Occasional reader DM sends us to this page containing visual proof or vintage and unusual aircraft. There’s a lot to see there, including a classic “you’re doing it wrong” aerial refueling demonstration, but what really caught my eye was this picture of the Bell XP-63 “Pinball” manned aerial target.
Now, your correspondent comprehends the notion of shooting bad guys, and has even had the opportunity over the years to employ the 20mm cannon against aerial targets towed by manned aircraft. But the notion of a pilot manning an aircraft that he expected and intended other aircraft to actually shoot at - with guns - exceeded his previous boundaries of the comprehensible.
Turns out it’s true:
The most unusual P-63 variations were the RP-63A and RP-63C “pinball” versions developed late in WWII. These manned target aircraft were fired at by aerial gunnery students using .30-cal. lead and plastic frangible machine gun bullets that disintegrated harmlessly against the target’s external skin of Duralumin armor plating. Special instruments sent impulses to red lights in the nose of the “pinball” aircraft, causing them to blink when bullets struck the plane.
That this was a USAF program only partly explains its existence. The questions are begged: Where did we get such men? And equally important, were any of them permitted to breed?
23 responses so far ↓
1
hajo-hi
// Aug 28, 2008 at 11:00 am
Seems Kelly Johnson and his team invented the Eurocanard already in 1939.
2
Longboarder
// Aug 28, 2008 at 11:03 am
With that nose gear, it looks kinda like a P-39.
3
Curtis
// Aug 28, 2008 at 11:22 am
I think it is important to note that this was a WWII plane and therefor flown by Army pilots. There were, no doubt, plenty of suitable goal oriented pilots begging for the chance to strap one of these babies on and troll for frangible bullets. I think the survivors transitioned to flying other bullet magnets (helos) where they felt comfortable and made a contribution.
4
Zane
// Aug 28, 2008 at 11:59 am
Ah, Curtis beat me to it. No USAF here, Army Air Corps.
5
SSG Jeff (USAR)
// Aug 28, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Hmm, did Burt Rutan work for Curtiss Aircraft at any time?
6
Schroedinger's Cat
// Aug 28, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Maybe it was kind of like The Dirty Dozen. Hey, you can get off of death row if you’ll fly this thing and get shot at!
Or maybe not.
7
JamesT
// Aug 28, 2008 at 12:46 pm
What an excellent webtsite you link. GRUMMAN XP-50 SKYROCKET! Whooo-hooo! Thats what The Black Hawks flew. Great site, although I did not see my personal fave, teh XF-85 Goblin.
8
BombthePeasants
// Aug 28, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Actually, they fired graphite bullets. And I think it was a great idea, because it showed a determination to send aviators qualified in aerial gunnery overseas to wax the bad guys. After all, other than the P-38, none of our pursuits had any form of explosive ammunition, so you had to get behind your foe and wail away for more than a second to get your bad guy down…GO ARMY AIR CORPS!
9
XBradTC
// Aug 28, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The P-63 was an evolution of the P-39. Quite a few made it into the hands of the Russians, but AFAIK, the US never sent any into combat.
And may I point out that prior to the US entry into WWII, the Army Air Corps was disestablished and replaced by the US Army Air Forces.
10
Chris Parkes
// Aug 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Yes, but could he shoot back?
11
Byron Audler
// Aug 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Brad, that would be “U.S. Army Air Corps”…and they were firmly a part of the Army until 1947.
12
steveH
// Aug 28, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I read somewhere recently that some of the Pinball P-63s were flown by civilian contractors, including some women pilots.
Talk about trusting your equipment (and students).
13
HomefrontSix
// Aug 28, 2008 at 3:18 pm
The -63 was the big sister to the -39. All of her armor and armament was stripped. Should have just painted a big red target on the side of her.
Recently, I learned of my uncle’s time in the USAAF (6th Fighter Squadron)…he flew just about everything BUT the 63 (he flew P-40s, P-47s, P-51s and even the P-80 briefly, among others). But according to his son, he would have loved to have flow the -63. I’m not sure if he volunteered or not but there was talk of it.
I never knew until last month that he had flown in WWII and Korea nor that he had earned the Distinguished Flying Cross and an Air Medal.
14
XBradTC
// Aug 28, 2008 at 3:31 pm
As much as it pains me to disagree with you, Byron, you are mistaken. It was the USAAF, which was indeed a part of the Army (co-equal with AGF and ASF) until the 1947 creation of the USAF. But it was not the Army Air Corps after 1941.
15
Wilko
// Aug 28, 2008 at 6:24 pm
The ultimate ‘Mo Debbenly’pilot.
16
Casey
// Aug 28, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Wow, I knew something the pro’s didn’t?
I can’t brag too much, as I got it from the Squadron/Signal reference P-39 AIRACOBRA in action. Great stuff for modelers, or the truly obsessive air historians.
The Soviets, by the way, really did love the P-39/P-63, as it blended well with their air doctrine.
You could even consider the P-39 an ancestor of the A-10, as both were designed around the main gun they carried, and were CAS craft.
17
Kevin
// Aug 28, 2008 at 9:48 pm
My Dad told stories a couple of times about shooting at the flying pinball machines. He was a tail gunner on B-24s in North Africa and Italy then transitioned to B-29s right before VJ day.
He loves to talk about how they had to use .50 cal bullets dipped in a colored wax to shoot the towed target banners, each gunner had a different color and it would mark the hits. The pilots that towed the targets were women, not sure about the pinball jockeys.
I’ll have to ask him this weekend about Gunnery school, and he can regale the kids with his TINS stories.
18
Justtthisguy
// Aug 28, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I dunno. Sorta like pistol training with simunitions, if I am gonna be the shootee, I wanna inspect every round that’ll get shot at me to make sure it’s a “safe” one.
19
xformed
// Aug 29, 2008 at 4:47 am
Wilko;
You date yourself, sir (or maybe madame) as a consistent reader of Lexisms….Thanks for the memories.
20
Wilko
// Aug 29, 2008 at 9:46 am
Xformed, It is indeed “sir” although a title rarely used (except when telemarketers call).
I tried to link to the article since it’s such a great story but alas, it could not be located.
BTW: Eubanks denied the exchange took place on his show but Snopes confirmed it.
I think we have a large number of long time Lex readers these days.
21
BombthePeasants
// Aug 29, 2008 at 10:25 am
Casey, I must point out that this is a myth about the Soviets using the -39 as a ground support aircraft. They never even received the M80 AP rounds for the M4 cannons. The Soviets used it as an air-superiority fighter, to good effect.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-39_Airacobra#USSR
http://oksquad.free.fr/index.html?http://oksquad.free.fr/bells.htm
22
Casey
// Aug 29, 2008 at 11:50 am
Darn. I’ll have to call Squadron/Signal, and complain.
Just kinda “assumed” that the Soviets used ‘em for CAS.
I shouldn’t be too surprised, since the ‘Cobra perform fairly well at low altitudes. I imagine removing the wing guns helped quite a bit.
23
BombthePeasants
// Sep 2, 2008 at 7:38 am
Casey, I believe that comment on the wing guns only refers to the N or Q models, which had replaced the 4x.30cal guns w/ 2x.50cals, which were sufficiently large enough to require the guns to be dropped a few inches below the bottom surface of the wing that a “gondola” was required to fit the gun. It reduced performance obviously, and the VVS felt that the M4 gun, plus the 2x.50cals above the motor were more than sufficient for air-to-air work.
Keep in mind that those Squadron/Signal books make no mention of Soviet documents and/or VVS pilot reports. It’s still a largely unremarked upon part of the war here in the West.
Leave a Comment