Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI? (2 Viewers)

[PAT303]

It's heavy and can't climb like the others, any good pilot facing the Jug will go into a vertical fight and get above it, the Spitfire and Ta 152 would defiantly do a climbing turn then reverse and boom and zoom it.

 

[mig-31bm]

It's heavy and can't climb like the others, any good pilot facing the Jug will go into a vertical fight and get above it, the Spitfire and Ta 152 would defiantly do a climbing turn then reverse and boom and zoom it.

Number wise (if we asume engineer estimate of XP-72 is correct), then it is the one with highest rate of climb. Even higher than XP-51G

Spiteful: 4890 ft/min (24.8 m/s) at 2000 ft. No additional information

XP-72 with twin props: 5250 ft/min (26.67 m/s) at sea level, take 3.8 min to climb to 20,000 ft

P-51H: 5120 ft/min (26 m/s) at sea level, take 4.58 min to climb to 20,000 ft

XP-51G: take 3.58 min to climb to 20,000 ft

F4U-5: 4840 ft/min (24.58 m/s) at sea level, take 4.7 min to climb to 20,000 ft

 

[PAT303]

Number wise (if we asume engineer estimate of XP-72 is correct), then it is the one with highest rate of climb. Even higher than XP-51G

Spiteful: 4890 ft/min (24.8 m/s) at 2000 ft. No additional information

XP-72 with twin props: 5250 ft/min (26.67 m/s) at sea level, take 3.8 min to climb to 20,000 ft

P-51H: 5120 ft/min (26 m/s) at sea level, take 4.58 min to climb to 20,000 ft

XP-51G: take 3.58 min to climb to 20,000 ft

F4U-5: 4840 ft/min (24.58 m/s) at sea level, take 4.7 min to climb to 20,000 ft

It's not good to assume, I'd like to see hard evidence on the XP-72 instead of theoretical. It's a heavy aircraft.

 

[hobbes154]

The exhaust pipe is tiny compared to the intake air system. Look at the following diagram.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ae/a4/f6/aea4f68bbd489e9845cf8b33207edc97.jpg

Not much space is freed

A little OT but I never understood why the P-47 air intake was at the front of the plane requiring all that bulky ductwork underneath the pilot? The air is first "used" in the turbocharger behind the pilot so why not a scoop at rear similar to the Mustang radiator?

As shown in post #26 the intake was moved back a bit on the XP-72 but still underneath the pilot rather than behind (I don't think the mechanical 2nd stage vs the turbo should make any difference, that only replaces exhaust ducting with a driveshaft).

From this thread perhaps a rear intake would suck up too much dust etc (presumably engines are more sensitive than radiators)?