Hughes XF-11, what if?!! ...

[Mark Allen M]

[junkman9096]

I'm certain that those photos were taken at the old Hughes Airfield (naturally) in Culver City, CA right next to Marina Del Rey. All those empty spaces in the background....aren't any more and the airport itself is a big industrial park now. When I was a kid my dad would take us for drives and the highlight was the crashed aircraft remnants (F-86?) that had been pushed up against the perimeter fence at the west end, next to Lincoln Blvd.

[maxum96]

Different props.

My understanding is the contra rotating prop version was the first prototype that Hughes crashed after one of the props reversed pitch in flight. The second prototype had standard four blade props. It's a shame it didn't survive. Such a beautiful airplane. Thanks for sharing the pics Mark.

[Chris Brame]

On that same photo (no.13) there is another twin parked in front of a building, just right of the A-26 with the DC-3 behind it. Is that another A-20? I cannot figure out what it could be.

I was thinking early Lockheed Neptune, or more likely A-20 with a much enlarged vertical fin?

And while we're playing "aircraft spotter", is that Hughes's Sikorsky S-43?

xf11 2.jpg (47.95 KiB) Viewed 2326 times

[maradamx3]

The second prototype's last published whereabouts were Sheppard, Texas and dropped from USAF inventory in 1949. Not been able to find anything that states the final disposition of the airframe. Is it possible it still exists somewhere out of sight? That would be quite the acquisition for a museum.

[Archer]

Thanks Chris Brame, early P2V makes sense! And I agree on the Sikorsky, that would be the aircraft that Kermit Weeks acquired a few years ago I guess?

[mike furline]

Is it an optical illusion with the A-20 sitting in front on another airframe? A damaged or partially disassembled DC-3 perhaps? You can kind of make out a second set of wheels.
Also a prop blade sticking up from the A-20 cockpit that would be out of place for the #2 engine on the A-20.

Last edited by mike furline on Tue Mar 08, 2022 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Archer]

Right, that has got me doubting the P2V option again.... The nose certainly looks like an A-20 in that enlarged image. There appears to be a second set of wings behind the A-20's wings. If it is a DC-3, the vertical tail does appear to be out of scale compared to the A-20. The image is pretty fuzzy, we may well be looking at two different aircraft behind the A-20, or several parts of aircraft.... it may remain a mystery!

[sandiego89]

Awesome airplane, but if the spec's are correct it was virtually obsolete by the time it broke ground. Generation 1 jets would have been all over it at 42K' and 450mph, which are the service ceiling and top speed listed for the aircraft.

Obsolete?
Not necessarily.
It was a reconnaissance aircraft (remember, the "F" stood for "Foto" not the post '47 "Fighter") which, by their very nature, need long range.
Something all early jets were short of.
There was a reason the USAF used RB-45s.
Range was more important than fighter-like speed.

Obsolete because it was a recon platform that had zero performance margin over the day’s interceptors. It was 100 mph slower even with the recips at max power (think about the reliability of 4360’s running at full throttle for a couple of hours), and didn’t have an advantage in altitude. With a long range overflight asset, it needs to fly higher or faster than the day’s fighters to be survivable.

Kyleb, I think you may be inferring too much from the 'specs', While specs are useful they do not tell the whole story. 42K' and 450MPH are extremely impressive for an aircraft ordered in 1944, and even into the later 1940's. The B-36 was found to be quite effective against prop fighters and the early jets, it could simply fly higher and while jets could perhaps zoom to that altitude, they had zero maneuverability at that altitude. The B-36 could just do a gentle turn, or even slow way down, and the jet that tried to follow would literally fall out of the sky until they could recover at lower altitudes. Yes this invulnerability was short lived as the jets got better, but there was a brief window of effectiveness that an operational F-11 may have also enjoyed.

Any intercepts would have been had to been timed perfectly with a zoom climb, not an easy feat.

As for the "interceptors of the day" which potential adversaries and time frame are you referring to? In the WWII conflict the XF-11 was designed for, the late German or Japanese piston interceptors would have been extremely challenged to meet a high and fast operational F-11, and the first jets likely would have had challenges as well being effective at that speed and altitude. The best Japanese interceptor of WWII was the Nakajima Ki-84, but it had performance below the XF-11. Even the Me-262 did not have that kind of performance at altitude.
I assume your surmise the main threat as the MiG-15, but that did not really become operational until around 1949 and was not known in the west until 1950. While the MiG-15 wiki 'specs" indicate a max speed of 669mph, that was at a much lower altitude, and the max ceiling was around 50K, but that would have been a zoom climb where the MiG would have zero maneuverability. The MiG controls became nearly impossible to move as the mach got higher. The MiG had very short endurance, again any intercept would have had to been a perfectly timed zoom climb. The MiG would not have a performance advantage while in the climb and would be engaged in a tail chase, and once at altitude it would not be maneuverable. It likely would have run out of time and fuel before it was time to return home. Max height and being able to maneuver at that height are a distinct differences. The F-11 would have plenty of wing at height, interceptors not so much.

There is a significant distinction between late WWII/late 1940’s performance and say around 1953. Most pistons were quickly rendered obsolete in speed, but retained an effective altitude and endurance advantage for some time. I disagree that generation 1 jets would have “been all over it”. If you had said the F-11 would have been quickly made obsolete by the early 1950’s I would have agreed with you, but if the F-11 had reached service late in WWII or the immediate postwar period, I surmise it could have had a brief period of impressive effectiveness.

[aerovin]

Right, that has got me doubting the P2V option again.... The nose certainly looks like an A-20 in that enlarged image. There appears to be a second set of wings behind the A-20's wings. If it is a DC-3, the vertical tail does appear to be out of scale compared to the A-20. The image is pretty fuzzy, we may well be looking at two different aircraft behind the A-20, or several parts of aircraft.... it may remain a mystery!

I don’t have my A-20 book handy but one of the two Hughes civil A-20s was fitted with test vertical stabilizer for the XF-11 and that would appear to be verified by this photo. I will get more details later but thought it worth mentioning. Very interesting what can be seen in the background of these photos.

[marine air]

It probably would have been great. The best scenario would've been for Hughes to sell the design to North American, or some other big name. It was cursed from the beginning by having the Hughes name. Howard was weird and not liked. It might have served in the military up through the Vietnam war. It has two Skyraider engines and a lot more wing. Imagine all the ordnance stations it could've had installed. Lots of room in the booms as well for radios. listening equipment, fuel or additional cockpit space.
With the wrinkles ironed out and a competent test program it might have gone on to serve the same missions later flown by the T-28D, OV-10 Bronco, OV-1 Mohawk, O-2, A-1 Skyraider, A-26K, QU-35, YO-9, RC-12's, etc.

[Mark Allen M]

A-20 w/XF-11 tail in front of a DC-3

[Archer]

Brilliant, thanks for clearing up that puzzle Mark!

[Zac Yates]

The second prototype's last published whereabouts were Sheppard, Texas and dropped from USAF inventory in 1949. Not been able to find anything that states the final disposition of the airframe. Is it possible it still exists somewhere out of sight? That would be quite the acquisition for a museum.

Man, don't get my hopes up like that! As a lifelong Hughes fan that would be incredible.

I don’t have my A-20 book handy but one of the two Hughes civil A-20s was fitted with test vertical stabilizer for the XF-11 and that would appear to be verified by this photo. I will get more details later but thought it worth mentioning.

I'd never heard that before, and to have it confirmed - wow!

[quemerford]

The second prototype's last published whereabouts were Sheppard, Texas and dropped from USAF inventory in 1949. Not been able to find anything that states the final disposition of the airframe. Is it possible it still exists somewhere out of sight? That would be quite the acquisition for a museum.

This is not quite correct: the aircraft is recorded as authorised for scrapping at Sheppard on 26 July 1949 with reclamation complete 21 November 1949. If it had gone elsewhere it would have been recorded as a donation and/or transfer.