Boeing XF8B: The Five-In-One Fighter

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 03/10/2016 at 12:35 • Filed to: planelopnik, planelopnik history, planes you've (probably) never heard of

8

13

From the Planes You’ve (Probably) Never Heard Of Department of Aviation History, we bring you the Boeing XF8B.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

In the Pacific theater of WWII, the US Navy had enough trouble trying to conquer the Japanese. But they also had to conquer the ocean’s vast distances. Small by necessity, carrier aircraft had relatively short range, and that limited the extent to which they could reach out and attack land targets. But the Navy knew that the closer they got to the Japanese homeland, the closer the fleet, with its vulnerable carriers, would be to land-based bombers. What they needed was an aircraft that would have enough range to reach Japan while leaving the carriers at a safe distance. And if you’ve only got one plane that can fly that far, you need it to be capable of many different missions. So the Navy told Boeing that it wanted a five-in-one solution: a fighter/dive bomber/interceptor/level bomber/torpedo bomber all in one package. It was a big task, so Boeing built a big plane to do it.

Boeing had already made a name for themselves building large warplanes like the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and they set to work on what they designated the Model 400. The massive fighter, indeed the largest piston-powered single-seat US fighter developed during WWII, would be powered by an equally massive !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! supercharged 28-cylinder four-row radial engine, the largest-displacement piston aircraft engine to be developed during the war. This was the same engine that would power the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . The engine turned a huge, contra-rotating, six-bladed propeller that pulled the XF8B through the air at a maximum speed of 432 mph. Had it gone into production, the XF8B would have packed a heavy punch with either six .50 caliber machine guns or six 20mm cannons in the wings. Utilizing underwing hard points and an internal bomb bay, it would also carry 6,400 pounds of bombs or two 2,000 pound torpedoes. To put all that into some perspective, the B-17 carried 8,000 pounds of bombs on a short-range mission, and 4,500 pounds of bombs on a long-range mission, and the XF8B’s range was 2,800 miles, almost than twice that of the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Its wingspan was also greater than the Corsair’s by 13 feet.

Boeing received an order for three prototypes in May of 1943, and the first took its maiden flight on November 27, 1944. Since the Navy perceived a great need for the XF8B, the testing and evaluation process was expedited by the addition of a second cockpit to the first two prototypes to allow a flight engineer to accompany the pilot and collect data. There was no shortage of space for a second seat. Despite the urgency, the war ended before the second and third prototypes could be completed. With the advent of the jet fighter, and Boeing’s continued emphasis on building large bombers and transports for the looming Cold War, the XF8B was canceled after the Navy only wanted to buy a handful of them and the Air Force simply wasn’t interested in a piston-powered fighter. Like so many other warplanes that almost were, the three XF8B prototypes were consigned to the scrapyard.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

If you enjoy these posts, please let me know in the comments. And if you missed any of the past articles, you can find them all at !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . You can also find lots of airplanes that you probably have heard of at !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ttyymmnn 03/10/2016 at 12:40

0

Wasp Major powered fighter. Seems reasonable.

AutoSavant > ttyymmnn 03/10/2016 at 12:47

0

How did this compare in size to the P-47?

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > AutoSavant 03/10/2016 at 12:55

1

13' wider wingspan, 7' longer, which is huge. About 100% more engine, and about the size of a Warthog.

AuthiCooper1300 > ttyymmnn 03/10/2016 at 13:08

1

Looks somehow like an Fw-190 on steroids. I know it is a silly comment, but that’s how it feels to a layman.

Fantastic article. It is always great to learn!

ttyymmnn > AuthiCooper1300 03/10/2016 at 13:09

0

It does indeed have a similar profile, though the XF8B was considerably larger.

Thanks!

AuthiCooper1300 > ttyymmnn 03/10/2016 at 13:18

1

I know, I know, I checked the dimensions and weights before posting. That plane was huge.

The wing/stabiliser planform looked quite similar too.

I wonder if it was very noisy, as it is usually the case with contra-rotating setups.

Thanks to you. You are the one making the effort to research, write and post.

AfromanGTO > ttyymmnn 03/10/2016 at 13:19

1

Very cool aircraft. I am surprised they couldn’t find a use for them, but the jet age come early for them.

ttyymmnn > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 03/10/2016 at 14:44

1

Why not? Put the biggest damned engine we’ve got into a smallish fighter. Win! BTW, that’s the same engine they put in the Goodyear F2G Super Corsair and Republic XP-72 Super Thunderbolt, which also had contra-rotating propellers, plus a few others. But it was mainly used in large bomber and transport planes.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ttyymmnn 03/10/2016 at 14:53

0

I’m willing to tar this project with Tim Taylor Syndrome silliness, regardless. Mostly it’s the fact that the Air Force was already on the path to jets and using twins (so this would have been a crazy supplement at best) and the Navy would have been (I assume) trying to land these on straight-deck carriers. Something well on its way to being bomber size - it would have been a slightly reduced Doolittle raid circus every day on any older flattops. And let’s not forget the refuel times this thing would have had.

Damn the practicalities, full speed ahead!

ttyymmnn > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 03/10/2016 at 15:16

0

Is there any post that can’t be replied to by some Monty Python reference? I hope not.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ttyymmnn 03/10/2016 at 15:19

1

Probably not. In this case, I used both Rev. Arthur Belling of St. Looney-up-the-Creambun-and-Jam and Tim Taylor of Home Improvement because I like to use as many disparate references as possible. When doing that, at least one of them is usually Python.

Shane MacGowan's Teeth > ttyymmnn 03/10/2016 at 16:09

1

Came here to post about the Super Corsair- while looking it up for photos, the wiki says it could climb FASTER THAN THE ME-262. There’s no replacement for displacement.

ttyymmnn > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 03/10/2016 at 16:43

1

The US didn’t have an angled flight deck until the early 1950s, so yes, these beasts would have been landing on straight decks. But this is exactly why I love this era of aviation, and that of the 1950s. The war pushed aircraft developers to try just about any hair brained scheme they could come up with, and Cold War budgets meant that just about any crazy idea would at least get built and tested. It was the era of, “What would happen if we did this ?”