There is a saying that says “It it looks right, it will fly right”. Normally this is true but sometimes you run into an aircraft that just looked to good to fail yet managed to.
McDonnell XP-67 Moonbat
As we have seen with Northrop and Custer sometimes an aircraft designer gets a thought in his head that he refuses to let go of. In this case we are looking at a designer who believed in the idea of turning everything into a lifting surface.
McDonnell XP-67 Moonbat
The design team was looking for ways to reduce the drag caused by these right angles. In the McDonnell this was done by removing the right angle connections between the wing and the body. The problem with this approach is that you induce drag along with lift. The advantages turned out to be the ability to carry a large amount of fuel and armament. The Moonbat was designed to hold 735 gallons of avgas and to be armed with six 37mm cannons. Similar in approach to the Messerschmidt ME-110, the Moonbat was designed to be a bomber destroyer.
Like most other prototypes of the war the biggest issues were due to the powerplant. Two Continental I-1430′s were buried within the the wings which exacerbated the issues with cooling. The Continental’s were already designed to run hot but when you place that along with with the minimalist drag design of the XP-67 there was never enough airflow for the engine. This would lead to constant powerplant fires for the Moonbat.
Continental I-1430
The end of the Moonbat would come in September 1944 after an engine fire that was unrecoverable. The prototype was destroyed and the US Air Force decided to move on. It wouldn’t be the end for McDonnell or even this type of design which would return in the McDonnell F-3 Demon.
[images credit - http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil]
So is this where we get the slogan "With a name like 'Moonbat,' it's got to be crazy batsh** awesome"?
Not that I know of but it should have been. It's a shame it was let down by the Continental engines. When you do some research on those engines by themselves you find that they were relics when they were being designed because they didn't have to have new technology in them.
Then you find that they were designed, for what reason I have NO idea, to run with their glycol at near boil constantly. My guess is to keep that frontal area low. It's a very skinny engine when compared to the Allison V-1720 or even more so with the V-3420 which I will be covering tomorrow.
One of the more interesting notes in the WIki that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else is that it was originally part of the unorthodox aircraft competition of 1940. The one that brought us the XP-54, XP-55, and XP-56 (which i covered last week). That in the original design it was meant to use one Allison V-3420 in the middle of the fuselage and have it power both props.
Not that it's related in the least, but lately I've been infatuated with the PA-48 Enforcer. Turboprop Mustang FTW!
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Piper_PA48_Enforcer_USAF.jpg/800px-Piper_PA48_Enforcer_USAF.jpg" width="512">
Werent they the ones that were rebuilt in the 60s? There was something like 60 of them built? Same company that did a refresh of the A-26 Invader I believe. That the US Air Force bought as the B-26K. On mark was the name of the company.
<img src="http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050317-F-1234P-047.jpg" width=600 />
A little different, Cavalier was the company that did the Mustangs. They refurbed some for the USAF in the 1960s to give to countries in South America. The PA-48 was prototype only, built for some trials in the 1980s.
I'll have to look up the PA-48. I would have thought that by the 80's the planes would have been considered classics instead of used aircraft
I think they were looking for a replacement for the old A-1 Skyraider that worked so well for ground attack in Vietnam. They were considered COIN or counter insurgency aircraft. This was about the same time the US was playing around with Spec Ops and CIA stuff in Central America. The thinking was the next battle ground would be to stop communism from spreading out of Nicaragua, so basically an aircraft to fight a jungle war.
Right but we were wearing out our old prop aircraft and no current jet could do the job well. The F-105 was trying but a mach 2 aircraft isn't meant for it. Out of COIN we got a coupe of our favorite aircraft though. The A-10 Thunderbolt II and the AC-130
The A-10 did replace the A-1 for the Air Force, but the COIN program that I was referring to was a late 70s/early 80s thing. Both the A-10 and the AC-130 were developed by then. Also this program was seen more as a thing to supply friendly allies to stop the "commie rebels". Along the lines of the F-5, but for ground support.
I was thinking of the counter insurgency role that the A1 and B-26 both played. I thought that was COIN. So I stand corrected.
The A-10 was designed in response to Vietnam though. Since we needed something more like a bomb truck then a mach 2 interceptor that carries bombs. Plus that secondary benefit of being able to knock out tanks.
Every now and then I read about some small manufacture proposing a light attack aircraft for this role. Something in the 1-2 million per category or less. A very simple attack aircraft. Each time they are proposed it looks good and then the US Military decides it's to simple and never even tests it.
That's because the F-35 is going to be far superior in every aspect ever in the history of histories.
I was once discussing the C-130 with a former Lockheed worker. He said that the J model was so high tech that Lockheed had left themselves with basically the USAF as their only customer. Other countries might need a good transport plane, but couldn't afford all the high tech gadgets the USAF insisted the J model have.
I looked it up on Wiki and check out this line. So it seems like they did make it to complex
An updated civilian version of the Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 Super Hercules was under development, but the program was placed on hold indefinitely in 2000 to focus on military development and production
Yeah, the manufacturer's typically push an incomplete product out these days. "The software is buggy? Just buy into our extended maintenance plan, it will keep your fleet up to date for decades….". The extended maintenance (block upgrades) plan costs a lot and doesn't always fix problems in a timely manner. What is the F-16 up to? Block 60? Great airplanes but, holy crap, that's an expensive way to do business. And the selling country won't always let the customer get all the features they want due to capability and security concerns.
Their first mistake was not allowing Grumman to run the entire project:
<img src="http://www.lonesentry.com/panzer/may/pics/f7f_tigercat.jpg" width="500" />
The Tigercat will always be on my short list of planes that just looked right. It's such a clean design with so little to disturb the airflow. Like the Bearcat it's a Grumman very few of us know about
However, the clean and pretty but totally useless Westland Whirlwind proves the mantra isn't always right:
<img src="http://www.jitterbuzz.com/navfil/Westland_whirlwind.jpg" width="500" />
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Hornet01.jpg" width=600 />
Back when i was a teenager I had a Mosquito poster on my wall that listed this as the last variant. All I had was an artist drawing on that poster but just as in real life check out those lines. This is the DeHavilland Sea Hornet
The Sea Hornet was a totally kick-ass variant. It's like the Twin Mustang in that it represents the pinnacle of high-performance propellor-driven aircraft but is largely forgotten because it served alongside jets. It's almost like a lessons-learned compendium of P-51 / Me-410 / Mosquito.
The Twin Mustang is on my short list for future write ups actually. Since so few know about it. I'll see if i can't get it posted this week.
It looks like they found a picture of an ME262 and said "What the hell, lets go with it."
I think you are talking about the similiarities between the ME-262 and the Whirlwind?
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Messerschmitt_Me_262A_at_the_National_Museum_of_the_USAF.jpg/800px-Messerschmitt_Me_262A_at_the_National_Museum_of_the_USAF.jpg" width=600 />
There are similarities in the design. Other then the Whirlwind was designed before anyone had seen what a ME-262 looked like. Things like how the cockpit is pretty far back like in a F-4 Corsair. Normally this was because of the engine and fuel tank locations, like in the F-4. These two would have their cockpits in different locations for different reasons. My guess in the 262's case was because of the size of the 30mm cannon as well as an additional fuel tank.
But you are correct they are a lot things that look similar
I had mistakenly thought that the prop me262 was still podded. Oops.
The Hornet along with the MB-5 are some of my favorite prop aircraft.
Always liked the Whirlwind, but what a clunky undercarriage design. Needed Merlins!
Also the XF-90…
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/XF-90_inflight_USAFM.jpg/800px-XF-90_inflight_USAFM.jpg" width="500">
That and the F-94 as well. Let me go add that to the list. Thanks
There's one of those in the Lone Star Flight Museum down in Galveston. Though, last time I was there, it wasn't running. I wonder if they ever got around to fixing it back up.
This museum has a Moonbat or F-7 Tigercat?
Sorry, I wasn't being specific. The Lone Star has a Tigercat.
Yeah, mine was a bit more than sarcastic. There has been at least one decision maker who said the F35 would be a large step backward from the A10.
I'd love to see a write-up on the Brewster Buffalo. Such an improbable airplane, much like a bumblebee it looks like it shouldn't fly.
Oh that's a good one. Let me add that to my list. Any plane that causes the US Navy to shut down the factory DURING WAR TIME should be written about
My Dad knew how to fly before WWII, and when everything ramped up he was deemed far more valuable as an Instructor than just a fighter pilot and this pissed him off for years. He wanted to go kill Japs, which was not at all uncommon for people of his generation and thought "Instructing" a bunch of dip-shits was below his pay-grade.
He taught guys how to fly a P-38 Lightning, and had evidently a one-off Trainer because I've tried to find anything that looks like his photo's. It had a cockpit in both booms behind the engines, and I'm guessing all the fuel was in the center pod.
Dad hated this job, and was sleeping quite nicely when the trainee crashed big time while landing. During his rehabilitation he met my Mom who was a lifeguard at the pool and she became Plaintiff #1.
Love love love these posts. How about a post on pusher-prop planes from WWII? Like the Kyushu J7W, which was just a prototype, but was unbelievably awesome:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/J7w.png" width="500">