nice P-50 skyrocket photo
- Thread starter comiso90
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thorlifter
Captain
It would seem to me the blind spot caused by the wings and engines would be too extreme for this to be functional.
Does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of this type of design with the leading wing so far forward?
Does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of this type of design with the leading wing so far forward?
ccheese
Member In Perpetuity
Doubl3Ac3
Airman 1st Class
If i had to take a guess i'd say its ability to climb would suck. All thought it could be the opposite. im just taking a wild guess here by the looks of the design. It looks like it can dive very well but on the climb it would be really bad
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Comiso do the colours look "fake" or heavily retouched? Or is it simply the quality of the original photo?
It has more to do with the quality of the origional color photo.
- Thread starter
- #7
Flyboy2
Senior Airman
As to the design... I believe that it is because the fuselage is so short that the wing has to mounted forward for the propellers to clear the nose and I don't think they could have messed with the dimensions to much.
That is the XF5F version but the P-50 version had a lenghtened nose.
That is the XF5F version but the P-50 version had a lenghtened nose.
Grumman named it Skyrocket as it displayed during testing an impressive initial climb rate of 4,000ft per minute.
And you're right, during one dive test it reached 485mph.
According to Jones (U.S Naval Fighters), the extremely short nose facilitated carrier landings by having an almost unobstructed forward/downward view. But as Thor pointed out, the large engine nacelles blocked the pilot's view of the deck landing officer. This was one reason why Grumman abandoned further development of the Skyrocket.
Thorlifter
Captain
Thanks, Graeme.
