Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?

[Admiral Beez]

Lycoming's Leviathan: XR-7755, the Largest U.S. Aircraft Engine of World War II

Lycoming, supplier of engines to Auburn, Cord, and Duesenberg, has an additional claim to fame: builder of the XR7755, the largest U.S. aircraft engine of World War II. As part of E.L. Cord’s vast corporate empire, Lycoming Aircraft Engines … Continue reading →

www.macsmotorcitygarage.com

 

[fannum]

One of the few built is at NASM, last seen at the Garber facility. It dwarfs a R-4360.
Intended for a global bomber, if you consider the mass of the engine, the "fighter" would be larger than a B-17.
Then, consider how large the prop would have to be ... the landing gear would make those on the F8F look short and stubby.

 

[wuzak]

From Wiki:

Lycoming XR-7755 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Diameter: 61 in (1,500 mm)
Dry weight: 6,050 lb (2,740 kg)
Fuel consumption: ≈ 580 gal/h (480 imp gal/h; 2,200 L/h)

It will need a lot of fuel!

The XR-7755 weighs roughly the same as a Spitfire Mk.V.

It would have to be a hell of an aircraft.

Might have to do something like the McDonnell Model 1 proposal with a central engine and a system of driveshafts to a pair of propellers on the wings.

McDonnell Aircraft Corporation Model 1

The McDonnell Model 1 was an unorthodox high-performance fighter. The 1940 design proved too advanced and did not progress beyond the design phase. However, it did inspire the McDonnell XP-67.

oldmachinepress.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

The XR-7755 weighs roughly the same as a Spitfire Mk.V. It would have to be a hell of an aircraft.

I was picturing something like a 3x scale Granville Gee Bee Super Sportster. But as a fighter, of sorts

 

[SaparotRob]

I was picturing something like a 3x scale Granville Gee Bee Super Sportster. But as a fighter, of sorts

I know I did.

 

[GrauGeist]

While it would be a challenge to stuff it into a single engine fighter, it wouldn't be impossible.

There were several fighter types that trialled the R-4360, which was also a monster:
Republic XP-72
Goodyear F2G
Boeing XF8B

Plus these other single engine types:
Vultee XA-41
Douglas XTB2D
Martin AM
Curtiss XBTC-2

 

[GrauGeist]

By the way, I got to thinking:
The Douglas A-1 had the R-3350 installed and if you look at photos of the Spad, the cowling looks small compared to the rest of the airframe.

The Cyclone was 55 inches in diameter and 6 feet long, making it 6 inches narrower and about 4 feet shorter than the R-7755.

 

[Shortround6]

The Cyclone was 55 inches in diameter and 6 feet long, making it 6 inches narrower and about 4 feet shorter than the R-7755.

It fits !!!
Now if we just shove hundreds of pounds of ballast in the tail to make up the extra extra 2400-2600lbs of engine weight.

I KNOW, turn it into a twin a shove an R-2800 in the tail !!!
CG problem solved.

 

[GrauGeist]

It fits !!!
Now if we just shove hundreds of pounds of ballast in the tail to make up the extra extra 2400-2600lbs of engine weight.

I KNOW, turn it into a twin a shove an R-2800 in the tail !!!
CG problem solved.

My point was that the A-1's proportions were such, that the R-3350 appeared comically small in comparison, unlike many single types where the engine dwarfed the airframe.

Douglas did modify the A-1 to accept a turboprop assembly (designated A-2D) and even that arrangement looked disproportionate.