Warbird Information Exchange

... it was accepted and used in some way during WWII or Korea? Success or failure?

Per Wiki: "The Hughes XF-11 was a prototype military reconnaissance aircraft designed and flown by Howard Hughes and built by Hughes Aircraft for the United States Army Air Forces. Although 100 F-11s were ordered in 1943, only two prototypes and a mockup were completed. During the first XF-11 flight in 1946, piloted by Hughes himself, the aircraft crashed in Beverly Hills, California. The production aircraft had been canceled in May 1945, but the second prototype was completed and successfully flown in 1947. The program was extremely controversial from the beginning, leading the U.S. Senate to investigate the XF-11 and the Hughes H-4 Hercules flying boat in 1947–1948."
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_XF-11

Photos Link: https://d.library.unlv.edu/digital/sear ... ort/page/1






















Howard Hughes sitting in the cockpit of the XF-11 preparing for his first test flight in Culver City, California July 7, 1947.






















The second XF-11 plane prior to take-off, April 4, 1947.

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

Mark - please don't post any pictures of it's demise. Though not a fan of the contra-prop version, I always thought this version of it was just about the sexiest airplane ever built, and I'd have killed for a chance to fly it.

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.

Awesome airplane, but if the spec's are correct it was virtually obsolete by the time it broke ground. Generation 1 jets would have been all over it at 42K' and 450mph, which are the service ceiling and top speed listed for the aircraft.

On the other hand, it sure had a lot of wing, pressurization, and big 'ol turbocharged engines. Was the service ceiling really only 42K'? Given that the B-36 (albeit with jet pods) got well into the 50K' range, I'm surprised the XF-11 didn't have a bit more altitude capability.

Seems like you could have added jet engines to it.

Obsolete?
Not necessarily.
It was a reconnaissance aircraft (remember, the "F" stood for "Foto" not the post '47 "Fighter") which, by their very nature, need long range.
Something all early jets were short of.
There was a reason the USAF used RB-45s.
Range was more important than fighter-like speed.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Thank you for sharing these, I'd only seen a third of them before.


I was about to say similar - such an achingly beautiful aeroplane. The CG and model versions used for The Aviator were real highlights of that movie for me and made me want to see a 1/1 version for real.

_________________
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG".
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

"It's his plane, he spent the money to restore it, he can do with it what he wants. I will never understand what's hard to comprehend about this." - kalamazookid, 20/08/2013
"The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple." - JohnB, 24/02/22

Thanks Mark! Note the A-20 that shows up in the background of a couple shots, and (I think) Hughes's B-23 on the right edge of the fifth photo.

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

The Plexiglas work was impressive for the era. Wow.

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

And his A-20 to the left of the 13th...the shot with the close-up of the canopy.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

On that same photo (no.13) there is another twin parked in front of a building, just right of the A-26 with the DC-3 behind it. Is that another A-20? I cannot figure out what it could be.

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net

Obsolete because it was a recon platform that had zero performance margin over the day’s interceptors. It was 100 mph slower even with the recips at max power (think about the reliability of 4360’s running at full throttle for a couple of hours), and didn’t have an advantage in altitude. With a long range overflight asset, it needs to fly higher or faster than the day’s fighters to be survivable.

Golly that is a sexy looking aeroplane!

The interior was surprisingly roomy. This is from the Hughes XF-11 Flight Manual book. It does show that it was drawn by L G Halls in 1970.


6E503075-21AA-4083-891A-DAAA6DDA2049 by tanker622001, on Flickr

There is more room inside of that pod than I thought, but I am still wondering how much variation in camera equipment was possible. There is not a lot of extra room in that nose cone.

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net

Different props.

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”