Yep, the Tigercat was a descendent of the XF5F design. Tigercat missed WWII, but saw service in Korea. Many were used later as firebombers, and a few still fly.
There's a recording I found of an interview taken with Bob Hall about a year before his death. In it, he recounts exactly what happened during the test flight that destroyed the aircraft. The starboard turbocharger explosion severed both the hydraulic line to the front gear and the safety string, which was meant to release the front gear in such an event. Hall tried to lower the gear to make an emergency landing, but only the rear wheels went down. When he tried to raise the rear gear again he couldn't since all the hydraulic fluid had leaked out by then. Knowing he couldn't land the plane safely with only the rear gear down, he decided to ditch. Interestingly, one of the interviewers asked Hall how the plane flew with one engine and he said it was fine, which implies that he would have been able to land it on one engine if the front gear came down. It's a stretch, but you could argue (and I'm sure some clickbait UA-cam channel will at some point) that this plane was doomed by a single safety string.
Can I see that interview? I have questions as his statements disagree with my training concerning loss of nose gear and multiple instances of aircraft safely landing with intact main gear but disabled nose gear.
May 14, 1941: During testing, the Grumman XP-50 prototype (39-2517) is lost, falling victim to a turbo-supercharger explosion that destroyed the aircraft. The test pilot Bob Hall bailed out while the XP-50 plunged into Smithtown Bay in Long Island Sound. The Grumman XP-50 was a land-based development of the shipboard XF5F-1 Skyrocket fighter, entered into a United States Army Air Corps contest for a twin-engine heavy interceptor aircraft. The Army Air Corps placed an order for a prototype on Nov. 25, 1939, designating it XP-50, but it lost the competition to the Lockheed XP-49.
@@jonskowitz You can find it on UMass Amherst's Credo library under "Granville Airplane Company Oral History Collection". He specifically says in the interview that the main wheels were "too far back" to land it safely. Bear in mind that Bob Hall wasn't just a test pilot; he was an engineer who had a hand in designing the plane in the first place.
The XP-50 did not succeed but in the looks department it was slick and gorgeous. it reminds me of a 66 Jaguar E-Type, beautiful from stem to stern. Thank you Ed.
Thank you, VERY much for this, Ed. I LOVE this plane. But, I can - now, thanks to you - see why they did not develop it further. Maybe if they fitted Wright R-2600's (instead of the R-1820's), from the start? Which were about the same diameter and about 14 inches longer (though about 85% heavier) than the R-1820. Though, that probably would have pushed back the 'first flight' date. Like you said...'what if'? ☮
The XP-50 if it had won a contract to build by Grumman would have been a problem. But there was a solution, because even Grumman's TBF Avenger was contracted to General Motors and became the TBM. Vought's F4U was also contracted to Goodyear & Brewster. Even Curtiss wound up building P-47's Thunderbolts. The point is if the USAAC/USAAF really wanted the aircraft they could have another manufacturer build the P-50.
As someone who has been bullied by XP-50s in War Thunder, I can at least take solace in the fact that it did in fact exist not just on paper and seemed to be a very capable machine.
05:03 It had a climb rate of 1.2 to 1.5 kilometres per second? I don't think even Saturn V could manage that. I think you've muddled your units somewhere, Ed.
I *STILL* reckon the Gruman series which includes this XP50 & its XF5F Skyrocket Influenced the Brit manufaturer Miles when he designed the Gemini (Which is itself a rather beautiful aeroplane and far more agile than you might suppose)
If this thing wasn't such a menace in War Thunder i'd love it, but now I see it and feel nothing but hate, always above me, no way to outclimb them, the bastards.
A twin radials fighter? and made by Grumman? Hell yes! I have a feeling it would have put the P-38 to shame, both as a fighter and a fighter-bomber. But who knows?
I remember playing this beast years ago in World of Warplanes, it was always a blast. Would it be possible to also do another of my faves, the XP-58 "Chain Lightning"?
Has anyone gone looking for the wreckage? Not knowing how severe the crash was I would be curious to know if it could be retrieved. Probably not, but it might have been interesting.
Most of the WW2 fighters had started design before the USA got into the war. The nature of entrepenurial spirit is playing "what if" and strating to sketch out a concept to deal with it. Throw enough gravelkl at a problem you discover the shape of which stones work best at hitting the target. The next iteration gives you the 5 best.... P-38, p-47, p-51, f-6, f4u........
One could imagine this plane would likely cost 1/2 the price of the 38. On another note, this looks very much like a couple of very fast Japanese Army interceptor/recon planes of the war.
Quite the opposite. There's a roughly linear correlation between horsepower and climb rate or payload capacity. Two engines give you roughly twice as much horsepower as one but doesn't double the empty weight. Yes, two engines will burn more fuel than one, but the extra payload capacity means you can carry much more than twice the fuel. The XP-50 had three times the payload capacity as the Curtis P-36, which had the same engine, and about 50% greater range. Or about twice the range of the Bf-109.
What a pretty little fighter! I can see a lot of potential in it's design. Swap the canopy for a bubble-canopy, lengthen the fuselage behind the cockpit a little, add more armour for the pilot, and upgrade the engines to more powerful inline engines (imagine this baby with Merlin's)! 2 x 20mm and 2 x .50 cal is already decent, but another 2 x .50 cals or just 4 x 20mm would be better. It might have succeeded where the Whirlwind failed.
@@peceed Yeah, I'd definitely opt for 4 x 20mm. I can't see it being a long-range fighter as increasing wing or fuselage too much to accommodate larger fuel tanks would wreck it's agility. I think that with Merlin's the 'P-50' would have been superior to the Lightning.
Getting to operational altitude fast. It was a major requirement for interceptor aircraft. The sexiest planes were the fastest climbers. Fokker Dreidekker and Sopwith triplane. Later Jugs, early Spitfires. The F8F Bearcat. There were more exotic approaches, like Bachem's Ba-349 Natter vertilaunched interceptor. The cold war had the Buck Rogers ready Lockheed F-104. F22 can point at the sky right off the runway . . . second star to the left and straight on till Bingo. Technology has limitations of concept, development, and materials research. Human piloting has other discriminatory limits: 9G, temperatures as close to 32-80 degrees F as possible, internal cabin pressure a reasonable fraction of 14lb/sq in. We humans also have essential fluid in/out cycles that long flying missions interrupt. A modern medium range AA missile can bridge that altitude gap before a human interceptor pilot has wheels off the runway. That seems unfair.
Me-163. Although it was a failure it certainly set the bar for climb rate to the next level. F-104 was a very similar concept and arguably a failure as well.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Greetings, Chancellor. I agree with you about the Komet's exhilarating performance and, too, the point defense interceptor idea being largely, if not entirely, ineffectual. In my view the Me163 and F104 are chief exemplars of this concept.
@@derrickstorm6976 the ee lightning f.2a could get 2 hours patrol time, any actual exercise or reaction the sorties could only last 15 - 30 minutes if you were careful. I have much suspicion over 1300 miles unless the whole thing is a fuel tank. Take care.
@@jimjim2953 It's only fair to have such suspicion about all the data there is available about it, since those were estimates just for the prototype without armament, armour and selfsealing fueltanks. Most often estimates were somewhat too optimistic, rather than the opposite.
Someone needs to make a video explaining the difference between Fighter, Interceptor and Pursuit planes. Using terms you don't define is not helpful, number one, and two, there are some interesting stories there -- like the F-117 and F-111, Un-fighter planes designated as such to inspire good pilots to join those communities, according to one source anyway. But those terms are not publicly defined and most people use them without understanding
These terms really mean nothing and are used interchangeably by so many people. The real problem emerges when attaching strict meaning to the letters "F" or "P" when part of an aircraft designation. Both letters have been used by the US to designate fighters, which started out being called scouts in the first world war. But they are fungible today. The F-105, F-111, and F-117 were really tactical bombers, and were labelled with an "F" mostly for political reasons rather than to describe the primary function of the aircraft. Another issue is that while the Navy had separate communities of fighter and attack pilots, USAF tactical air forces called all their pilots fighter pilots even if they flew an attack type aircraft, because being a fighter pilot was more a state of mind than an air to air mission, and pilots could transition between both types of aircraft. There has never been a letter to designate "interceptors" because all fighters can perform the interception role. There were a few dedicated all-weather bomber interceptors, but they all had the F-designation. For example, the F-89, 92, 102, and 106 were all designed to intercept and destroy incoming bombers, and had unique equipment not then used for air superiority fighter. That dedicated bomber interceptor era is pretty much over now.
G'day, Well, the term "Pursuit" was always meaningless - it was only ever applied by US Army Air Corps beaurocrats, back when American Single Seaters were slow, overweight, and went up to try to find a Designated Enemy Aircraft to go out and follow them around, hoping and dreaming of catching them. The Beaurocrats stuck around until the USAAC became first the US Army Air Forces, during which time (1943 -'47) some interest was shown in "Interceptors" - possibly and in fact probably because in 1944 - '45 Germany was fielding the Me-163b Komet, which had excellent Climb and Speed Performance, but no Endurance to squeak of (not beyond it's 9 minutes' Fuel supply)... {and in time, things like the Lockheed Starfighter and English Electric Lightning would emerge to fit that Niche within NATO...}. However, it was not until the US Army Air Forces became the US AIR FORCE..., in 1948, that all the Yanqui "Pursuit" Aircraft became rebranded as "Fighters", and things like P-51 Mustangs suddenly became F-51s. There was a similar relabelling exercise in Britain, in the 1920s...., when the Royal Flying Corps had become the Royal Air Force in 1918, and then (in 1920 ?) the Royal Naval Air Service became the Fleet Air Arm ; and somfhime around then, all their "Scouts" became "Fighters". Essentially, the term "Pursuit" is effectively meaningless - and it's almost as obsolete as "Scout"...; while "Interceptor" applies to any "Fighter" which has less than 30 minutes' Fuel capacity on Takeoff, and is thus functionally useless - except for the Point-Defence of "High-Value Targets". So, there you go, and now you can go - and read some History Books for Context - and thus confirm that I'm not too far wrong. Such is life, Have a good one.. Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Scout was what the rfc called single seaters as they were meant to scout for the enemy. Intercepts intercept bombers. Fighters fight. US used pursuit for fighter until the korean war then changed to fighter. Theyre basically i terchangeable terms.
Nothing that Exotic in that design Had they started in 1937 I’m guessing it would have been a high end service aircraft knocking Zero’s and Betty’s right out of the sky at Guadalcanal. Ditching the Turbosuperchargers for a stage super chargers would have solved a lot of headaches
Im stoned, so please forgive me But if at 6:25 you had said all deadpan "invested it in bitcoin" and then continued with the rest of the script without ever batting an eye... what an opportunity to troll, just wasted :(
Performance has a beauty all it's own. I personally like the Bearcat, a stubby little scrapper that sadly had little combat experience. It's the bulldog puppy of fighter aircraft.
@@lancerevell5979 Exactly; it arrived too late, and for me its like the F-104, where they picked a crazy strong engine and put cigar with wings on (behind) it. Not to mention it took the chance from other promising/interesting project planes to enter service. I like to fly it in videogames, just hate to look it!
![The Super-Fighter That Was Betrayed By Its Engine | Vultee XP-54 [Aircraft Overview #68]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EhKenDU-dyY/mqdefault.jpg)
The XP-50 looks actually like some evolutionary forefather of the Grumman F7F Tigercat
It's cause it was! 😆
The droopy nose provides better forward visibility, especially important for aircraft operations on carriers
Is pretty much it's grandfather, with the XF5F being the great grandfather.
Yep, the Tigercat was a descendent of the XF5F design. Tigercat missed WWII, but saw service in Korea. Many were used later as firebombers, and a few still fly.
@@lancerevell5979 Have a soft spot for it myself thanks to getting to play it in the 1946 alternative history expansion for Aces of the Pacific.
@@brentfellers9632 Droop snoop. Go fast. - Concord
There's a recording I found of an interview taken with Bob Hall about a year before his death. In it, he recounts exactly what happened during the test flight that destroyed the aircraft.
The starboard turbocharger explosion severed both the hydraulic line to the front gear and the safety string, which was meant to release the front gear in such an event. Hall tried to lower the gear to make an emergency landing, but only the rear wheels went down. When he tried to raise the rear gear again he couldn't since all the hydraulic fluid had leaked out by then. Knowing he couldn't land the plane safely with only the rear gear down, he decided to ditch.
Interestingly, one of the interviewers asked Hall how the plane flew with one engine and he said it was fine, which implies that he would have been able to land it on one engine if the front gear came down. It's a stretch, but you could argue (and I'm sure some clickbait UA-cam channel will at some point) that this plane was doomed by a single safety string.
"The XP-50's FATAL FLAW" 😂
Can I see that interview? I have questions as his statements disagree with my training concerning loss of nose gear and multiple instances of aircraft safely landing with intact main gear but disabled nose gear.
May 14, 1941: During testing, the Grumman XP-50 prototype (39-2517) is lost, falling victim to a turbo-supercharger explosion that destroyed the aircraft. The test pilot Bob Hall bailed out while the XP-50 plunged into Smithtown Bay in Long Island Sound. The Grumman XP-50 was a land-based development of the shipboard XF5F-1 Skyrocket fighter, entered into a United States Army Air Corps contest for a twin-engine heavy interceptor aircraft. The Army Air Corps placed an order for a prototype on Nov. 25, 1939, designating it XP-50, but it lost the competition to the Lockheed XP-49.
@@jonskowitz You can find it on UMass Amherst's Credo library under "Granville Airplane Company Oral History Collection".
He specifically says in the interview that the main wheels were "too far back" to land it safely. Bear in mind that Bob Hall wasn't just a test pilot; he was an engineer who had a hand in designing the plane in the first place.
Plis do War Thunder unicum guide
#1 premium to buy in War Thunder. Made 2 million silver lions with this beauty.
Yeah, fighting this thing is the bane of my existence
Thanks for spending the time to make this video.The XP-50 is my favorite " What if " aircraft.
It looks like the skyrocket combined with one of the spies from “Spy vs Spy”
The XP-50 did not succeed but in the looks department it was slick and gorgeous. it reminds me of a 66 Jaguar E-Type, beautiful from stem to stern. Thank you Ed.
a humpback if there ever was one
Imagine a plexiglass bubble rather than the framed glasshouse and..... maybe?
it looks like an art deco-era fighter from Crimson Skies
Agreed.
It was gorgeous.
Take off the dated, early war graphics?
Just gorgeous.
☮
Just like the XKE, this is also not as gorgeous as the Nissan S30.
Oh another great one and living on Long Island, Grumman is legendary. Many thanks and keep em coming!
On the topic of upscaled twin engined aircraft, the P-38K is a very interesting plane
Look forward to a future video on the XP-49. Top shelf video and content as always Ed!
please do the lockheed xp-49 :) love the work and the research you put into your videos
You're one of my favourite UA-cam channels, keep up the great work.
*sniff sniff* Is that a TigerCat video I smell cooking?
Excellent.
Another interesting and well researched/presented vid. Thanks mate :)
Thankyou Ed. Know most of these but everydays a schoolday .
Thank you, VERY much for this, Ed.
I LOVE this plane.
But, I can - now, thanks to you - see why they did not develop it further.
Maybe if they fitted Wright R-2600's (instead of the R-1820's), from the start?
Which were about the same diameter and about 14 inches longer (though about 85% heavier) than the R-1820.
Though, that probably would have pushed back the 'first flight' date.
Like you said...'what if'?
☮
Always highly satisfied when shoot one of these down. Even more satisfying when shoot 3 of them down in one match in WT...with bomber
The XP-50 if it had won a contract to build by Grumman would have been a problem. But there was a solution, because even Grumman's TBF Avenger was contracted to General Motors and became the TBM. Vought's F4U was also contracted to Goodyear & Brewster. Even Curtiss wound up building P-47's Thunderbolts. The point is if the USAAC/USAAF really wanted the aircraft they could have another manufacturer build the P-50.
Yes, entirely possible.
As someone who has been bullied by XP-50s in War Thunder, I can at least take solace in the fact that it did in fact exist not just on paper and seemed to be a very capable machine.
(if) is the biggest little ever.....Thanks Mr Ed...
Shoe🇺🇸
Superb post, thanks Ed, another new one on me.
such a beautiful aircraft... they should have built them by the thousands. It would have been one of the favorite civilian aircraft of all time.
05:03 It had a climb rate of 1.2 to 1.5 kilometres per second? I don't think even Saturn V could manage that. I think you've muddled your units somewhere, Ed.
Ha! Good spot! Yes, got my caption wrong alright.
If you play War Thunder, you know that climb rate is just about right
@@Godvana_ wish I had time to play it. Looks like a cracking game.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Can be fun but the grinding required is insane. Unless you have money to burn :)
I *STILL* reckon the Gruman series which includes this XP50 & its XF5F Skyrocket
Influenced the Brit manufaturer Miles when he designed the Gemini
(Which is itself a rather beautiful aeroplane and far more agile than you might suppose)
Wonderful Stuff.
Thanks
If this thing wasn't such a menace in War Thunder i'd love it, but now I see it and feel nothing but hate, always above me, no way to outclimb them, the bastards.
4:00 What a sleek aircraft!
do one on the F7F. its one of my hidden faves of ww2..
its almost never mentioned..
Pretty nifty aircraft. Thanks!
George Lucas surely saw this thing.
yea a podracer in episode 1 was based on it
Yep looks a lot like a pod racer
@@russell4718 also naboo starfighter 👍 ua-cam.com/users/shorts1R7I3VkR0Ag?feature=share
Interesting bird. Also, the F7F would make another good subject for a video.
Looks like a crossover P38/Mosquito
Effectively the US equivalent of the Westland Whirlwind...
Any recovery attempts of the XP-50 from Davy Jones locker?
I really do wonder if an aircraft's appearance plays a big factor in the military's choice for its production.
It would have been a great post-war go-fast for people with too much money. 🙂
This would've been a good candidate not for an interceptor but for a ground support aircraft.
It is interesting to note the counter rotating props in some of the pictures. No doubt this helped in its performance and handling.
A twin radials fighter? and made by Grumman? Hell yes!
I have a feeling it would have put the P-38 to shame, both as a fighter and a fighter-bomber. But who knows?
I remember playing this beast years ago in World of Warplanes, it was always a blast.
Would it be possible to also do another of my faves, the XP-58 "Chain Lightning"?
It is on the list, never fear ;)
Has anyone gone looking for the wreckage? Not knowing how severe the crash was I would be curious to know if it could be retrieved. Probably not, but it might have been interesting.
Now I wonder if someone has or will build a flying replica (and with additional safety strings for the landing gear) to see what it can do.
I have to wonder if it influenced the engineering team of the Cessna 310.
Most of the WW2 fighters had started design before the USA got into the war. The nature of entrepenurial spirit is playing "what if" and strating to sketch out a concept to deal with it. Throw enough gravelkl at a problem you discover the shape of which stones work best at hitting the target. The next iteration gives you the 5 best.... P-38, p-47, p-51, f-6, f4u........
You can certainly see the concept of this thing re-emerging in the F7F Tigercat, another aircraft that gets short shrift these days.
One could imagine this plane would likely cost 1/2 the price of the 38. On another note, this looks very much like a couple of very fast Japanese Army interceptor/recon planes of the war.
Ima move the engines backward, put a rotating cannon in it, and call it Barthog.
The xp49, was a victim of the US AAC ever changing specifications.
I’m thinking (could be waaaay off) but it looks like it would have a combat radius to make a Bf-109 look positively long legged😀
Quite the opposite. There's a roughly linear correlation between horsepower and climb rate or payload capacity. Two engines give you roughly twice as much horsepower as one but doesn't double the empty weight. Yes, two engines will burn more fuel than one, but the extra payload capacity means you can carry much more than twice the fuel. The XP-50 had three times the payload capacity as the Curtis P-36, which had the same engine, and about 50% greater range. Or about twice the range of the Bf-109.
hello THANKS SO MUCH FOR CORRECTLY NAMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL INSTRUCTIONS. Great presentation saludos
Is the guy in the cockpit at 2:03 wearing a stetson? I swear it looks like Clint Eastwood in his The Good, The Bad and The Ugly costume.
What a pretty little fighter! I can see a lot of potential in it's design. Swap the canopy for a bubble-canopy, lengthen the fuselage behind the cockpit a little, add more armour for the pilot, and upgrade the engines to more powerful inline engines (imagine this baby with Merlin's)! 2 x 20mm and 2 x .50 cal is already decent, but another 2 x .50 cals or just 4 x 20mm would be better. It might have succeeded where the Whirlwind failed.
2x20 mm is as powerfull as 6 0.50. So the only better option was to make 4x20 mm.
@@peceed Yeah, I'd definitely opt for 4 x 20mm. I can't see it being a long-range fighter as increasing wing or fuselage too much to accommodate larger fuel tanks would wreck it's agility. I think that with Merlin's the 'P-50' would have been superior to the Lightning.
They basically did most of that with the result was Tigercat
@@kidpagronprimsank05 Hardly, the Tigercat did not have a bubble-canopy or inline engines. It was a heavy fighter with a 2 man crew.
@@andrewstrongman305 Tigercat was single seater for some variants
its awesome in warthunder
Hello. You seem to know more about the XP than me… Do you know anything about the search effort for the XP-50?
I beleive some parts were recovered as part of the investigation, but that's about all I know.
Getting to operational altitude fast.
It was a major requirement for interceptor aircraft. The sexiest planes were the fastest climbers. Fokker Dreidekker and Sopwith triplane. Later Jugs, early Spitfires. The F8F Bearcat. There were more exotic approaches, like Bachem's Ba-349 Natter vertilaunched interceptor. The cold war had the Buck Rogers ready Lockheed F-104. F22 can point at the sky right off the runway . . . second star to the left and straight on till Bingo.
Technology has limitations of concept, development, and materials research. Human piloting has other discriminatory limits: 9G, temperatures as close to 32-80 degrees F as possible, internal cabin pressure a reasonable fraction of 14lb/sq in. We humans also have essential fluid in/out cycles that long flying missions interrupt.
A modern medium range AA missile can bridge that altitude gap before a human interceptor pilot has wheels off the runway. That seems unfair.
Me-163. Although it was a failure it certainly set the bar for climb rate to the next level. F-104 was a very similar concept and arguably a failure as well.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Greetings, Chancellor. I agree with you about the Komet's exhilarating performance and, too, the point defense interceptor idea being largely, if not entirely, ineffectual. In my view the Me163 and F104 are chief exemplars of this concept.
looks like soemthing from CRIMSON SKIES
I got the same impression.
Sweet
An almost jet like airplane.
Slow rate of roll because of the widely-spaced heavy engines. So not much of a dogfighter, but probably great for "zoom and boom" attacks.
You said it was the G-45, Wikipedia says G-46. Which is correct?
William Green says G-45, as do other published sources, so I'd go with that. Hope that helps.
With it being very small with twin 1,200hp engines could it carry enough fuel to do anything with?
Well, wiki says it would have been 1300 miles, equal to a P-38...
@@derrickstorm6976 the ee lightning f.2a could get 2 hours patrol time, any actual exercise or reaction the sorties could only last 15 - 30 minutes if you were careful. I have much suspicion over 1300 miles unless the whole thing is a fuel tank. Take care.
@@jimjim2953 It's only fair to have such suspicion about all the data there is available about it, since those were estimates just for the prototype without armament, armour and selfsealing fueltanks. Most often estimates were somewhat too optimistic, rather than the opposite.
@@Teh0X They are selling at the end of the day.
..6:21 - Amish test pilot?
D...............hose and cart off frame ...........good spot !!!!!!!!
What if indeed
Someone needs to make a video explaining the difference between Fighter, Interceptor and Pursuit planes. Using terms you don't define is not helpful, number one, and two, there are some interesting stories there -- like the F-117 and F-111, Un-fighter planes designated as such to inspire good pilots to join those communities, according to one source anyway. But those terms are not publicly defined and most people use them without understanding
These terms really mean nothing and are used interchangeably by so many people. The real problem emerges when attaching strict meaning to the letters "F" or "P" when part of an aircraft designation. Both letters have been used by the US to designate fighters, which started out being called scouts in the first world war. But they are fungible today. The F-105, F-111, and F-117 were really tactical bombers, and were labelled with an "F" mostly for political reasons rather than to describe the primary function of the aircraft.
Another issue is that while the Navy had separate communities of fighter and attack pilots, USAF tactical air forces called all their pilots fighter pilots even if they flew an attack type aircraft, because being a fighter pilot was more a state of mind than an air to air mission, and pilots could transition between both types of aircraft.
There has never been a letter to designate "interceptors" because all fighters can perform the interception role. There were a few dedicated all-weather bomber interceptors, but they all had the F-designation. For example, the F-89, 92, 102, and 106 were all designed to intercept and destroy incoming bombers, and had unique equipment not then used for air superiority fighter. That dedicated bomber interceptor era is pretty much over now.
G'day,
Well, the term "Pursuit" was always meaningless - it was only ever applied by US Army Air Corps beaurocrats, back when American Single Seaters were slow, overweight, and went up to try to find a Designated Enemy Aircraft to go out and follow them around, hoping and dreaming of catching them.
The Beaurocrats stuck around until the USAAC became first the US Army Air Forces, during which time (1943 -'47) some interest was shown in "Interceptors" - possibly and in fact probably because in 1944 - '45 Germany was fielding the Me-163b Komet, which had excellent Climb and Speed Performance, but no Endurance to squeak of (not beyond it's 9 minutes' Fuel supply)... {and in time, things like the Lockheed Starfighter and English Electric Lightning would emerge to fit that Niche within NATO...}.
However, it was not until the US Army Air Forces became the US AIR FORCE..., in 1948, that all the Yanqui "Pursuit" Aircraft became rebranded as "Fighters", and things like P-51 Mustangs suddenly became F-51s.
There was a similar relabelling exercise in Britain, in the 1920s...., when the Royal Flying Corps had become the Royal Air Force in 1918, and then (in 1920 ?) the Royal Naval Air Service became the Fleet Air Arm ; and somfhime around then, all their "Scouts" became "Fighters".
Essentially, the term "Pursuit" is effectively meaningless - and it's almost as obsolete as "Scout"...; while "Interceptor" applies to any "Fighter" which has less than 30 minutes' Fuel capacity on Takeoff, and is thus functionally useless - except for the Point-Defence of "High-Value Targets".
So, there you go, and now you can go - and read some History Books for Context - and thus confirm that I'm not too far wrong.
Such is life,
Have a good one..
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Scout was what the rfc called single seaters as they were meant to scout for the enemy.
Intercepts intercept bombers.
Fighters fight.
US used pursuit for fighter until the korean war then changed to fighter.
Theyre basically i terchangeable terms.
Nothing that Exotic in that design
Had they started in 1937 I’m guessing it would have been a high end service aircraft knocking Zero’s and Betty’s right out of the sky at Guadalcanal. Ditching the Turbosuperchargers for a stage super chargers would have solved a lot of headaches
Xf-5F looks like a crop duster wearing a night fighter's mustache and glasses.
... Heavy Fighter ... another Georing's wet dream .. :D
Salty is a bit late.
t.y 🙏🙏
Im stoned, so please forgive me
But if at 6:25 you had said all deadpan "invested it in bitcoin" and then continued with the rest of the script without ever batting an eye... what an opportunity to troll, just wasted :(
Yeah that woulda been hella funny
Way too op at 4.0
Any war thunder players here that also hate the XP 50?
Me having a 70% win rate in it
:)
War Thunder players, I call on you! Wake up, my masters! +_+
Robert Hall apparently had a fondness for felines.
Everything about this aircraft just seems weirdly out of proportion. It honestly looks like a design for a toy.
first!
The XP 50 were a real eye sore.
The F8F is a rarely ugly fighter, so the world would not lose much...
Your point ?
Performance has a beauty all it's own. I personally like the Bearcat, a stubby little scrapper that sadly had little combat experience. It's the bulldog puppy of fighter aircraft.
@@lancerevell5979 Exactly; it arrived too late, and for me its like the F-104, where they picked a crazy strong engine and put cigar with wings on (behind) it. Not to mention it took the chance from other promising/interesting project planes to enter service. I like to fly it in videogames, just hate to look it!