Airplane Tales – Request for Data R-40C: The Vultee XP-54 "Swoose Goose"

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
05/28/2015 at 11:05 • Filed to: planelopnik, planelopnik history, planes you've (probably) never heard of

From the Planes You’ve (Probably) Never Heard Of Department of Planelopnik, we bring you the Vultee XP-54 “Swoose Goose.”

Fearing that American aircraft development was stagnating, the US Army Air Corps issued Request for Data R-40C in 1940 hoping to encourage designers to create new aircraft that went beyond the monoplane arrangement that had become standard during the 1930s. Three of the designs to come out of this request featured pusher propellers: the Vultee XP-54, nicknamed the “Swoose Goose,” the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender, and the radical Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet. For the XP-54, Vultee intended to use the experimental Pratt & Whitney X-1800-A4G “ !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ,” which they optimistically expected would provide up to 2200 turbocharged horsepower and carry the Swoose Goose to 510 mph at 20,000ft. But when the X-1800 engine was cancelled, they substituted a less powerful Lycoming engine, which turned out to be inadequate for such a large aircraft, so the specification was changed from fighter to bomber-interceptor.

With the change in role, the armament was also changed from the original six .50 caliber machine guns to two 37mm cannons and two .50 caliber machine guns. To deal with the lower muzzle velocity of the cannon, Vultee devised a system where the entire nose could be tilted up six degrees in order to lob the cannon shells forward, and also lowered three degrees for attacking ground targets with the machine guns. Another Vultee innovation was a pilot’s seat that lowered beneath the plane through a hatch so the pilot could be raised into the cockpit. This mechanism also served to drop the pilot through the bottom of the fuselage in case of emergency, making it essentially an early downward ejection seat.

Two prototypes were built, and the maiden flight took place on January 15, 1943, followed by 86 test flights. But as is so often the case in aircraft development of the period, the engine just wasn’t up to the task and the XP-54 never achieved the hoped-for performance. The project was cancelled in 1942. Vultee considered developing the XP-54 into the XP-68 Tornado by using a more powerful engine, but when that engine was also cancelled the Tornado followed suit.

This the first installment in our look at the R-40C aircraft. Tune in next week when we take a look at the Curtiss Ascender.

••••••••••••••••••••••

If you enjoy these Planelopnik History 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!!! .

DISCUSSION (15)

Snuze: Needs another Swede > ttyymmnn
05/28/2015 at 11:21

I’ve always loved pusher prop planes. Maybe it’s because they are so uncommon, but I think it’s a neat setup.

ttyymmnn > Snuze: Needs another Swede
05/28/2015 at 11:22

The first Wright Flyer was a pusher, and there were pushers in WWI. And if you think about it, jets are pushers too. As a boy, I was fascinated by the Curtiss Ascender, and I’m looking forward to writing about that one next week.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > ttyymmnn
05/28/2015 at 11:27

All good points, and you’re right, historically they were important in the early days of aviation. But now adays, you go to a local airport and how many push prop planes do you see? Also, I know jets are pushers, but theres something about a push prop that gets me. To me they always have that “retro-futuristic” feel.

ttyymmnn > Snuze: Needs another Swede
05/28/2015 at 11:32

I wasn’t trying to be cheeky about jets, just trying to reframe the reference. There certainly aren’t many pushers. The most obvious current example is the Piaggio Avanti. And there are still a couple of Beech Starships flying around. Burt Rutan’s VariEze and Long EZ come to mind. I’m not sure why there aren’t more.

MonkeePuzzle > ttyymmnn
05/28/2015 at 11:41

a thing of oddity and beauty

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ttyymmnn
05/28/2015 at 11:45

You’ve managed to fine one that I’d never seen.

ttyymmnn > MonkeePuzzle
05/28/2015 at 11:45

“Ungainly” is the word that comes to my mind. But there is a certain beauty in its awkwardness.

ttyymmnn > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo
05/28/2015 at 11:47

Finally putting to good use all those years spent in my childhood staring at airplane history books.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ttyymmnn
05/28/2015 at 11:48

Good on you. I was too busy eating macaroni ‘n cheese. I’m rather surprised I survived that.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn
05/28/2015 at 14:30

Air cooled engines would be my guess. Much better cooling if you stick the engine on the front. I wonder what kind of handling differences there are between otherwise similar front engined and pusher airframes.

My favorites might just have to be pusher/pullers.

Kinja'd!!!

“Dornier Pfeil2” by Ad Meskens, zie ook:vliegtuigen - Own work by uploader of an object in the National Air and Space Museum, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, Washington DC. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons -

ttyymmnn > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
05/28/2015 at 14:44

Well, that’s thorough. Now that Gawker is distancing itself from the sub blogs, largely over © infringement, I am trying to be very careful (I always have been, actually) about what photos I use. I will categorically avoid any image from Airliners.net, and only use images from Wikipedia, those I’ve taken myself, those from US Gov’t sites, or those that look to have originated from the military during their testing. I am using one image in tomorrow’s post, though, that is from the Smithsonian. I have read their guidelines for use, and I think I’m in the clear using it, but questions arise if the post gets shared to Jalopnik or elsewhere that has advertising on it. I have credited the image in the fashion they request, I’m not monetizing its use in any way, and the use is clearly educational. But still, this © issues are centered on the radar right now, and I want to be sure it’s permitted. I have added a disclaimer that reads,

All photos from Wikipedia Commons or by the Author unless otherwise credited.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn
05/28/2015 at 14:58

Some Wikipedia images have the copyright preserved by the owner, this is one of them. When you copy the image url it says “you need attribute the author, show me how” and lets you copy the citation.

As far as stuff from the Smithsonian goes I would assume it is fair game if it was generated by the government for release. Basically all the images on any .gov site are labelled as being open for reuse. Some may request citation and there is probably a caveat that you can’t make money off of them though.

ttyymmnn > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
05/28/2015 at 15:01

I was under the impression that the Smithsonian was a private entity, but it is, in fact, administered by the US Gov’t. I’ll keep an eye out for those Wiki image credits. Thanks.

The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) > ttyymmnn
05/28/2015 at 17:09

Excellent as usual. Keep it up!

ttyymmnn > The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!)
05/28/2015 at 17:12

Thanks! The next long history post drops tomorrow morning at 11 am ET.