XP-72

Big, Powerful, and Heavy
new reply
alias_unknown_2004
Senior Airman
Posts: 111
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 17:18

XP-72

Post by alias_unknown_2004 »

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

User avatar
Scott - A2A
A2A General
Posts: 16839
Joined: 11 Feb 2004, 12:55
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Scott - A2A »

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.
A2A Simulations Inc.

SD_Research
A2A Major
Posts: 461
Joined: 18 Jan 2005, 11:37

Re: XP-72

Post by SD_Research »

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
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.

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.

alias_unknown_2004
Senior Airman
Posts: 111
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 17:18

Post by alias_unknown_2004 »

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 :lol: I do wonder, though, if that extra complexity of the contrarotating props might have made it a maintanance nightmare...

AU

SD_Research
A2A Major
Posts: 461
Joined: 18 Jan 2005, 11:37

Post by SD_Research »

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 :lol: I do wonder, though, if that extra complexity of the contrarotating props might have made it a maintanance nightmare...

AU
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".

new reply

Return to “Republic P47 "Thunderbolt"”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests