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
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.
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
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.
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.