DAVIDICUS said:Soren, I'm still interested in knowing:
Why it would be reasonbable to accept the "N" model's initial climb rate as equal to the pre-paddle blade "D" model level.
AND
Why it would be reasonable to accept the "M" model's climb rate as only a few hundred fpm higher than the post paddle bladed "D" model when the top speed rocketed from 429mph to over 470 mph. (Keeping in mind that the 500mph XP-72 's climb rate in combat configuration was 1,700fpm higher than the post paddle bladed "D" model)
Various factors can have effects on climb rate DAVID, things such as; Wing-loading, power-loading, wing-area, wing-aspect ratio, airfoil shape and so on. (Power-loading being a very decisive one)
You must agree that an a/c with a power-loading of 4.74lbs/hp, isn't going to skyrocket at 4900ft/min ! Not even the 109 K-4 will do that !
In any case, I must agree with you DAVID, something is fishy about 'both' our data's, and this probably wont be solved before we get our hands on some reliable test-documents stating the true numbers.