XF5U and Related Designs

[Zipper730]

I know of the XF5U and the goal being a plane that would be able to have flown at high speed as well at low-speed, with the design utilizing a low-aspect wing with propellers on the tips to neutralize the vortex to grossly enhance lift.

I'm curious if anybody had thought of an attack-bomber concept that would have been bigger, possibly with a broader wing and either R-3350's, R-4360's, or turboprops to provide the extra power for such a design? The way I see it, it would have been a remarkable plane for close air-support.

 

[GregP]

When the prototype was completed but not flown, the future ran out. If they BUILT it, they SHOULD have been required to at least test it. But it was scrapped before flying. Had they flown it, we would at LEAST had a data point for roundish airfoils intended for military use rather than kites. All the others were low-powered experiments.

They HAD one and failed miserably to explore the potential. Maybe a jet version would be good with blown boundary-layer control ... but we're unlikely to ever know ... and taxpayers FUNDED it, apparently all for nothing.

 

[swampyankee]

When the prototype was completed but not flown, the future ran out. If they BUILT it, they SHOULD have been required to at least test it. But it was scrapped before flying. Had they flown it, we would at LEAST had a data point for roundish airfoils intended for military use rather than kites. All the others were low-powered experiments.

They HAD one and failed miserably to explore the potential. Maybe a jet version would be good with blown boundary-layer control ... but we're unlikely to ever know ... and taxpayers FUNDED it, apparently all for nothing.

At the very least, the prototype should have been turned over to NACA: it was a radically new concept that warranted investigation, and that's what NACA did.

 

[Peter Gunn]

At the very least, the prototype should have been turned over to NACA: it was a radically new concept that warranted investigation, and that's what NACA did.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help..."


*Shudder*

 

[swampyankee]

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help..."


*Shudder*

How much aviation development between 1914 and today hasn't been directly or indirectly, that is via subsidies, government funded? Objectivism? Somalia, anyone?

 

[GregP]

Well ... Beechcraft developed the Starship froma Burt Rutan design, with Burt's help. No government there. They didn't know how long the composite airframes would last in service and took a very conservative stance with it. I think all or all but one were bought back by Beech as the airframe life was "used up," and they were grounded before any failures could start to happen while airborne.

Burt has developed space-capable launch platforms, and some small military-intedned planes, but nobodu bought one. Too bad, his desogn were innovative.

Not sure the military ahd anything to do with the TBM turboprop aircraft, but they came from an industry with some military roots.

Most of the really efficient airline anf freight planes are civilian, though many got developed with knowledge from the conversion of same to military tanker planes.

The NASA planes, X-Planes, and Navy research planes were innovative, but were ALL government-funded. I just wish the government could appoint someone who was pro-aviation for a change.

 

[swampyankee]

Turbo-charging, low-drag cowlings, turbine engines, the system for the air navigation.....

On the other hand, I think it was a mistake to destroy the NACA and replace it with NASA.

 

[Robert Porter]

I grew up in and most of my family is from Connecticut. All of my grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc worked in some way or shape for the Aircraft industry. My hometown during WW2 had Hamilton Standard, Pratt & Whitney and other notable companies located there or near there. There are lots of private collections of parts and even entire experimental aircraft dotted throughout the area. I would so love to go back sometime and try and get pictures and info on them!

 

[chuter]

Actually, the reason it never flew was because they never had a flight qualified transmission. Remember the teething problems of the V-22 Osprey? This was exactly that without today's development technology. The plane would not fly on only one rotor so the transmission had to drive both rotors on either one or both motors. When they originally started ground runs they had the flight rotors installed but transmission problems and breakdowns were frequent which caused the ground run schedule grow considerably so to keep from wearing out the rather complex rotors they were removed and replaced with conventional Hydromatic four blade props, the left one with the blades reversed to blow forward because there wasn't a left handed version. They even had stair steps made and installed on the aircraft up to the cockpit to make boarding easier, hardly something that would be done for short scheduled testing and shows some level of commitment to solving the problems at hand. While the decision to not fly was a no-brainer (it wasn't airworthy) I can't agree with the decision to scrap the aircraft. It's almost as if the Guy-In-Charge was so frustrated with the aircraft that he was determined get back at it like it was something personal. On the other hand the military scrapped -almost- everything back then.

 

[GregP]

May I ask where you heard that?

I've been looking around about if every few years and never seen that one. But it has the ring of a valid reason. I'm not sure why the gearing for the XF5U should be any harder to make than the gearing for, say, the Fisher XP-75 Eagle but, as I said, it sounds like the first reasonable reason I've heard for it not have flown.

 

[swampyankee]

May I ask where you heard that?

I've been looking around about if every few years and never seen that one. But it has the ring of a valid reason. I'm not sure why the gearing for the XF5U should be any harder to make than the gearing for, say, the Fisher XP-75 Eagle but, as I said, it sounds like the first reasonable reason I've heard fir it not have flown.

The XF5U had two right-angle gear boxes and cross-shafting; these are much more difficult than the simple gearboxes of the P-75.

 

[GregP]

What Chuter said makes sense, but I never read it before, so I am interested in the source. What YOU said makes sense, too.

The Douglas A2D Skyshark had the same issues and never "made it." In fact, it lost a nose cases with props and gears in flight. The Skyshark was a turboprop Skyraider, but they could never get the transmission running reliably and cancelled in annoyance with it.

I'm not asking because I think he (or she) is wrong, I'm asking because if it had those data, it might have a lot of other data I haven't seen before but am interested in. No other purpose here ... just looking for a better source. And I'm not "demanding" a source as a challenge ... just curious.

If I get an answer, OK; it not, also OK.

 

[Zipper730]

When the prototype was completed but not flown, the future ran out. If they BUILT it, they SHOULD have been required to at least test it. But it was scrapped before flying. Had they flown it, we would at LEAST had a data point for roundish airfoils intended for military use rather than kites.

Agreed

At the very least, the prototype should have been turned over to NACA: it was a radically new concept that warranted investigation, and that's what NACA did.

Agreed

 

[Zipper730]

Was there anybody in the US that had any interest in such a STOL plane?

1. USMC: They were heavily involved in CAS operations
   
2. USN: Operated off carriers where an attack-sized version would be useful
3. US Army: Would make a good observation plane