# nice P-50 skyrocket photo



## comiso90 (Oct 29, 2008)

nice P-50 skyrocket photo


----------



## Graeme (Oct 29, 2008)

Comiso do the colours look "fake" or heavily retouched? Or is it simply the quality of the original photo?


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 29, 2008)

It would seem to me the blind spot caused by the wings and engines would be too extreme for this to be functional.

Does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of this type of design with the leading wing so far forward?


----------



## ccheese (Oct 29, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of this type of design with the leading wing so far forward?




Better visibility forward, down and to the side and aft ? 

Charles


----------



## Doubl3Ac3 (Oct 29, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> It would seem to me the blind spot caused by the wings and engines would be too extreme for this to be functional.
> 
> Does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of this type of design with the leading wing so far forward?



If i had to take a guess i'd say its ability to climb would suck. All thought it could be the opposite. im just taking a wild guess here by the looks of the design. It looks like it can dive very well but on the climb it would be really bad


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Comiso do the colours look "fake" or heavily retouched? Or is it simply the quality of the original photo?



It has more to do with the quality of the origional color photo.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 29, 2008)

If i had to guess I wuold say the original was B&W... Its not fake though.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Oct 29, 2008)

As to the design... I believe that it is because the fuselage is so short that the wing has to mounted forward for the propellers to clear the nose and I don't think they could have messed with the dimensions to much.
That is the XF5F version but the P-50 version had a lenghtened nose.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 29, 2008)

Doubl3Ac3 said:


> If i had to take a guess i'd say its ability to climb would suck. All thought it could be the opposite. im just taking a wild guess here by the looks of the design. It looks like it can dive very well but on the climb it would be really bad



Grumman named it Skyrocket as it displayed during testing an impressive initial climb rate of 4,000ft per minute. 

And you're right, during one dive test it reached 485mph.



Flyboy2 said:


> As to the design... I believe that it is because the fuselage is so short that the wing has to mounted forward for the propellers to clear the nose and I don't think they could have messed with the dimensions to much.



According to Jones (U.S Naval Fighters), the extremely short nose facilitated carrier landings by having an almost unobstructed forward/downward view. But as Thor pointed out, the large engine nacelles blocked the pilot's view of the deck landing officer. This was one reason why Grumman abandoned further development of the Skyrocket.


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 29, 2008)

Thanks, Graeme.


----------

