# Which of THESE standard US fighter experimental derivatives do you like most?



## Oreo (Aug 4, 2008)

This time we are looking at experimental derivatives of existing US fighters, and asking which one you would most like to have seen vetted in combat, to see what it could have done. (we are speaking academically, here folks, let's not make it too complicated). Were there others I could have included? Yes, but I did not include them. Concentrate on the ones I did include. Sorry if I forgot your favorite; go cry in the corner.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 5, 2008)

The "Super Corsair" of course..!


----------



## Oreo (Aug 5, 2008)

Again, I meant to include P-63D. Oh well! F2G was my choice too.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 5, 2008)

Absolutely. F2G all the way.

But if I had to make another choice, it would be the P-61E. I just love the Black Widow.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 5, 2008)

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ssd/tstm/images/p-61ohio.gif

I like the P-61, and making it better would have been good, but it still did really well in the job it was supposed to do. 

I think the P-63 never did get a chance with the US Air Force. The P-51 took away it's need, and the P-47 was much better at ground strafing than it was. But if it had been used a little I think it could have redeemed it's name as the big brother of the "Iron Dog."


*Bell P-63D Kingcobra*
Last revised September 12, 1999

The P-63D was the next progressive development of the Kingcobra series. It featured an Allison V-1710-109 (E22) engine rated at 1425 hp for take off. The wing (later adopted for the P-63E) had a ten-inch increase in span to 39 feet 2 inches, gross area being increased to 255 square feet. The P-63D also differed from the late production blocks of the P-63C in not having the rear ventral fin extension. However, the most noticeable new feature of the P-63D was the use of a rearward-sliding bubble canopy in place of the familiar framed canopy with the two car-like side doors. The air scoop was revised and moved aft. The basic armament of the P-63D was essentially the same as that of earlier Kingcobras, but the cannon in the P-63D was the M9E1 with 48 rounds. 

The first P-63D (serial number 43-11718) flew early in 1945. The P-63D was the "hottest" Cobra yet to appear, with a maximum speed of 437 mph at 30,000 feet. Although the P-63D had a good performance, it was no better than the North American P-51D Mustang which was already in service. Consequently, no thought was given to any production, and only one P-63D was built. The sole P-63D was lost in a flight test accident, killing Bell test pilot Robert Borcherdt. 

Specification of Bell P-63D Kingcobra: 

Powerplant: One Allison V-1710-109 (E22) water-cooled engine rated at 1425 hp for take off. Performance: Maximum speed was 437 mph at 30,000 feet, service ceiling was 39,000 feet, and an altitude of 28,000 feet could be reached in 11.2 minutes. Normal range was 950 miles, and maximum ferry range was 2000 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 2 inches, length 32 feet 8 inches, height 11 feet 2 inches, and wing area 255 square feet. Weights: 7076 pounds empty, 8740 pounds gross, and 11,100 pounds maximum loaded. Armament: One 37-mm M9E1 cannon in the propeller hub with 48 rounds, a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns in the forward fuselage synchronized to fire through the propeller arc, plus a single 0.50-inch machine gun in each of two underwing gondolas 

Bell P-63D Kingcobra


I guess I'll go with a souped up F4U Corsair. The Corsair was already one of the best low level fliers WWII had, perfect for low attack battles over battleships.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 6, 2008)

The F2G turned out to be rather dissapointing in performance, while climb rate was excellent, top speed was roughly the same as the F4U-1D. And it was significantly slower than the F4U-4 and moreso F4U-5, particularly at altitude. (the critical alitude of the F2G being close to the F4U-1D in WEP) There were also stability problems. Perhaps it would have done better with a contra-rotating prop fitted.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The F2G turned out to be rather dissapointing in performance, while climb rate was excellent, top speed was roughly the same as the F4U-1D. And it was significantly slower than the F4U-4 and moreso F4U-5, particularly at altitude. (the critical alitude of the F2G being close to the F4U-1D in WEP) There were also stability problems. Perhaps it would have done better with a contra-rotating prop fitted.



The big deal about the F2G was a max speed of 399 mph at SEA LEVEL, a feat unrivaled by just about any other piston-engined plane. If you know of another that could do that, please post it. Most of the fighters we celebrate could only come close to or go over 400 mph at altitudes over 15,000 feet, usually around 20-30,000 ft. Just a guess, I bet the Russians would have loved it on lend-lease!


----------



## ccheese (Aug 6, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Again, I meant to include P-63D.



I added it for you....

Charles


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 6, 2008)

I think the Tempest II/Sea Fury, and P-51H got close to or exceeded 400 mph at SL. And the P-51B-15 at 72" Hg got pretty close too.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 6, 2008)

Oreo said:


> The big deal about the F2G was a max speed of 399 mph at SEA LEVEL, a feat unrivaled by just about any other piston-engined plane. If you know of another that could do that, please post it. Most of the fighters we celebrate could only come close to or go over 400 mph at altitudes over 15,000 feet, usually around 20-30,000 ft. Just a guess, I bet the Russians would have loved it on lend-lease!



P-51H 413 mph
Spitfire XIV 414
Tempest II 416

The F2G was strangely unsuccessful.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

davparlr said:


> P-51H 413 mph
> Spitfire XIV 414
> Tempest II 416
> 
> The F2G was strangely unsuccessful.



OK.

I admit it seems like it could have done better. Wonder, as somebody said, if a different prop would have helped, or if anything else could have been done. The Boeing XF8B with similar engine had similar performance, albeit without armament, etc. installed, but was also a much bigger plane with internal bomb bay for two 1,600 pounders, and a 2500-3000 mile range.

The corn-cob engine was continually developed for some time after the war especially for multi-engine a/c such as B-36, maybe DC-6, B-50? I can't remember what all used them. Power eventually grew to at least 3,800 hp per unit but seems to have been much better suited to multi-engine a/c.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 7, 2008)

The XP-72 also was slower than the XP-47J. Though the XP-72 did 490 mph at 25,000 ft, I'm not sure of the XP-47J's speed at that level, as the XP-47J topped out at ~507 mph at 32,000 ft. (also, these figures are both from a/c fitted with 4-blade propellers, the P-72 was supposed to have a 6-blade contra-rotating prop, but the second prototype, which got one, crashed before any useful testing had been done; the P-47J also was to get the contra-prop but the program was dropped in favor of the P-72)

Like the F2G, the XP-72 had very good rate of climb.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The XP-72 also was slower than the XP-47J. Though the XP-72 did 490 mph at 25,000 ft, I'm not sure of the XP-47J's speed at that level, as the XP-47J topped out at ~507 mph at 32,000 ft. (also, these figures are both from a/c fitted with 4-blade propellers, the P-72 was supposed to have a 6-blade contra-rotating prop, but the second prototype, which got one, crashed before any useful testing had been done; the P-47J also was to get the contra-prop but the program was dropped in favor of the P-72)
> 
> Like the F2G, the XP-72 had very good rate of climb.



Ah, yes, the XP-72. One thing to remember, which I don't fully understand-- the higher horsepower the engine, the harder it is to "use up" or make use of all the power into a propeller, as there comes to be a law of diminishing returns on the propeller's ability to grab air, and as you increase the number of blades, it becomes less efficient, and as you increase the diameter or RPM you encounter super-sonic speeds with the tips, which I guess is a very bad thing, from what I'm told, and puts kind of a practical limit on just how much horsepower can be absorbed into the air with profitable results. Any engineers out there, please feel free to elaborate on this. . . .


----------



## johnbr (Aug 8, 2008)

I like the P38k.


----------

