Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
2 December 2007
Messages
8,701
Reaction score
12,727
Website
www.amazon.com
From
-Air enthusiast Nº55
-Le Fanatique de l'Aviation
-Airplane Five View Album B.C.F.Klein publications
-Warplanes of the Second World War-Volume Four
-Naval Fighters-Sixty.Five


Post-1
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0001.jpg
    Escanear0001.jpg
    425.4 KB · Views: 1,192
  • Escanear0007.jpg
    Escanear0007.jpg
    277.7 KB · Views: 423
  • Escanear0006.jpg
    Escanear0006.jpg
    180.6 KB · Views: 391
  • Escanear0005.jpg
    Escanear0005.jpg
    163 KB · Views: 972
  • Escanear0004.jpg
    Escanear0004.jpg
    214 KB · Views: 1,085
  • Escanear0003.jpg
    Escanear0003.jpg
    363.9 KB · Views: 1,211
  • Escanear0002.jpg
    Escanear0002.jpg
    302.3 KB · Views: 1,147
From
-Air enthusiast Nº55
-Le Fanatique de l'Aviation
-Airplane Five View Album B.C.F.Klein publications
-Warplanes of the Second World War-Volume Four
-Naval Fighters-Sixty.Five


Post-2
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0014.jpg
    Escanear0014.jpg
    146.4 KB · Views: 381
  • Escanear0013.jpg
    Escanear0013.jpg
    308.9 KB · Views: 391
  • Escanear0012.jpg
    Escanear0012.jpg
    130.7 KB · Views: 276
  • Escanear0011.jpg
    Escanear0011.jpg
    225.2 KB · Views: 295
  • Escanear0010.jpg
    Escanear0010.jpg
    323.3 KB · Views: 342
  • Escanear0009.jpg
    Escanear0009.jpg
    347 KB · Views: 316
  • Escanear0008.jpg
    Escanear0008.jpg
    374.2 KB · Views: 335
Topics merged. Please remember that the search engine is not very intelligent, so type the full designation "XF8B-1" next time...
 
Airtime Publishing's Classic Wings had a good article on this bird.
 
The drawing by Martin Salajka from Czech L+K magazine, No.5/1997:
 

Attachments

  • 1997-05_boeing_xf8b-1_draw.jpg
    1997-05_boeing_xf8b-1_draw.jpg
    160.6 KB · Views: 363
The F8B-1 is one of my personal favorites; because it's just so... audacious. Build a fighter around the biggest piston engine ever put into true mass production -- the R4360, and then demand that it fly a 850 nautical mile (!!) combat radius in the standardized late war fighter design mission with wing drop tanks and an internal bomb bay fuel tank.
 

Attachments

  • F8B-1.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 158
  • F8B-5.jpg
    782.1 KB · Views: 140
  • F8B-6.jpg
    734.3 KB · Views: 135
Splendid, Ryan! I like the F8B very much too. Jared's book on the subject is fantastic... Do you have it?
 

Attachments

  • XF-8B_4.jpg
    XF-8B_4.jpg
    91.9 KB · Views: 276
  • XF-8B_3.jpg
    XF-8B_3.jpg
    91.3 KB · Views: 226
  • XF-8B_2.jpg
    XF-8B_2.jpg
    88.7 KB · Views: 234
  • XF-8B_1.jpg
    XF-8B_1.jpg
    87.5 KB · Views: 284
I’m a bit a cooling and exhaust nerd, so this plane is surly interesting. Of course I also read about this plane here: https://oldmachinepress.com/2022/01/15/boeing-xf8b-five-in-one-fighter/ but the description sounds quite strange: “Engine cooling air was brought in the front of the cowling and expelled via cowl flaps around the upper part of the fuselage and slits for the exhaust stacks on the sides of the aircraft. The engine’s exhaust system was rather unusual and consisted of 14 exhaust stacks, with each stack serving two cylinders. On each side of the aircraft, four exhaust stacks were located in a slit behind the cowling. Another exhaust stack was forward of the slit and under the cowl flaps, and another stack protruded from the cowling forward of the cowl flaps. The last two stacks traveled through a passageway at the center of the scoop under the aircraft and expelled exhaust out of the bottom of the scoop.”

On the models and the photos, I couldn’t identify any exhaust at the bottom of the plane. On the sides, the arrangement is quite weird, there are indeed exhaust stakes in front of the side openings. The last pic in the first posting from Justo Miranda clearly shows some oil/soot tracks on the sides in front of the cooling outlets. This position doesn’t really fit very well, to the quite logic arrangement at the coolant openings, my idea is, that those might be a quick fix solution for a prototype.

The exhaust stacks at the cooling openings are in front of the coolant outlet, so that the cooling air will keep the exhaust gases away from the fuselage (well, not completely, as we see on the soot tracks). Unlike in the FW 190, no ejector effect is foreseen, but possible max. trust from the exhaust and minimized friction between the exhaust gases and the fuselage.

The exhaust openings at the bottom are also a quite strange arrangement:

“The last two stacks traveled through a passageway at the center of the scoop under the aircraft and expelled exhaust out of the bottom of the scoop.”

This would mean, that the hot exhaust pipes are crossing the cold air intake, I doubt that this is an ideal solution. For me, this is also an indication that something didn’t work out as planed and the exhaust system needed to be fixed by an improvised solution before something better could be implemented.
 
I’m a bit a cooling and exhaust nerd, so this plane is surly interesting. Of course I also read about this plane here: https://oldmachinepress.com/2022/01/15/boeing-xf8b-five-in-one-fighter/ but the description sounds quite strange: “Engine cooling air was brought in the front of the cowling and expelled via cowl flaps around the upper part of the fuselage and slits for the exhaust stacks on the sides of the aircraft. The engine’s exhaust system was rather unusual and consisted of 14 exhaust stacks, with each stack serving two cylinders. On each side of the aircraft, four exhaust stacks were located in a slit behind the cowling. Another exhaust stack was forward of the slit and under the cowl flaps, and another stack protruded from the cowling forward of the cowl flaps. The last two stacks traveled through a passageway at the center of the scoop under the aircraft and expelled exhaust out of the bottom of the scoop.”

On the models and the photos, I couldn’t identify any exhaust at the bottom of the plane. On the sides, the arrangement is quite weird, there are indeed exhaust stakes in front of the side openings. The last pic in the first posting from Justo Miranda clearly shows some oil/soot tracks on the sides in front of the cooling outlets. This position doesn’t really fit very well, to the quite logic arrangement at the coolant openings, my idea is, that those might be a quick fix solution for a prototype.

The exhaust stacks at the cooling openings are in front of the coolant outlet, so that the cooling air will keep the exhaust gases away from the fuselage (well, not completely, as we see on the soot tracks). Unlike in the FW 190, no ejector effect is foreseen, but possible max. trust from the exhaust and minimized friction between the exhaust gases and the fuselage.

The exhaust openings at the bottom are also a quite strange arrangement:

“The last two stacks traveled through a passageway at the center of the scoop under the aircraft and expelled exhaust out of the bottom of the scoop.”

This would mean, that the hot exhaust pipes are crossing the cold air intake, I doubt that this is an ideal solution. For me, this is also an indication that something didn’t work out as planed and the exhaust system needed to be fixed by an improvised solution before something better could be implemented.

Hmm, "hot exhaust pipes are crossing the cold air intake" - maybe not a big deal because R-4360 engine had intercooler?
 
It will reduce the mass flow for the compressor to the same degree as it would reduce the mass flow for a naturally aspirated engine. It would also increase the compressor outlet temperature even more, so that a higher compressor speed cant be used for compensation, most likely, it even would have to be decreased if the compressor outlet temperature is critical.
 
This thread reminded me I love this plane too, so just for the fun of it using Wikipedia I checked its weight and dimensions compared to a Skyraider and a Martin Mauler (not fighters, I know). And I can confirm: that thing was big and heavy.


General characteristics
  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 38 ft 10 in (11.84 m)
  • Wingspan: 50 ft 0.25 in (15.2464 m)
  • Height: 15 ft 8.25 in (4.7816 m)
  • Wing area: 400.33 sq ft (37.192 m2)
  • Airfoil: root: NACA 2417; tip: NACA 4413[44]
  • Empty weight: 11,968 lb (5,429 kg)
  • Gross weight: 18,106 lb (8,213 kg)
  • Fuel capacity: 380 US gal (320 imp gal; 1,400 L) internal tanks
  • Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-3350-26WA Duplex-Cyclone 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 2,700 hp (2,000 kW)
  • Propellers: 4-bladed Aeroproducts constant-speed propeller


General characteristics
  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 41 ft 3 in (12.57 m)
  • Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
  • Height: 16 ft 10 in (5.13 m)
  • Wing area: 496 sq ft (46.1 m2)
  • Empty weight: 15,257 lb (6,920 kg)
  • Gross weight: 25,737 lb (11,674 kg)
  • Fuel capacity: 510 US gallons (1,900 L; 420 imp gal)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-4360-4 Wasp Major Radial, 3,000 hp (2,200 kW)
  • Propellers: 4-bladed, 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m) diameter


General characteristics
  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 43 ft 3 in (13.18 m)
  • Wingspan: 54 ft (16 m)
  • Height: 16 ft 3 in (4.95 m)
  • Wing area: 489 sq ft (45.4 m2)
  • Empty weight: 13,519 lb (6,132 kg)
  • Gross weight: 20,508 lb (9,302 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 21,691 lb (9,839 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney XR-4360-10 28 cylinder air-cooled piston engine, 3,000 hp (2,200 kW) for take-off; (3,600 hp (2,700 kW) war emergency with water injection)
  • Propellers: 3-bladed 2x Aeroprop, 13 ft 6 in (4.11 m) diameter contra-rotating co-axial propellers
 
I know all of the manufacturers had their "trademark" fin shapes back then, but in my opinion that B-17/B-29 tail just doesn't look right on a fighter...

...No matter how big the thing is!! ;)

Fascinating airplane, BTW. I can highly recommend the Ginter book for anyone who is interested in this beast.
 
Hi!
Of course I have.
 

Attachments

  • 61gTryimJkL._SL1329_.jpg
    61gTryimJkL._SL1329_.jpg
    97.5 KB · Views: 22

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom