Which US piston-fighter prototype do you like best?

Discussion in 'Polls' started by Oreo, Aug 3, 2008.

?

Which US piston-engined fighter prototype do you like best?

  1. XP-37

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. XP-50

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. XP-55

    13.8%
  4. XP-60

    6.9%
  5. XP-62

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. XP-67

    20.7%
  7. XP-72

    13.8%
  8. XP-75

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. XP-77

    3.4%
  10. XP-58

    6.9%
  11. XF5F

    3.4%
  12. XF5U

    3.4%
  13. XF8B

    17.2%
  14. XF14C

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. Bell FM-1

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. XP-56

    6.9%
  17. other:

    3.4%
  1. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I may not post all the available possibilities here, but the basic idea is to see which of these prototypes intrigues you the most or makes you wish it could have made it into combat to prove itself. If you're not familiar with these types, I suggest you look up images of them. Google images will do if you can't find them elsewhere.

    Don't squawk to me about jets. If you want one about jets, make your own poll!
     
  2. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,202
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    XP-55!!!!
     
  3. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I chose the Boeing XF8B. A big heavy single-engine, single-seat fighter designed for carrier use, with 28-cylinder 4-row "corn-cob" engine, internal bomb bay for 3,200 lbs. of bombs, up to 6x20mm cannon, 2,800 miles range, a max speed of 432 mph, and a tail like a B-17. Could have done a lot of ground-pounding in Korea. . . . or invasion of Japan!
     
  4. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    In looks the XP-55 was pretty cool.


    I like the XP-47J the best, more practical in terms of proven design and available timeline than the XP-72 (in terms of engine availability mostly, but also in cost and complexity -the huge torque of the R-4360 necessitated the use of contrarotating props to be managible). Recorded performance also seems to be better on the XP-47J, except climb.
    But I guess that wouldn't count as it's just a variant of the P-47 (though in many ways so was the XP-72).

    Of that list I'm not really sure what to choose yet though.

    The XF5U was interesting and seemed promising, too bad the USN didn't allow Vought to even test the completed prototypes... (even while being eclipsed by jets it was interesting in the STOL/near VTOL concept, and possibly still useful, particularly considdering -with hindsight- the failure of Vought's later XF6U)
     
  5. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    41,754
    Likes Received:
    518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Doctor
    Location:
    Portsmouth / Royal Deeside, UK
    Home Page:
    Got to love the XF5U but for me it is the XP-55.
     
  6. otftch

    otftch Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    retired
    Location:
    Franklinton,NC
    McDonnel XP-67. Wow !
    Ed
     
  7. B-17engineer

    B-17engineer Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    14,953
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    model builder
    Location:
    Revis Island.
    xP-55....lol
     
  8. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Just curious, what are the reasons for choosing the XP-55? (Just looks?)
     
  9. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,202
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    It's looks and advanced design - I think it probably could of worked out had more time and the right engineering staff worked on it.
     
  10. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I think the Bell XP-59 (piston engined twin boom pusher, not jet) had some promise too.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. johnbr

    johnbr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,501
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    London Ontario Canada
    What the xp55 need was a jet engine.The xp 67 it need RR Crecy with 2 stage.
     
  12. SoD Stitch

    SoD Stitch Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Heavy Equipment Rental
    Location:
    Pine Mountain Lake, California
    XP-58 "Chain Lightning", mostly because I really like the P-38.
     
  13. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I'm not sure how the XP-55 would have done with a jet engine, possible but maybe not practical. The J31 would leave it underpowered, and the J33 would be too large, maybe the lisence-built Goblin -J36- would work. Maybe a pair of J30's would work, or a J34, but those weren't ready until the end of the war. (in the case of the J34, after) And either way the range would be shortened considerable over the piston engined version.

    It could have used a more powerful engine, probably the Merlin. (maybe one of the later Allisons, like the P-63 had)

    I don't think the swept wing was used for mach limit/transsonic drag reasons though. (I think it was for stability reasons and proper positioning of the rudders) They would have an effect on the mach behavior, but like the Me 262, Me 163, and others it was a coincedental feature. The canard layout should also allow better control in the trans-sonic region. But the sewpt wing also resulted in the long take-off run, and dangerous tip stalling and spin behavior.
    This problem should have been fairly easily solved with leading edge wing slats though.


    I hadn't realized there was a surviving example: Curtiss XP-55 Ascender: Murdoc Online
    On of the few prototypes on this list that did.
     
  14. ONE_HELLCAT

    ONE_HELLCAT Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Ventura County
    I wish I could pick three. For looks and hopeful performance I would've gone with the XP-55,56, and XF5U. I chose the XP-56 overall for looks and because I forgot the Flying Pancake was on the list.

    Also, anyone know where I can find more of this? Looks kinda interesting.
    [​IMG]
     
  15. Screaming Eagle

    Screaming Eagle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    3,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Full time apprentice - Boilermaker
    Location:
    Queensland, Australia
    just type XF5U into google images. I did, and found a whole heap of interesting pics.
     
  16. eddie_brunette

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Graphic Designer, Musician
    Location:
    Nelspruit, Mpumalanga
    Moonbat for me:

    Specifications (XP-67)

    General characteristics
    Crew: one, pilot
    Length: 44 ft 9 in (13.64 m)
    Wingspan: 55 ft (16.76 m)
    Height: 15 ft 9 in (4.80 m)
    Wing area: 414 ft² (38.50 m²)
    Empty weight: 17,745 lb (8,050 kg)
    Loaded weight: 22,114 lb (10,030 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: 25,400 lb (11,520 kg)
    Powerplant: 2× Continental XI-1430-17/19 twelve cylinder inverted vee liquid-cooled engine, 1,350 hp (1,000 kW) each

    Performance
    Maximum speed: 405 mph at 25,000 ft (650 km/h)
    Range: 2,385 statute miles (3,840 km)
    Service ceiling 37,400 ft (11,400 m)
    Rate of climb: 2,600 ft/min (13 m/s)
    Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (260 kg/m²)
    Power/mass: 0.06 hp/lb (0.09 kW/kg)

    Armament
    Six 37 mm M-4 cannon
    mcdon-xp67.jpg

    Moonbat P-67.jpg

    edd
     
  17. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    With the Merlin 1650-9 it might have had spectacular performance at 25,000 feet, similar to Do 335, with approximately 900 more Hp in each engine at 90" boost
     
  18. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Probably would have done well with turbocharged Allisons as well. (particularly as it had already been designed to encorporate turbocharged engines)
     
  19. Trilisser

    Trilisser Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The XF8B: good performance, excellent and easy handling (the pilot manual allows even snap rolls without external stores) coupled with excellent load carrying capability with highest VNE for a piston aircraft I know of (625 mph IAS according to the pilot manual reproduced in Jared Zichek's superb XF8B monograph).
     
  20. oldcrowcv63

    oldcrowcv63 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Tired and Retired
    Location:
    Northeast North Carolina
    #20 oldcrowcv63, Jul 14, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2012
    Northrup XP-56...

    General characteristics

    Crew: one, pilot
    Length: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
    Wingspan: 42 ft 6 in (12.96 m)
    Height: 11 ft 0 in (3.35 m)
    Wing area: 306 ft² (28.44 m²)
    Empty weight: 8,700 lb (3,955 kg)
    Loaded weight: 11,350 lb (5,159 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 12,145 lb (5,520 kg)
    Powerplant: 1 × Pratt Whitney R-2800-29 radial, 2,000 hp (1,492 kW)
    Performance

    Maximum speed: 465 mph at 25,000 ft (749 km/h)
    Range: 660 miles (1,063 km)
    Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,061 m)
    Rate of climb: 3,125 ft/min at 15,000 ft (953 m/min)
    Wing loading: 37 lb/ft² (181 kg/m²)
    Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (0.96 kW/kg)
    Armament

    2 × 20 mm (.79 in) cannons
    4 × .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns

    Unfortunately, like my other favorite, The XP-67 Moonbat, it never fullfilled its promise,
     

    Attached Files:

Loading...

Share This Page