ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

nice P-50 skyrocket photo

Aircraft Pictures Discuss nice P-50 skyrocket photo in the World War II - Aviation forums; nice P-50 skyrocket photo...

  1. #1
    Senior Member comiso90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    3,672
    Country
    United States

    nice P-50 skyrocket photo

    nice P-50 skyrocket photo

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails nice P-50 skyrocket photo-f5f_skyrock.jpg  

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,090
    Country
    Australia
    Comiso do the colours look "fake" or heavily retouched? Or is it simply the quality of the original photo?


  3. #3
    Senior Member Thorlifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Tx
    Posts
    6,844
    Country
    United States
    It would seem to me the blind spot caused by the wings and engines would be too extreme for this to be functional.

    Does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of this type of design with the leading wing so far forward?

  4. #4
    Older Than Dirt ccheese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    12,246
    Country
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorlifter View Post
    Does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of this type of design with the leading wing so far forward?

    Better visibility forward, down and to the side and aft ?

    Charles








    Real airplanes have round engines and two wings !

  5. #5
    Senior Member Doubl3Ac3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    In my Igloo in Canada
    Posts
    112
    Country
    Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorlifter View Post
    It would seem to me the blind spot caused by the wings and engines would be too extreme for this to be functional.

    Does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of this type of design with the leading wing so far forward?
    If i had to take a guess i'd say its ability to climb would suck. All thought it could be the opposite. im just taking a wild guess here by the looks of the design. It looks like it can dive very well but on the climb it would be really bad

    "When in doubt ALWAYS push the red button"
    "But all the buttons are red now what?"
    "Just keep pushing buttons until something blows something up"
    Killing for Dummies

  6. #6
    Pacific Historian syscom3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    12,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Graeme View Post
    Comiso do the colours look "fake" or heavily retouched? Or is it simply the quality of the original photo?

    It has more to do with the quality of the origional color photo.
    "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

  7. #7
    Senior Member comiso90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    3,672
    Country
    United States
    If i had to guess I wuold say the original was B&W... Its not fake though.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Flyboy2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    677
    Country
    United States
    As to the design... I believe that it is because the fuselage is so short that the wing has to mounted forward for the propellers to clear the nose and I don't think they could have messed with the dimensions to much.
    That is the XF5F version but the P-50 version had a lenghtened nose.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,090
    Country
    Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Doubl3Ac3 View Post
    If i had to take a guess i'd say its ability to climb would suck. All thought it could be the opposite. im just taking a wild guess here by the looks of the design. It looks like it can dive very well but on the climb it would be really bad
    Grumman named it Skyrocket as it displayed during testing an impressive initial climb rate of 4,000ft per minute.

    And you're right, during one dive test it reached 485mph.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyboy2 View Post
    As to the design... I believe that it is because the fuselage is so short that the wing has to mounted forward for the propellers to clear the nose and I don't think they could have messed with the dimensions to much.
    According to Jones (U.S Naval Fighters), the extremely short nose facilitated carrier landings by having an almost unobstructed forward/downward view. But as Thor pointed out, the large engine nacelles blocked the pilot's view of the deck landing officer. This was one reason why Grumman abandoned further development of the Skyrocket.


  10. #10
    Senior Member Thorlifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Tx
    Posts
    6,844
    Country
    United States
    Thanks, Graeme.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86