# McDonnell XP-67 Moonbat



## Snautzer01 (Sep 27, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Sep 27, 2016)




----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 27, 2016)




----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 28, 2016)

beautiful aircraft ....


----------



## wuzak (Sep 29, 2016)

michaelmaltby said:


> beautiful aircraft ....



Pity about the engines.

I wonder what could have been made of the XP-67 with V-1710s and turbos rather than the IV-1430s.

In terms of performance, the XP-67 was very close/similar to the Lockheed XP-49, which also used turbo IV-1430s and was basically a tidied up P-38.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 29, 2016)

Really? I'm not so sure with all that parasitic drag from all the blended surface area.

Anyway, here is a picture of it after the engine fire:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 29, 2016)

Capt. Vick said:


> Really? I'm not so sure with all that parasitic drag from all the blended surface area.



Yes, though it appears the XP-67 peak speed was at a higher altitude.

McDonnell XP-67 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lockheed XP-49 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly they quote 1600hp for the XP-49 and 1350hp for the XP-67 engines, but the reality was that neither was likely to have much more than 1000hp available from teh engines during their test flights.



Capt. Vick said:


> Anyway, here is a picture of it after the engine fire



Nice picture. I hadn't seen that before.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 29, 2016)

I posted a few videos of teh XP-67 in the video section.

XP-67 Newsreel


----------



## Wunburra (Oct 3, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Pity about the engines.
> 
> I wonder what could have been made of the XP-67 with V-1710s and turbos rather than the IV-1430s.
> 
> In terms of performance, the XP-67 was very close/similar to the Lockheed XP-49, which also used turbo IV-1430s and was basically a tidied up P-38.



To me the McDonnell "Phantom" looked like it was an XP-67 with engines replaced by jets. All be it in a different position of course. But definitely very similar.


----------



## Thud-Dud89 (Oct 3, 2016)

Wunburra said:


> To me the McDonnell "Phantom" looked like it was an XP-67 with engines replaced by jets. All be it in a different position of course. But definitely very similar.


Definitely gives away the family origins, plus if it was angular and not curved, it would start to resemble an early F2H Banshee.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 5, 2016)

Capt. Vick said:


> Really? I'm not so sure with all that parasitic drag from all the blended surface area.
> View attachment 353786



Hey Cap'n, ever hear of interference drag? Happens when you bring two surfaces together at a sharp angle, as in fuselage/wing/nacelle. Increases dramatically as your (subsonic) mach number rises. In a go-fast high flier like the Moonbat the drag from the additional wetted area is more than offset by the reduction in interference drag, the delayed onset of transonic shockwaves, and the additional lift those blended airfoils provide. It's all about lift-over-drag, man.
Wonder what she would have done with decent engines. Pair of Darts, anyone?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 5, 2016)

Good shots!


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 5, 2016)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey Cap'n, ever hear of interference drag? Happens when you bring two surfaces together at a sharp angle, as in fuselage/wing/nacelle. Increases dramatically as your (subsonic) mach number rises. In a go-fast high flier like the Moonbat the drag from the additional wetted area is more than offset by the reduction in interference drag, the delayed onset of transonic shockwaves, and the additional lift those blended airfoils provide. It's all about lift-over-drag, man.
> Wonder what she would have done with decent engines. Pair of Darts, anyone?




Not sure what your driving at here friend. Are you saying the lack of something ("interference drag") means the lack of something else (parasitic drag)? No sure I understand your argument if that's what you mean.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 6, 2016)

Capt. Vick said:


> Not sure what your driving at here friend. Are you saying the lack of something ("interference drag") means the lack of something else (parasitic drag)? No sure I understand your argument if that's what you mean.



I think he is saying the extra parasitic drag from the extra surface area is less then the reduction in interference drag, meaning that overall it will give lower drag.

Wasn't the interference drag part of the reason the Corsair went to the inverted gull wing? The 90° junction was though to give lower drag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 6, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I think he is saying the extra parasitic drag from the extra surface area is less then the reduction in interference drag, meaning that overall it will give lower drag.
> 
> Wasn't the interference drag part of the reason the Corsair went to the inverted gull wing? The 90° junction was though to give lower drag.



Hey Cap'n, Wuzak's right. The reduction in interference drag (which is part of parasitic drag) more than compensates for the parasitic drag from the greater wetted surface. In addition, the airfoil shape of the blended fairings contributes more lift than it does drag, which only really works due to the laminar flow nature of the structure.
I read somewhere that the Corsair's gull wing was the result of having to have a short enough gear leg to fit in the wing structure, but have enough ground clearance for the propeller. The savings in interference drag I believe was a happy by-product.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 6, 2016)

You may be right, and I'm not saying you're not, but unless you can produce some sort of data to support your statements regarding this particular aircraft, than my friend, you are just blowing smoke. I honestly don't see how you could support the following two claims without access to period test reports, even if they DID address these two issues specifically.

1) The reduction in interference drag (which is part of parasitic drag) more than compensates for the parasitic drag from the greater wetted surface.

2) In addition, the airfoil shape of the blended fairings contributes more lift than it does drag, which only really works due to the laminar flow nature of the structure.

My original statement about parasitic drag was just a half-assed observation based only on my general aviation knowledge and college studies, both of which have suffered due to the passage of time.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 7, 2016)

Capt. Vick said:


> You may be right, and I'm not saying you're not, but unless you can produce some sort of data to support your statements regarding this particular aircraft, than my friend, you are just blowing smoke. I honestly don't see how you could support the following two claims without access to period test reports, even if they DID address these two issues specifically.
> 
> 1) The reduction in interference drag (which is part of parasitic drag) more than compensates for the parasitic drag from the greater wetted surface.
> 
> ...



Well Cap'n, it appears your "half-assed observation" was right on the money. In digging a little deeper on this, it seems that the advanced concepts in this case didn't pan out in real-world performance. We could argue til the cows come home about "what if" the 'bat had ever had the thrust to reach the speed regime for which it was designed, but fact is, it didn't happen. 1200 HP shy of design power is a pretty big deficit to overcome. At the higher angles of attack that the slower speeds entail, the wetted area parasite drag of the blended fairings becomes more significant; the savings in interference drag less so.
Seems McDonnell was cheated in the engine department over and over again. Not until the days of the Voodoo and the Phantom II, did he ever get engines for his planes that delivered their design thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 11, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 11, 2016)




----------



## Old Wizard (Nov 11, 2016)




----------



## johnbr (Nov 12, 2016)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 1, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 1, 2017)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 1, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 1, 2017)




----------



## fubar57 (Oct 1, 2017)

That was a great looking aircraft

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Oct 2, 2017)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 2, 2017)

The engine.
In 1932, the Army contracted with Continental for development of a cylinder with high specific power. Using the resulting Hyper No. 1 cylinder, the Air Corps instructed Continental in 1934 to develop what became the horizontally opposed O-1430 to be buried in the wings of large aircraft to improve streamlining for higher speed. However, by this time, the Air Corps decided that 746 kW (1,000 hp) engines were obsolete for bombers, and that fighter wings were too thin for a submerged installation.

By 1939, the Air Corps decided that an inverted vee was needed for improved visibility, and instructed Continental to drop the 0-1430 and begin work on the inverted I-1430. Following development problems, it was decided in 1943 that the engine could not possibly be used in the war, and only eight engines were built for experimental use. This Continental I-1430-11 was test flown in a modified Lockheed P-38 testbed aircraft.
*Physical Description*

Type: Reciprocating, V-type, 12 cylinders, water-cooled 
Only 23 I-1430 series engines were delivered. Although more powerful and lighter than the nearest competitor, the engine was not produced because tooling capacity for large scale production was not available.
*TECHNICAL NOTES:
Model:* Continental I-1430 Hyper
*Type:* 12-cylinder, liquid-cooled, inverted Vee
*Displacement:* 1,430 cu.in.
*Horsepower:* 1,600
*RPM:* 3,200
*Weight (dry):* 1,615 lbs.

Power rating: 2,386 kW (3,200 hp) at 3,200 rpm
Displacement: 23.4 L (1,426 cu in.)
Bore and Stroke: 140 mm (5.5 in.) x 127 mm (5 in.)
Weight: 732.6 kg (1,615 lb)


----------



## wuzak (Oct 2, 2017)

johnbr said:


> This Continental I-1430-11 was test flown in a modified Lockheed P-38 testbed aircraft.



Would that have been the XP-49?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 2, 2017)

The story is that when installed in the XP-67 or XP-49 the engine barely made over 1000hp. 

And that the XP-67 pilot deliberately destroyed the engine by overheating it.


----------



## johnbr (Oct 7, 2017)

The final McDonnell design, the McDonnell XP-67 "Bat" or "Moonbat", was powered by a pair of engines in wing-mounted nacelles with 4-bladed propellers in a tractor configuration. However, the design was quite ambitious; the design team tried to maintain a true airfoil section through the center fuselage, merge the rear portions of the engine nacelles with the wing, and radically fillet all edges of the fuselage and nacelles into the wings in an effort to reduce drag. The design used laminar airfoil sections throughout. The production aircraft was intended to have a pressurized cockpit, a novel innovation at the time. Although the design was conceptually advanced, it was beset by numerous problems and never approached its anticipated level of performance. The project was cancelled after the sole completed prototype, which first flew on January 6, 1944, was destroyed by an engine fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 7, 2017)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 11, 2017)

The McDonnell Moonbat was a prototype interceptor aircraft. Upstart aerospace parts manufacturer McDonnell Aircraft was eager to begin manufacturing its own aircraft. The advanced design never approached its anticipated level of performance. The project was cancelled in September 1944 after the sole completed prototype was destroyed by an engine fire. Its first flight was in January 1944.

On 30 September 1941, McDonnell received a contract for two prototypes, a wind tunnel model, and associated engineering data. The Model IIa was designated as the XP-67.

Photos are of Project #*85* in February 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Oct 11, 2017)

Xp-67 engine 
https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic..._with_Continental_XIV-1430-17/19_Hyper_Engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 11, 2017)




----------



## Old Wizard (Oct 12, 2017)




----------



## johnbr (Feb 4, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Feb 4, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Feb 4, 2019)

Type: Long Range Fighter​Origin: McDonnel Aircraft Corporation​Crew: One​Model: XP-67​First Flight: January 6, 1944​Production: 1 Prototype​Engine:​Model: Continental XI-1430-17/19​Type: 12-Cylinder inverted-Vee aircooled engine​Number: Two Horsepower: 1,350 hp​Dimensions:​Wing span: 55 ft. 0 in.​Length: 44 ft. 9.25 in.​Height: 15 ft. 9 in.​Lifting Surface Area: 414 sq. ft.​Weights:​Empty: 17,745 lb.​Loaded: 22,114 lb.​Maximum: 25,400 lb.​​Performance:​Maximum Speed: 405 mph at 25,000 ft.​Maximum Speed: 357 mph at 10,000 ft.​Maximum Climb Rate: 2,600 ft./min.​Service Ceiling: 37,400​Maximum Range: 2,385 miles​Armament: Proposed​Six 37mm M4 cannon mounted in wing roots​Ammunition: 45 rounds per gun.​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Feb 4, 2019)

The XP-67 was the first attempt by the McDonnell corporation to build a fighter for the United States Military. The same corporation would go on to built the superb F-4 Phantom II, F-15 Eagle and F-18 Hornet air superiority and strike fighters would initially see some bumps in the road, led by none other than James S. McDonnell himself.

McDonnell had acquired a substantial amount of aeronautics education in his schooling (Princeton), having served with the Army Air Service and ultimately various aircraft manufacturers. With one successful design under his belt (stalled by the arrival of The Great Depression), McDonnell sought to earn his own wings under his own banner. Thusly, the McDonnell company was born and looked to make some quick connections with the US Military.

The XP-67 was such a connection. A very ambitious design in every sense of the word, the fighter was intended to be the Allied answer to killing enemy bombers in the sky. The formidable aircraft would undertake a radial design that saw the entire aircraft visually flattened from end to end. The twin engine system would have its engines forged straight into the large wing area generating a stable about of air flow, drag and lift. The single-seat cockpit was planned to be pressurized and the aircraft was designed to reach top speeds close to 500 miles per hour. Alas, the final product would not come close to matching those specifications - a project too ambitious for the time.

Armament of the XP-67 initially consisted of a 6 x 12.7mm machine gun array with an additional 4 x 20mm cannon. This was later upgraded to a 6 x 37mm cannon system with speculative designs also featuring a single massive 1 x 75mm cannon. In any respect, the XP-67 would have been the consummate bomber-killer that McDonnell and the US Military had envisioned from the beginning. Unfortunately, the intended armaments were never added to the prototype system itself.

With the first prototype rolling out in December of 1943, it quickly became apparent that the engines would be prone to catching fire. With the engines held deep in the nacelles, the fire would have already begun to spread uncontrollably before being noticed, adding an unacceptable element of danger to the design. Cooling of the engine also became an issue throughout testing and the turbo chargers never lived up to expectations.

By 1944, with Germany's air force concentrating mostly on its fighter designs, the need for a true dedicated bomber-killer was no longer. As a result, the Army saw fit to cancel the XP-67 project. A second XP-67 - this one with a jet powerplant in the rear along with the two propeller engines - was almost complete when the cancellation call came in.

With the effective death of the XP-67 and lessons learned, the McDonnell corporation would turn its attention to the arrival of the jet age and begin a production run of very successful aircraft. Had the XP-67 been allowed to fly, had its engine issues ironed out and had Germany still maintained a bomber force to be reckoned with, the XP-67 would have quite possibly been the Allied answer to combat the Reich in this fashion.
Dimensions:
Length: 44.78ft (13.65m)
Width: 54.99ft (16.76m)
Height: 15.81ft (4.82m)

Performance: (About MACH)
Maximum Speed: 270mph (434kmh; 234kts)
Maximum Range: 2,384miles (3,836km)
Rate-of-Climb: 2,600ft/min (792m/min)
Service Ceiling: 37,999ft (11,582m; 7.2miles)
Structure:
Accommodation: 1
Hardpoints: 0
Empty Weight:17,749lbs (8,051kg)
Maximum Take-Off Weight:25,399lbs (11,521kg)
Powerplant:
Engine(s): 2 x Continental XIV-1430-17/19 radial engines generating 1,600hp each.

Armament Suite:
Original:
6 x 12.7mm machine guns
4 x 20mm cannons 
Updated Design:
6 x 37mm cannons

Planned:
1 x 75mm cannon 
Boeing Images - Search Result

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Sep 11, 2019)

[WIP] McDonnall XP-67 Moonbat

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Aug 9, 2020)

McDonnell XP-67 Interceptor Vintage WWII Prototype Plane Military Aviation Photo

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Aug 9, 2020)




----------



## fubar57 (Aug 13, 2020)




----------



## Gnomey (Aug 17, 2020)

Nice shot!


----------

