Nice shots!
Bell XFM-1 Airacuda
- Thread starter Wildr1
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
C.Warren
Recruit
Thanks Wildr1, very interesting aircraft.
On the power issue, the first versions XFM-1 had turbo superchargers and the later did'nt, any ideas why?
If the guns where to be linked via the Sperry Fire Control ( GrauGeist mentions a Thermionic Director = Valves?) why were the gunners in the front engine positions?
In many ways it is very advanced design, radiators in wings, tricycle undercart, retracting top turret and who knows what else.
Lovely photos of interior.
On the power issue, the first versions XFM-1 had turbo superchargers and the later did'nt, any ideas why?
If the guns where to be linked via the Sperry Fire Control ( GrauGeist mentions a Thermionic Director = Valves?) why were the gunners in the front engine positions?
In many ways it is very advanced design, radiators in wings, tricycle undercart, retracting top turret and who knows what else.
Lovely photos of interior.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,976
- Jun 25, 2013
The gunners were there mostly to reload the guns, and as backups if the FCS failed.
wuzak
Captain
It may have been due to the reliability of those early turbochargers.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Many mid-engined aircraft (pusher or tractor) had in-flight heating issues at one point or another. Some had the problem corrected (J7W1, P-39, etc.), others didn't operate long enough to have the bugs worked out (Do335, R2Y1, etc.).
Idling on the ramp or holding in a que waiting to go is hard on any water-cooled type, which can easily overheat without airflow, like the P-40 for example.
wuzak
Captain
Any engine type, really?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Go back and re-read my post.
I said "Idling on the ramp or holding in a que waiting to go is hard on any water-cooled type".
And in that regard, yes, really.
at6
1st Sergeant
In spite of all of the Airacuda's problems, it was still an impressive looking and attractive design.
wuzak
Captain
Sorry, I thought that "Idling on the ramp or holding in a queue waiting to go" is hard on any piston engine type.
So the pilot flew the plane, and the GIB operated the FCS?
This might sound silly, but would it have been possible to have designed, from a production or (remotely) practical standpoint a twin-engine cannon-armed patrol-interceptor/escort plane (which could do the stuff the YFM-1 could do with more speed and agility) with either one crew-member and fixed forward-firing guns or, twin-crew, with a GIB operating the traversable gun?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,976
- Jun 25, 2013
Yes. In essence, this is what the Me110 could be considered. Maybe somebody other than Bell would have done better
Well, what I was talking about was designing it so it could EITHER carry traversable turrets and two crew (pilot to fly the plane, and GIB to adjust the guns), or just one crew member (only a pilot) without traversable guns.swampyankee said:
Also was there any other competitor? I've found little on this
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,976
- Jun 25, 2013
wuzak
Captain
The archives?
What archives?
From what I can tell, the Airacuda was Bell's attempt to break into the fighter business and not a specific response to a "circular proposal" which is how the USAAC solicited design proposals in those days; therefore, there wouldn't have been a specific competing design per se. It may have inspired later designs (or certain features thereof), but I haven't seen any specific mentions.
