hermankeil
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 21 September 2006
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 17
Does anyone have a photo of the experimental F6F with a bubble?
hermankeil said:Does anyone have a photo of the experimental F6F with a bubble?
The bubble canopy that we tried unsuccessfully on the Hellcat was exactly similarto the Malcomb sliding canopy of the Spitfire. It used the same Hellcat sliding canopy structure but the plexiglass was blown out for the bubble during its manufacture.
It was an attempt to combine the functions of the TBF/TBM and F4F/FM-1 into a single airframe for use on escort carriers. Avenger Fighter was actually its nickname, if memory serves.Hardrada55 said:OK, so I gotta ask, what's the XFTBF-1? Avenger fighter?
CostasTT said:It was an attempt to combine the functions of the TBF/TBM and F4F/FM-1 into a single airframe for use on escort carriers. Avenger Fighter was actually its nickname, if memory serves.
Perhaps with the powerful engine "Avenger" could perform some maneuvers, but in my humble opinion - only against enemy attack aircraft, not capable for dogfight .
You are welcome. Yes, you interpreted the designation correctly as indicating a dual (multi) role aircraft.Silencer1 said:CostasTT said:It was an attempt to combine the functions of the TBF/TBM and F4F/FM-1 into a single airframe for use on escort carriers. Avenger Fighter was actually its nickname, if memory serves.
In US Navy aircraft naming system XFBTF should mean "Prototype of Fighter and Torpedo Bomber, made by Grumman", isn't it?
Those it mean - Single-seat "Avenger" sharing role from torpedo-bomber to fighter?
Perhaps with the powerful engine "Avenger" could perform some maneuvers, but in my humble opinion - only against enemy attack aircraft, not capable for dogfight .
Anyway - impressive photo, thanks for sharing!
As to the "Fighter" version of the Avenger, it was a very hurried up prototype version to see if the many smaller carriers that performed the anti submarine warfare missions in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans could have a single do both fighter and ASW missions in order to simplify all aspects of carrier warfair on these carriers like: training, maintenance, spares etc.,etc. No matter what we did to this prototype the Wildcat took much less space on these space limited carriers and the navy soon decided, as we did, that it would not work as well as the much smaller Wildcat, also in production at General Motors Lindin, New Jersey and discontinued their interest in it, too.
CostasTT said:Hope this helps.
Silencer1 said:Hi CostasTT!
CostasTT said:Hope this helps.
Thanks for comprehensive story!
Without part of their load some heavy aircraft could significantly increase their maneuverability, making a figures, not estimated to their weight and size.
Perhaps, Blue Angels' C-130 without cargo could be good example of it *-)
Jemiba said:Size,weight and payload of the XFTBF-1 seem to be comparable to the Boeing
XF8B, it just lacks a bit with regards to engine power. But for the limited number
of aircraft on a CVE, a multi-role type would have been probably better, than a
mixed complement. And over the North Atlantic, probably no enemy fighter could
be expected.
Have added a rough sketch of the Malcolm hood Hellcat, we had this theme before
somewhere, somewhen ...
Sounds like something Grumman pilots 30-40 years later liked to do...Perhaps with the powerful engine "Avenger" could perform some maneuvers, but in my humble opinion - only against enemy attack aircraft, not capable for dogfight .
Oh, I don't know...
This from 'Flying for the U.S.Marines', by Warren.H.Goodman, 'Aeroplane Monthly', February 1977, page 63.
"It wasn't the most manoeuvrable airtcraft in the world by any means. I never knew anyone who dared to slow roll it or try a loop. But when you were used to it, you could do enough tight turns, chandelles and other tricks to enable you to play at dog-fighting with much lighter, faster types. We proved this when we began tangling with the P-38 pilots from a nearby Air Force base.
We couldn't climb as fast or as high as they could, but we could hold our own with them at low altitudes. We could turn inside them, and we soon discovered a trick for shaking off a P-38 when it got on a TBF's tail. We would put down wheels and flaps at the same time. This would cut the TBF's speed by 20 to 30 kts, while increasing the altitude by about 50ft.
The P-38 would pass below you before he knew what had happened. Then you could raise the wheels and flaps, nose over, and you would be on his tail..."
cheers,
Robin.
After World War 2, some civilian TBMs got similar cut-down turtle-decks. But that was more to reduce weight on airplanes that were only flown single-seat for fire-fighting or spraying spruce bud worms (e.g. New Brunswick).Thanks all to interesting data about Grummans.
Putnam' book about Grumman aircraft contains some details about single-seat "Avenger" (BuNo 00550):
"BuNo 00550 was modified by Grumman in July 1942 to evaluate performance gains which could be derived from modifying the Avenger into a single-seater by removing dorsal turret and installing fairings aft of the
pilot's cockpit and beneath the rear fuselage".
I didn't find in this book XFTBF-1 designation though.
By the way, what ammunition set has been used by TBF in ASW missions in Atlantic?
How heavy has been it, in comparison to, say, torpedo?
And could one pilot perform such mission successfully?
I want to admit newly discovered by me story about using A-4 attackers, as carrier-defense fighters in 1950th.
![]()
CVS Carrier Self Defense
In the mid-1950s, several Essex-class carriers were repurposed from attack to antisubmarine warfare and redesignated from CVA to CVS. Althou...thanlont.blogspot.ru
P.S. This thread subject at this moment doesn't related to the it's contents, so - sorry for some offtopic
HiAfter World War 2, some civilian TBMs got similar cut-down turtle-decks. But that was more to reduce weight on airplanes that were only flown single-seat for fire-fighting or spraying spruce bud worms (e.g. New Brunswick).Thanks all to interesting data about Grummans.
Putnam' book about Grumman aircraft contains some details about single-seat "Avenger" (BuNo 00550):
"BuNo 00550 was modified by Grumman in July 1942 to evaluate performance gains which could be derived from modifying the Avenger into a single-seater by removing dorsal turret and installing fairings aft of the
pilot's cockpit and beneath the rear fuselage".
I didn't find in this book XFTBF-1 designation though.
By the way, what ammunition set has been used by TBF in ASW missions in Atlantic?
How heavy has been it, in comparison to, say, torpedo?
And could one pilot perform such mission successfully?
I want to admit newly discovered by me story about using A-4 attackers, as carrier-defense fighters in 1950th.
![]()
CVS Carrier Self Defense
In the mid-1950s, several Essex-class carriers were repurposed from attack to antisubmarine warfare and redesignated from CVA to CVS. Althou...thanlont.blogspot.ru
P.S. This thread subject at this moment doesn't related to the it's contents, so - sorry for some offtopic
This Canadian' MAD-equipped Avenger (picture USN392.jpg) adds new meaning to the expression "bubble canopy"