|  Base model:||P-72|
|  Designation System:||U.S. Air Force|
|  Designation Period:||1925-1947|
|  Basic role:||Pursuit|
Known serial numbers
|43-6598 / 43-6599, 43-36598 / 43-36599
Recent comments by our visitors
| T. Fey|
| The contra-prop XF-11 #1 used the Hamilton-Standard "Superhydromatic" prop, as did the Douglas Sky Pirate and the XB-35's. They did not use the Aeroproducts contra prop. |
04/02/2010 @ 16:57 [ref: 25968]
| Danny Brown|
| I served in the army 68-70 was stationed at aberdeen proving grounds. Am certain that I saw one of these while on gaurd duty behind the fence. It was used for fire control practice. At the time I first saw it was miffed as a know it all I knew it couldnt be a p47, only a corsair was built with a 4360. But this plane didnt have bentwings. How could I have been wrong. A trip to the post library educated me quickly. A book there reported that 6 p47s w/4360s had been built. Weeks later another trip behind the fence and crawling all over this plane convinced me that it was indeed a p47 plus 4360. I wonder if its still there. |
10/23/2009 @ 20:22 [ref: 25213]
| Mark Sublette|
Falls Church, VA
| The correct serials for the two XP-72s were 43-36598/36599. I have traced the incorrect four-digit serials to an info box printed in Wings magazine, August 1974, page 42. The actual aircraft that were 43-6598/6599 were P-51B-5-NAs. I am trying to pinpoint the date of the crash-on-takeoff of XP-72 43-36599 from the Caldwell, N.J. airport. Can anybody help? |
09/22/2008 @ 12:21 [ref: 22714]
| CW4 B. Thomason|
| I recently sat and talked to Ken Jernstedt(Flying Tiger Ace and Republic Test Pilot) He flew the XP-72 on it's last flight. He said he was going to show off and do a max performance take off. The supercharger blew on takeoff, showering the cockpit with hot oil. He had to fly a left pattern, half blind to crash land the aircraft back on the field. He said they cancelled the program the next day. He is a very nice guy. What a thrill to meet him! |
05/25/2007 @ 18:13 [ref: 16603]
| The second XP-72 prototype flew with the Aeroproducts six-blade contra-rotating prop. This prop also equipped other high performance piston engined aircraft, such as Howard Hughes' XF-11.
Noone got any useful data about performance with the Aeroproducts prop, because the second prototype only flew a few times, before an accident on takeoff ended its career.
04/29/2007 @ 19:31 [ref: 16352]
| There was suposed to be a counter rotating prop version.
This version was never made but it was supposed to run on a ~3500hp engine
04/06/2007 @ 09:52 [ref: 16113]
| Nathanael Wilde|
| I haven't read anything that gave any indication of the R-4360 Wasp Major not being used in the XP-72. There were a number of "odd" engines under developement by various manufacturers during the war as alternatives to engines already in use by other aircraft (the double wasp for example was used in five(?) different fighters by the end of the war). Most of these weren't impressive enough to be persued, Merlin variants and Wasps had 10+ years of maturity already making them difficult to compete with.
So, it's quite possible Chysler was developing something (probably in the 24 cylinder "H" variety), but it most likely wouldn't have been used if history with other projects is any indication.
As for the speed of prop aircraft, that's fairly debatable. Most would reason that piston power reaches its practical limits at 500mph (~.8 Mach, acheived by XP-47J). Turboprop aircraft have flown SS, but none reached service because the fully SS prop made an amazing noise on the ground preventing anyone, including the pilot, from wanting to get within a mile of the plane. With swept critical airfoil wings, area ruling, and all moving tails, I'm sure a transonic (~.9 M) piston fighter would have been possible, but why go to the trouble?
01/17/2005 @ 01:40 [ref: 9160]
| C. W. Todd|
| I have an XP-72 poster that came with my Air & Space magazine. The poster was sponsored by Chrysler and reveals that the Hemi engine was developed for use in this plane. Of course, the war ended, jet engines happened and this plane was canceled.
Can anyone comment on this? Was there really a contract or agreement to build these engines? Would this have been a breakthrough engine as Chrysler describes?
If they would have used swept wings on this plane as they did in the early jets, how fast could these prop planes have been?
11/03/2004 @ 14:51 [ref: 8548]
| I believe that most of the foregoing is correct. The version of the XP-72 that hit 480 M.P.H. was the first of the two experimentals with the pre-production R-4360-13 with 3,000 H.P. Mr. Bodie lists no actual 490 M.P.H. (the maximum speed of the aircraft) flights. He lists the maximum speed of the projected production P-72,with the R-4360-19 (3,500 H.P.) at 504 M.P.H. With the "N" wing, I would estimate a 499 M.P.H. maximum and, of course, a range of at least 1,500 miles. I would be extremely skeptical of estimates of 540-550 M.P.H. for advanced 4,000 H.P. P-72's. |
04/28/2002 @ 17:20 [ref: 4817]
| caryn elizabeth mallard|
| The only *actual* recorded speed for the XP-72 was w/out the supercharger; it hit 480 MPH at around 3,200 feet. Given the contra-rotating props and the "infintely variable" supercharing with a developed Wasp Major, Republic figured the a/c could reach 550 mph (ie, the theoretical limit for the plane). And yet....it was still cancelled. One point to keep in mind, is that manufacturers nearly always overstated the "calculated" performance figures for their designs (eg, F2A Buffalo, P-39 Airacobra). Another, less popular point of contention is that US numbers for US planes tend to run around 10-15 mph over the actual figures for certain planes (esp. the P-47 and the P-51). Still, imagine an Arado 234 pilot's surprise over England in Jan. 45 when he cannot outrun the "P-47" fighter on his tail! |
12/16/2001 @ 04:26 [ref: 3842]
Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /usr/web/database/aircraft/userimgs.inc on line 8