XF5F

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Nice pictures! That picture 7222 shows the aft fuselage with the radio installation, with a GF transmitter and RU receiver. I'd guess the receiver is an RU-16, which I have an example of. Here is a shot of a similar installation in an F4F-4.
F4F4Radios2.jpg
 
Great photos. Always thought the Navy missed the boat by not having a twin engined bomber. Should have better payload and range. Especially with the problems they had with the Helldiver. Maybe a scaled up P-50 with the Wright R-2600.
 
P-39 Expert said:
Great photos. Always thought the Navy missed the boat by not having a twin engined bomber. Should have better payload and range. Especially with the problems they had with the Helldiver. Maybe a scaled up P-50 with the Wright R-2600.
Click to expand...

Scaling it up to use R-2600s puts you pretty close to the F7F.

Carriers had several constraints that affected aircraft size, In addition to elevator size (and weight capacity) you had hanger height (around 17ft of some of the big american carriers). Twins, even with folding wings will take up more room, both on the flight deck and in the hanger, so fewer aircraft in total. There was also a limit on the fuel and magazine space for the aircraft.
For the US the Lexington and Saratoga were carrying 137,450 US gallons of avgas in 1942.
The Ranger went down to 135,840 gallons.
The Yorktowns carried 177,950 gallons.
The Wasp had 162,000 gallons.
The Essex class went to 240,000 US gallons
The small Independence class had 120,000 gallons
The Midways carried 350,000 gallons of aviation fuel.
The Midways were designed in 1942 and with a bit more operational experience might have been designed rather different.
ANd having twin engine bombers that can outrange the escorting fighters might not be the best idea.

Having carriers that can sustain several days worth of combat when several weeks away from a supply base was one of the goals of the aircraft carrier design, not a one or two strike effort and then run for home.
 
johnbr said:
The Skyrocket took its maiden flight on April 1, 1940, and, in flight tests, it more than lived up to its name, and its light weight and powerful engines gave XF5F a climb rate of 4,000 feet per minute.
Click to expand...
Basically it didn't do much different than the A6M, and could out-run it.
It's top speed of 383 mph, however, proved to be its Achilles heel.
Click to expand...
It was slower than the F4U-1 (388-395 early on, later 417-431 mph).
Ultimately, the Skyrocket lost out to the more traditional Grumman F4F Wildcat for mass production, in part because of a concern over the availability of spare parts and production difficulties associated with its twin-engine design.
Click to expand...
So the biggest issue was the fact that each aircraft required two engines, two propellers and twice the number of engine related components?
 
I keep thinking that if you replaced the R-1820s with V-1710, the army could have had a contender. Yeah I know it's not that simple (P-36 to P-40, etc) but the idea itches the imagination...
 
wlewisiii said:
I keep thinking that if you replaced the R-1820s with V-1710, the army could have had a contender. Yeah I know it's not that simple (P-36 to P-40, etc) but the idea itches the imagination...
Click to expand...
Looks like the P-50 had handed propellers rotating in opposite directions like the P-38.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back