Sea fang vs Sea fury vs XP-72

[mig-31bm]

These are all fighter that come way too late to have any impact in the war. They also get overshadowed because they simply can't compete with jet aircraft
But let say if jet engine development get delayed for another decade and these aircraft are produced in large number
How would they compare? in speed, turn rate , climb rate ...etc

Supermarine seafang

Sea fury

XP-72

 

[wuzak]

I'm not sure how fast the XP-2 actually went, but the Seafang was the faster and better climber of the other two,.

The Sea Fury had a longer range, however. That would make it better for missions other than interceptor.

The Sea Fury and Seafang both had 4 Mk.V Hispano 20mm cannon and were both rated to carry 2,000lb of bombs. The Sea Fury was rated for up to 16 rockets, the Seafang only 4.

The Sea Fury may, or may not, have been the lesser fighter, but it was far more versatile. That was important in a carrier aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

XP-72 top speed was 490 mph

Republic XP-72

 

[GregP]

Republic XP-72:
First Flight: 1944
Power: Pratt & Whitney R-4360; 3,500 hp
Empty:11,476 lbs
Gross: 14,433 lbs
Max: 17,490 lbs
Max Speed: 490 mph
Rate of Climb: 5,280 fpm
Service Ceiling: 42,000 ft
Range: 1,200 mi
Wing Area: 300 sq ft
W/L Gross: 48.11 lbs / sq ft

Supermarine Seafang:
First Flight: 1946
Power: Griffon 89; 2,350 hp
Empty:8,000 lbs
Gross: 10,450 lbs
Max: N/A
Max Speed: 475 mph
Rate of Climb: 4,630 fpm
Service Ceiling: 41,000 ft
Range: 393 mi
Wing Area: 210 sq ft
W/L Gross: 49.76 lbs / sq ft

Supermarine Spiteful:
First Flight: 1944
Power: Griffon 69; 2,375 hp
Empty:7,350 lbs
Gross: 9,950 lbs
Max: N/A
Max Speed: 483 mph
Rate of Climb: 4,890 fpm
Service Ceiling: 42,000 ft
Range: 564 mi
Wing Area: 210 sq ft
W/L Gross: 47.38 lbs / sq ft

Hawker Sea Fury F.B 11:
First Flight: 1945
Power: Bristol Centaurus; 2,480 hp
Empty:9,240 lbs
Gross: 12,350 lbs
Max: 14,650 lbs
Max Speed: 460 mph
Rate of Climb: 4,320 fpm
Service Ceiling: 35,800 ft
Range: 780 mi
Wing Area: 280 sq ft
W/L Gross: 44.11 lbs / sq ft

Looks like the fastest, quickest-climbing, longest-range aircraft was the XP-72, with the Sea Fury coming in at the lowest wing loading, but not by much. All of then should be pretty close in turning circles, and all were pretty darned good airplanes. The Seafang doesn't look too useful just due to no range, but would be a very potent fleet defense fighter.

I'd probably choose the Spiteful if maintenance costs were to be a post-war issue (they were), but otherwise would take the XP-72, which didn't get accepted probably largely due to the start of the jet age combined with the end of the war meaning greatly-reduced procurement to a large degree from sharply-reduced need for better airplanes than they were already ending the war with. Any money left likely went into jets ... and the Skyraider, at least for the U.S.A., when pistons were reduced to being bomb trucks since the whizbang early jets were lousy at doing the job of close ground support.

 

[mig-31bm]

Republic XP-72:
First Flight: 1944
Power: Pratt & Whitney R-4360; 3,500 hp
Empty:11,476 lbs
Gross: 14,433 lbs
Max: 17,490 lbs
Max Speed: 490 mph
Rate of Climb: 5,280 fpm
Service Ceiling: 42,000 ft
Range: 1,200 mi
Wing Area: 300 sq ft
W/L Gross: 48.11 lbs / sq ft

Supermarine Seafang:
First Flight: 1946
Power: Griffon 89; 2,350 hp
Empty:8,000 lbs
Gross: 10,450 lbs
Max: N/A
Max Speed: 475 mph
Rate of Climb: 4,630 fpm
Service Ceiling: 41,000 ft
Range: 393 mi
Wing Area: 210 sq ft
W/L Gross: 49.76 lbs / sq ft

Supermarine Spiteful:
First Flight: 1944
Power: Griffon 69; 2,375 hp
Empty:7,350 lbs
Gross: 9,950 lbs
Max: N/A
Max Speed: 483 mph
Rate of Climb: 4,890 fpm
Service Ceiling: 42,000 ft
Range: 564 mi
Wing Area: 210 sq ft
W/L Gross: 47.38 lbs / sq ft

Hawker Sea Fury F.B 11:
First Flight: 1945
Power: Bristol Centaurus; 2,480 hp
Empty:9,240 lbs
Gross: 12,350 lbs
Max: 14,650 lbs
Max Speed: 460 mph
Rate of Climb: 4,320 fpm
Service Ceiling: 35,800 ft
Range: 780 mi
Wing Area: 280 sq ft
W/L Gross: 44.11 lbs / sq ft

Looks like the fastest, quickest-climbing, longest-range aircraft was the XP-72, with the Sea Fury coming in at the lowest wing loading, but not by much. All of then should be pretty close in turning circles, and all were pretty darned good airplanes. The Seafang doesn't look too useful just due to no range, but would be a very potent fleet defense fighter.

I'd probably choose the Spiteful if maintenance costs were to be a post-war issue (they were), but otherwise would take the XP-72, which didn't get accepted probably largely due to the start of the jet age combined with the end of the war meaning greatly-reduced procurement to a large degree from sharply-reduced need for better airplanes than they were already ending the war with. Any money left likely went into jets ... and the Skyraider, at least for the U.S.A., when pistons were reduced to being bomb trucks since the whizbang early jets were lousy at doing the job of close ground support.

Those are very interesting number
So XP-72 eventhough being developed much earlier, still far superior to seafang and sea fury?. Is it faster at all altitude?.
Is US that much better than British in developing fighter

 

[tomo pauk]

Is US that much better than British in developing fighter

Roundels were the problem.
Paint a star and it is a much better fighter. Paint the iron cross and it is an even better.

 

[wuzak]

Those are very interesting number
So XP-72 eventhough being developed much earlier, still far superior to seafang and sea fury?. Is it faster at all altitude?.
Is US that much better than British in developing fighter

The XP-72 was only a few months ahead of the Spiteful in development.

The Fury was a few months behind the Spiteful.

The Sea Fury and Seafang were later developments.

The Spiteful and Sea Fury both went into production, though Spiteful production was limited.

Only 2 prototypes of the XP-72 were built. The performance of the prototypes didn't always translate to production machines. The Seafang and Sea Fury performance numbers are for production aircraft.

Also, the Sea Fury and Seafang could land on a carrier.

 

[wuzak]

Also, Spiteful development started earlier than the XP-72. Small matters like improving Spitfire performance to help win the war kept getting in the way.

 

[mig-31bm]

The XP-72 was only a few months ahead of the Spiteful in development.

The Fury was a few months behind the Spiteful.

The Sea Fury and Seafang were later developments.

The Spiteful and Sea Fury both went into production, though Spiteful production was limited.

Only 2 prototypes of the XP-72 were built. The performance of the prototypes didn't always translate to production machines. The Seafang and Sea Fury performance numbers are for production aircraft.

Also, the Sea Fury and Seafang could land on a carrier.

Sea fang and sea fury don't even seem faster than F4U-4 or P-51H

 

[tomo pauk]

Sea fang and sea fury don't even seem faster than F4U-4 or P-51H

P-51H set the bar pretty low - I mean, unable to to 500 mph in a level flight on a piston engine?? Loser aircraft.

 

[wuzak]

Sea fang and sea fury don't even seem faster than F4U-4 or P-51H

Spiteful was every bit as fast as P-51H. Seafang was slower because of carrier equipment, but faster than the F4U-4.

The Sea Fury was about the same speed as the F4U-4, but at a lower altitude - the Sea Fury only having a single stage supercharger.

 

[GrauGeist]

I beleive the F4U-5 was the fastest of the production Corsairs, with a max. of 470mph.

 

[dedalos]

Why the super duper p51 h was never sent to combat, in any conflict? Instead earlier d models were prefered ....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Why the super duper p51 h was never sent to combat, in any conflict? Instead earlier d models were prefered ....

"The P-51H was too late to see action in the war in Europe. By the late summer of 1945, some P-51Hs had been issued to a few operational units. These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender. None had the opportunity to see any combat. At the time of V-J Day, 555 P-51Hs had rolled off the Inglewood production lines. With the coming of peace, orders for 1445 more P-51Hs were cancelled, along with the entirety of the order for the Dallas-built P-51Ms after only one example (45-11743) had been completed."

North American P-51H Mustang

 

[SaparotRob]

What's a P-51M?

 

[SaparotRob]

Grabbing my coat. Bye.

 

[GregP]

Those are very interesting number
So XP-72 eventhough being developed much earlier, still far superior to seafang and sea fury?. Is it faster at all altitude?.
Is US that much better than British in developing fighter

I don't think the U.S.A. was "much better" at developing weapons than anyone else. Our airplanes were good, at least the post-1942 versions were, but so were everyone else's. Anyone who says the Germans didn't develop good warplanes never got into a fight with one (or more) of them. British aircraft and pilots were renowned for having a go at anything flying. The actual airframe performance of the Spitfire (and others) was always outstanding. The Japanese pilots and airplanes were excellent, at least early-on in the war, before they lost a lot of veterans and failed to update their front-line equipment in greater numbers. The same can be said of most any air force that got to fight enough to learn aerial combat tactics and employ them correctly. The Soviet Union took a little longer just due to outdated aircraft at first and inability to let their pilots think for themselves. In the end, Soviet pilots and aircraft were right up there with anyone else.

We got a good one in the XP-72, but it came right when a better airplanes was not particularly needed as the war was winding down, so it never got adopted. Had it been adopted, it would have shown sparkling performance at the cost of heavy maintenance. Have you ever tried to change 56 spark plugs? Just getting an R-4360 started after it sits for a week or two is several hours of oily labor to drain the bottom cylinders. You'd likely have to remove 18 - 20 spark plugs from the bottom cylinders and turn it over by hand to clear the oil accumulation.

But, when it is running right, it CAN and DID give pretty decent performance. The numbers I showed above came from a quick online lookup of performance, not actual flight test reports. I don't think I've ever seen an actual flight test report on the XP-72. But, when we want to compare, we use the numbers we can find.

Do you have information that the numbers above are incorrect? If so, post it, by all means. I'd love to see flight test reports showing the performance seen during testing rather then reported in reference books with backup data cited but not shown.

 

[dedalos]

"The P-51H was too late to see action in the war in Europe. By the late summer of 1945, some P-51Hs had been issued to a few operational units. These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender. None had the opportunity to see any combat. At the time of V-J Day, 555 P-51Hs had rolled off the Inglewood production lines. With the coming of peace, orders for 1445 more P-51Hs were cancelled, along with the entirety of the order for the Dallas-built P-51Ms after only one example (45-11743) had been completed."

North American P-51H Mustang

What about korean war?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What about korean war?

The P-51D was more plentiful, sturdier and had a better supply chain so the P-51H remained stateside.

 

[Shortround6]

One book lists production of numbers for the R-4360 of 11 engines in 1943, 27 engines in 1944 and a whopping number and 114 engines in 1945, that might be through Aug of 1945?

But at any case, the R-4360 was not at the standard of reliability in 1944-45 that the US needed in 1945. The US could get by with R-2800s while the R-4360s actually sorted out.

The British were in a similar situation. The British were in budget situation, the war was winding wind down or ended and the British forces wanted more fully developed planes with better longevity than some of the 1945 type aircraft.

Trying to read into the different requirements a race that didn't exist between the different companies or programs seems a bit foolish.