Bell P-63 Fugo killer

[Pete57]

From the Army Air Forces in World War II website:
http://www.usaaf.net/chron/45/mar45.htm

"WEDNESDAY, 21 MARCH 1945

AMERICAN THEATER

ZONE OF INTERIOR

(Fourth Air Force): A P-63 from Walla Walla AAFld, Washington, intercepts a Japanese balloon near Redmond, Washington, and, after a chase that includes 2 refueling stops, shoots it down near Reno, Nevada."

Does anybody have details as of the A/C tail number, unit(s), pilot, etc.?

According to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p63_3.html, the P-63 served in the USAAF with the following Stateside units: 31st, 444th, and 445th Squadrons.

Thanks

[Ricky]

Very Interesting.

What I want to know, is why it took that long (& 2 refuelling stops!) to shoot down a balloon!

[Pete57]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Very Interesting.

What I want to know, is why it took that long (& 2 refuelling stops!) to shoot down a balloon!



Indeed I found that odd myself.

I thought it may have had to do with the balloon possibly cruising above the P-63's service ceiling, and the aircraft thus having to give it several tries. But with the balloon's set altitude of 23,000' and the P-63's 43,000' that does not seem to be the case.

For the records, the system devised by the Japanese to maintain the balloon's altitude was very interesting as well.
Please see http://39th.org/39th/hc/fugowarhazzard.htm

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Very Interesting.

What I want to know, is why it took that long (& 2 refuelling stops!) to shoot down a balloon!



Well, it's about 250 miles from Walla Walla to Redmond (where I lived for 20 years), and then about 500+ miles from Redmond to Reno...

[Ricky]

The P-63 had a range of 450 miles, so yes, it probably would have needed 2 refuelling stops for a 700 mile combat mission.
However, why did it take the pilot 400 miles (after interception) to shoot down a 250 mph (see Pete's link) balloon?
That means it took him around 1 3/4 hours to shoot down a balloon, and he was armed with a 37mm cannon and 4(?) machineguns.
Yes, the cannon would not have been a good option!

Just puzzling, really.

[simon]

The cannon wouldn't have been an overly bad choice, against a hydrogen filled balloon practically anything (Including tracer) would probably cause it to explode.

Without radar (I assume), and chasing an elusive, relatively fast, relatively high target with only the occasional ground observation to go by, I'd say it was quite impressive that the pilot found it at all, let alone caught and destroyed it! Bear in mind that each time he landed he would loose precious time refueling, and more as he had to climb to altitude.

[Ricky]

Well, I'd have thought that the cannon shells would simply pass through the balloon - which is fine, as it punctures it. However, they would then have to land somewhere...

As to the difficulty... well, yes, I take your point, but after you have found it, is it that hard? (speaking as a man who has never flown except as an airline passenger!)

I'm asking, rather than pouring scorn. [:I]

[simon]

No after you've found it it's probably not that hard, but that's the problem, finding it in the first place.

One cloud bank, sun in the wrong direction, a false sighting and you could be sent tens of miles in the wrong way.

I'd say finding it probably took the time, shooting it down was probably just a matter of a quick burst of gunfire.

[GregP]

You people haven't come to terms with the evasive action capabilities of the clever balloon pilot. They are quite lively, and can take 90° turns with ease. indeed, they can stop, go backwards, and land without forward motion.

The poor old P-63 was just overmatched.

[Ricky]

But he intercepted it at Redmond!

And Greg - I may have fallen foul of your tongue-in-cheek humour here, but surely Fugos were unmanned!

[GregP]

The Japanese were tricky little develis, especially the midgets.

How else was the balloon able to evade a mighty P-63 that was fortified by multiple fuel stops?

The pilot must have been either a truly determined guy or knotty-pated, swag-bellied hedge-pig. Hard to say which at this point. I am betting on the latter. He was probably related to an infuential politician, or may have BEEN in politics himself. Probably ran for office during the second refueling stop.

[Corsarius]

I worry about you some days, Greg. Really I do.

[GregP]

Sorry to make you worry. Sometimes my sense of humor runs away with me, and a Shakspearian insult, such as calling someone a flea-bitten, mange-ridden cod piece probably has no business being in here .... but it IS funny. Most people who watched Monty Python though so, at any rate.

It has all been intended as a joke, not a serious dig at a pilot or an aircraft when I am unacquainted with the details of the encounter.

From the perspective of 50 years, it is hard to imagine how a single P-63 could have possibly required 2 refueling stops to shoot down an unmanned balloon. If that were the norm, aerial combat would be non existent, and NO ONE would be an Ace.

I can iamgine all sorts of funny stories, however, especially from his fellow fighter pilots. They probably called him "Balloon Bagger" from that day forward .... oops, there I go again!

[Corsarius]

I expect he invented his very own silly walk shortly thereafter, hmm?

No, that was the other side of the atlantic wasn't it?

Dammit! Don't mention the war!

[Pete57]

More interesting info on the Fugos.

http://amh.freehosting.net/japanese.html

The Japanese used a frequency-shifting tracking system (to make jamming harder, I suppose [}:)]): very ingenious! :)

[Pete57]

I recently bought Warbird Tech., Vol. 17 Bell P-39/P-63 Airacobra & Kingcobra, by Frederick A. Johnsen. The author provides a possible answer as to why it took the Kingcobra so many 'pit-stops'to get the job done.

Quoting from page 40: "Late P-63As posted a high speed of 410 miles an hour at 25,000 feet, dropping to 402 miles an hour at 30,000 feet. This approached the speeds of the P-51D Mustang, which clocked 437 miles an hour at 25,000 feet. Production of P-63As totalled 1,725 aircraft. But while the Kingcobra was a delightful speedster to fly, its essential design rationale dated back to the P-39 era, where range was not enphasized. As with the Airacobra predecessor, the Kingcobra mid-engine layout was not suited to fuselage fuel tankage"