Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tancw19]

I love this plane!!! I can use it to beat any jap fighter in world war 2.

[Bobbo]

    * Maximum speed: 383 mph at sea level (616 km/h)
    * Range: 1,200 mi (1,930 km)
    * Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,000 m)
    * Rate of climb: 4,000 ft/min (1,220 m/min)

The real tactical weakness for the XF5F looks to have been service ceiling, which was unacceptably low for a plane of that era. But, at lower levels, the XF5F would have eaten the F4F-3's lunch in a B&Z fight - 50 mph faster, twice the rate of climb, plus the guns were concentrated in the nose, which would allow for better gunnery accuracy (less need for gun convergence). Compared to the A6M2, it would have had much better speed and better climb rate and about the same ceiling. Again, another likely winner in a mid- to low-level B&Z fight. Compared to the Bf110, it was slightly faster and had better climb, but wasn't as well armed and didn't have quite the range. Basically, it would have been a smaller, less heavily armed, shorter-ranged, ship-based equivalent of early versions of the P-38 Lightning.

Except the Skyrocket wasn't ready for production until 1942, at which point it was competing with Hellcats and Corsairs. That's why Grumman moved the concept on to the Tigercat.

[Schwieger]

The problem is an assymetric engine hauling a weightier airframe presents different and more demanding responses from the pilot. Below a certain speed, the danger of an accident is very much the case.

What was that German plane with the engine on one side and the fuselage on the other?

[Pursuivant]

Except the Skyrocket wasn't ready for production until 1942, at which point it was competing with Hellcats and Corsairs. That's why Grumman moved the concept on to the Tigercat.

First flight was one month earlier than the F4U, while the F6F was a rush job which only made its first flight in 1942. So, you're right that it probably would have been a stable-mate of the Corsair and the Hellcat had it gone into production.

I think that the only basic problem was oil cooling, though, which was fixed easily enough. More extensive redesign was Grumman's attempt to keep the Navy's interest and/or get the Army Air Force to buy it. Optimistically, it could have been ready for service by early 1942.

Given its not great service ceiling, it could have had real trouble in its intended role as bomber interceptor, and who knows if early war U.S. pilots would have figured out how to use it properly. That, plus the fact that groundcrew would have to maintain twice the number of engines, and it would have taken up more space in aircraft carrier hangers probably sealed its fate.

[LuseKofte]

Twin engined aeroplanes are often said to be better able to take you to the scene of the accident. I do have some personal experience of this, indirectly at least.

Some years ago I met a chap working on his Beech Baron. Apparently he often ferried jockeys around the couintry to race meets. We exchanged a few jibes and smiled. A few months later he was dead. What happened was a flight to France with his wife and another couple. They took off in poor weather and a passenger noticed the side door wasn't properly closed. The pilot decided to go around, land, close the door, and set off again.

With low cloud he had no choice but to pass over the village below the the level demanded by the airlefield operators. It's believed he intended to reduce engine noise as he passed over the houses at four hundred feet. What he actually did was inadvertantly shut down an engine. The baron winged over and went in nose first. Fire engines from three counties had to converge on the field and put the ensuing fire out. I once listened to the harrowing tale of one of the men who helped the clean up operations afterward.

It is true that an extra engine can, in many circumstances, help you get out of danger. The problem is an assymetric engine hauling a weightier airframe presents different and more demanding responses from the pilot. Below a certain speed, the danger of an accident is very much the case.

In terms of warfare the extra weight sometimes carried meant that the survivng engine was indeed taking you to the scene of an accident. So decisions had to be made about where to fly, and how to conduct that flight. I recall the crash of a spanish He111 during filming of the Battle of Britain in 1968 and the deaths of all aboard, due to an engine failure. So it isn't just the dangers of combat and the ensuing damage - some twin planes in WW2 were not easily handled. The Mosquito was very easy to groundloop and I recall one anecdote about an exasperrated squadron CO informing his men that Mosquito's don't crash - you stupid pilots make them crash!

The Beaufighter is another that became a bit of a handful in some circumstances. I'm sure there were others. Powerful engines with lots of torque, plenty of speed in normal flight, can mislead the pilot into thinking the problem is minor and that he can handle it. Until, that is, it catches him out.

Totally agree with you, two engined planes need better trained pilots, But in pasific the pilots of P-38 (witch almost in every aspect got good feedback from its pilot's.) would hasitate to change over to a single engine plane. The long distances made them mor confident with two engines

[[JG62]Zeimer]

Take the props out and it become a Star Wars racing pod LOL

[airacuda]

I agree! I have flown this plane in FSX, and it is a handfull! It would be cool to have it in IL-2, with some cannons! Look out Zero's! Let's keep this idea alive,please!!

[propnut27]

There was also an excellent version commercially produced by The Aeroplane Factory in Australia for Microsoft's CFS2. I have that of a CD for DeramK's consideration. There may be copyright issues with TAF, however. I also note elsewhere on this board theDreamK is evidently up to his eyeballs in a huge, marvelous project at the moment. I'll be home soon, and will have access to the CFS2 models of the Skyrocket, and the SB2C. Just for drill I'll forward both to him for his perusal.

[Hubberranz]

The problem is an assymetric engine hauling a weightier airframe presents different and more demanding responses from the pilot. Below a certain speed, the danger of an accident is very much the case.

What was that German plane with the engine on one side and the fuselage on the other?

Blohm & Voss BV-141

[dotmatrix]

 ;)I have been working on the younger brother, the XP 50, but atm the C130 is top priority...

[propnut27]

I just want to give my old request a bump for re-consideration. I know. I know. It's been around for quite a while. A lot of "what-if" aircraft have made it into the game since I proposed this one. Picture these flying from Cactus Base. I think they'd have ripped the opposition a brand new one. If I could do it I would, for my own amusement if nothing else. Please give it a thought.

[Joberg]

I also like this plane and that exactly how I pictured it used- from land bases, perhaps by marines, since it would be a bit large to cram on the limited deck space available to the navy at the time. That's how I play with the trident p-38 anyway and I think this one would be similar...