Grumman XF5F, what if?

[MikeMeech]

After all that, I Hate to be the one to point out that the F7F was a direct result of the F5F project...

Hi

Although Francillon in 'Grumman Aircraft since 1929' p.146, reference the XF5F, comments:

"Furthermore, and notwithstanding what has often been written, its only contribution to the XF7F-1, Grumman's next twin-engined carrier fighter, was of the negative type, ie where not to locate the wings and how not to design vertical tail surfaces."

Mike

 

[SaparotRob]

Seems like the XF5F did directly contribute to the F7F then.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

As long as someone else brought it up, I want to to put turbos on the F2A-1.

 

[SaparotRob]

Now we're talking!

 

[Akuma]

Turbos on an F2A? How about a P-39 with a true bubble canopy, all armament switched to .50 cal with three in the nose, one each in the wings and bigger wing fuel tanks since now there's a little more room.

 

[Shortround6]

How do you figure there is more room in the wing after you switch one .50 for two . 30s?

BTW they put the .50 in a pod under the wing because they couldn't fit the .50 in the wing.
The ammo went in the wing where the .30 cal ammo had been.

One .50 weighs more than two .30s and the 300 rounds provided for each gun weighed around the same as 1500 round of .30 cal ammo. Most of the time the P-39s only carried 300rpg of .30 cal ammo.

 

[GTX]

More

 

[SaparotRob]

That's beautiful.

 

[MIflyer]

Don't underrate the F5F. The Blackhawks got excellent results with theirs.

 

[Akuma]

View attachment 629686

More

July 1938 the BuAer decides to submit a proposal for a twin engine fighter having the rate of climb of an interceptor after coming to believe that no single engine aircraft would be capable of such performance in 1937? Why do I get the feeling that they didn't bother to ask Curtiss? Perhaps Grumman was the favored supplier?
Beautiful job on the models.

 

[Graeme]

Why do I get the feeling that they didn't bother to ask Curtiss? Perhaps Grumman was the favored supplier?

I've read thirteen companies were approached with the specification (BuAer SD112-14).
What does that book you mention above have on this?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Shortround6,

Engine installation weight on the P-38F was 2635 lbs per engine (including coolant weight of 190 lbs per engine). V-1710-29 engine weight (without accessories) was 1305 lbs.

Engine installation weight on the B-24D was 2520 lbs per engine. R-1830-43 engine weight (without accessories) was 1500 lbs.

Engine installation weight on the B-17F was 2100 lbs per engine. R-1820-65 engine weight (without accessories) was 1308 lbs.

All of the above weights (except the bare engine weights) were determined by the A&AEE as of November 1943, and include the weight of the turbo, fuel and oil tanks, oil radiators, piping, etc. - but do not include the engine mounts or nacelle structure. The fuel tank weights for the B-24D (1953 USgal) and B-17F (1700 USgal) do not include the 'Tokyo' tanks (I think).

Engine installation weight for the XP-50 unknown, but I would assume the engine installation weight would be similar to that of the B-17 . . .?
The weight of the R-1820-67 engine used in the XP-50 (without accessories) was 1338 lbs.

 

[Graeme]

I get the impression, based on Grumman already flat out in production with other aircraft, the XF5F was becoming a time and money waster.

Thus it was that, on March 31, 1942, the company advised BuAer that, since the XF5F was overweight and experiencing technical problems, "Grumman has no further interest in devoting time and effort to this programme and considers the contract terminated."

The Navy terminated the contract on September 4, 1942.

 

[Akuma]

I get the impression, based on Grumman already flat out in production with other aircraft, the XF5F was becoming a time and money waster.

Thus it was that, on March 31, 1942, the company advised BuAer that, since the XF5F was overweight and experiencing technical problems, "Grumman has no further interest in devoting time and effort to this programme and considers the contract terminated."

The Navy terminated the contract on September 4, 1942.

By around 1939/1940 I believe all the aircraft manufacturers were pretty much tied up in filling orders. Grumman not having the production slack to work up another project goes back to a question of timing. BTW where is that article on the thirteen companies being approached, I'd like to read it.

 

[Graeme]

BTW where is that article on the thirteen companies being approached, I'd like to read it.

It was a two part story on the XF5F from Aeroplane Monthly - June/July 1994.
It mentions thirteen manufacturers - but only lists four examples - Brewster, Seversky, Lockheed and of course - Grumman.

 

[Shortround6]

It would be interesting to see what those 13 companies were, as after you get past 6-7 companies the remaining companies are getting well out of their depth (area of expertise).

At a similar time the Grumman Avenger was part of a similar design competition that saw 13 proposals by 6 companies (multiple proposals by some companies). Perhaps it was actually proposals and not companies?

 

[Akuma]

It was a two part story on the XF5F from Aeroplane Monthly - June/July 1994.
It mentions thirteen manufacturers - but only lists four examples - Brewster, Seversky, Lockheed and of course - Grumman.

View attachment 629731

I've been able to locate copies of each. Thank you.
I'll be paraphrasing the following information. It's from 'Air Enthusiast #16', under the article titled 'The St. Louis Lightweight' accredited to Gerard Casius. During the Twenties and Thirties the Curtiss Wright Co. merged several companies of which one was located in St. Louis Missouri and became known as Curtiss Wrights St. Louis Division. The division was under the leadership of Mr. George Page who was a vice president and an engineer. Under his management they came up with a relatively sophisticated design in the form of the CW-19L which was capable of handling high engine power and high flight loads. Given the economy at that time it was a rather ambitious design for the civilian market. In late 1936, early 1937 they decided to try selling it as a basic trainer for military use and after some changes renamed this version the A-19R. With some further changes A-19R became the CW-19. This aircraft, like the Curtiss P-36, had some nasty stall and ground loop tendencies. It did have one notable attribute which was that with a naturally aspirated 420 hp Wright Cyclone it demonstrated an initial climb rate of 1890 ft/min and a time to 23000 ft in 15 minutes. At this point George Page decided to try to redesign this airplane as the interceptor which became the CW-21.
The article goes on about the CW-21 being developed and flown on Sept. 22 1938 with a 1000 hp engine giving it a 4800 ft/min climb rate. This led the Curtiss Wright Co. to label the CW-21 as 'The Mile a Minute Interceptor'.
The thing I found most interesting about this article is that the engineer, George Page, was reasoning along the same lines as people like Claire Chennault in terms of using aircraft to intercept bombers and not to dogfight. At this time "The Bomber Will Always Get Through" thinking was very much an article of faith among the worlds military in the same vein as the U.S. naval thinking (this literally continued right up to Dec. 7, 1941) that there was no airplane, then existing, capable of carrying a bomb large enough to seriously damage or sink a capital warship.
While the Skyrocket has the desirable 2nd engine redundancy, the successful performance of the CW-21 in 1938 shows that single engine aircraft of that era had the potential to meet or exceed the USNs desire for a high rate of climb aircraft.

 

[Graeme]

Perhaps it was actually proposals and not companies?

Possibly. I can only go with what's printed in front to me. Mind you, I was drinking last night...

 

[SaparotRob]

Possibly. I can only go with what's printed in front to me. Mind you, I was drinking last night...

Airtight alibi.

 

[GrauGeist]

Works for me