Jump to content


The Next American Plane that should (at least) get the Premium Treatment...

Future Planes Premiums

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

NovaTempest #1 Posted 24 April 2018 - 01:13 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2249 battles
  • 209
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

... Duck ...

 

... Duck ...

 

... Goose?

Spoiler

 

Cross referencing J311yfish's topic here, I confirmed that while they do mention this aircraft, the XP-54, I think this plane deserves a bigger spotlight.

 

Plus it looks freakin' gorgeous if I am totally honest, If i were to fly a plane in real life, it would look like this.

 

Sure, we have the Chain lightning already in the game, but this plane would make a nicer T7, or even T6.

 

Here are the stats:

  • Crew: one, pilot
  • Length: 54 ft 9 in (16.69 m)
  • Wingspan: 53 ft 10 in (16.41 m)
  • Height: 14 ft 6 in (4.42 m)
  • Wing area: 456 ft² (42.4 m²)
  • Empty weight: 15,262 lb (6,923 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 18,233 lb (8,270 kg)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 19,337 lb (8,771 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Lycoming XH-2470-1 liquid-cooled piston engine, 2,300 shp (1,715 kW each)

Performance

  • Maximum speed: 381 mph at 28,500 ft (613 km/h at 8,700 m)
  • Range: 500 mi (805 km)
  • Service ceiling: 37,000 ft (11,300 m)
  • Rate of climb: 2,300 ft/min (11.7 m/s)
  • Wing loading: 40 lb/ft² (196 kg/m²)
  • Power/mass: 0.13 hp/lb (0.20 kW/kg)

Armament

  • 2 × 37 mm T-12/T-13 cannon 100 rds
  • 2 × .50 cal M2 Browning machine guns 580 rds

 

And finally some interesting information from Wikipedia, quote:


"The XP-54 was unique in numerous ways. The pressurized cockpit required a complex entry system: the pilot’s seat acted as an elevator for cockpit access from the ground. The pilot lowered the seat electrically, sat in it, and raised it into the cockpit. Bail-out procedure was complicated by the pressurization system and necessitated a downward ejection of the pilot and seat in order to clear the propeller arc. Also, the nose section could pivot through the vertical, three degrees up and six degrees down. In the nose, two 37 mm T-9 cannon were in rigid mounts while two .50 cal machine guns were in movable mounts. Movement of the nose and machine guns was controlled by a special compensating gun sight. Thus, the cannon trajectory could be elevated without altering the flight attitude of the airplane. The large nose section gave rise to its whimsical nickname, the Swoose Goose, inspired by a song about Alexander who was half swan and half goose: "Alexander was a swoose." "


 

Based off the armament, sheerly because it has two 37mms, I would say it would fit T7 rather nicely, considering how hard the 37mms of the P-38s hit, two of them would give it enough 'umf' against T7's I would think.

 

Thoughts?


Edited by NovaTempest, 24 April 2018 - 03:57 PM.


hoom #2 Posted 24 April 2018 - 02:11 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 3880 battles
  • 707
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Wow.

My brain is having trouble processing this thing.

Dunno whether to be impressed or aghast :amazed:

The combo of gull-wing and sweep of the inner section makes the wings look completely different from various angles, twin tail booms & single forward fuselage also create similar confusion.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

Cenotaph #3 Posted 24 April 2018 - 04:21 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2949 battles
  • 987
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
It looks like it was Frankensteined together by someone with a bunch of dead Corsairs laying around.

Edited by Cenotaph, 24 April 2018 - 06:11 PM.

I don't want to hurt you... I just want to kill you!

J311yfish #4 Posted 24 April 2018 - 12:27 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 873 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose (01/15/1943)

Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender (07/19/1943)

SAAB 21 (07/30/1943)

De Havilland Vampire (09/20/1943)

Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet (09/30/1943)

Tachikawa Ki-94-I (10/1943+)

Mitsubishi J4M (__/__/1943)

Focke-Wulf Flitzer (__/__/1944+)

Mansyu Ki-98 (destroyed 08/1945)

SAAB 21R (03/10/1947)

SNCASO SO.8000 Narval (04/01/1949)

 

It is curious that all of these pushers, many of them twin-boom, were developed around the same time.  It invites many questions -- Was there a common inspiration?  Were there spies?  salesmen?  misinformation?  fundamental realizations?  Whatever the case, here are some from earlier  --

 

Hanriot H.110 (04/__/1933)

Abrams P-1 Explorer (11/__/1937)

Fokker D.XXIII (05/30/1939)

De Schelde S.21 (__/__/1940)


Edited by J311yfish, 24 April 2018 - 12:32 PM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

Map proposals:  Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover  //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


NovaTempest #5 Posted 24 April 2018 - 03:37 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2249 battles
  • 209
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostJ311yfish, on 24 April 2018 - 12:27 PM, said:

Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose (01/15/1943)

Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender (07/19/1943)

SAAB 21 (07/30/1943)

De Havilland Vampire (09/20/1943)

Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet (09/30/1943)

Tachikawa Ki-94-I (10/1943+)

Mitsubishi J4M (__/__/1943)

Focke-Wulf Flitzer (__/__/1944+)

Mansyu Ki-98 (destroyed 08/1945)

SAAB 21R (03/10/1947)

SNCASO SO.8000 Narval (04/01/1949)

 

It is curious that all of these pushers, many of them twin-boom, were developed around the same time.  It invites many questions -- Was there a common inspiration?  Were there spies?  salesmen?  misinformation?  fundamental realizations?  Whatever the case, here are some from earlier  --

 

Hanriot H.110 (04/__/1933)

Abrams P-1 Explorer (11/__/1937)

Fokker D.XXIII (05/30/1939)

De Schelde S.21 (__/__/1940)

 

I would likely put it down as being an idea that floated around in the aviation world, sortof like how in art history we have Baroque and Impressionism, we have periods of Aviation history with biplanes, triplanes, and these pushers - among others of course.

Lambo805 #6 Posted 24 April 2018 - 03:45 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1586 battles
  • 201
  • [WG-CA] WG-CA
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Stop...STOP! 

I can only get so erect.


Seriously though it'd be cool to see this and the BTD maybe thrown in? Maybe possibly pls?

Wargaming?

Pretty please?


Me: "It's not bragging if you can do it!"

My tombstone: He was bragging.

NovaTempest #7 Posted 24 April 2018 - 03:56 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2249 battles
  • 209
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostLambo805, on 24 April 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

Stop...STOP! 

I can only get so erect.

 

EASY now hotshot, we don't want any mid-air accidents to occur.  :D

jack_wdw #8 Posted 24 April 2018 - 04:45 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 994 battles
  • 382
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostJ

It is curious that all of these pushers, many of them twin-boom, were developed around the same time.  It invites many questions -- Was there a common inspiration?  Were there spies?  salesmen?  misinformation?  fundamental realizations?  Whatever the case, here are some from earlier  --

 


Don't forget to mention the Japanese pusher planes.
A lot of their latest designs were pusher-planes.
I think these pushers are a perfect example of convergent design.

The pusher design is more aero-efficient, because the suction forward of the prop reduces flow separation, and the accelerated flow behind it is not streaming around the fuselage (or wing), where it would create additional friction drag.
Pusher planes are in general less maneuverable than pull-rotors, because of the improved stability.

Edited by jack_wdw, 24 April 2018 - 04:45 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users