Grumman XF5F, what if?

[MIflyer]

Actually while two V-1710's on a P-40 airframe are rather obviously absurd, this picture has sparked me to wonder what two engines might feasibly been mounted instead.

And I have not come up with any reasonable ideas. Two Ranger V-770 might have worked, if you could have gotten them to run long enough, but what would be the point? Two RR Peregrine engines like the Whirlwind would have been better but still not impressive.

You'd be better off just putting two P-40's together, P-82 style.

 

[Akuma]

View attachment 631666

Is this photoshopped? And what's underneath the streamlined nacelles, the fuel tanks? What in the world?!!
Secondary comment: I found this picture on another thread where someone suggested having German POWs fly one back. Not a good idea. Look what happened when they got their hands on the U.S. 2.5 Bazooka.

 

[Shortround6]

It may have been built by an air field maintenance unit as a decoy.

the Book on Curtiss fighters

has the photo but no information.

 

[GrauGeist]

It was actually built.
The serial number is from a P-40C, the engines were said to be Packard Merlins.

I have never read anywhere that it was flown, but it is real.

 

[Akuma]

It was actually built.
The serial number is from a P-40C, the engines were said to be Packard Merlins.

I have never read anywhere that it was flown, but it is real.

Was there any reason given for building it?

 

[GrauGeist]

Was there any reason given for building it?

Not that I've ever read, but seeing as how it was cobbled together from parts: P-40C fuseage, P-40D or E canopy, newer cowlings with Merlins, it seems they had some spare time on their hands and plenty of parts on hand to do it.

 

[R Leonard]

Baugher says a P-40C, "13456 modified in 1942 to become a mock-up of an undesignated twin-engined fighter. Written off 18 Feb 1943 at Craig Field, AL; Condemned Feb 27, 1943."

Hmm, usually a mock up doesn't fly.

 

[Akuma]

Not that I've ever read, but seeing as how it was cobbled together from parts: P-40C fuseage, P-40D or E canopy, newer cowlings with Merlins, it seems they had some spare time on their hands and plenty of parts on hand to do it.

Taking another look at it I get the impression that they were thinking along the same lines as the XF5F.

 

[GrauGeist]

Taking another look at it I get the impression that they were thinking along the same lines as the XF5F.

Also, cobbling together something means taking advantage of existing structure and placing the nacelles above the wings allowed them to use the existing framework in each nacelle.

 

[Shortround6]

From the book illustrated above, the Author/s believe it is a hoax of some sort.
Not photo shopped but they say that several aircraft structural engineers say that the existing P-40 wing would not hold the weight or stress of a pair of Merlins installed like that.
It might have been part of a disinformation campaign?
There is no paper work trail in the Curtiss records apparently.

 

[GrauGeist]

From Joe Baugher's site:

"P-40C
41-13456 modified in 1942 to become a mock-up of an undesignated twin-engined fighter. W/o 18 Feb 1943 at Craig Field, AL; Condemned Feb 27, 1943."

 

[Akuma]

From Joe Baugher's site:

"P-40C
41-13456 modified in 1942 to become a mock-up of an undesignated twin-engined fighter. W/o 18 Feb 1943 at Craig Field, AL; Condemned Feb 27, 1943."

A mock-up makes more sense. They probably wanted to get a feel for using/modifying existing components to create a twin engine fighter as a possibility.