XP-55 Ascender

[Che_Guevara]

i found that a/c on moduni.de, any comments?

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/curtiss-wright_xp-55.jpg

Regards,
Che.

[simon]

U. G. L. Y. You aint got no aliby, you ugly!

[Trexx]

Curtis Aircraft Company trying something new.

[Red Admiral]

But its not new. The SAI SS.4 is basically identical.

Are the wierd fins on the top and bottom of the fuselage for cooling systems?

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

But its not new. The SAI SS.4 is basically identical.

Are the wierd fins on the top and bottom of the fuselage for cooling systems?


Lookie, I was way off!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/CurtissPusher_64.gif

[Kutscha]

The sole surviving XP-55 (42-78846) was flow to Warner Robins Field in Georgia in May of 1945. It was later taken to Freeman Field to await transfer to the National Air Museum at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. For a long time, its fuselage was on display at the Paul Garber facility in Suitland, Maryland. In December of 2001, the aircraft was sent to the Kalamazoo Aviation History Museum for restoration, which will take two or three years.

from http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p55.html

[Wuzak]

The XP55 was not on its own.

There was the Bell XP52, Vultee XP54 http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p54.htm , and the Northrop XP56 http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/xp56.html

[Tophe]

Do you know the progenitor of the canard XP-55 (nick-named 'Ass-ender' I've read): Curtiss-Wright CW-24?
http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/xplane/cw24-i.jpg
from http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/cw24.html (I read Russian, do you?)

[Romantic Technofreak]

The XP-55 was no success. Its flight characteristics were dangerous, and its performances were lower than expected. Kutscha already posted the appropriate link about that. The pusher-piston fighter concept could have challenged the early jets, but the Ascender couldn´t make that come real.

quote:(I read Russian, do you?)
I use to use an online translator. If you take yourself some time, the experiences for Russian language are quite ok.

Regards RT

[Double T]

Good one Che.
An interesting concept that was poorly executed. Very little about this aircraft looks "right" to me... I keep wanting to redraw it.
Thanks for sharing.

Tim

[Che_Guevara]

Yeah tim I got it;)

Found some pics of a todays Xp 55



http://www.flybyaviation.com/Curtis%20XP-55-CS%20Ascender%2042-78846%20%20-%20Air%20Zoo%205%20July%202003%20copy.jpg

http://www.aviation-history.com/garber/images/curtiss_XP55-6.jpg


and another lovley view of this nice a/c

http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/curtiss-wright%20xp-55%20ascender%20prototype%20%7Busa%7D.jpg


What role would it have got, if it would have been working good, fighter?


Best wishes,
Che.

BTW
Sry for abuseing your tenses tommies and yankees, my english teacher
loves me for that :D

[GregP]

We would have flown it over a Japanese airbase and, while they were all laughing, we would have attacked with P-38s.

Conversely, we could have flown it over German bases and, while they were busy copying down the configuration, we could have done an airborne landing and captured them all at their desks, pencils in hand. After all, the Germans produced some INSANE prototypes. Another one would have added to the joy of flight testing.

If we had used it to drop toilet paper or SPAM, they would have surrendered earlier to get more. Seriously, the Curtiss fighter would have been deployed if it had advantages over the current production aircraft.

It didn't.

We also would have bought P-72s, but didn't need to do so. The war was won already. It was a question of time, and EVERYONE was bankrupt, including the U.S.A.

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by GregP
Conversely, we could have flown it over German bases and, while they were busy copying down the configuration, we could have done an airborne landing and captured them all at their desks, pencils in hand. After all, the Germans produced some INSANE prototypes.
"would" is maybe a smily way to say "did". See the German Ascender P.75 at http://www.luft46.com/henschel/hsp75.html nice lines too, somehow... just alas for bad guys:(

[Che_Guevara]

quote:just alas for bad guys

loooool x)

But the german one looks better, like always [:p]

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/seymour/32/hsp75e.jpg

Best wishes,
Che.

[Ricky]

It looks a little odd with no vertical tail on top. And I'd hate to have to land it...

I find it interesting that most nations dallied with a similar design towards the end of WW2:

Japan's Kyushu J7W Shinden

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fww2/j7w-i.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/pict/j7w.jpg

Britain's Miles M.35

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/pictures/jpg/miles%20m35.jpg

and Miles M.39B

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/pictures/jpg/miles%20m39b.jpg

Both Miles planes were more 'proof of concept' prototypes than actual combat planes, though the M.39B was essentially a scaled-down version of a projected bomber.

[Ricky]

damn - Simon, please delete this double post![:I]

[Lightning]

quote:U. G. L. Y. You aint got no aliby, you ugly!

Come on, Simon. I think it's a rather neat-looking aircraft.

I know! I know! I just left myself wide-open to a snide comment about my taste in airplanes and the P-38. Be gentle.[:I]


Regards,
Lightning

[Che_Guevara]

The begining, Göppingen Gö 9

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/dornier/go9.jpg

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/dornier/go91.jpg

Regards,
Che.

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak and Che Guevara,

Wuzak-- I really enjoyed the websites you posted. I especially like the "Black Bullet".

Che-- I never knew that anything remained of the XP-55. Thanks for the photos.

Regards,
Lightning

[GregP]

I read that the JW7 Shinden was flown once or twice and exhibited a heavy vibration due to the driveshaft. The pilot was NOT eager to fly it again.

Many of you think these aircraft look wrong, but I don't. They froeshadowed the later jet canard designs and differed mainly in not having delta wings. To me, the configuration is similar to the Eurofighter Typhoon, SAAB Viggen/Gripen, and Rafale, to name but a few. The major differences are the powerplant, the delta planform of the newer planes, and the use in the newer planes of computers to control what are basically unstable aircraft configurations.

Anyway, they aren't all that bad looking to me.

I think ugly is defined by the Blackburn Roc and Skua, The BV-141, and the Morane-Saulnier MS-406. The French seemed to have a flair for designing both ugly and beautiful aircraft at the same time. Ditto the British. Only a mother could love the Sterling and tgeh Barracuda. Many American aircraft were functional, and not particularly good or bad looking ... sort of generally nondescript.

Anyway, just personal opinion. Yours, no doubt, differs from mine.

Cheers ... :)

[Double T]

GregP:
I wish Curtis had found itself a 'winner' with the XP-55. I'm on board with the canards and unique pusher-config. I just think it could have been a much-more handsome aircraft... like the Shinden perhaps.
The large 'growths' over and under the engine section of the fuselage look terrible. If they housed cooling ducts, they could found a better solution I think. I would have moved the cockpit a bit farther-forward, and given it a bubble-canopy like the P-47, or that of the Grumman XF5F-1.
I would have packed that nose full of .50's, and one 20mm, moved the canards back a couple-three feet, increased their surface area--aka Shinden-style--and also added it's four (or five?) bladed-prop.
Power should have been the most-powerful in the inventory. Turbosupercharged of course.
Rudder-surfaces at the wingtips look insufficient to do the job. They should be half-again as large... and more rakishly shaped.
My biggest question about this configuration is concerned with an exit strategy. How in the blazes would one bail-out of this beast? (I guess you have to blow the prop-hub off the plane before bail-out?)
Che:
As to the mission-role for this new-found beast... Air-superiority? Bomber-interceptor? I'm not sure about bomb-load capacity for ground-support or fighter-bomber missions. (It might look good with a couple slick-looking drop-tanks under the wings.)
How about a fast, high-altitude photo/recon-platform?

Tim

[Wuzak]

Dornier put an ejection seat in the Do335 in an effort to allow the pilot to escape safely.

IIRC it launched the pilot downwards.

[Verner]

Negative Ghostrider. Ejected upward

[Double T]

I looked-over my Do-335 model last night. The nose-gear is located beneath the cockpit. Ejection would have to be "over-the-top." I believe the "Arrow" has the distinction of being the first aircraft equipped with an ejection-seat.
As to downward ejection, I seem to remember the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter ejected it's pilot in that manner. I don't recall it being a popular solution. Most designers found it easier and more practical for pilot to exit through the roof...

Tim

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Double T

As to downward ejection, I seem to remember the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter ejected it's pilot in that manner. I don't recall it being a popular solution.
I have a vague memory of this too.
Was it because of the T-tail?