PDA

View Full Version : OT: Whats the fastest propeller driven airplane?



Me (Pilot 1)
08-26-2005, 05:26 PM
answer:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0109b.shtml

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0031b.shtml

http://www.aviationtrivia.homestead.com/

etc etc

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/fastest%2B.../-/-/-/-/-/-/417/top (http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/fastest%2Bpropeller%2Bdriven/1/-/1/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/417/top)

wayno7777
08-26-2005, 05:36 PM
Some interesting and debatable results....

Badsight.
08-26-2005, 05:41 PM
whats to debate ?

the fastest prop plane ever produced has been the Tu-95 Bear ever since the 60s

wayno7777
08-26-2005, 05:44 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gifWas looking at all the results, sorry....

Badsight.
08-26-2005, 05:48 PM
the Bear :

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/5485/tu95h33sx.jpg

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/2851/tu9520cv.jpg

the Bear is powered by over 20.000 Hp

i know that at least the tail gunner is a duel 20mm , i think it has other 20mm gunner stations as well

the H Mustang remains the fastest piston/prop fighter in service (with WEP , 680 Km/h on the deck !) , Reno Racers dont count

ForkTailedDevil
08-26-2005, 05:51 PM
What about the fastest non-turbo prop? I don't mean a race version of the Bearcat. I mean military aircraft. So I was thinking of the
P-51H wasn't is capable of 487mph?

berg417448
08-26-2005, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
What about the fastest non-turbo prop? I don't mean a race version of the Bearcat. I mean military aircraft. So I was thinking of the
P-51H wasn't is capable of 487mph?



On August 4,1944 the XP-47J attained a speed of 504 mph in level fight.

Badsight.
08-26-2005, 06:02 PM
fastest Piston/Prop fighter ever to see service

424 Mp/h on the deck , 484? Mp/h at altitude , (as long as the WEP tank held water)

strongest & most manouverable Mustang ever made (somehow i doubt wingsnap would be such a problem for the H)

http://xs43.xs.to/pics/05341/P-51-H.jpg

surprisingly for a 2200 Hp plane , it had a very average sustained RoC , bested by the heavier -4 Corsair as well as many other contemporary A/C

Me (Pilot 1)
08-26-2005, 06:07 PM
I'd be interested to know if their were any "captured" German WWII engineers involved in the TU-95 project.

It's been said by fighter-pilots that escorting the TU-95 out of NATO airspace is a noisy experience because of the whistling props.

You can stip down planes of their warfighting capability and they can go fast but planes like the Bear are fast when ready to fight so to speak.

p1ngu666
08-26-2005, 07:25 PM
the bear can trace its routes back the the b29, i think

Badsight.
08-26-2005, 08:15 PM
sure your not thinking about the Tu-4 P1 ?

LEXX_Luthor
08-26-2005, 08:35 PM
I think the Tu-4 can trace its roots to pingu's B-29. Maybe.


I'd be interested to know if their were any "captured" German WWII engineers involved in the TU-95 project.
No, but USA engineers were involved. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Tu-95 was the very high end development of tech found in B-29s captured long before.

raptor619
08-26-2005, 08:54 PM
yea soviet cptured alot of b 29s that made landings in russian from japan. them damm commis alwas lie! so alot of russian bombers where based off of it. also russia has its own version of the b1.

Daiichidoku
08-26-2005, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

strongest & most manouverable Mustang ever made (somehow i doubt wingsnap would be such a problem for the H)




actually, Hs wings were not stressed for bombloads, and had no provisions for carrying them...was optimised for air super.

probably the weakest of all mustangs...but cant argue with the most manuverable part http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

overall structure was lightened, allowing for the smaller gears, itself saving weight (and eliminating the "kink" at the wing root

hollow propellor (aeroproducts?)

engine and rad cowlings and canopy were re-formed, and i believe a little more yaw angle aligned into the rudder

stainless steel exhaust shrouds

Hs stayed with ANG units back home, while weary Ds soldiered in Korea mudmoving

p1ngu666
08-26-2005, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I think the Tu-4 can trace its roots to pingu's B-29. Maybe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd be interested to know if their were any "captured" German WWII engineers involved in the TU-95 project.
No, but USA engineers were involved. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Tu-95 was the very high end development of tech found in B-29s captured long before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm maybe im wrong, but tu4 was developed, and the bear is the latest in the line?

dont really know much about it tho, always thought it was a cool aircraft tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-26-2005, 11:21 PM
Yes, Bear was the latest in the line that started with Badsight's Tu-4.

I like Tu-85 myself. That was like B-36.

Tu-85 ~~> http://legion.wplus.net/guide/air/b/tu85.shtml

You can run it through BableFish, or by paragraph if it can't translate the webbpage. You can click the pics and make them larger -- not quite pingu~esque in size, but large enough.

woofiedog
08-26-2005, 11:48 PM
First DoD estimates shown that Bear was not capable of exceeding 400 mph with range of 7,800 miles. Appearance of Tu-114 (demilitarized version of bomber with slightly greater fuselage diameter) force DoD to review its numbers on Bear: 460 mph and max. range of 6,000 miles. In April of 1960 Tu-114D set a speed-with-load record at average of over 545 mph round 5,000 miles.

In 1975 the figure for range changed to 7,800 miles and currently it is believed to be 9,200 miles with 25,000 lb load. Level speed was admitted to be 570 mph (Mach 0.82) at 25,000 ft and 520 mph (Mach 0.785) at 41,000 ft. Cruising speed of Tu-95 is 442 mph (Mach 0.67). Later versions with more powerful engines have higher performance.

Specifications (B-36J)

Crew experience
The B-36 was not a sprightly aircraft: it was one of the largest planes ever built when it was first introduced. Lieutenant General James Edmundson likened it to "...sitting on your front porch and flying your house around." However, [1] (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/filmmore/reference/interview/edmund10.html) its relatively low wing loading made it more maneuverable at high altitude than jet interceptors, which would stall in a tight turn at high altitude. (It should be noted that reports of the B-36 outmaneuvering jet fighters at altitude have tended to come from bomber crews. Perhaps not surprisingly, some fighter pilots have disputed these reports.)

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-36-1949.jpg

Despite its immense exterior size, the pressurized crew compartments were relatively cramped when occupied for 24 hours by a crew of fifteen in full flight kit. Although bunks were provided for off-duty flight crewmen in the aft compartment, most preferred to sleep in their seats. Convair rigged a couple of bunks at the top of the 12-foot-diameter radio compartment behind the flight deck.

Even an aircraft with the range of the B-36 needed to be stationed as close to the enemy as possible, and this meant far north. B-36 bases were scattered throughout the northern United States, with regular deployments to bases in Alaska. The B-36 was too large to fit in most hangars, so most "normal" maintenance (for example, changing 56 spark plugs on each of six engines, replacing dozens of bomb-bay light bulbs shattered after a gunnery mission) was performed outside in 100-degree summers and 60-below winters. Special shelters were built so that the maintenance crews could have a modicum of protection while working on the engines. Often, groundcrew risked slipping and falling from ice-covered wings, or being blown off by a propeller running in reverse pitch. Some procedures required the mechanic to sit astride the running engine, a 19-foot diameter propeller at his feet, his hand near the 34-inch diameter cooling fan.

The B-36 needed a great deal of maintenance between flights; although in an emergency an aircraft could be "turned around" in a few days for a ferry flight, it took much longer to get the airplane ready for an operational mission. In January 1951 a B-36 amassed 200 hours of flight time (8.3 standard 24-hour missions); this is apparently a record.


General characteristics
Crew: 15 €" (Pilot, co-pilot, radar/bombardier, navigator, flight engineer, two radiomen, three forward gunners, five rear gunners; reconnaissance versions added seven technicians in the photo reconnaissance compartment)
Length: 162 ft 1 in (49.40 m)
Wingspan: 230 ft 0 in (70.10 m)
Height: 46 ft 8 in (14.22 m)
Wing area: 4772 ft² (443.3 m²)
Empty: 171,035 lb (77,580 kg)
Loaded: 266,100 lb (120,700 kg)
Maximum takeoff: 410,000 lb (190,000 kg)
Powerplant (jet): 4Ӕ General Electric J47 turbojets; 5,200 lbf (23 kN) thrust each
Powerplant (prop): 6Ӕ Pratt & Whitney R-4360-53 Wasp Major radials; 3,800 hp (2,500 kW) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 439 mph (707 km/h)
Range: 8,000 miles (13,000 km)
Service ceiling: 48,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 1,920 ft/min (585 m/min)
Wing loading: 55.76 lb/ft² (272.3 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight (jet): 0.078:1 (0.078 lbf/lb, 0.76 N/kg)
Power/mass (prop): 0.086 hp/lb (120 W/kg)

Armament
16Ӕ 20 mm M24A1 cannon
86,000 lb (39,000 kg) of bombs

woofiedog
08-27-2005, 12:01 AM
B-36

http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/6BWB-36Formation.jpg

After a 20 plus hour mission, much of it above 35,000 on oxygen, we landed for special debriefings and postflight servicing at Misawa AB on northern Honshu Island, Japan. Misawa AB was an F-86D fighter base and the fighter jocks were eager to run practice intercept missions as we descended for landing. I remember them swarming all around us, and wondered how we'd face against MiGs in a featherweight aircraft. As we were the first B-36 to land at Misawa, B-36 ground handling equipment was predictably in short supply. On departure we had no tug to move us out of our nose-in parking, so we put the propellers in reverse and backed out of the parking area. We taxied down the runway to the take-off end, since the taxiway was too narrow and weight-limited for B-36 operations. We did a 180 degree turn at the end and again reversed the props and backed to the end of the runway with our tail over the overrun. Never saw an F-86 able to do that! While we were doing this, numerous spectators, mostly Japanese on bicycles, massed behind us along the perimeter fence to watch the spectacle. When we applied full take-off power on all ten engines, the aft gunners reported that the wind blast was blowing them, bicycles and all, end over end in all directions. After take-off we made a rather low altitude fly over guaranteed to rattle everything not securely tied down. Naturally, we flew a training mission during the return to Guam.

Ominae-
08-27-2005, 12:59 AM
The Tu-114 is a fun plane to fly in flight sim 2004, I should try to find the Tu-95 though, that thing is a beast! Very nice looking plane indeed.

Taylortony
08-27-2005, 05:29 AM
On 5 February 1952 a Spitfire Mk. 19 of No. 81 Squadron RAF based in Hong Kong achieved probably the highest altitude ever achieved by a Spitfire. The pilot, Flight Lieutenant Ted Powles, was on a routine flight to survey outside air temperature and report on other meteorological conditions at various altitudes in preparation for a proposed new air service through the area. He climbed to 50,000 feet (15,240 m) indicated altitude, with a true altitude of 51,550 feet (15,712 m), which was the highest height ever recorded for a Spitfire. However the cabin pressure fell below a safe level and, in trying to reduce altitude, he entered an uncontrollable dive which shook the aircraft violently. He eventually regained control somewhere below 3,000 feet (900 m). He landed safely and there was no discernible damage to his aircraft. Evaluation of the recorded flight data suggested that in the dive, he achieved a speed of 690 mph (1,110 km/h) or Mach 0.94, which would have been the highest speed ever reached by a propeller driven aircraft. Today it is generally believed that this speed figure is the result of inherent instrument errors and has to be considered unrealistic.

he had balls, big uns

see
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/SPIT.HTM

Kocur_
08-27-2005, 05:38 AM
I know thats gonna be easy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif:
fastest glider ever?

hotspace
08-27-2005, 05:41 AM
The Supermarine Mk XVI Spiteful had a Top Speed of 494 m.p.h.

http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/the_spiteful.htm

Hot Space

Low_Flyer_MkII
08-27-2005, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
I know thats gonna be easy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif:
fastest glider ever?

Apart from me with my engine shot out, you mean?
I'd hazard a guess at the Me163 Komet prototype.

Kocur_
08-27-2005, 05:50 AM
Nope http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thing I mean has propulsion, well its more like motor-glider, but still the fastest glider ever. I mean its gliding speed, not powered flight.

Slickun
08-27-2005, 06:47 AM
Space shuttle

Kocur_
08-27-2005, 08:23 AM
Space shuttle
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FatBoyHK
08-27-2005, 08:38 AM
surprisingly for a 2200 Hp plane , it had a very average sustained RoC , bested by the heavier -4 Corsair as well as many other contemporary A/C

not a surprise, laminar flow wings never give you any edge in climb performance.

Kocur_
08-27-2005, 08:45 AM
...or in turning, both for the same reasons.