in voodoo machines or in tanks and
ships, though really we air power fans should call them by their real name: targets. If you want to
sit back, engage in tense dogfights and blow off some steam, War Thunder offers all the options.
I personally enjoy the mixed battle arena where you get to drive around in targets before I
upgrade my life experience with an aircraft and deliver some accurate close air support!
War Thunder constantly adds new aircraft, voodoo machines and targets - you can play it on PC like
a true connoisseur, or you can join the fun via PlayStation and Xbox. It has full cross-platform
integration, meaning you get to play with friends everywhere. Signing up is completely free so
make sure to use my exclusive sign up bonus in the description to get a free premium vehicles, a
three day booster and an exclusive channel logo! So far, the picture I painted of the Kingcobra
shows the usual give and take balancing act of any aircraft but let us now zoom out and consider
the USAAF as whole. For this we first go to the most trusted of all diagrams – the timeline.
Going through this quickly, we can see the introduction of the P-47s and P-51s in 1942.
Following this, in early 1943 they first see action in Europe and the Mediterranean,
and get chosen for their respective roles. Much of this time is also used to iron out the kinks
in each aircraft, in fact the P-47 especially has a difficult record during this time.
Then, in 1944 the first bubble top Cversions arrive, production orders go out and by the
end of the year the majority of the fighter groups in the UK are or will transition to
the P-51. Where does the P-63 fit into this? The Kingcobra has a late start.
The first order goes out after the first deliveries of P-47s and P-51s.
In the second half of 1943 the first are delivered and Bell is ramping up production.
However, in 1944 after extensive testing the P-63 is judged as not operationally suitable as a
front-line fighter at Eglin Field . As production is already underway, plans emerge to send it to
the Soviet Union. By the end of the year, these commence after more than 1700 have already been
built but the plane continuous to be modified. Here we can see two major issues. First
off, the P-63 lags behind the Mustang and Thunderbolt. Second, the operational suitability
test did not go in its favor. Put both together, we are starting to have an issue. It is not
necessarily a nail in the coffin – after all the P-51 and the P-47 had substantional issues
when introduced – that’s normal – however, by May 1944 they are established aircraft
at more than just the performance aspect. Let us assume the P-63 came out with no major
issues. I don’t think this would have changed much –there would not have been anything more than
a token adoption in Dec 44 – which would have then been cancelled in May 1945 when the European
war ended. As a reminder, it took the other planes about a year to get operationally ready.
Sure, the Kingcobra presents some advantages for certain scenarios. It is fast on the
deck, has enough range for short missions, and has firepower, can carry bombs, and
has a has favourable ground handling for field conditions. But these aspects don’t
help the Kingcobra by the end of 1944. The Kingcobra needs to be significantly better
than other aircraft to warrant a force structure change. The Allies had high-performance
short-range aircraft doing interception or ground attack already, look at the Spitfire,
then add Typhoon, Tempest and the Thunderbolt for ground attack. Does the Kingcobra have some
advantages in the margins here and there – yes. But these existing planes operate already,
benefit from expecting force structures, stockpiles, experiences and more. The Kingcobras
advantages are marginal where they exist and it is unproven. Why introduce a plane that
is good but not significantly better at such a risk, and one that has no role.
Also, in case you are wondering why I haven’t spoken about this yet…can we assume
that the legacy of the Airacobra didn’t help make the Kingcobra any friends – yeah, on
an individual level but honestly in my mind, if anything, that’s a contributing and not
a defining factor. As we have seen, the P-63 did get positive reviews by pilots so that
does cancel out the Airacobra’s legacy to a point. But that is just the tactical level –
this level always gets all the attention, it’s not the deciding one. Operationally, the
Kingcobra is already a troublesome investment. US fighter groups were covering all
bases with the P-38, P-47 and P-51. Incorporating the Kingcobra means starting
from scratch, with new systems and structures. That means training pilots, mechanics and ferry
pilots, establishing a new chain of logistical infrastructure, amass stockpiles and generate
the organizational structures, guidelines and cohesion required for Kingcobra operations.
Can argue that in May 1944 no one knew that the war in Europe would be over by May 1945 – yeah,
though the strategic trajectory of the conflict was clear. And that’s where we must look at the
strategic level and the trajectory of the USAAF. In summer to late 1944 the majority
of fighter groups in Europe– the only theatre where the P-63 makes sense
after all – where transitioning to P-51. The Mustang was becoming the de facto standard
fighter aircraft of the US –it was the plane that the US was going to finish the war with.
The P-63, as a late contemporary to the P-51, is not going to substitute it. In fact, the
P-51 was starting to substitute everything else.At this point, it is only the next
generation of piston aircraft – or rather jets – that were going to take over from the P-51.
The Mustang was a plane the USAAF knew well, it had all the operational and support
infrastructure in place. And everything in the AAF was gearing towards this standardization –
from pilot training , fighter group organisation, planning on future combat mass, industrial
orders it is the result of basically three years of fighting, planning, producing, modifying,
training. You name the buzzword, it is in there. Giving away the Kingcobra to the Soviet Union is
what saved the Kingcobra and the Bell Aircraft Corporation in this regard. It gave the
P-63 a purpose it didn’t have in the US, provided jobs and profit – well kinda – you
know in the way that Lend-Lease worked and didn’t work – and kept Bell in the fight to try
again – well they were also building B-29s but that won’t last – then and hop on the jet train.
Or rather the voodoo train before being swallowed by Textron Inc. They did produce one of the most
famous choppers of all time – gotta givem credit. In summary, would P-63s been ready to fight before
Germany surrendered? Sure. Would they have added a benefit on the tactical level: No. Would it
have been worth the transitionary costs on the operational level: no. Would it have been a
good idea to revisit USAAF standardization, industrial orders and force organization: No.
The Kingcobra was a good plane – but it was not the plane America needed. But now you
let me know what you think of all of this, if you agree, if you want to add,
maybe even push back – give it to me. I hope you enjoyed this video, big
thank you to Andrew for his help, Patreons and Channel Members for
funding research and filming trips that make this content happen for you,
remember to check out war thunder.
