Boeing XF8B-1, a neat looking idea ...

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7815

My pleasure.

As for spitfire types with the contra-rotating props?

Supermarine Seafang Mk.32, VB895, 1946

Supermarine Spitfire Mk.24, PK684

eze240 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:32 pm **Posts:** 117

I'm surprised Boeing didn't try to enter it into competion with the Skyraider....
Or did they?

daviemax · **Posted:** Sat May 24, 2014 7:31 am

Mark, thanks again for another memorable photo posting. Personally I've always felt the XF8B-1 was an under-appreciated, and little-understood aircraft. Your photos really help to bring it to life.

With contra-props presumably the handling was quite neutral. I wonder how the aircraft performed in normal maneuvers like power-on stalls, etc.

As for "competition with the Skyraider" Bowers stated in his History that had development been continued, the aircraft would likely have been re-designated as an attack aircraft. In terms of power, size, and general characteristics the Boeing was obviously in the same basic category as the AD and AM. However, the Navy - unlike the USAF - preferred 18-cylider radials and ultimately avoided aircraft powered by the R-4360. That preference would certainly have impacted the Boeing.

Ironically this preference for the R-3350 over the R-4360 may have been somewhat misguided as arguably the R-4360 was more reliable than the turbo-compound version of the Wright product.

marine air · **Posted:** Sat May 24, 2014 11:47 am

It seems to have been designed to be a high altitude escort fighter for the B-29's for the Invasion of Japan, etc. After all, Boeing was in the loop, on the need for silver-plate bombers and theri long range capabilities. Apparently the P-51H and twin Mustang got the nod. ALso, to me the XF8B-1 looks uninspiring. THe tail looks pre-war, the fuselgae is flat sided like the P-51 and XATD-1 Skyraider. The bubble canopy looks like the copied and enlarged the Bearcats, and the gear stance and how high it the wing is above the ground looks like a straight wing copy of the Corsair. "Lets copy the best of everyone elses' ideas" process.
The only reason to have a ridiculously long wing would be to take lots of fuel very high for very long flights.

RandolphB · **Posted:** Sat May 24, 2014 7:13 pm

sandiego89 wrote:

A neat plane indeed. IIRC the contra-rotating prop was deemed to have a hypnotic/nauseating effect on the pilot, and was deemed to be of concern for long duration flights. Did any other contraprops like the griffon spit have this effect?

In the nearly two years I've been involved with Race 38 Precious Metal, I've never heard Thom mention anything about this. Unlike so many of the other Unlimiteds, PM is flown to the races in Reno (from Florida) each year. He spends a fair amount of time behind those props and I've never heard him or anyone on the team mention this as a problem....

daviemax · **Posted:** Mon May 26, 2014 9:30 am

marine air wrote:

It seems to have been designed to be a high altitude escort fighter for the B-29's for the Invasion of Japan, etc. After all, Boeing was in the loop, on the need for silver-plate bombers and theri long range capabilities. Apparently the P-51H and twin Mustang got the nod. ALso, to me the XF8B-1 looks uninspiring. THe tail looks pre-war, the fuselgae is flat sided like the P-51 and XATD-1 Skyraider. The bubble canopy looks like the copied and enlarged the Bearcats, and the gear stance and how high it the wing is above the ground looks like a straight wing copy of the Corsair. "Lets copy the best of everyone elses' ideas" process.
The only reason to have a ridiculously long wing would be to take lots of fuel very high for very long flights.

Here is a quick comparison of specifications among the AD, AM, and F8B - from Wikipedia, which may not be perfectly accurate but offers an approximation:

Was the R-4360-5 installed in the F8B a two-stage mechanically-supercharged engine? That could explain some of the performance differences.

C VEICH · **Joined:** Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:40 pm **Posts:** 1471

daviemax wrote:

Here is a quick comparison of specifications among the AD, AM, and F8B - from Wikipedia, which may not be perfectly accurate but offers an approximation:

Was the R-4360-5 installed in the F8B a two-stage mechanically-supercharged engine? That could explain some of the performance differences.

Are you sure you got the wing area numbers correct? From a quick glance at both airframes it seems odd that the Mauler would have less span and more area. Whatever the reason the Boeing sure does have a substantial performance margin on the other two.

daviemax · **Posted:** Mon May 26, 2014 2:19 pm

I double-checked the data as presented on Wiki and the table reflects information there. I'm not near my aviation library to check other sources but will do so as soon as I can. The Mauler did have a very broad chord. Calculated aspect ratios are:

AD - 6.25
AM - 5.04
F8B - 5.96

Interestingly the AD had the highest aspect ratio among them. Upon superficial review one would think the Boeing had the greatest A/R.

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Mon May 26, 2014 7:41 pm

Somewhere I've got an old magazine with pictures of the aircraft after its unfortunate belly landing. The hollow prop blades had split open, leaving a knotted pretzeled mess on the nose of the airplane.

SN

Snake45 · **Joined:** Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm **Posts:** 864

daviemax wrote:

Amazing range on the Boeing. Could that be accurate? Gotta be with lots of drop tanks, or something.

I recently read that the Skyraider's endurance/range limit was how much oil it could carry. It could theoretically carry enough fuel to run the engine clear out of oil. :shock:

daviemax · **Posted:** Tue May 27, 2014 5:41 am

I presume that range is with drop tanks. Also, last night I checked Bower's Boeing Aircraft Since 1916 (I think mine is the first addition) and the specs correlate except for engine power quoted (2500) which is probably inaccurate and the range listed there was 3500 miles, which to me isn't credible either (for a variety of reasons, oil capacity could be one of them). Getting test results from Boeing archives would be ideal.

Tom Fey · **Joined:** Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:33 pm **Posts:** 5

When the only thing a partner company test pilot can say about your new airplane is how big it is, you know you are in trouble.

see Slide #35

http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/AP_Piston.pdf

daviemax · **Posted:** Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:49 am

Tom Fey wrote:

When the only thing a partner company test pilot can say about your new airplane is how big it is, you know you are in trouble.

see Slide #35

http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/AP_Piston.pdf

Very interesting, thanks for posting. File is worth keeping and studying. Note that it confirms the R-4360-10 (my earlier post said, -5, which appears to be an error); the -10 was two-stage, variable speed mechanical supercharged, which certainly helps explain the performance of the F8B.

Tom Fey · **Joined:** Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:33 pm **Posts:** 5

There is a spectacular, 371 page book on the XF8B-1 by Jared Zichek from Schiffer Military History (2007). According to the aircraft brochure reproduced in the book, The XF8B-1 could hold 384 gallons of internal fuel, two external tanks on the stubs of 150 gallons each, and a bomb bay tank holding 270 gallons. That makes 954 gallons, around 5,743 pounds, of fuel. I'm not sure what external weaponry could be carried under this condition, but the wings held six .50 cal or 20 mm cannon suitable for the escort roll. Standard oil capacity was 20 gallons, with a maximum oil capacity of 40 gallons.

tacoope · **Joined:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:10 am **Posts:** 48

Ok I stand better educated on the contra props on Spits and Seafires, thanks.

Warbird Information Exchange

Boeing XF8B-1, a neat looking idea ...

Who is online