Lockheed XP-73 Mystery Plane

Draconis and Leo,

Just finished reading Doug Culy's article which touched on the L-1000 engine in the AEHS website. He indicated that the engine had never run entirely under its own power. Stated somewhat differently, the starting means was unable to overcome adverse pressure differences common to off-design operation of early axial compressors. Chapters have been written on this problem in graduate level texts. One of the best introductory treatments is in "Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion" by Hill and Peterson. Basically, an axial compressor has to either trick starting pressure differentials and flow velocities with doors that open at the proper time, or (the J-79 comes to mind) with variable pitch stators. The early L-1000/J-37 had neither.

Brute force, a powerful starter motor like the two cycle gas engines used to start Me-262, or simply directing the efflux of another jet engine into the intake (used to start reluctant F-84s) would get it up to speed. Its hard to believe that a rough and ready outfit like CW could not get it running on test. A look at the outstanding R-factor in Culy's article would certainly have gotten my attention.

Dynasoar
 
c2XttLA.png


Thanks to Rath for bringing this to my attention. The latest addition to the mystery plane thread.
The P-38-X-5 aluminum overcast. Wonder what the spin would feel like for the pilots seated in the outer cockpits.
 
Where were you when they were designing the CF-105?;)

Can you do one to order? P-51 fuselage & wing, P-39 nose & tail, 100USgal tiptanks, V1710 midships, cockpit in the nose, & 4xMG in cowl & 4xMG in cheeks?

And a B-17 with PBY gun blisters, instead of open positions? (I never understood those...)


00Request.png


I was in school when they designed the Arrow, although I have spent some time redesigning it post-cancellation. Had they bothered to ask, history may have changed. My picture was taken with John Diefenbaker, but I didn't ask for a copy.

Normal B-17s aren't my thing, but I selected some from the file. It actually came with a blister.

Your Airamustang doesn't make much sense, and I'm far too sane to try. Have you actually read what you're asking for? I'll give it some thought, but the rad and the engine seem to be in the same place.
 
I was in school when they designed the Arrow, although I have spent some time redesigning it post-cancellation. Had they bothered to ask, history may have changed.
Just out of curiosity, are you an Aero.Engineer by trade? Or did you mean school in a more general sense?

Normal B-17s aren't my thing, but I selected some from the file. It actually came with a blister.
:eek: How can B-17s not be your thing...they are gorgeous! I love that thing almost as much as I love the P-38. And, yes, the '17 was originally designed with blisters.

Your Airamustang doesn't make much sense, and I'm far too sane to try. Have you actually read what you're asking for? I'll give it some thought, but the rad and the engine seem to be in the same place
I don't know...it may be workable. The radiator will be below and slightly behind the engine. You would have to loose the fuselage tank though and blending the flat sided P-51 fuselage to the rounded nose and tail sections of a P-39 may be tricky and mess with the aero a bit.
 
View attachment 352419 Normal B-17s aren't my thing, but I
selected some from the file. It actually came with a blister.
Thx for those.
Your Airamustang doesn't make much sense, and I'm far too sane to try. Have you actually read what you're asking for? I'll give it some thought, but the rad and the engine seem to be in the same place.
Hmm... I got the impression the rad was further back, somehow, not right over the Cg, where the engine would be. I'm also thinking it wouldn't (necessarily) take up a lot of fuselage space, if it's horizontal...

Besides, it's a notional type, not a real one.:)

If, however, the notional notion has too little appeal, I won't beef if you won't do it.:)
 
0000airamustang.png
Besides, it's a notional type, not a real one.:)

Close as I'm gettin'. It doesn't fit. No tip tanks. They put them on in the depot, and they're closed. I missed the Cobra tail, and I ain't going back. Take that.

Forgot to mention that I installed a Merlin.

Edit: I just remembered. The Mustang tail is there because it's a tail dragger now, and it needs a wheel.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 352483

Close as I'm gettin'. It doesn't fit. No tip tanks. They put them on in the depot, and they're closed. I missed the Cobra tail, and I ain't going back. Take that.

Forgot to mention that I installed a Merlin.

Edit: I just remembered. The Mustang tail is there because it's a tail dragger now, and it needs a wheel.

It looks fine. Locating the oil cooler and radiator close to the engine means much shorter piping. And we got some kind of cannon poking out through the spinner. Since there's no room for a turbocharger why not a Merlin with a two stage supercharger. It is an Airamustang after all. Heck of a long turtle deck. But I like it. I don't think in real life it would've been a greatly flawed design other than having to give it a tricycle landing gear so the radiator housing can clear the ground.
 
It's been a while since there's been any activity on my mystery plane thread but somebody sent me a cool picture. Here it is.

focke_wulf_fw_230__erla_by_roen911-d6u5cuk.jpg


@EverKing I hope you get a look at this monster.
 
Last edited:
I had actually considered this very thing. If, in my TL, they are moving forward with the Bf 109 Zwilling and trying the high-altitude versions of the FW 190 (whether B, C, D, or Ta 152), why not combine the concepts and make a 190 Zwilling?
 
Top