Bell XP-77

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:51 am

Craig do you know if the AT-10 used the Duramold process? The only fusalage parts I have are the cockpit which is metal the rest being wood.

Mark Nankivil · **Posted:** Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:03 am

The American Aviation Historical Society Journal (Vol 26 No4 Winter '81 has two articles on the XP-77 "Case History of the XP-77 Airplane" from the Historical Office Air Technical Service Command, Wright Field and "Final Report of the XP-77 Airplane" from the Army Air Forces Air Technical Service Command, Wright Field. I can scan to PDF the articles for anyone wanting a copy. A couple of items of the articles:

Original Bell specifications called for wood wing and metal fuselage and tail structures. A second Bell specification prescribed all wood.

There's numerous referecnes to the first flight test article's wing not being to spec - too much time being taken during the gluing process.

The fusealge is molded plywood - the engine compartment and cowling being metal. Reference to magnesium alloys in both articles.

XP-77 Description:

Wing - cantilever wing panels, detachable from the fuselage, have a mono-spar and stressed skin, constructed primarily of resin bonded laminated wood.

Control Surfaces - The fixed position vertical and horizontal stabilizers are full cantilever with external and internal structures made of resin bonded laminated wood.

Fuselage - the fuselage, built as one unit, is constructed principally of resin bonded laminated wood and consists primarily of a stressed skin-stringer combination with transverse frame. Fume tight bulkheads are provided between engine, fuel tank and pilot's compartments.

HTH! Mark

retroaviation · **Posted:** Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:05 am

visaliaaviation wrote:

The inverted V-12 Rangers engines are getting rarer, but are still around. I know of two still in their original crates. Be aware that these engines were fitted to a number of designs, but none too sucessfull.

Neat thread, thanks for bumping it back up.

On the inverted V-12 Rangers, what was typically the reiliability issue with them? Oiling, bad castings, bearing issues? I've just always thought those were neat engines and was curious to learn a bit more about them.

Gary

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:08 pm

Cooling issues were the problem. Cylinders had to be changed
constantly for overheating and cracking. I spoke with a retired petty officer who worked on the project in the USN, and he said they were an absolute maintenance pig. He flat stated that the engine was the sole reason that the Curtiss SO3C project was shelved and they were turned into drones.

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:59 am

Just found this on Flickr while looking for something else.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdale1 ... 688865171/

Quote:

All in all, I feel an authentic FLYING reproduction XP-77 is well within possiblity for a serious homebuilder. Without guns it should have superior performance. Someone SHOULD do one!

From a lot less first-hand knowledge, I agree - it looks like it would be a great sporty aircraft to play with.

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:51 am

And talking Duromould:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdale1 ... 688865171/

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:30 am

Didn't the CAF have some remains of a Fairchild 46 a few years back?

Warbird Information Exchange

Bell XP-77

Who is online