# Curtiss XA-43 (Model 29)



## Zipper730 (Aug 21, 2018)

Since this aircraft, even if it wasn't cancelled, would probably not have made its first flight until 1946, I'm putting it under post-war aircraft.

From what I gathered on the aircraft, it seemed to have started out in late 1944 as a jet-powered attack plane for ground-support with a radius of action of 1000 nm at altitude, 600 nm at either 10,000-15,000 feet or lower. It looked like a scaled down B-45 Tornado, with a bubble canopy with tandem seating, various gun arrangements with provision for rocket-tubes in the nose, and a turret in the rear. It was around 67'6" in length, 73'0" in span, and 20'3" in height gears down.

It never entered service for the minimum reason that it could not meet the 600 nm requirement down low.

Many people thought that the XF-87 was basically a modified XA-43 that was turned into a night-fighter: That's not actually true, it was funded by the money allocated for the XA-43, but it was a different design. It bore similarities in terms of the fuselage shape, but the aircraft was smaller, the fuselage was skinnier, it had side-by-side seating instead of tandem, no tail-gun, and 4 x J34 instead of 4 x J35.

What I'm curious about is if anybody as additional information on the XA-43, particularly regarding the following

Bomb-load: I have no idea what the maximum bomb-load was
Forward armament: There were several proposed armament layouts for the nose and am unsure which were the most desired candidates
Engines: While I know it used 4 x J35s, I remember hearing from one source that it started out as a two-engined aircraft, and others said it started as a four-engined aircraft from the get-go. It was said to outgrown its engine choices, which means it might have been underpowered
Tail-gun: Was it remote controlled or manned?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 22, 2018)

Are you sure about the Model number? I show the Curtiss Model 29 being the "SX4-1" Water Glider

EDIT: Ok, it looks like they recycled their numbers.

I only see a brief blurb about it in Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947 by Bowers.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 22, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> Are you sure about the Model number? I show the Curtiss Model 29 being the "SX4-1" Water Glider


They might have recycled the numbers. CW-29 seems to also include the XA-43. 


> I only see a brief blurb about it in Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947 by Bowers.


What was mentioned in the blurb and did it mention payload?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 22, 2018)

Sadly no, from page 508:

"This two-seater (XP-87) evolved from the unbuilt Model 29, a similarly-configured attack type designed for the Army in 1945 as the XA-43. This was cancelled and the funds and the Army serial numbers were transferred to the later XP-87 Blackhawk."

This is from _American Attack Aircraft Since 1926_ by E R Johnson, page 420:

"Curtiss A-43 (F-87) (1944–1948)
In 1944, after soliciting proposals for a jet-propelled tactical bomber, the USAAF assigned project designations to Curtiss (XA-43), Convair (XA-44), and Martin (XA-45). The smallest of the three designs, the XA-43 was envisaged to have ten ﬁxed .50-caliber machine guns for straﬁng, two remotely-controlled .50-caliber guns in a tail barbette, plus two internal bomb bays in the belly of the fuselage. But in March 1945, before any construction of a prototype had taken place, the design was re-worked as the XP-87 night ﬁghter to be considered along with Northrop’s proposed XP-89. The re-designated XF-87, which made its ﬁrst flight in March 1948, became the last aircraft completed by the Curtiss-Wright Airplane Division before it shut its doors."


"


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 22, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> In 1944, after soliciting proposals for a jet-propelled tactical bomber, the USAAF assigned project designations to Curtiss (XA-43), Convair (XA-44), and Martin (XA-45). The smallest of the three designs, the XA-43 was envisaged to have ten ﬁxed .50-caliber machine guns for straﬁng, two remotely-controlled .50-caliber guns in a tail barbette, plus two internal bomb bays in the belly of the fuselage.


Okay, so we've learned something: The design was the smallest of the other two designs, the gun was remotely controlled, and there were two bomb-bays instead of one.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 24, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Bomb-load: I have no idea what the maximum bomb-load was



According to Tony Butler - 12,000 lbs.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 25, 2018)

Graeme said:


> According to Tony Butler - 12,000 lbs.


Now that's impressive -- did it specify if all that was internal?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 25, 2018)

Hopefully Alan Griffith (aka Niceoldguy58) will see this and comment, I know he has done a lot of research on attack aircraft.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 25, 2018)

I'm curious if you have anything on the XA-43, 
N
 Niceoldguy58


----------



## Graeme (Aug 25, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Now that's impressive -- did it specify if all that was internal?



I believe so Zip.


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Jan 20, 2019)

I had left a rather lengthy response here earlier tonight on what I THOUGHT were the characteristics of the XA-43. 

However, two thing bothered me: The date of the Curtiss brochure I have in my collection (December 12, 1949) and some of the details of the aircraft. 

I have determined that what I have may well be a previously-unknown attempt by Curtiss to sell the XF-87 - following its rejection as a night fighter - as a fighter bomber version powered either by J-34's or T-40 turboprops!

I will investigate the XA-43 - assuming the National Archives ever open again.

Regretfully,

Alan Griffith

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 20, 2019)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> Sorry I missed this discussion last year, but I do have some information that I can share on the XA-43.


Thanks!


> My copy of the brochure for the XA-43 differs from the information in Johnson's book, but that probably just means I'm missing information on the early design phases on this aircraft. The proposal brochure is dated 12 December 1949, so there was a lot of time in there for multiple redesigns.


Especially when it was initially proposed in 1944... up to this point, I was under the impression that the design was cancelled and the XF-87 (which was a new design) would be built on the funds of the XA-43 and (the XF-87) it flew in 1948. 


> Engines and performance: The XA-43 is shown to be powered by either four Westinghouse 24-C (J-34) jet engines or two Allison T-40 turboprop engines with 10' 10" Aero Products Supersonic propellers. The drawings show the props to have a square tip. It is clear from the rest of the brochure that the T-40 was the preferred engine.


Up to this point, I never knew there was any proposal for a propeller design (I actually thought it was J35 powered). That said, propellers usually do offer greater range and/or endurance, particularly if there were issues with range at altitudes below 10,000-15,000 feet.


> Take-off distance ground roll was estimated to be 3350 feet with the J-34's compared to the T-40's 1600. All of this was with a take-off weight with 4x20mm cannons and 16x5" HVAR's of 41,600lbs with the J-34's and 43,700lbs with the T-40's.


Weight's pretty good


> Radar in the nose was to be the APS-21 with both air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.


That's one of the three radars used on the F3D Skyknight...


> Empty weight with the T-40's was listed as 30,756lbs with nothing given for that with the J-34's. Useful load was stated as 12,951lbs. It is this useful load where things get interesting/confusing.
> 
> The Basic Armament loading - all internal - was 4x20mm fixed guns in an extended belly trough with 16 5" HVAR's carried internally behind the guns. Alternate internal loads were:
> 4x20mm fixed guns and 8 missiles (no indication WHAT missiles, but the drawings show them to be rather large).
> ...


Just to be clear, did the XA-43 have 4 x 20mm in the nose also, or were they all mounted in the belly trough? I'm surprised we had any kind of cruise missile in that timeframe. If you ever draw out the design, it'd be something interesting to see.


> There appear to be a number of additional alternate loadouts possible with the proposed aircraft.
> 
> 108 2 3/4" rockets in two extendable trays of 54 rockets each. In this case the 20mm guns do not appear to be mounted.
> 4x20mm turret on the underside of the aircraft with no internal weapons load.
> ...


I have actually wondered why nobody thought of carrying bombs on the wingtip stations (it would have given the F-104 a greatly improved payload).


> There was also an option for a Photo Reconnaissance version with cameras in the nose and T-9 radio fuse flash bombs in the internal bomb bay.


Makes sense, there was often a desire to develop variants of bombers like that.


> I hope you find this interesting.
> 
> Submitted for your consideration,


It's quite interesting, and totally different from what I expected.


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Dec 15, 2019)

Here's a spree of images of the XA-43 project.













As you'll see, the XA-43 and XF-87 may look alike, except that the XF-87 differed from the XA-43 in size.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 15, 2019)

If I read those numbers right, I get...

Length: 69'6"
Span: 73'
Height: 20'3"


----------

