Curtiss XP-55

[wuzak]

The name Ascender was given to the XP-55 after an internal competition to find a name. The name was possibly a play on the phrase "ass-ender" from the beginning, with Cuurtiss not being aware of the joke or just going along with it.

Btw, the aircraft chosen by the R-40C competition were supposed to use existing engines (none did as originally proposed) and to be in production by 1942.

 

[Gnomey]

Good one!

 

[P-39 Expert]

Always liked the pusher configuration for a prop fighter. Would have preferred an air cooled radial with a cooling fan. Tricycle landing gear, unimpeded nose armament, big fuel tank in the fuselage and also room in the wings, pilot forward with improved visibility. Flying wing, twin boom or canard. Not to be.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Always liked the pusher configuration for a prop fighter. Would have preferred an air cooled radial with a cooling fan. Tricycle landing gear, unimpeded nose armament, big fuel tank in the fuselage and also room in the wings, pilot forward with improved visibility. Flying wing, twin boom or canard. Not to be.

Such as the Northrup XP-56 "Black Bullet"?

 

[P-39 Expert]

Such as the Northrup XP-56 "Black Bullet"?
View attachment 605378

Somewhat similar. Hopefully a bit more stable.

 

[xylstra]

Always liked the pusher configuration for a prop fighter. Would have preferred an air cooled radial with a cooling fan. Tricycle landing gear, unimpeded nose armament, big fuel tank in the fuselage and also room in the wings, pilot forward with improved visibility. Flying wing, twin boom or canard. Not to be.

You mean, the KYUSHU 'Shinden'!
Like you, I've always staunchly advocated the pusher as the most sensible configuration for a fighter. Do we put a jet engine at the front of today's fighters? "NO!" -thrust from the rear works just fine. And that's the thing about the XP55 at least. Except for minor prototypical tweaks it largely demonstrated either equivalent and, in some combat modes, superior flight/handling characteristics thus demolishing the myth that there is something 'wrong' with the pusher design.

 

[P-39 Expert]

You mean, the KYUSHU 'Shinden'!
Like you, I've always staunchly advocated the pusher as the most sensible configuration for a fighter. Do we put a jet engine at the front of today's fighters? "NO!" -thrust from the rear works just fine. And that's the thing about the XP55 at least. Except for minor prototypical tweaks it largely demonstrated either equivalent and, in some combat modes, superior flight/handling characteristics thus demolishing the myth that there is something 'wrong' with the pusher design.

Agree. The B-36 had pusher propellers. Propeller in the rear means the plane is not flying through it's own propwash. More efficient. Then the jet engine quickly made all this moot.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I will bow to the more learned folks here on aerodynamics but pushers are not necessarily more efficient.

"Aerodynamically, puller designs allow designers to take advantage of the propeller's thrust effects to reduce wing and tail sizing requirements. Thrust provided by propellers increases the airspeed over the "blown" section of the wing improving the total lift produced in the effected section."

Tractor v. Puller

I could be wrong though.

 

[P-39 Expert]

I just read that article, very interesting. Very slanted toward commercial aviation, mostly ignores the reasons for exploring the idea in WW2. Those reasons being concentrated uninterrupted nose armament, tricycle landing gear, better forward visibility, etc.

 

[special ed]

I was told by a pilot who had flown a twin pusher that it was quite discomforting when ice from the wing goes through the props and is slung into the fuselage.

 

[xylstra]

I was told by a pilot who had flown a twin pusher that it was quite discomforting when ice from the wing goes through the props and is slung into the fuselage.

...or F.O.'s thrown up by the wheels upon take-off and landing.

 

[nuuumannn]

quite discomforting when ice from the wing goes through the props and is slung into the fuselage.

Happens all the time on multi-engine turboprops. The big patch on the fuselage is an ice guard. During winter, chunks of ice penetrate the guards, which are made of fibre, and dent the fuselage.

DSC_2464

 

[P-39 Expert]

Happens all the time on multi-engine turboprops. The big patch on the fuselage is an ice guard. During winter, chunks of ice penetrate the guards, which are made of fibre, and dent the fuselage.

View attachment 608973DSC_2464

But these are pullers, right? So the ice thing will happen with pullers and pushers.

 

[nuuumannn]

But these are pullers, right? So the ice thing will happen with pullers and pushers.

Yup, doesn't have to be a pusher at all. Like I said, this happens on ALL multi-engined turboprops regardless of configuration. Here's a Royal Canuck Air Force C-130J, note the "Danger Propeller" markings, that's not a scab patch they are painted on, it's an ice guard. The one on the other side is higher up since the blades are throwing the ice at the upper fuselage, not lower, as on this side.

Ice guard

 

[MIflyer]

I found this interesting drawing somewhere.

 

[Wurger]