I pride myself on my knowledge of aircraft,in my 61 years I would have said I had an extensive knowledge, however I can honestly say this is the first time I have heard of this aircraft

@simonprince5968

11 ай бұрын

Looks like a Fokke Wolf! But it can't be?

@bobwilson758

11 ай бұрын

Roger - dodger on that sir ! 65 years old - never have I seen this plane . Grew up Air Force .

@michaelwallbrown3726

11 ай бұрын

read about this aircraft in the mid 70's in the magazine's Wings and Air Power they had a lot of articles of oddball and experimental aircraft

@brentfellers9632

11 ай бұрын

Never say Never!😮

@Ivan-pl2it

11 ай бұрын

Always interested in aviation, have had 7 airplanes since the 70s. Never heard or seen this one.

The XF8-B1 was my fathers last Boeing project during the war, he was very proud of it despite its incredibly loud engine noise due to the gear reduction transmission.

@BuzzLOLOL

11 ай бұрын

The unstreamlined radial engines were being phased out...

@jamesmaddison4546

11 ай бұрын

Gotta love gear reduction....not lol

@michaeltelson9798

11 ай бұрын

It has that characteristic Boeing tail

@ericawollmuth5055

10 ай бұрын

Like a B-50 and Sea Fury had a baby.

@erikvan9582

3 ай бұрын

Sad to see the state of boeing now,ever since they merged with mcdonnal douglas in 90s they have been going downhill ever since

With the size of the plane and relatively tiny cockpit, this really looks like a sleeker version of the A-1

@katherineberger6329

11 ай бұрын

The Able Dog was really a timeless aircraft.

@mooshoopork63

11 ай бұрын

Look at the Martin Mauler. Same look. Form follows function.

@whyjnot420

11 ай бұрын

@@mooshoopork63 Yeah, towards the end of WW2 and into the immediate post-war years, there was that design philosophy of massivesuperfightersofdoomydeath. With the A-1 really the only one of those supersized WW2 birds to do much.

@jefferyroy2566

11 ай бұрын

​@@mooshoopork63 That R-4360 Wasp Major at 4,300 hp on the Mauler was the monster US radial engine of the period. There's something about a radial that's more pugnacious than a sleek inline engine. It's certainly a more durable powerplant in combat. The A-1 had the Wright R-3350, which topped out at 2,800 hp in the R-3350-26WB on the AD7 (a deduction on my part, not a fact). Much of the affection for the A-10 Warthog can be attributed to its awkward appearance combined with the power of the GAU-8 autocannon. Bulky aircraft with great firepower are just as cool as the shiniest supersonic fighters in my book. The Mauler had pretty low production (151) before replacement by the A-1, though its profile makes this model a classic in any case.

I love that final generation of piston-engined aircraft where they just said, "Why don't we put R-4360s in literally everything?" The Mauler, the Super Corsair, the XP-72 (a P-47 with an R-4360 wedged in),... heck, the Peacekeeper!

@dkoz8321

11 ай бұрын

Like Aston Martin with their monster 6.5L V12. Let's shoehorn it into our smallest car and our biggest GT.

@aplusservice

11 ай бұрын

@@dkoz8321 Hey, if you've got it, flaunt it 😏 Also, I meant "Peacemaker" in my original post, and I appreciate that nobody ripped me a new one over it 🤣

@wizlish

11 ай бұрын

Peacekeeper was considerably faster and had longer unrefueled range...

@aplusservice

11 ай бұрын

@@wizlish Nah, just faster! A Peacekeeper could put three tons 6,000 miles away; a Peacemaker could drop five tons 8,000 miles away on a one-way trip 🤣 Admittedly you wouldn't use it that way, but it seems unfair to compare a Peacekeeper's one-way range to a Peacemaker's radius 😜

@wizlish

11 ай бұрын

Yes, you have a point there both with range and with payload. In my own defense, though, both the delivery system and 'bombing precision' of the Peacekeeper would require much of the nominal range of a B-36 to implement, even in the total absence of air-defense systems.

The American Firebrand!

It reminds me of the Skyraider. A bit of foresight and the X8FB may have had a useful role as ground support in Korea Would imagine it would have had a good loiter time.

@mpetersen6

11 ай бұрын

In the close air support role the P-47 would have been a better choice than the P-51. But post war the P-51 was cheaper to fly. An important consideration for post war budgets. Let's be thankful the Marines still had F4Us.

@AJdet-2

11 ай бұрын

It's a good thing I read the comments otherwise I would have repeated yours. SPADs Forever

@rrrosadorr

11 ай бұрын

Yeah, the bubble canopy and the engine cowling give it a slight resemblance to the Skyraider but the overall proportions of the fuselage are different. The Skyraider's canopy is further forward than the 5-in-1's as well.

@dkoz8321

11 ай бұрын

Pit needed to be few feet closer to nose for visibility.

@mbg4681

11 ай бұрын

The fuselage proportions are also a little reminiscent of the Hawker Typhoon.

Thanks for bringing up the XF8B. Any attention that machine gets is worthwhile! I think you missed on the reason why it wasn't put into production however. It wasn't that the plane was too big. The Skyraider, for example, is just marginally smaller but much slower, had a lower service cieling, and a far more limited range than the Boeing machine. The Martin Mauler was also quite similar in size and was actually heavier than the XF8B. It too was slower and shorter ranged and could carry less payload but it went into limited production and service. Yet it was the Able Dog (AD-1) that became the Legend. The primary reason that it wasn't the Boeing machine instead is that the Boeing company wasn't interested in it. Or not interested in it enough. In December of 1945 the US Navy attempted to award Boeing a contract for 600 F8Bs. Unfortunately for Boeing, the man who'd been the head manager for the F8B from its inception, Wellwod E. Beall, was out of the country. He'd been assigned to take part in the Strategic Bombing Survey in Europe. The man who replaced him as the interim program manager had been brought over from Boeing's heavy aircraft devision and had no history nor investment in the "Five-in-One." From his perspective, production of the F8B would be a pointless diversion of Boeing's resources. Thus when the Navy asked, he officially declined interest in the contract. And thus the XF8B was rendered an obscure footnote of what could've been...

@michaelkinville177

9 ай бұрын

Fascinating

So basically Boeing had their version of a "Do-All" TFX F-111 style project goal years before General Dynamics did...

I suspect the U.S. Navy ordering quite a number of Martin AM-1 Maulers (also using the P&W R-4360 engine) and Douglas AD Skyraiders was a factor in the demise of the XF8. Interesting story and thanks for sharing!

The thing is about 1.25x the gross weight of both the TBF Avenger and SBD2 Helldiver. I know this a 1946 to 1942 (or so) comparison. Still, for a fighter it was massive. It's even heavier than many Douglas Skyraiders. Beast!!

Boeing also built the F4B series biplane fighters between the wars.

@jollyjohnthepirate3168

11 ай бұрын

In a rare show of interservice cooperation the F4B was also called the P 12 in army service.

@mpetersen6

11 ай бұрын

@@jollyjohnthepirate3168 The Army could accept a higher landing speed as they had more runway so to speak.

I enjoyed the video! Why use meters for length along with pounds for weight and miles per hour for velocity? For historical reasons I think using the units the original designers used might be apporpriate. Thank you for showing me an airplane I was not aware of.

That thing looks as big as a Skyraider.

@mpetersen6

11 ай бұрын

Or Martin's Mauler

@bruceday6799

11 ай бұрын

@@mpetersen6 Most of a Mauler was here for years. I had forgotten, probably a better comparison.

I used to be a lead in the Boeing Photo lab at Plant2, Renton, and Everett. I printed many original historic black & white negatives. I remember printing a number of photos of this airplane. There was also a military, late WW2 Boeing flying boat. I think they built a couple of those too.

@proteusnz99

10 ай бұрын

The flying boat you mention is probably the XPBB Sea Ranger. Apparently quite a good design, but Boeing’s facilities were needed more for developing and producing the B-29. I think the wing airfoil was the same as the B-29, power was 2 x R3350. To me, one of the more interesting aspects of the design was the use of the ERCO teardrop turrets, the only other plane to use them was the Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer.

@stevec3526

10 ай бұрын

@@proteusnz99 Sounds about right.

@northwesttravels7234

9 ай бұрын

My favorite from the library was a B-52 on the ground with the cockpit lit up at night.

FINALLY SOME ONE DID A VIDEO ON THIS!!!! I love this aircraft so much!! thank you!!

As many people here to me it so looked like an AD-1 They could have converted it to a 6-in-1 by adding a second seat and a radar pod and make it also a night fighter. I have to point out that Boeing was a long-time suppler to the Navy This was the 8th plane for the Navy.

I didn't knew anything about this fighter, great video!

And the Douglas Skyraider filled many roles the XF8 was designed for. All the way to Vietnam.

@andreperrault5393

11 ай бұрын

Also, it was not designed in “meters”. The A-1 Skyraider carried more munitions with a smaller engine. Along with this, although designated “A” for “attack” it did shoot down aircraft (a jet MiG) in air to air combat as late as the Vietnam War, lasting longer than the F4U Corsair.

@jollyjohnthepirate3168

11 ай бұрын

@@andreperrault5393 Originally it was the XTB2D. Then the AD. And after 1962 the A1.

Great video! Thank you for posting!

My headcannon is that, if accepted into service, this would've been called the Boeing Sixshooter following the tradition of the Peashooter, and in light of the 6 20mm cannons.

If you consider this beast and another behemoth being tested by Douglas, is it any wonder that the U.S. Navy decided "We are going to need a bigger boat!"... Midway class carriers... Of course, these were not what sparked the genesis of the Midways but they were (despite the introduction of the Bearcat) an indication that combat aircraft, both land and carrier based, were getting larger and heavier. It was too late to be a fighter (jets on the horizon) but with enough hardpoints under the wings and a battery of canons, it could have been a hard hitting attack aircraft in the next war that came along. Therein lies the rub, as for that next war (Korea) the Corsair was available in quantity, the Skyraider was proving its worth and even the Martin Mauler was in production, albeit limited. The F8 was just too late to get itself "established", proven in combat in WWII and into serious production. I really would like a 1/48 kit of this beast (and the Martin Mauler as well).

@felipecardoza9967

11 ай бұрын

As I was listening to the video, I wondered if any kit maker had thought to try to replicate this....there are some rather rare as well as never realized aircraft through have made it to kit form. Perhaps someone can try to make 3D file? ( far beyond my capabilities)

@stephengardiner9867

11 ай бұрын

@@felipecardoza9967 I believe that I once saw a "short run" 1/72 scale kit (probably resin) quite a long time ago. A number of European companies have sprung up and are producing surprisingly good 1/48 kits of hitherto neglected aircraft (Modelsvit, Dora Wings... etc.) with (finally!) decent Twin Mustang, P-5IH kits and, of all things, the A2D Skyshark!! (basically a turboprop Skyraider). Surely the F8 or the Mauler would not be too great a challenge. One can but hope. I suppose that the next great leap in model building will be owning a 3-d printer and simply downloading the 3-d file! Then all we need is a printer for decals...but where will we get the paints...

Yes, but every aircraft that attempted to utilize contra-rotating props was considered a maintenance nightmare and/or a dangerous plane to fly. There's a reason we didn't see them on more aircraft and that almost none of the most popular aircraft of the war sported them. The only plane, that I can think of off the top of my head, that was produced or flown in significant numbers during the war to have contra-rotating props was the late war Spitfire/Seafire. I can only imagine the nervous breakdowns a maintenance chief aboard a carrier at sea would experience due to the difference in ease and amount of maintenance required by these planes than by any other fighter in the US inventory at the time. A handful of airframes like the search and rescue planes or the sub hunters aboard a carrier could likely be adapted to. It's when you start talking about 70-120 of these planes to look after when we start seeing more mysterious foot-shooting incidents than usual.

Great vid! Interesting to see it kept its Counter-Rotaing prop. Cheers!

The first time carrier based aircraft attacked another carrier was 9 April 1942, one month before the Battle of the Coral Sea. HMS Hermes and HMS Vampire were sunk off the east coast of Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, by Japanese carrier aircraft. The British don't like to talk about it because it was a slaughter, but many people suffered and died when these ships were lost. They deserve to be remembered. Please help me put the record straight.

@mr.matchbox410

11 ай бұрын

i think he was just talking about the americans battle cause american planes but still didnt know about that war

@francoistombe

11 ай бұрын

Intelligence based on radio interception informed the admiral that Japanese carriers were active nearby but the admiral discounted this info, for a while.

@mr.matchbox410

11 ай бұрын

@@francoistombe wait the admiral just ignored the intel

@francoistombe

11 ай бұрын

@@mr.matchbox410 Somerville was notified by codebreaking in late March 1942 that a Japanese carrier force was in the Indian ocean and planning to attack columbo, Ceylon. He dispersed ships accordingly. The attack didn't come then so Somerville assumed a false alarm. The radio intercepts indicated that the Japanese had delayed the attack by a week in the hope of catching the British on Easter holiday. Somerville concluded the codebreakers were wrong and sent the ships back to Ceylon. A few days later he realized the Intel was valid and he went looking for the Japanese fleet. Due to garbled comms he did not find it but lost cruisers to air attack. A few days later radio intercept Intel showed Japanese about to attack Trincomalee. HMS Hermes and Vampire immediately put to sea to avoid the attack but Japanese stragglers spotted them and the rest is history.

@stephenburgess5109

11 ай бұрын

HMS Hermes was very old like most of the British Indian Ocean fleet all the new ships were involved at that time in the North Atlantic or supplying Malta in the Mediterranean and bad intel was a big cause of the loss of many Royal Navy ships at the beginning of the Japanese war starting with the Battleships HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse who underestimated the range of Japanese Bombers that was known to British observers in the Chinese /Japanese war.

Interesting project but ultimately unsuccessful for several reasons. First there were already suitable substitutes. Second it was developed relatively late in the war. And lastly Boeing were concentrating on producing bombers so it wasn’t on their remit to build a long range fighter when the Japanese carriers had already been destroyed and B17’s were already in range of Tokyo etc.

Excellent Presentation.

12:05 😟😭😡💔I still wince when I see post war disposal scenes like this. Men owed their lives to these machines that returned time after time only to be sent home and played with like giant chess peices before becoming Dr. Pepper cans. Thank you for the video, I have a 1.5 inch thick book on this aircraft somewhere in storage. This video nicely sums it up.

I like the narration in mixed units, pounds, kilos, feet, rods, hands, etc. Keeps my math skills sharp, although, giving the displacement of the 4360 in drams is a bit challenging.

Great informational video.

First time I've seen or heard of this XF8-1B from Boeing another airplane for the history books thank God for pictures!

I've always been a sucker for multirole aircraft. The Boeing F8B has always been my favorite aircraft for that reason (Also because it's a WW2 prop. WW2 props are just aesthetic beauties).

I'm surprised the Boeing team didn't consider trying to salvage the project by proposing a mixed powered variant or a jet version. The XFR-1 Ryan Fireball, a mixed powered (piston engine/jet), was not only developed and tested by the Navy around the same time, it actually briefly entered service in March 1945 with VF-66! In those days, replacing a piston engine with a jet (in a fuselage designed for a piston engine) wasn't unheard of; the Soviet Yak-15 for example. The execs at Boeing must've figured they already had a good thing going with their bombers and just decided to stick with that and the airliners they would base off those designs.

@wizlish

11 ай бұрын

Or, for that matter, the seemingly very logical substitution of a turboshaft powerplant for the big radial, which would allow use of one fuel that wasn't the gasoline of the 'six turning and four burning' thing. Presumably you would only use the turbojet for things like assisted takeoff without RATO or final interception dash... but it would be interesting indeed to see what the range would be with a multispeed transmission like the ones on the Tu-95...

@PhantomP63

11 ай бұрын

As a turboprop, the F8B would be similar to the Convair Skyshark (if the latter wasn’t size-limited to fit jeep carriers)

What a beast! And quite beautiful.

Same. Looks good. Still, for me, the F4u will always be my favorite. 😊

Thank you. Something to think on.

Great Info! Also, have you anything on the XP 77?

You need to do a video on the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 engine and why it took so long to develop and where it finally was able to be used. There was a lot of hope placed on the engine.

Wow what an impressive American aircraft that I never heard of!

Boeing built a very good bi-plane trainer back in the 30's

If this had come earlier it could have stolen the P47’s thunder. It could have been a real asset in the Pacific. Never heard of this incredible aircraft. 👍🏻

@Veldtian1

11 ай бұрын

it's such a beast.

The Navy soon realized they needed to build their boats bigger because aircraft were only going to become larger.

@themanformerlyknownascomme777

11 ай бұрын

the American Navy knew that immediately... It was the British Navy that had yet to figure it out.

@jwenting

11 ай бұрын

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 yet the US Navy didn't really get the message until somewhere during the Korean war, when jets threatened to become too large for the Essex class carriers or they wouldn't meet the specs the Navy had for them.

@genericbit677

11 ай бұрын

@@jwenting By that time USN had already comissioned Midway-class carriers, got approved and cancelled the United States-class (the would-be first go at a supercarrier thing) and went to laid down an actual first supercarrier - Forrestal. Not to mention that Essexes kept up relatively ok until the 60s rolled around except in a few particular mission sets.

Actually in the 1930s Boeing was primarily a fighter manufacturer, the F4B series, culminating in the F4B-B naval biplane, which was good enough it was also ordered by the Army Air Corp as the P-12. When Boeing started building bigger aircraft there were questions along the lines of “aren’t you fighter builders?”. The XF8B-1 was a brute of a plane, but Douglas A-1 Skyraider made more sense. The R-4360 was one of the ultimate generation of piston engines, incredibly complex, right at the cutting edge of engineering/metallurgy. Bill Gunston commented that piston engines such as R-4360 and big propellers were the best reasons for jets. You could shut a R-4360 in good order and the next time you tried to start it, it would be broken.

Oddly enough, at the beginning when u asked about what we thought of when we heard the name Boeing, my very first thought was the peashooter, then the B17.

It would be incredible if one survived.

The F8B-1 would have been handy in Korea with the MAW for ground support. Funny, but I can find no USAAF XP-?? number for the Boeing plane when they evaluated it. Possibly XA-??. It was gone before the USAF came into being. Contra-rotating props seem to have had too many moving parts for a warplane, despite the performance advantage.

It has that Boeing tail..ála B-17 & B-29

Skycrawlers anime used this plane as a reference to the character teacher, very good aviation and war anime , 10/10 recommend

12:16 Loved that shot of a trio F-89Ds in formation! (I'm wondering why the auxiliary air inlet doors are open on the near aircraft though. Is he adding power and about to run away from the pack?)

The last propeller driven fighter purchased by The USAF was The F-82.

Thanks very much.... Shoe🇺🇸

Thanks a lot for the video. I suppose timing is everything. The Skyraider was a big plane and I wonder how that fits in with the Boeing project ?. The Skyraider saw service in Korea ? And also in Vietnam ?

Thanks and new to me👍✈️🇳🇿

To me it resembles a A-4 Skyraider especially the engine cowling and the bubble canopy.

It looks good

Was the engine also used on the Spruce Goose? That had a triple radial, too.

Cool vid on a rare plane, I'd like to mention the US had allies in the Pacific.

What a beautiful bird.

Boeing provided a number of fighter aircraft in the Twenties and Thirties.

There is a fun "coffee-table" type book called "The World's Worst Aircraft" and I'm quite surprised that this aircraft is absent from that otherwise neat book....

They should have called it the "6 in 1" fighter as I am sure it would make a good stable/fast photo recon platform.

2:40 Indeed. The Zero had extremely long legs.

A1-Skyraider... nuff said

Thank you never heard of this airplane

Interesting video, thank you! Just a minor gripe, an annoyance really....you give the dimensions of the plane in meters but then have weight in pounds🤔. We shouldn't have to do conversions for your video.

@kidmohair8151

11 ай бұрын

you don't have to. your computer will do it for you. and if not, the intranut will.

@tempestfury8324

11 ай бұрын

@@kidmohair8151 : You shouldn't have to have the intranut or a computer SPLAIN simple measurements. A video that boasts to have details of a fighter craft, or whatever, should have some basic concepts that doesn't require homework for the viewer. It's like how GM made horrible cars in the '80s and '90s......they used both metric and standard parts because it was cheaper for them and a nightmare for us. Go metric! Go Imperial! Whatever, but don't do both!

@davidgaine4697

11 ай бұрын

@@tempestfury8324 Grow up, you know he’s right.

@tempestfury8324

11 ай бұрын

@@davidgaine4697 : Have some context.... who's right? About what? Grow up? What are you blathering about? Making a childish comment without any reference to anything is pointless. I can't discuss or debate an issue if I don't know what it is.

With all that size, they could have mounted an M101 howitzer to it.

It is interesting comparing the Boing XF8-B1 to the Douglas A-1 Skyraider the XF8 is faster and the XF8 has a internal bomb bay. It is slightly larger than the Skyraider but the Skyraider is pretty big and made its first flight on 18 March 1945 and flew in VietNam by the Navy and the Air Force. There must have been something about the Skyraider they liked.

Imagine going against this monster in an Oscar/Ki-43..... you could empty the entire magazine and might not bring it down. Thats provided you could even catch it.

With its heavy weight I would think that it would not perform all that well in a turn and burn type of dogfight. It sure is surprising to know that it had an internal bomb bay...

Why didn't the xf8b run against the Douglas Skyraider? They would seem to be of a similar size and function.

The contra-rotating propellers caught my eye .. uv'd.

The Navy wanted radial engine fighters only because a plane like the Mustang would have had a lower chance of survival over the ocean if the engine was damaged.

@Einwetok

11 ай бұрын

Even now most USN and USMC aircraft have two engines for the same reason.

@mpetersen6

11 ай бұрын

​@@Einwetok F-35?

@dawsongillies6925

11 ай бұрын

​@@mpetersen6most

@allangibson8494

11 ай бұрын

So North American built a jet powered version of the Mustang…

@jamesricker3997

11 ай бұрын

Inline engines limited forward visibility during landings. Not good when landing on a carrier

I find myself dubious about practicality of the extreme range with external fuel. This works out to an 18 hour flight time for a plane with a single pilot.

Saddly the achilles heel of this plane and others using the same engine was the engine. While the R-4360 was able to cool itself in flight it had an unfortunate tendency to cook itself on the ground. The XP-72 Ultrabolt had the promise to be the greatest piston engined fighter ever built. But the R-4360 would have been an Achiles Heel. A 4 row radial unless built in a star configuration and liquid cooled is just a step too far imo. And l say that as somebody who thinks Pratt & Whitney built the best radial engines in the world. Followed closely by Bristol.

If this plane could have replaced multiple a/c (i.e. torpedo planes and dive-bomber) types on a carrier, then it could justify it's larger size, and reduce the overall number of planes on the carrier.

What a shame. Could have done some good work. It looked good in the navy colour's. Always crazy to see the old photos of the bomber production lines. The limited scope you get, still puts you in awe. Just imagine standing amongst it all . Crazy. Frightening really . America knows how to build . Yes sir, it does. 👊💛👍

@robertheinkel6225

11 ай бұрын

It makes me wonder how many bombers in mid production, were never completed.

@Free-Bodge79

11 ай бұрын

@@robertheinkel6225 a hell of a lot I'd say. Isn't that where slip stream caravans started. Using the left over fuselages. ?

I wonder if that 450 mph speed was ever really achieved by this airplane with guns and full load of ammo, under-wing hard points, etc., or was it just a rosy prediction by Boeing? It's very close in size and weight and shape to the Martin AM Mauler which used the same R-4360 engine but was over 100 mph slower. As for the heavy ailerons, why would a plane this size and weight be designed without hydraulically boosted ailerons? I thought that lesson had already been learned with the P-38.Many late WW2 designs claimed amazing top speeds by the factory that were never achieved in the real world.

You’ve sold me. I’ll take a squadron, to go, please, and I’ll take an apple pie with it. Thanks.

A classic example of "a solution in search of a problem"

@kenneth9874

11 ай бұрын

Part of planning for defense is anticipating future problems

@davidgaine4697

11 ай бұрын

@@kenneth9874 Defence, not defense. Despite predictive text. Ministry of Defence, not Office of Defense. It’s not offense it’s offence so why the confusion. You don’t go on the offense in a game of football. It is on the offence as it is not an offensive weapon but possessing an offencive weapon. And football is not soccer. Soccer is another name for football. The NFL uses a rugby ball, do I need to go on…?

@kenneth9874

11 ай бұрын

@@davidgaine4697 yes

@kenneth9874

11 ай бұрын

@@davidgaine4697 then why is there an offensive line in true football?

@kenneth9874

11 ай бұрын

@@davidgaine4697 sounds like one of those cases where brits don't know how to spell

Isn't that plane based on the Howard Hughes, hot rod he crashed in

2:27 why is there an at-6 Texan on a carrier?

I wonder, could that engine and propellor system be fitted to a Corsair without such a drastic change to the Corsair's airframe to render it impractical?

@PhantomP63

11 ай бұрын

The Super Corsair had a similar engine.

Why was there a T-6 on a carrier (02:30)?

Probably be stellar in Korea perhaps even today in an interdiction role lol interesting one there

Is this a Howard Hughes aircraft?

I wonder how it compared to the British Hawker Tempest. Seems to be similarly sized and powered....

Interesting,.....no mention of a Douglas Skyraider....

4:27 that looks mighty uncomfortable for the guy sitting behind the pilot.

Use to have fun identifying to the center as Boeing 859. Always came back as "say type", my reply "Stearman", got smartass once

It has the SAME tail design as a Japanese A6M "Zero."

I think you have it about righ,t saying it was an interesting concept that needed to be cancelled once they realised they couldn't build it from existing components

That b-17 tail is funny

An XP-72 cousin with many more hats

The tail looks like a B-17, same designer?

Corsair nose Skyraider body B-17 tail P-51 wings

There were a handful of interesting designs at the end of the war, but, the pinnacle of prop planes could barely touch the most basic early jet designs….

I think that the jet aircraft coming on line at the time was what killed the XF8B, otherwise it would have been a very effective beast.

sky raider finished the Job

A good stab at a solution to a problem that no longer existed. You get it in genetics as well as engineering- evolution in action... 🍄

Looks like a skyraider

My most favorite propeller plane. Superprop, you say? It's Five-in-One, of course it's a Superprop.