Bell XFM-1 Airacuda

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Wildr1

Senior Airman
559
617
Mar 4, 2016
XFM-1 was developed by the Bell Aircraft Corp. during the mid-1930s. It was the first military aircraft produced by Bell. Originally designated the Bell Model 1, the Airacuda first flew on 1 September 1937. The Airacuda was marked by bold design advances and considerable flaws that eventually grounded the aircraft.

The Airacuda was Bell Aircraft's answer for a "bomber destroyer" aircraft. Although it did see limited production, and one fully operational s quadron was eventually formed, only one prototype and 12 production models were ultimately built, in three slightly different versions.

The Airacuda was plagued with problems from the start. The lofty performance estimates were unobtainable as, despite its sleek looks, the Airacuda was heavy and was slower than most bombers. In the event of interception by enemy fighters, the Airacuda was not maneuverable enough to dogfight. Even the 37 mm cannons were of less value than predicted. The cannons had a tendency to fill the gun nacelles with smoke whenever fired and, additionally, fears persisted as to how the gunners would escape in an emergency, with the propellers directly behind them. An emergency bailout would have required both propellers to be feathered, though additional provision was made with the use of explosive bolts on the propellers to jettison them in the event of a bailout.

Despite these problems, one fully operational Airacuda squadron was eventually assembled, and operated from 1938 until 1940. Funds were appropriated, but never released, for the purchase of two groups of Airacudas. Continuing problems gave the aircraft a reputation as "hangar queens".

~ ac 329 Airacuda XFM-1 1.jpg

~ ac 345.jpg
33168571510_67735d763d_b.jpg
Bell XFM-1 Airacuda 36-351 prototype_1.jpg
Bell XFM-1 Airacuda 36-351 prototype-1.jpg
 
Interesting, innovative failures.

Of course, part of the reason for failure was an intrinsically flawed specification, but a major part was poor design work by Bell.
 
What specification should have been issued?

One that wouldn't result in the YFM-1 ;)

To start, fixed main armament, crew of one or two, and speed within 5% of the single seat fighters to enter service at the same time.
 
One that wouldn't result in the YFM-1 ;)
So simple, but I completely understand what you're saying.
To start, fixed main armament, crew of one or two, and speed within 5% of the single seat fighters to enter service at the same time.
Okay, so that would yield
  • Top speed 325-380 mph
  • Crew either consisting of a pilot, or pilot & radio-operator/fire-control guy
 
I didn't quite realise how large the X/YFM-1 was.

A wing span of 69ft 10in is 16.5ft more than a Bf110.
Length is only 4ft longer the the Bf110.

Empty weight was nearly 3,500lb greater than the Bf110.

All on, roughly, the same power.

The wingspan was greater than a Martin B-26/B-26A, and only 14in less than the B-26B. The span was a little over 2ft more than a B-25.
 
The ideologies of the 1930's were of an entirely different mindset, mostly rooted in memories of the "Great War".
The Battleship was the ruler of the Seas and the Bomber was the arch-enemy of civilization.

As a new decade dawned, there came a shock of cold, harsh reality and the days of the Battlship, "heavy fighters", bomber destroyers and other such holdovers from an earlier time became irrelevant.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back