Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Morning clue.Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. This little known and unheralded aircraft was a true wonder. It was designed to fulfill a variety of roles; and to do all of them well.
2. It succeeded in doing exactly that. And much, much more.
3. All the more surprising, it was designed and built by a company which hadn’t produced an aircraft of its general type for a very long time.
4. Only prototypes were produced, because, in the end, it was decided it simply wasn’t needed.
5. Despite that fact, it was a truly marvelous aircraft. Had it been placed in production, it would have been a clear advance on every aircraft of its type in existence.
6. Somehow, it was never given an official name.
7. It was the largest of its type produced to that date.
8. It was also the heaviest.

dumbthumbs

I have really enjoyed reading and learning about war birds on this forum. Keep up the great work!!

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Thank you for the nice words, Sir. Feel free to jump in and participate with us at any time. Thanks; Ernie P.

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

Avro Canada CF 105 arrow ?

David Johnston

Hughes XF-11

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

A very good, although incorrect, answer David Johnston. In consideration of your participation, I'll give you an early afternoon clue and a hint. Hint: This aircraft was a real winner. It did everything the very ambitious specifications called for and much more. Look at clue (5) carefully. It is accurate. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. This little known and unheralded aircraft was a true wonder. It was designed to fulfill a variety of roles; and to do all of them well.
2. It succeeded in doing exactly that. And much, much more.
3. All the more surprising, it was designed and built by a company which hadn’t produced an aircraft of its general type for a very long time.
4. Only prototypes were produced, because, in the end, it was decided it simply wasn’t needed.
5. Despite that fact, it was a truly marvelous aircraft. Had it been placed in production, it would have been a clear advance on every aircraft of its type in existence.
6. Somehow, it was never given an official name.
7. It was the largest of its type produced to that date.
8. It was also the heaviest.
9. It had a real monster of an engine.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

A very good, although incorrect, answer David Johnston. In consideration of your participation, I'll give you an early afternoon clue and a hint. Hint: This aircraft was a real winner. It did everything the very ambitious specifications called for and much more. Look at clue (5) carefully. It is accurate. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. This little known and unheralded aircraft was a true wonder. It was designed to fulfill a variety of roles; and to do all of them well.
2. It succeeded in doing exactly that. And much, much more.
3. All the more surprising, it was designed and built by a company which hadn’t produced an aircraft of its general type for a very long time.
4. Only prototypes were produced, because, in the end, it was decided it simply wasn’t needed.
5. Despite that fact, it was a truly marvelous aircraft. Had it been placed in production, it would have been a clear advance on every aircraft of its type in existence.
6. Somehow, it was never given an official name.
7. It was the largest of its type produced to that date.
8. It was also the heaviest.
9. It had a real monster of an engine.

JohnnyS

Vought XF5U?

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

I am guessing this plane is from the Schneider cup series. but I am not much on the google thing
Sparky

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

No correct answers thus far, so here's an evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. This little known and unheralded aircraft was a true wonder. It was designed to fulfill a variety of roles; and to do all of them well.
2. It succeeded in doing exactly that. And much, much more.
3. All the more surprising, it was designed and built by a company which hadn’t produced an aircraft of its general type for a very long time.
4. Only prototypes were produced, because, in the end, it was decided it simply wasn’t needed.
5. Despite that fact, it was a truly marvelous aircraft. Had it been placed in production, it would have been a clear advance on every aircraft of its type in existence.
6. Somehow, it was never given an official name.
7. It was the largest of its type produced to that date.
8. It was also the heaviest.
9. It had a real monster of an engine.
10. The engine itself proved to be a problem initially. It worked just fine, but created some initial and unintended consequences which had to be dealt with in an interesting and innovative manner.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Sparky click on this URL then Book Mark It, Hope this helps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attack_aircraft

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. This little known and unheralded aircraft was a true wonder. It was designed to fulfill a variety of roles; and to do all of them well.
2. It succeeded in doing exactly that. And much, much more.
3. All the more surprising, it was designed and built by a company which hadn’t produced an aircraft of its general type for a very long time.
4. Only prototypes were produced, because, in the end, it was decided it simply wasn’t needed.
5. Despite that fact, it was a truly marvelous aircraft. Had it been placed in production, it would have been a clear advance on every aircraft of its type in existence.
6. Somehow, it was never given an official name.
7. It was the largest of its type produced to that date.
8. It was also the heaviest.
9. It had a real monster of an engine.
10. The engine itself proved to be a problem initially. It worked just fine, but created some initial and unintended consequences which had to be dealt with in an interesting and innovative manner.
11. Originally, it was mainly intended to have a very long range.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. This little known and unheralded aircraft was a true wonder. It was designed to fulfill a variety of roles; and to do all of them well.
2. It succeeded in doing exactly that. And much, much more.
3. All the more surprising, it was designed and built by a company which hadn’t produced an aircraft of its general type for a very long time.
4. Only prototypes were produced, because, in the end, it was decided it simply wasn’t needed.
5. Despite that fact, it was a truly marvelous aircraft. Had it been placed in production, it would have been a clear advance on every aircraft of its type in existence.
6. Somehow, it was never given an official name.
7. It was the largest of its type produced to that date.
8. It was also the heaviest.
9. It had a real monster of an engine.
10. The engine itself proved to be a problem initially. It worked just fine, but created some initial and unintended consequences which had to be dealt with in an interesting and innovative manner.
11. Originally, it was mainly intended to have a very long range.
12. It featured a number of very innovative features, which allowed it to perform so very well.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. This little known and unheralded aircraft was a true wonder. It was designed to fulfill a variety of roles; and to do all of them well.
2. It succeeded in doing exactly that. And much, much more.
3. All the more surprising, it was designed and built by a company which hadn’t produced an aircraft of its general type for a very long time.
4. Only prototypes were produced, because, in the end, it was decided it simply wasn’t needed.
5. Despite that fact, it was a truly marvelous aircraft. Had it been placed in production, it would have been a clear advance on every aircraft of its type in existence.
6. Somehow, it was never given an official name.
7. It was the largest of its type produced to that date.
8. It was also the heaviest.
9. It had a real monster of an engine.
10. The engine itself proved to be a problem initially. It worked just fine, but created some initial and unintended consequences which had to be dealt with in an interesting and innovative manner.
11. Originally, it was mainly intended to have a very long range.
12. It featured a number of very innovative features, which allowed it to perform so very well.
13. There is no doubt that, had it been placed in production, it would have been a formidable aircraft.

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

How about the Boeing XF8B
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/xf8b1.page

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

That's it, proptop; and you are now up. Congratulations! The Boeing XF8B was a fantastic aircraft for the time. It could literally "do it all" and do it better. However, it could only have made it into the very end of the war with Japan; and with the jets on the horizon, who would need a new piston engined shipboard fighter? Sadly, this perhaps epitome of the piston engined fighters is today all but lost to history. I urge all of you to read carefully the below. This one was an epic aircraft.

Okay, proptop; congrats again, and what is your question for us? Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. This little known and unheralded aircraft was a true wonder. It was designed to fulfill a variety of roles; and to do all of them well.
2. It succeeded in doing exactly that. And much, much more.
3. All the more surprising, it was designed and built by a company which hadn’t produced an aircraft of its general type for a very long time.
4. Only prototypes were produced, because, in the end, it was decided it simply wasn’t needed.
5. Despite that fact, it was a truly marvelous aircraft. Had it been placed in production, it would have been a clear advance on every aircraft of its type in existence.
6. Somehow, it was never given an official name.
7. It was the largest of its type produced to that date.
8. It was also the heaviest.
9. It had a real monster of an engine.
10. The engine itself proved to be a problem initially. It worked just fine, but created some initial and unintended consequences which had to be dealt with in an interesting and innovative manner.
11. Originally, it was mainly intended to have a very long range.
12. It featured a number of very innovative features, which allowed it to perform so very well.
13. There is no doubt that, had it been placed in production, it would have been a formidable aircraft.
14. It was specifically intended to be capable of dealing with any aircraft in the arsenal of the then current opponent.
15. It was designed to carry well over three tons of ordnance; to carry that ordnance a long way, and to carry it very fast.
16. Specifications required heavy machine gun armament; later changed to a very heavy battery of cannon.
17. Sheer horsepower was phenomenal.
18. Low speed torque proved to be problematic at first, particularly in its intended environment; but the engineers solved the problem. After some fixes, the plane proved to be very easy to control and fly.
19. Large internal fuel tanks were fitted.
20. Capable of performing as a very long range fighter.
21. An interceptor.
22. A dive or torpedo bomber.
23. An escort fighter.
24. Progress on the prototypes was delayed because the company was very busy with other commitments.
25. Its performance was so great, another service began to consider the aircraft.

Answer: The Boeing XF8B (Boeing Model 400)

[h=3]The Boeing XF8B (Model 400) was a single-engine aircraft developed by Boeing during World War II to provide the United States Navy a long-range shipboard fighter aircraft. The XF8B was intended for operation against the Japanese home islands from aircraft carriers outside the range of Japanese land-based aircraft. Designed for various roles including interceptor, long-range escort fighter, dive-bomber and torpedo bomber, the final design embodied a number of innovative features in order to accomplish the various roles. Despite its formidable capabilities, the XF8B-1 was fated to never enter series production.[/h][h=3][/h][h=3]Boeing XF8B-1 Navy Fighter Bomber 1945 "Boeing Model 400"[/h]The XF8B-1 fighter-bomber was the heaviest carrier-based airplane built before the end of World War II. It was the first fighter Boeing built after the P-26 ...


The Boeing XF8B-1: The great all-rounder.

On May 4th, 1943, Boeing was given a contract to develop and build three prototypes of a single-seat fighter-bomber aircraft that could ‘do it all’. It would serve as an interceptor for fleet defense; a long-range escort fighter; and a dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber and level bomber as well. It was to carry up to 7,200 pounds (well over three tons) of bombs or aerial torpedoes, and be armed with six .50-caliber machine-guns in the wings. The latter specification was later upgraded to six 20mm. cannon. It was to have a radius of action, with warload, of at least 1,000 miles, and performance sufficient to defeat any likely Japanese opponent.

Boeing’s response was a technological marvel of its time. The XF8B-1 (which was never given a name) was a very big plane for its day, having a wingspan of 54 feet, length of almost 44 feet and a loaded weight of over 20,000 pounds. To give it sufficient power, Boeing selected the brand-new Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major engine, which would later be used to power the B-50 Superfortress, Convair B-36 (colloquially known as the ‘Peacemaker’), and other leviathans of the air. The early version of this 28-cylinder, four-row radial engine developed a genuine 3,000 horsepower, rising to 4,300 horsepower in later models, far greater than any competitor at the time.




The sheer power of this engine posed headaches of its own. All single-engined aircraft using a single propeller experience the effect of engine torque when power is applied. This normally manifests itself as a swinging of the aircraft in the direction of rotation of the propeller. On lower-powered aircraft, this can be easily controlled by the pilot, sometimes with the aid of trim tabs that apply a set amount of rudder correction. However, the enormous power of the Wasp Major made its torque almost unmanageable at low speed (something that was to doom another aircraft developed in response to the US Navy’s 1943 requirements - more about that later). To overcome this problem, and to harness all of the available power, Boeing introduced the first contra-rotating propeller designed for a US combat aircraft from its inception. In effect, this was two three-bladed propellers, mounted one behind the other. One turned to the left, the other to the right. They thus canceled out each others’ torque, and made the aircraft very stable and easy to handle, despite its huge engine’s power.

To meet the warload and range requirements, Boeing adopted an innovative solution. An internal bomb bay could handle up to 6 500-pound bombs, or two 1,600-pound bombs, for a total load of up to 3,200 pounds. Large internal fuel tanks were also provided. Two external hardpoints were placed beneath the wings. They could carry either external fuel tanks, or one 1,600-pound bomb each, or one 2,000-pound torpedo each. This gave either a very long range of almost 2,500 miles with a 3,200-pound internal bomb load, or a range of about 1,500 miles (on internal fuel alone) with an internal and external warload of up to 7,200 pounds.

Development of the XF8 was slowed by Boeing’s commitment to the B-29 program, including the massive effort required to overcome that bomber’s teething troubles. However, the B-29 program also assisted the XF8: the latter’s tail design shows clear signs of the B-29's influence. In addition, the experience Boeing gained with the P&W Wasp Major engine in the XF8 program would help lead to that engine’s selection to replace the Wright R-3350 engines of the B-29 in the post-war B-29D/B-50 program.

The first prototype of the XF8 flew in November 1944.






In order to speed up development, a second seat was installed in the spacious cockpit, allowing a flight engineer to accompany the test pilot and record engine settings. The huge size of the aircraft made this easy. Two more prototypes followed, but their production was delayed by Boeing’s commitment to the B-29 program, and they only arrived after the end of the war. The final prototype is shown below in the only color photograph of the XF8 known to survive.




The XF8 was an immediate success, delivering everything the Navy had asked for. Its performance was so superb that one of the prototypes was even tested by the USAAF, to see whether it might be suitable for land-based air forces as well. However, by the end of 1944, when it first flew, the predictions of mid-1943 had been shown to be unfounded. The US Navy’s current aircraft proved able to handle combat operations against Japan, and to defend the fleet against Japanese counter-attacks. The long-range stand-off attacks envisioned in 1943 never became necessary. Furthermore, the advent of jet engines promised a whole new era of aircraft performance, and piston-engined aircraft rapidly lost their priority for development. Finally, the US armed forces needed Boeing to concentrate on the development of advanced bombers, tankers and transport aircraft, building on the success of the B-29 program.

As a result of all these factors, the US Navy decided not to place the XF8 into large-scale production. Despite the advent of the jet age, Boeing was offered a small production contract, as the aircraft was simply so good that the aviation powers that be didn’t want to do without it altogether. Unfortunately, Boeing’s assembly lines in 1946/47 were filled with B-50 bombers and C-97 Stratofreighter transports. The company was also preparing to produce the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (a civilian airliner based on the C-97), the KC-97 Stratotanker (another C-97 derivative) and the B-47 Stratojet strategic bomber. It could not afford to divert its production resources to a short run of fighter-bombers, from which little profit could be expected. Reluctantly, therefore, the XF-8 contract was declined.

However, the fact that the XF8 never entered production is not to imply that it was in any sense a failure. Quite the contrary - it was a spectacular achievement.




As a bomber, the single-engined XF8 could carry a heavier bomb load, at a higher speed, over a comparable (sometimes longer) range, than any twin-engined medium bomber of World War II, including the British Vickers Wellington and de Havilland Mosquito; the German Junkers Ju-88; and the US Douglas A-20 Havoc, Douglas A-26 Invader, Martin B-26 Marauder, and North American B-25 Mitchell.




As a fighter, the XF8 had a comparable practical (as opposed to theoretical) service ceiling, was more heavily armed (in its 20mm. cannon-equipped version), and was as fast or faster than, any piston-engined fighter of any World War II power, Allied or Axis. Furthermore, its contra-rotating propellers removed engine torque from the sighting equation, making it a more stable gun platform than most other fighters, and allowing for much more accurate shooting. Its only deficiencies as a fighter were its slightly slower rate of climb and its slightly lesser maneuverability, both due to its size and weight: but the right tactics could have ensured that these minor shortcomings would not have presented problems operationally, just as pilots of the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair (both less maneuverable than their Japanese opponents) were able to develop tactics to overcome this problem.


When fitted with external fuel tanks instead of bombs, the XF8 could carry up to 3,200 pounds of ordnance internally, and function as a fighter-bomber on a ‘search-and-destroy’ mission over a longer range than any other fighter aircraft of World War II. Its range was 70% greater than its nearest rival in this respect, the North American P-51 Mustang, even when the latter also carried external fuel tanks.

If the Boeing XF8 had been requested in 1942 and first flown in 1943 (instead of in 1943 and 1944, respectively, as was the case in reality), there’s little doubt that it would have been ordered in the thousands, and would probably have played an important part in the final year of the war against Japan (not to mention the Korean War in due course). It might have proved as versatile in its day as the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II did in the 1960's and 1970's. Sadly, this was not to be.




Regrettably, none of the three prototypes have survived. The last was scrapped in 1950. That’s a great pity, as the Boeing XF8 represented the pinnacle of piston-engined multi-role naval aircraft development. There has never been another aircraft quite like it.

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

Thanks Ernie,
That's been one of my favorite aircraft of all time...and your questions 6 through 10 just gave me a gut feeling...and those that followed confirmed it, in my mind.
I recall reading about it in Wings / Airpower (Sentry publications) back in the early 80's. One of the most beautiful, and (to use an over-used word) awesome aircraft ever made!

I have an aircraft in mind for the quiz...and will have some questions formulated shortly.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Good job on your part to recall how the clues matched up, proptop. Yeah, that was an awesome airplane; but one that came just a little bit too late. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Thanks; Ernie P.

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

O.K. guys, I hope I don't disappoint, and maybe this will make yaz do some diggin'...


Looking for an Aircraft...
Single engine...
Monoplane...
It's type of construction was relatively new for it's time...and something that the Co. that built it would become well known for...
It's Military service was somewhat limited, but it did serve, albeit briefly, in the "Air Force".of at least two Countries...

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

Looking for an Aircraft...
Single engine...
Monoplane...
It's type of construction was relatively new for it's time...and something that the Co. that built it would become well known for...
It's Military service was somewhat limited, but it did serve, albeit briefly, in the "Air Force".of at least two Countries...

This ("between the wars") versatile aircraft could be equipped with skis or floats, as well as wheeled landing gear..

It's style of construction was pioneered by a different company during WW1, and though not widely duplicated, was popular between the wars, and was used by several different manuf.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

The de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

Too New HoundDog...and not technically between the wars I was talking about either. This might help...

One of these aircraft was a co-star (so to speak) of a movie, one whose Human star was soon to be quite famous.

JohnnyS

Junkers W 33?
Junkers Type Fw D260?

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

JohnnyS

Hamilton H-47?