Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Dav, I don't believe that RB was at sea level though. I don't believe the Tempest could manage 416 mph at SL. My book shows the fastest US WW2 fighter at SL was the F4U4 at 380 mph. I know there are numbers floating about which show various other AC as faster than that but I don't believe those numbers are accurate or they are not for standard production airplanes. Same book shows P47M at about 370 mph at SL.
I am not sure you would really want to do this with the P-72, since it is about 5000 lbs heavier and only 150 hp more. Ceiling P-72-42,000, Do-37,400, range P-72-1200 miles, Do-870 miles.maybe if you want to talk about prototypes, we can start about the Do-335,
that needed to shut down an engine to be able to sustain the cruise speed of the p51d whan it was brought back to england
funny for a 10tons plane to have the same cruise speed on one engine as the half weight mono-engine fighter, don't you think?
don't get it
at the end of 44 Tank wasn't a desinger anymore, it was the General director of the Fw company!
he wasn't envolved in the engeenering of the new edged projects. and the Ta prefix was simply given by the RLM as gift to Tank for it's work for the LW. Nothing else, multhropp was a young engineer, with modern ideas.(he worked for the us after the war)
If you invent something for the company you're working for, will the final product or the prototype of this product have your name or the name of your company?
the ta 152 never has this engine , so where could i find those charts?
Just like the p72 never flew operationnaly and was never tested as it, so why bother?
Please, stop the pissing contest and let's focus on the 3 planes we can obtain real data for: p51D22/25,109G/K and the 190 (any version) and let's forget about the small series or the x-planes.ok?
I was just making comment, not arguing anything, I could care less. You could have just said my source was wrong.and about the A9:
And afterall: 3 out of 5 is SO much worse than 1 out of 2, right? That's a whole 17%.
davparir has actual experiance with aircraft I'm kinda curious about your background as to be so sure about your statementsBecause wherever the XP-72 is discussed, it is said that the Aeroproducts propeller was the intended one since torque was too extreme with the standard 4-blade. Since the crash did not seem directly related to the propeller (rather the pilot being seemingly a bit over ambitious) I see no reason not to order the safer design into production, since as mentioned that was the major (only?) difference.
For a kind of similar case the YP-80A was called into production before the respective prototype even flew.
So, which statistical test would you suggest to prove your hypothesis? My first guess is any statistical test will fail because the sample sizes are much too small (2 and 5). Feel free to correct me, it's been a while since I've done this:Actually, statistically, 3 out of 5 is much more significant that one out of two. Check it out in a good statistics book.
. Feel free to correct me, it's been a while since I've done this:
The Ta-152 wasn't in any way a high risk program, the development had been underway for some time and the a/c had been thuroughly tested as well. Furthermore the problem plagueing Ta-152 was never structural but always related to the engine and its supercharger gears. The structural design was perfect and very rugged, and like all who flew the bird mention it was a dream to fly, absolutely fantastic.