Question: Is this the way the prototype really flew? Thing climbs like a jet and has enough power to pull it through some pretty tight turns. I've been flying the P-47-D-22 almost exclusively since it was released, so stepping into the XP-72 was quite a shock.
What references were used in the creation of this plane? And are they available on-line?
AU
XP-72
- Scott - A2A
- A2A General
- Posts: 16839
- Joined: 11 Feb 2004, 12:55
- Location: USA
- Contact:
The guy who is the one to answer this is away for a few days, but you have done the best thing to get used to flying the D version, then try the XP72. You have experienced the true nature of the advance this aircraft was. I have some government figures here that I passed along to our team when the project began, and it's right in line with those. Maybe in a few days someone else can speak more about it.
Scott.
Scott.
A2A Simulations Inc.
-
- A2A Major
- Posts: 461
- Joined: 18 Jan 2005, 11:37
Re: XP-72
Yes, this is accurate. The plane meets the published specs for this type. You have to think of this engine, 28 cylinders, 4,360 cubic inches, twin contra-rotating props; this plane is drastically different from the R-2800-powered Jug we know and love. It has a much lower drag coefficient because the frontal area of the cowling is a low-drag design, way more power, way more thrust, etc.alias_unknown_2004 wrote:Question: Is this the way the prototype really flew? Thing climbs like a jet and has enough power to pull it through some pretty tight turns. I've been flying the P-47-D-22 almost exclusively since it was released, so stepping into the XP-72 was quite a shock.
What references were used in the creation of this plane? And are they available on-line?
AU
Here is a link to the specs:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p72.html
Keep in mind these specs were obtained with the temporary four-bladed prop; our plane uses the projected figures for the twin-prop version, which were somewhat higher due to greater thrust efficiency.
-
- Senior Airman
- Posts: 111
- Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 17:18
Scott & SD_,
Thanks for the responses. It is quite a step up from the D model...and a pleasure to fly. It's too bad it never went into production--It seems it would have been a real contender, even in the early age of jets. It runs circles around the P-51 I do wonder, though, if that extra complexity of the contrarotating props might have made it a maintanance nightmare...
AU
Thanks for the responses. It is quite a step up from the D model...and a pleasure to fly. It's too bad it never went into production--It seems it would have been a real contender, even in the early age of jets. It runs circles around the P-51 I do wonder, though, if that extra complexity of the contrarotating props might have made it a maintanance nightmare...
AU
-
- A2A Major
- Posts: 461
- Joined: 18 Jan 2005, 11:37
Yes, it is really is drastically different than the P-47. This type of prop arrangement was used on many postwar aircraft and was generally satisfactory. The engine, the R-4360, was also used on many types of planes, including the B-50 and Super Constellation, along with the Navy's Martin Mauler and the "Super Corsair".alias_unknown_2004 wrote:Scott & SD_,
Thanks for the responses. It is quite a step up from the D model...and a pleasure to fly. It's too bad it never went into production--It seems it would have been a real contender, even in the early age of jets. It runs circles around the P-51 I do wonder, though, if that extra complexity of the contrarotating props might have made it a maintanance nightmare...
AU
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests