Which US piston-fighter prototype do you like best?

[Oreo]

I may not post all the available possibilities here, but the basic idea is to see which of these prototypes intrigues you the most or makes you wish it could have made it into combat to prove itself. If you're not familiar with these types, I suggest you look up images of them. Google images will do if you can't find them elsewhere.

Don't squawk to me about jets. If you want one about jets, make your own poll!

[FLYBOYJ]

XP-55!!!!

[Oreo]

I chose the Boeing XF8B. A big heavy single-engine, single-seat fighter designed for carrier use, with 28-cylinder 4-row "corn-cob" engine, internal bomb bay for 3,200 lbs. of bombs, up to 6x20mm cannon, 2,800 miles range, a max speed of 432 mph, and a tail like a B-17. Could have done a lot of ground-pounding in Korea. . . . or invasion of Japan!

[kool kitty89]

In looks the XP-55 was pretty cool.


I like the XP-47J the best, more practical in terms of proven design and available timeline than the XP-72 (in terms of engine availability mostly, but also in cost and complexity -the huge torque of the R-4360 necessitated the use of contrarotating props to be managible). Recorded performance also seems to be better on the XP-47J, except climb.
But I guess that wouldn't count as it's just a variant of the P-47 (though in many ways so was the XP-72).

Of that list I'm not really sure what to choose yet though.

The XF5U was interesting and seemed promising, too bad the USN didn't allow Vought to even test the completed prototypes... (even while being eclipsed by jets it was interesting in the STOL/near VTOL concept, and possibly still useful, particularly considdering -with hindsight- the failure of Vought's later XF6U)

[Gnomey]

Got to love the XF5U but for me it is the XP-55.

[otftch]

McDonnel XP-67. Wow !
Ed

[B-17engineer]

xP-55....lol

[kool kitty89]

Just curious, what are the reasons for choosing the XP-55? (Just looks?)

[FLYBOYJ]

It's looks and advanced design - I think it probably could of worked out had more time and the right engineering staff worked on it.

[kool kitty89]

I think the Bell XP-59 (piston engined twin boom pusher, not jet) had some promise too.

[johnbr]

What the xp55 need was a jet engine.The xp 67 it need RR Crecy with 2 stage.

[SoD Stitch]

XP-58 "Chain Lightning", mostly because I really like the P-38.

[kool kitty89]

I'm not sure how the XP-55 would have done with a jet engine, possible but maybe not practical. The J31 would leave it underpowered, and the J33 would be too large, maybe the lisence-built Goblin -J36- would work. Maybe a pair of J30's would work, or a J34, but those weren't ready until the end of the war. (in the case of the J34, after) And either way the range would be shortened considerable over the piston engined version.

It could have used a more powerful engine, probably the Merlin. (maybe one of the later Allisons, like the P-63 had)

I don't think the swept wing was used for mach limit/transsonic drag reasons though. (I think it was for stability reasons and proper positioning of the rudders) They would have an effect on the mach behavior, but like the Me 262, Me 163, and others it was a coincedental feature. The canard layout should also allow better control in the trans-sonic region. But the sewpt wing also resulted in the long take-off run, and dangerous tip stalling and spin behavior.
This problem should have been fairly easily solved with leading edge wing slats though.


I hadn't realized there was a surviving example: Curtiss XP-55 Ascender: Murdoc Online
On of the few prototypes on this list that did.

[ONE_HELLCAT]

I wish I could pick three. For looks and hopeful performance I would've gone with the XP-55,56, and XF5U. I chose the XP-56 overall for looks and because I forgot the Flying Pancake was on the list.

Also, anyone know where I can find more of this? Looks kinda interesting.

[Screaming Eagle]

just type XF5U into google images. I did, and found a whole heap of interesting pics.