Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:23 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:05 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7540
All that work for nothing!! .... sort of.

First up?

Curtiss YP-60E

In May 1944, Curtiss indicated to the AAF that it wished to abandon further work on the P-60 series fighters because of the disappointing results achieved with the XP-60C and XP-60E. Earlier, the P-60 had been eliminated from the production schedules, the number of aircraft on contract having been reduced to two. However, the AAF insisted on completion of one of the two aircraft still on order. These, originally ordered as YP-60As, had been redesignated as YP-60Es because the design modifications incorporated were most directly descended from the XP-60E. The YP-60E differed principally in having a 2,100hp R-2800-18 engine, a deeper cowling incorporating the ventral cooler intake, a cut-down rear fuselage and a bubble-type cockpit canopy. The sole YP-60E completed was flown on 13 July 1944, but only one further flight was made before the aircraft was transferred to Wright Field where it was eventually disposed of without further testing.

Power plant: one 2,000 Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10, 18 cylinder, air-cooled radial engine, with General Electric turbo-supercharger, driving a four-bladed propeller, wingspan: 41.4 ft (12.62 m), length: 36.8 ft (11.23 m), height: 10.7 ft (3.27 m), wing area: 284 sq.ft (25.54 sq.m), maximum speed: 405 mph (652 kph), maximum weight: 11,520 lbs (5,225 kg), climb rate: 4,200 ft/min (1,280 m/min), service ceiling: 34,000 ft (10,363 m), armament: six 0.50 cal M2 wing mounted machine guns with 250 rounds per gun.

Image
Curtiss YP-60E under construction. Note aircraft in background. Can't tell what type it is.

Image
YP-60E, 43-32763

Image

ImageImage

_________________
[Thread title is ridiculous btw]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:41 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm
Posts: 1378
Lovely shots as ever: type in back a Helldiver?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 838
Location: DAL glidepath
quemerford wrote:
Lovely shots as ever: type in back a Helldiver?


Maybe the XP-60E?
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:38 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7540
No one gets a break!!! Not even the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation.

CAC Woomera

The CAC Woomera, also known as the CAC CA-4 and CAC CA-11, was an Australian bomber aircraft that was designed and constructed by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation during World War II. The order for the Woomera was cancelled before it became operational with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

Design and development
In early 1939, the Australian Government ordered large numbers of Bristol Beaufort bombers, with major components to be built in a variety of locations, including railway workshops, and in doing so it by-passed the local aircraft company, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation.

CAC, under Sir Lawrence Wackett, began work on its own design, hoping to out-perform the Beaufort by building a machine that could serve as both a torpedo-bomber and dive bomber. To keep down weight, Wackett dispensed with traditional self-sealing fuel tanks and opted to make the wing cavities liquid-tight, and thus serve as fuel storage. The Australian Government was initially uninterested in the CAC design. However, in mid-1940, cut off from the supply of British-made components for the Beaufort program (thanks to a British embargo on the export of aviation products, due to the need to maximise British production during the Battle of Britain), the Australian Government ordered a prototype of the CAC design, even before the Royal Australian Air Force had expressed a view about the machine. This prototype CA-4 took to the air on 19 September 1941. The CA-4 was a low-wing, twin-engined, multi-role bomber with a crew of three. It was armed with four nose-mounted .303 calibre machine guns and two remote-controlled twin machine-guns barbette mounted at the rear of the engine nacelles. It could carry either 500 lb (230 kg) bombs, 250 lb (110 kg) bombs or two torpedoes. It was originally powered by two Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp R-1830-S3C3-G radials. Unfortunately, the novel fuel tanks never proved reliable, and in January 1943 the CA-4 prototype was completely destroyed in a mid-air explosion, probably due to a fuel leak.

With a re-designed tail and rudder, and an improved nose armament of two 20 mm cannon and two .303 calibre machine guns, the CA-4 became the CA-11 Woomera.

Production
Faced with the crisis caused by the Japanese entry into the war in December 1941, the RAAF accepted the design even before testing was complete, and ordered 105 examples of the CAC bomber on 8 March 1942. However, after the loss of the CA-4 prototype, the redesigned CA-11 did not fly until June 1944. By the time production was due to commence, the dive-bombing concept had fallen into disfavour and the RAAF was filling the light bomber/reconnaissance/strike role with British-designed Bristol Beaufighters (which were being made in Australia by the Department of Aircraft Production); US-made bombers, including the B-25 Mitchell, had also become available. Consequently, the original Woomera order was reduced from 105 to 20. After the first CA-11 flew, the whole program was cancelled and the production capacity set aside for Woomeras at CAC was switched to P-51 Mustang fighters. The only completed CA-11 Woomera, A23-1, was stripped for parts and scrapped in 1946.

Loss of CA-4
On 15 January 1943, the prototype CA-4, A23-1001, crashed on a test flight to assess powerplant performance and evaluate aerodynamic effects of a new fixed leading edge slat. During the return to the CAC airfield at Fisherman's Bend, the pilot, Squadron Leader Jim Harper, had detected a fuel leak in the port Pratt & Whitney R-1830 engine. As the problem worsened he attempted to shut down the engine, feathering the propeller; however, the actuation of the feathering switch caused an explosion and uncontrollable fire. The three-man crew subsequently attempted evacuation at 1,000 feet (300 m), yet only Harper succeeded in parachuting free, while the CAC test pilot Jim Carter and power plant group engineer Lionel Dudgeon were both killed. The airframe subsequently impacted 3 miles (4.8 km) south-west of Kilmore, Victoria. The wreckage was recovered and used for components.

General characteristics

Crew: 3 (pilot, bomb aimer/navigator, rear gunner)
Length: 39 ft 7 in (12.07 m)
Wingspan: 59 ft 2½ in (18.05 m)
Height: 18 ft 2 in (5.53 m)
Wing area: 440 ft² (40.9 m²)
Empty weight: 12,756 lb (5,798 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 22,885 lb (10,402 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C3-G Twin Wasp 14-cylinder two-row radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 282 mph (454 km/h, 247 knots)
Range: 2,225 mi (3,580 km, 1,950 nm) (with external tank and one torpedo)
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (7,165 m)
Rate of climb: 2,090 ft/min (10.6 m/s)
Armament
Guns:
2 × .303in Browning machine guns in the nose
2 × 20 mm Hispano MkII cannon in the nose
4 × .303 Browning machine guns in two rear-firing remotely controlled barbettes
1 x .303 Vickers K machine gun in a ventral position
Bombs:
4× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs internally in engine nacelle bays
and 4× 500 lb (224 kg) bombs
or 2× Mk XII, Mk XV or Mk 13 aerial torpedoes mounted under the fuselage
or 1× torpedo and 1× 293 imp gal (352 USG) external fuel tank mounted under the fuselage

Image
CAC CA-11 Woomera A23-1 prototype in the workshop RAAF photo 000-148-674

Image
CAC CA-11 Woomera A23-1 prototype in the workshop RAAF photo 000-148-675

Image
CAC CA-11 Woomera A23-1 RAAF photo 000-148-671

Image

Image

_________________
[Thread title is ridiculous btw]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm
Posts: 862
Mark Allen M wrote:
ImageImage

Looks like it easily could have been a late-war Japanese design.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 11:37 pm
Posts: 419
Location: Los Angeles, CA
They all look like Japanese planes. Edit: Oh I see your caption now. Yes they are indeed very similar.

_________________
Better is the enemy of Good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:45 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:11 am
Posts: 2373
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Tks Mark...as always great pics with the background story that goes with it!!!

Fugly....rarely makes it to production. Except for the Brits!

This Womera shot really looks like the TBY Seawolf canopy line....very interesting!!!!

But that could also be just me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:02 pm
Posts: 285
Some decision-maker looked at the XP-60 and asked... just how is this better than the P-47?
Agreed, it's no fun when a big project gets cancelled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 260
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p60.html
The YP-60E was eventually disposed of as surplus after the war.
It was purchased by James DeSanto and was entered in the 1947 National Air Races with Race No. 80 and civil registration NX21979, but crashed on a qualifying flight.

Cleveland's Greatest Disasters!: 16 Tragic True Tales of Death and Destruction (p-107)
"On August 25 pilot James C DeSanto bailed out of his P-60E after watching his tail...fall off during a test sprint. He landed safely suffering only minor bruises."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:05 pm
Posts: 907
Location: ELP
Snake45 wrote:
Mark Allen M wrote:
ImageImage

Looks like it easily could have been a late-war Japanese design.


Kind of bubble top Raiden look going on there.

_________________
Had God intended for man to fly behind inline engines, Pratt & Whitney would have made them.

CB

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Desrt_Wings.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:02 am
Posts: 313
Location: Up the Hill,Norwest from Brizzy
Tsr2 for probably worst ending..

_________________
If the CO ask,s you to be Tail End Charlie...Just Shoot Him..A Piece of Cake


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:09 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3399
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Spitty wrote:
Tsr2 for probably worst ending..


Nah, there are at least TSR.2s remaining. Arrow and the XB-49 take it for worst way to be ended, both ordered to be chopped up on site immediately. However, the XB-49 got revenge with the B-2. The Arrow is still "Canada's Shame" and continues to be hotly debated even outside of the aviation and military communities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:25 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7540
The Miles M.33 Monitor was a twin-engined British target tug aircraft designed and built by Miles Aircraft towards the end of the Second World War. Intended for use by the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm, the aircraft did not enter service with either.

The Monitor came about as a response to Specification Q9/42 for a twin-engined high-speed target tug for the Royal Air Force. The specification called for a towing speed of not less than 300 mph (480 km/h), be capable of 90 mph while streaming targets, an endurance of 3–4 hours and - most unusually - be capable of being dismantled and fitted into standard packing crates. Two prototypes were ordered; the first prototype (Serial Number NF900) first flew on 5 April 1944, and was capable of reaching 360 mph (580 km/h).

The Monitor was a high-winged aircraft with an all-metal fuselage and wooden wings. It was originally stipulated that the aircraft would incorporate the Bristol Beaufighter wing and landing gear to speed up design and production, but owing to increased demand for the Beaufighter only the landing gear was used, and a new all-wood one-piece wing was designed. The aircraft was powered by two Wright Cyclone R-2600-31 radial engines driving Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propellers. It was fitted with a novel hydraulic winch as the normal windlasses could not be used at speeds of much more than 150 mph (240 km/h), while the Monitor was required to tow targets at double this speed.

The original requirement for a target towing aircraft for the RAF was abandoned, and the orders for Monitors was taken over by the Fleet Air Arm, who required an aircraft capable of simulating dive-bombing attacks on warships. To meet this requirement the aircraft, fitted with hydraulically actuated dive brakes, nose cameras for marking Fleet gunnery, a dorsal midship cupola and radar equipment was used to accurately determine height[2] was known as the Monitor TT Mk II.

The Monitor's 10 hp (7.5 kW) winch was fitted with 6,000 ft (1,800 m) of towing cable, and was capable of towing flag and sleeve targets as well as 16 and 32 ft (4.9 and 9.8 m) -span special winged targets. Spare targets were stowed on board and could be changed in flight, while winged targets were towed off the ground on a 250 ft (76 m) line.

At the end of the war, contracts for 600 Monitors were cancelled, only 20 in total were built.[4] As with all aircraft for service use, the Monitor was evaluated by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at RAF Boscombe Down.

The first received at the A&AEE (NF900) caught fire during a landing in August 1944 killing one crew member, the second prototype (NF904) made a wheels up landing at the A&AEE in August 1945, and NP409 on Intensive Flying crashed into the sea in August 1945 killing both crew.

None entered service and all survivors were scrapped. (Wiki)

General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 47 ft 8 in (14.53 m)
Wingspan: 56 ft 3 in (17.15 m)
Height: 14 ft 3 in (4.34 m)
Wing area: 500 sq ft (46 m2)
Aspect ratio: 6.3
Airfoil: root: NACA 23021; tip: NACA 2412
Empty weight: 15,850 lb (7,189 kg)
Gross weight: 21,075 lb (9,559 kg)
Fuel capacity: 480 imp gal (576 US gal; 2,182 l) fuel ; 32 imp gal (38 US gal; 145 l) oil
Powerplant: 2 × Wright R-2600-31 Twin Cyclone 14-cylinder air-cooled radial pistone engines, 1,700 hp (1,300 kW) each
Propellers: 3-bladed constant-speed propellers
Performance

Maximum speed: 330 mph (530 km/h, 290 kn) at 15,000 ft (4,572 m)
Cruise speed: 265 mph (426 km/h, 230 kn) at 15,000 ft (4,572 m)
Range: 2,750 mi (4,430 km, 2,390 nmi)
Service ceiling: 29,000 ft (8,800 m)
Rate of climb: 2,480 ft/min (12.6 m/s)
Time to altitude:
15,000 ft (4,572 m) in 6 minutes 24 seconds
20,000 ft (6,096 m) in 10 minutes 6 seconds
Wing loading: 42.1 lb/sq ft (206 kg/m2)
Take-off run: 1,035 ft (315 m)
Take-off distance to 50 ft (15 m): 2,430 ft (741 m)

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

_________________
[Thread title is ridiculous btw]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:27 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:43 pm
Posts: 1168
Location: Marietta, GA
Mark Sampson wrote:
Some decision-maker looked at the XP-60 and asked... just how is this better than the P-47?
Agreed, it's no fun when a big project gets cancelled.


The amazing thing, and something I genuinely don't understand, is how Curtiss went from producing a very modern aircraft (for its day) in the P-36, updating it into the P-40, and then repetitively stubbing its toe for the duration of the war. With available HP more than doubling over that timeframe, North American figuring out laminar flow, and a thousand other improvements coming down the pike, Curtiss couldn't stack up a few of those learning to make a better airplane? Theymade a brand new airplane 3 years after the first flight of the P-47 and the "new" airplane wasn't enough better to warrant even a sniff?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:53 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:31 pm
Posts: 1089
Location: Caribou, Maine
Quote:
Nah, there are at least TSR.2s remaining. Arrow and the XB-49 take it for worst way to be ended, both ordered to be chopped up on site immediately. However, the XB-49 got revenge with the B-2. The Arrow is still "Canada's Shame" and continues to be hotly debated even outside of the aviation and military communities.


I would add the Vought XF5U (turboprop-powered "flying flapjack") to that list. The story is that the plane was ready for first-flight when the Navy decided that it should be scrapped - NOW! The test pilot, so the story goes, had to be physically restrained from getting into the cockpit and giving the plane a baptisimal circuit of the field.

_________________
Kevin McCartney


Last edited by old iron on Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:05 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A68-1001, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 105 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group