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

[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.

Hughes owned two A-20s: A-20G 43-22197 (N34920) purchased by the Hughes Tool Company on 11/15/45 that was initially used for test work and then in 1952 had an 'executive' interior installed. This is the airplane that went to Fox Field and is now with Kermit Weeks' collection.

The second was A-20G 43-22217 (N63148) purchased by Hughes Aircraft on 3/25/46. It was initially issued an experimental certificate by the CAA. In the latter part of 1946 it was fitted with a fin and rudder installation similar to the XF-11. As late as November 1946 the A-20G was still being used for the test series. Records suggest that by early 1947 it was returned to a normal configuration and in December 1947 it was issued a limited (type certificate) registration. N63148 was sold to a new civil owner in August 1949. It was lost on January 2, 1955, when being flown by Dianna Cyrus Bixby in the vicinity of La Paz, Mexico, when it crashed in the Gulf of California after running out of fuel.

I had long searched for a photo of this unusual modification to the A-20 but never found one. Considering its unusual appearance, you would have thought it would have been photographed often. But, at last something emerged from the background of these XF-11 photos. Thanks to Mark Allen for digging them out.

[Kyleb]

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.

I thought I'd replied earlier, but my point was the F-11 didn't have any performance margin against the aircraft that would have intercepted it. It first flew in '46, and the second one flew in '47. By the time the F-11 was in production and service, plenty of first gen jet fighters would have been in service in the US, Russia, England, etc. Obviously, Russia would have been the overflight target and the Mig 9 (for instance) was 100 mph faster and had the same or higher service ceiling. And remember, the F-11 had to run those 4360's at full tilt to get to its service ceiling, which isn't conducive to having healthy 4360's, while the jets were quite happy running at full throttle for lengthy periods.

If you look at successful overflight platforms, they had one or more performance metrics that were better than anything chasing them. U-2, RB-57, SR-71, etc. Higher speed, higher altitude, maybe both. Without at least one advantage, yikes.

[Chris Brame]

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.

A previous thread titled Hughes XF-11 had a link to this site that had a couple photos of the XF-11 at Sheppard:

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?1759397

Unfortunately now it gives me a "too many redirects" error (EDIT: link fixed); luckily I saved the photos back then - cropped/enlarged/enhanced:

Original photos by Richard Allain.

[menards]

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.

I thought I'd replied earlier, but my point was the F-11 didn't have any performance margin against the aircraft that would have intercepted it. It first flew in '46, and the second one flew in '47. By the time the F-11 was in production and service, plenty of first gen jet fighters would have been in service in the US, Russia, England, etc. Obviously, Russia would have been the overflight target and the Mig 9 (for instance) was 100 mph faster and had the same or higher service ceiling. And remember, the F-11 had to run those 4360's at full tilt to get to its service ceiling, which isn't conducive to having healthy 4360's, while the jets were quite happy running at full throttle for lengthy periods.

If you look at successful overflight platforms, they had one or more performance metrics that were better than anything chasing them. U-2, RB-57, SR-71, etc. Higher speed, higher altitude, maybe both. Without at least one advantage, yikes.

You make valid points. The XB-47 first flew in December of '47 and cruised at 100+ MPH faster than the top speed of the XF-11. Technology was evolving at lightning speed at that time.

[sandiego89]

......the Mig 9 (for instance) was 100 mph faster and had the same or higher service ceiling. And remember, the F-11 had to run those 4360's at full tilt to get to its service ceiling, which isn't conducive to having healthy 4360's, while the jets were quite happy running at full throttle for lengthy periods.......

You mean the MiG-9 that could not fire its guns above ~30,000 feet without the guns causing a flameout? I still think that that you are again inferring too much from the wiki specs again, but happy to agree to disagree, I just don't think a MiG-9 would gave been "all over" a high, fast F-11.

Listed top speed an ceiling are just specs, and do not solve the geometric complexities of a high altitude, high speed intercept. The MiG-9 would need excellent ground control and vectoring and would have to be positioned perfectly for a zoom climb to be positioned at the exact location the F-11 would be at at the moment of intercept. What was the the climb speed of the MiG-9? (I don't know it either but I bet it is much lower than the max speed). The listed max altitude might not necessarily mean cruising, and surely not maneuvering altitude. How long would it take the MiG to get to that altitude? How much fuel would it burn to get there? How good were the Soviet Radars and aircraft radios? I also doubt the MiG-9 engines could run "quite happy for full throttle for lengthy periods". Early MiGs had terrible endurance. Would the guns work that high? Doubt it. Sounds like the guns causing high altitude flameout problems were never really solved. Could the F-11 do a simple turn and make the MiG 9 fall out the sky, or throw off the intercept like the B-36 could do? Probably.

Yes jets totally changed the game, but again I believe the F-11 could have had a brief window of effectiveness, and definitely against something like the MiG-9.

Anyhow, back to the F-11- great pictures Mark! Fantastic looking plane.

[Kyleb]

......the Mig 9 (for instance) was 100 mph faster and had the same or higher service ceiling. And remember, the F-11 had to run those 4360's at full tilt to get to its service ceiling, which isn't conducive to having healthy 4360's, while the jets were quite happy running at full throttle for lengthy periods.......

You mean the MiG-9 that could not fire its guns above ~30,000 feet without the guns causing a flameout? I still think that that you are again inferring too much from the wiki specs again, but happy to agree to disagree, I just don't think a MiG-9 would gave been "all over" a high, fast F-11.

Listed top speed an ceiling are just specs, and do not solve the geometric complexities of a high altitude, high speed intercept. The MiG-9 would need excellent ground control and vectoring and would have to be positioned perfectly for a zoom climb to be positioned at the exact location the F-11 would be at at the moment of intercept. What was the the climb speed of the MiG-9? (I don't know it either but I bet it is much lower than the max speed). The listed max altitude might not necessarily mean cruising, and surely not maneuvering altitude. How long would it take the MiG to get to that altitude? How much fuel would it burn to get there? How good were the Soviet Radars and aircraft radios? I also doubt the MiG-9 engines could run "quite happy for full throttle for lengthy periods". Early MiGs had terrible endurance. Would the guns work that high? Doubt it. Sounds like the guns causing high altitude flameout problems were never really solved. Could the F-11 do a simple turn and make the MiG 9 fall out the sky, or throw off the intercept like the B-36 could do? Probably.

Yes jets totally changed the game, but again I believe the F-11 could have had a brief window of effectiveness, and definitely against something like the MiG-9.

The Mig-9 (or dozens of 'em) only had to get it right once. The F-11 had to get it right every time. Kind of like FGP's U-2. Only one of the missiles launched at it came close enough to damage it. That was enough.

Think about this: The first Mig-15 flew about 6 months after the second F-11. There really was no window for the F-11. Neat airplane, but overcome by more modern technology by the time it got off the ground.

[Mark Sampson]

Sounds like this plane was not unlike that other famous Hughes aircraft... obsolete when complete.

[menards]

Yes jets totally changed the game, but again I believe the F-11 could have had a brief window of effectiveness, and definitely against something like the MiG-9.

The Army and subsequently the Air Force didnt think so. Official trials said difficult to fly at slow speeds, difficult to maintain, expensive to build. It wasnt a fighter or a bomber. Straight up photo recon. There were other aircraft that performed that similar role just as effectively.

Cool looking plane, yes. So was the XF-12. Neither saw production.

[menards]

Original photos by Richard Allain.

Amazing, first flight in '47 and parked in the scrap heap in '48. I bet you the airframe had less than 50 hours on it.

[marine air]

You can thank Howard Hughes for that. He wasn’t liked by Congress.

Last edited by marine air on Sat Mar 12, 2022 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Kyleb]

You can than Howard Hughes for that. He wasn’t liked by Congress.

Why was that? I can only imagine it was because he took lots of funding during the war and didn't deliver much bang for the buck. I know they made components for various prime contractors, but did Hughes itself create any new products that were used in the war effort?

[shrike]

Why was that? I can only imagine it was because he took lots of funding during the war and didn't deliver much bang for the buck. I know they made components for various prime contractors, but did Hughes itself create any new products that were used in the war effort?

Hughes made a LOT of components for other contractors. Enough to employ up to 80,000 people. Products like ammunition feed chutes, landing gear an hydraulic components and aerial photographic equipment (the camera systems designed for the XF-11 were adapted to the F-15). Also laid a lot of groundwork for what would become the computer and missile industries.

Add that HH combined Elon's money, Kanye's ego, Tom Cruise' stability with a penchant for successfully chasing starlets, and it's easy to see that some of Congress might take a fervent dislike to him. It's unlikely that more than a few would have an inkling of the secret squirrel stuff in the works at the time of the hearing

[Zac Yates]

Something that's just occurred to me and I have a feeling I know the answer: did anyone other than Howard ever fly the second XF/XR-11?

The second was A-20G 43-22217 (N63148) purchased by Hughes Aircraft on 3/25/46. It was initially issued an experimental certificate by the CAA. In the latter part of 1946 it was fitted with a fin and rudder installation similar to the XF-11. As late as November 1946 the A-20G was still being used for the test series. Records suggest that by early 1947 it was returned to a normal configuration and in December 1947 it was issued a limited (type certificate) registration. N63148 was sold to a new civil owner in August 1949. It was lost on January 2, 1955, when being flown by Dianna Cyrus Bixby in the vicinity of La Paz, Mexico, when it crashed in the Gulf of California after running out of fuel.

I had long searched for a photo of this unusual modification to the A-20 but never found one. Considering its unusual appearance, you would have thought it would have been photographed often. But, at last something emerged from the background of these XF-11 photos. Thanks to Mark Allen for digging them out.

I live in the hope another photo of N63148 with the different fin will show up.