The Grumman XF5F Skyrocket; Naval Hot-rod
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- When the US Navy realised in 1937 that any of their existing or projected fighters would struggle to counter the new bombers coming into service, they asked for a carrier interceptor of excellent performance.
And despite looking a bit odd, Grumman delivered.
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/edna...
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
When an A10 Warthog crashes into the back of a Beaufighter.
The corsair also has the additional advantage of requiring less hangar space and half the hours spent in engine maintenance. Carrying more aircraft with higher availability per airframe greatly increases a carrier's firepower.
It was difficult and dangerous for rookie and even veteran pilots to to take off and land Corsairs on carriers. Upon landing, the pilot's vision was blocked by the long nose as soon as the tail went down and would block their vision on take off until the tail came back up. For this reason the F4F was given to the Marine Corps as a land based fighter. They were flown by Pappy Boyington's "Black Sheep Squadron".
I've heard that British pilots operating F4U's from carriers worked around the visibility problem by approaching for landing in a continuous turn. Another problem was that early model Corsairs would stall on the port wing before the starboard. Vought corrected this on later models by installing a stall strip that can be seen on the starboard wing of later examples.
@@thomashughes3573 The MiG-15 had the same problem. It was caused by the location of the pitot tube (but was never fixed).
The XF5F has roughly the same wingspan as the F4U, the F4U has a wingspan of 12.5 meters while the XF5F has a wingspan of 12.8 meters. The bigger difference comes in fuselage length and the XF5F in this regard is way smaller with a length of 8.76 meters and the F4U being 10.26 meters long. Arguably you could have more XF5Fs instead of F4Us. There are other advantages of the XF5F that are superior to the F4U, but mainly wanted to touch on this topic since u mentioned it.
I remember an old comic called Blackhawks featuring these.
Interesting that the comic series ended in 2012. It started in 1941. The PZL 50 Hawk painted black was how the series was named but wasn’t used in the initial publications.
The Blackhawks used another aircraft that while having great potential didn't make it into service.... The Lockheed XF-90.
They showed up in episodes of Justice League as well
I never saw that comic, but I've got the Mad magazine parody of it. "The Black and Blue Hawks".
He mentions that at the end of the video.
Ed I don't know about everyone else but the XF5F somehow reminds me of Dolly Parton. 🤔
I first saw one of these in a Blackhawk comic and was amazed years later to find out it was a real plane. Thanks for the video, I love hearing about these odd aircraft
Same here!
Me too! In 1949! Hawkaa-a-a!!
I don't know how you keep coming up with such great content, but I'm grateful that you do.
looks like a lovechild between the A-10 and a Westland Whirlwind 🙂
I'm thinking chibi Mosquito. :)
@@AikenDrum1715CE "Chibi Mosquito" is hilarious on multiple levels.
I thought Bristol Beaufighter and P-38, but I see the whirlwind DNA got mixed in there too. Must’ve been some party.
Thank you for an excellent article and for the information on the Corsair. Much appreciated. The owner of the small FBO where I learned how to fly in 1974, Walter J. Koladza, was Chance Vought Test Pilot during the war who flew Corsairs at their factory in Connecticut. He had a very large handmade wooden model of a beautiful dark blue Navy Corsair hanging in the lobby of the FBO for many many years. The airport was renamed to the Walter J. Koladza Airport after he passed away in 2004.
This was a really interesting one, and an aircraft I knew little about. As a big Grumman fan (I volunteer crewing/maintaining a 1945 Avenger that goes to airshows and such) I’m a bit surprised that this didn’t get more traction with the USN, but it makes sense for the reasons you stated.
It seems the Grumman engineers would eventually see vindication with the production of the F7F Tigercat however - probably the sexiest radial of all time (save perhaps for the Hughes H-1 Racer.)
sexiest radial gotta be the razorback thunderbolts imo
Every time I see that slick AIRACOBRA and TIGERCAT I fall in love with them.
My father was an airplane nut and was in the USAAF and he used to tell me about the plane used in the Blackhawk comics. I recall him sending away for plans to build a flying model of it but he never did build that one.
So fast the fuselage almost slipped off the wings trailing edge.
Another great episode on a plane I never knew existed. Fantastic Ed...keep em' flying!
Thoroughly enjoyed this. I’ve built a “Blackhawk “ version as a model kit and can remember reading the comics. Never knew much about her as an actual airframe. Thanks for an interesting segment.
Hawkaaaaa!!!!
I remember The Blackhawk Squadron comics very well and remember their planes as well!
Thanks for this little known bit of US aviation history!
😊🇺🇸
I suppose the fact that none of the Axis nations developed a four engine, high altitude, long range bomber made the twin engine interceptor role less important. The decision to concentrate on the single engine fighters was the correct one. That said the original design is aesthetically really cool, kind of a throwback to 1930’s Art Deco.
@Aqua Fyre Hahaha ok. How about, “None of the Axis nations built more than 25 four engine, high altitude, long range bombers…………. The B17 C was faster and had a roughly 10-15,000 ft higher ceiling. In addition its Wright Cyclone engines were much more reliable than the Piaggio engines.
What a monstrous aircraft!
Particularly without the extend nose, I can only imagine the thing tipping over.
It remind of the A10 by the way.
Looking at those inflight pics, with the pilot visible, you can see how tiny the Skyrocket was!
For once, the designers realized that adequate rear vision was a GOOD thing! Had it gone into production, it probably would eventually be fitted with a bubble canopy a' la Typhoon, Mustang etc. For a twin engined aircraft, it still retained a measure of the "pudginess" that seemed to be a Grumman trait (until the F7F). Great that it actually was released as a 1/48 kit at one point.
I often wonder how the wars and the budget would have worked out if the USAAC (USAF) and USN had been on the same side
You could never not have both navy and ground air forces in US, and so the both will always have different requirements for aircraft, even if nowadays it just means different models of the same aircraft
The problem was as much limited resources that they competed for. The Army never wanted the airforce to get started as they knew it would try to grab a share of the government funds. Same with the navy which had been given very limited funds before WW1.
Unpossible. Said war continues to this day.
They were on the same side, just had different requirements. The Navy preferred radial engines which had no liquid cooling system to get damaged from enemy fire. If your engine fails there is no land to crash land onto with the possibility of recovering and repairing the aircraft. When you ditch at sea it's 'bye-bye' for the aircraft. The best interceptors the USAAC used had Vee engines made by Allison and Rolls Royce (Packard) which presented a smaller frontal area to create drag. Navy aircraft like the Corsair and the Hellcat required 2,000 hp radial engines to match the speed of the Mustang's 1,490hp with the accompanying greater fuel consumption. That's one of the reasons why the Mustang had 4 times greater combat radius than the Corsair.
A seemingly universal issue with land and sea based air arms. At least not as bad as Japan, whose navy and army seemingly would have preferred to fight each other than the allies.
So _that's_ where Blackhawk comics came from! They were the first comics I read as a boy back in the '50s. Along with, since we were stationed in Paris, _Boy's Own_ comics from Britain.
Before I watched this video, I always wondered why the Grumman Skyrocket was never put into production. Everything I ever read about the Skyrocket said that it had a very high performance. But in this video, Ed Nash explained why this fine aircraft never entered service. Thank you, Ed, for making this video and sharing your insights with us.
Kind of like saying the SR-71 could have been the best bomber interceptor of the Cold War.
Ed keeps delivering. Also check out the book "Desert Sniper". Sitting on my bookshelf with pages bent from reading. Certainly a recommendation.
What's the book about?
I've read it. It's a great snapshot of what actually happened in an interesting conflict.
@@derrickstorm6976 Mr. Nash's experiences as a volunteer among Kurdish forces during the Syrian War. A descriptive work of non fiction in the style of a classic war novel. A fine book in it's own right and certainly one of very few in this style recently written.
Books like this don't need fluffing in terms of literary style. That what is written is enough to fill the mind of the reader.
@@derrickstorm6976 a close quarters jungle combat expert
@@AllahDoesNotExist I thought it was about an Artic skin diver defusing old sea mines.
Holy crap it's a pod racer.
I also remember the Blackhawk comic. Little me thought that these planes were very cool.
I struck between the similarity between the Skyrocket and an early WWII AT-9, a trainer for mult-engine aircraft. As I recall both had engines mounted beyond the nose of the fuselage. Believe the AT-9 was withdrawn as being too unsteady and destroyed. Narragansett Bay
The wing was trying to get away, but the rest of the airplane caught it before it could get loose.
I'd love to see someone build a new Skyrocket.
Another one of those great "What if'" situations that would have been interesting to see how it played out.
I think Ed may have mentioned it played out as a Tiger Cat 🙄
You're The Man, Ed! You Do Aviation Proud! Thank You.
Now that you mention the F7F Tigercat, I think you could do a video on the Mitsubishi Ki-83 heavy fighter too. Just as the Wildcat was the Zero's nemesis, and the Spitfire was to the Bf 109, the Ki-83 would have been the Tigercat's rival in the sky too if the war continued
I noticed this aircraft has counter rotating propellers that turn away from the pilot’s perspective, while they turn towards the pilot normally, when they counter rotate that is. I thought this was a unique privilege of the Lockheed P38 Lightning. I guess this one has its propellers rotate the « odd » way for the same reasons the P38’s does: interferences or flutter on the twin tails when they turn the « regular » way.
All I can say about why they chose which way to contra-rotate the engines is I dunno which way they went but it would affect the ariflow down the fussilage and over the tail - So yeah, maybe you could enhance rudder & elevator authority spinning 'Inward' or 'outward' helping low airspeed handling.
'Though as Ed notes, the really BIG advantage is it counters both Yaw & Roll effects - Excellent for Carrier planes.
These props are going not the best way. In an engine out situation the good engine is making more thrust outboard of the engine with a positive angle of attack. It's exactly opposite of ideal.
Nice, Ed. Thanks for fleshing out the history on this one.
I’ve seen this plane in old books before, but they never told the story of it. Nice one Ed.
Just wondering how the designers got a Bristol Beaufighter and the P-38 to “combine”
Soft music and alcohol, of course...
It's crazy cool that it got featured in a comic book.
Never been this early! Leaving a comment for the algorithm!
Commenting on your comment for the algorithm.
@@jtjames79 Discussing comment for the algorithm!
@@SolarWebsite Rating comment for the algorithm.
Making a comment now before I have some Whiskey later, and unable to spell the world: "Algorithm".
Disagreeing with you, to drive engagement - for the algorithm.
I'm so glad you mentioned the Blackhawks. :)
Ed I'm seeing a trend here you have a soft spot for these little known twin engine fighters.
So glad you added the comic-book portion. Reading those comics always brought me back the "What if..." had it been adopted for service.
It's sad how most experimental prototypes such as the XF5F were broken up and scrapped instead of ending up in a museum somewhere.
Prime consideration of all offerings to the military was the always ignored BRIBE, not enough reason to accept an item, or to accept a poorly designed item.
I found out about the Skyrocket from a friend's 1940's collection of Life Magazine and from a series of G I Joe Blackhawks action figures. The story told by this video demonstrated how slow aviation evolution was accelerated during the late 1930's. See the Warner Brother's "Dive Bomber" of 1941 (starring Flynn and MacMurray) for a full-color snapshot of US Navy aviation during the summer of 1941--World War Two started with open-cockpit biplanes in service and ended with jet fighters and surface-to-air guided missiles.
Good ref film that
Loved Blackhawk comics when I was a kid!
Great, quirky little plane. It’d make a unique RC classic model, anybody out there ever build one?
From what I have read, the XP-50 was a STRONG contender, beat out by the P-38 but not by a huge margin. Probably for the best in that Grumman had enough on its plate at the time.
Fascinating, Ed. But I’m starting to wonder just a little bit whether you’re not making some of these obscure prototype planes up, you’re finding that many of them ...
The Grumman Wildcat was a tough little fighter plane that saw action throughout the war.
The Brewster Buffalo should've never gotten off the drawing board let alone gone into service.
I'm glad you mentioned the The Blackhawks. Of course, by the time I started reading them they were flying F-90s.
This looks pretty advanced for its time! Looks like a Podracer of Star wars :-)
I have a plastic model of the XF5F still new in the box, actually bought it for the box art.
Academy 1/48 scale? If so its an excellent kit that gives you both shirt and long nose versions.
@@rodneypayne4827 Mine is the Minicraft Classic kit, 1/48 and does have both the long nose and short nose versions.
Great video on the XF5F. I have always liked this aircraft. Thanks for the post.
Great piece. I love how the Skyrocket lives on in a comic.
Black Hawks International Squadron used them. Chop Chop rode in the back. Great comic book circa 50's.
Tops matey. from the old Aussie.
I read a few of those (very) old Blackhawks comics. Great stuff.
Very interesting development in aircraft!
Gaijn knows what i want to see. I unlocked the XF5F in WT recently and this popped up in my YT recomadations... Anyways, actually a really intresting history for such a weird looking aircraft!
Wow only a mother could love this one......always thought Grumman jets(& of course tiger cat) as well as being capable, were very aesthetically pleasing- but these early props ...yuuuck😊.
Awesome, well done Ed, thanks!
you keep coming up with memories from my childhood going through my fathers treasured civil defence aircraft id books as a kid in cape may nj these were anotated with his 12 year olds notes
I remember the Skyrocket being pictured in my Dad's Ship and Aircraft Identification Manual.
Sweet looking kite. Progenitor of the jaw droppingly gorgeous Tigercat. Mmmmmm…
A Grumman Naval Fighter that I haven’t heard of ..? Well I’m in ..Thanks Ed ..!
Excellent video, loads of interesting content. Thanks a lot.
Shades of the Westland Whirlwind. Great story!
Nice to hear mention of the 13mm aircraft machine gun, thought it was going to be missed.
Germany seem to favour rate of fire over bullet calibre during WW2. A rifle bullet is enough to go through soft skinned vehicles and kill soldiers. Putting out more of them is good for suppressive fire. 20mm and higher generally gives better armor penetration, range and more damage. Germans used stuff that was effective and were quite willing to use AAA in ground fire, which is why the 88mm was dual purpose.
Grumman would bring back this concept; a super high climb rate, 20mm cannon armed carrier defense fighter; back at the end of WW2 with the F8F Bearcat.
Great video again Ed. Always enjoy. Would have been interesting to see the skyrocket developed with merlins and the streamlined nose with four 20mm cannons.
In other words---a Westland Whirlwind. LOL
Great vid, sir. Skyrocket, Buffalo, F2F, and Wildcat. Oh boy!
Great Work as always, Ed. Cheers 👍🏻
I like the looks of the aircraft .......pugnatious I think describes it !
I remember I had a comic book in the late 1960s - maybe early '70s - which I guess was about a fighter squadron which flew the Skyrocket......I never knew what kind of plane it was, (until this video) but they looked kind of cool with the engines way out front like that....
Theres another comic book series that features a development of a plane that never flew*. I can't remember the name of the comic but the plane was the proposed fighter development of the Bugatti P100.
*this was prior to the building of the P100 reproduction.
Fighters...dropping bombs on a bomber.
Great idea over water.
Perhaps not so much over your own country.
Thank you for this, Ed.
☮
I've always wondered why the Navy never had any thoughts on twin-engine aircraft, for either the time it took them to field one or any other nation for that matter. Cheers Ed.
Aircraft carriers have limited storage space for aircraft
For the space taken up by 3 twin engine aircraft you could use that space for 3 or 4 single engined aircraft
I kind of wondered why twin engine attack planes weren't tried during the biplane era. You'd think you could have delivered a bigger torpedo that way.
Excellent stuff bro
The Skyrocket was really cool !
Hey, that plane starred in Blackhawk comics throughout the whole war!
wonderful Video, well done.......Brilliant
like most all of your vids, 'wow never seen that one before'. I like the cute, snub-nosed look of the orig. XF5F prototype---cute yet packing some serious firepower.
I know Lockheed arranged for Allison to make engines for the Lightning that spun in the opposite direction. I'm guessing that Grumman made a similar arrangement with Wright and/or P&W?
Kind of a Whirlwind with an added WTF factor.
Thanks again, I always like the experimental aircraft, whether they succeed or not, and this is one I've never seen (or seen the like of) before.
A high altitude interceptor would have been appreciated in the first few years of WWII as the Axis had used high altitude fast bombers (for its day) against the Allies. This is particularly true in the Solomon Islands campaign. The Grumman Wildcat was the sole high altitude interceptor in the Pacific theater that I am aware of. Any Axis attack below 12,000 feet would encounter our Army's pursuit designs.
looks like something out of CROMSON SKIES
That looks like it would be a nightmare to land and taxi.
Less so than the long-nosed F4U.
@@robertdendooven7258 That's a fair point
“Blackhawk” comics and *HAWKAAA* come to mind.
As always, thanks a lot for giving the numbers in both systems, for us Europeans who have a strange nostalgic attachment to the metric units... 😉
now i know where the inspiration for the star wars pod racers came from lol.
Your videos are top notch very professional I've learned a lot from your video's keep them coming
Great video , Thanks 👍
Beautiful research and narrative, thanks a lot mate!!
Another excellent video. I knew about the Skyrocket but nothing about its history.
Good subject great prod.
I always thought the 3lectra looked like a proper hotrod.
Good show!
The skyrocket would have covered ALOT of deck area, thus reducing the number of planes available. Would this have fit on the elevators ? Thanks for another great Video !
The twin tail planes were the answer to that, letting planes stack up closer. And the Skyrocket’s wing span is only about 2’ greater than the F4F. Over water, the 1200 mile range and two engines would be a real safety margin. But the Navy wanted more planes faster, and planes that new pilots didn’t need extra training to fly.
A few years ago I had a what if debate with a guy who argued that the US navy was incredibly stupid for not going with this aircraft (over the Hellcat and Corsair)... Me and a few other guys on the Forums (now defunct), spent some time trying to convince the guy that it would not have been as good as he thought it would of been.
From what I can remember from that debate, the XF5F when it out performed the Corsair in the climb test it had no notable equipment, such as the 50 cal MGs (which would be in the range of 700ish pounds right their), and when you factor in the needed structural improvements to the landing gear (a bit on the weaker side), the needed fixes to the engine heating issues, I do not believe it got armor plating, nor self sealing fuel tanks, also the aircraft had a fair bit of drag bringing down it's over all speed. So a fair bit of weight was going to be added to the aircraft which would drag down the performance some what, of which as noted the only outstanding thing was it's climb rate...
And then theirs the issue of it having a small habit of getting damaged on landing...
I've been waiting for this one! Thanks! :-)
Excellent.
Looking forward to that F7F video.
Thanks for another great episode!
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters >>> 👍👍