Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They might have recycled the numbers. CW-29 seems to also include the XA-43.Are you sure about the Model number? I show the Curtiss Model 29 being the "SX4-1" Water Glider
What was mentioned in the blurb and did it mention payload?I only see a brief blurb about it in Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947 by Bowers.
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.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.
Bomb-load: I have no idea what the maximum bomb-load was
Now that's impressive -- did it specify if all that was internal?Graeme said:According to Tony Butler - 12,000 lbs.
Now that's impressive -- did it specify if all that was internal?
Thanks!Sorry I missed this discussion last year, but I do have some information that I can share on the XA-43.
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.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.
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.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.
Weight's pretty goodTake-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.
That's one of the three radars used on the F3D Skyknight...Radar in the nose was to be the APS-21 with both air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.
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.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).
4x20mm fixed guns and one (1) 2000lb bomb
4x20mm fixed guns and two (2) 1000lb bombs
4x20mm fixed guns and four (4) 500lb bombs
4x20mm fixed guns and eight (8) 250lb bombs
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 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.
External loads carried under the wings in addition to internal armament loads:
Sixty (60) 5" HVAR rockets
Sixteen (16) 500lb bombs
Eight (8) 1000lb bombs
Four (4) 2000lb bombs
Two (2) 4000lb bombs (interesting, carried at the wingtip stations for the tiptanks)
Makes sense, there was often a desire to develop variants of bombers like that.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.
It's quite interesting, and totally different from what I expected.I hope you find this interesting.
Submitted for your consideration,
Which Tony Butler source was this that stated the XA-43 had a 12000 lb. bombload?I believe so Zip.