McDonnell XFD-1 original design

Hi,


I think that, there is a 3-view to this project,but I don't know where ?.
 
I read somewhere (in the last few days) that McDonnell had looked at variations from nine small diameter turbojets to two "normal" sized turbojets. The turbojets of the day were very poor and were on the minus side of thrust to weight ratio and MAC tried to overcome this very creatively.
 
ksimmelink said:
I read somewhere (in the last few days) that McDonnell had looked at variations from nine small diameter turbojets to two "normal" sized turbojets. The turbojets of the day were very poor and were on the minus side of thrust to weight ratio and MAC tried to overcome this very creatively.
Click to expand...

To oversimplify, McDonnell had been asked by the Navy to design a airplane around the nascent Westinghouse axial-flow jet engine. The first test article was intentionally small and it fit within the wing, which was interesting. The problem wasn't thrust to weight, but simply the amount of thrust, which meant several engines. However, McDonnell thought to ask if the engine could be scaled up and the answer from Westinghouse was yes, of course. The FD-1 was the result.
 
Tailspin Turtle said:
To oversimplify, McDonnell had been asked by the Navy to design a airplane around the nascent Westinghouse axial-flow jet engine. The first test article was intentionally small and it fit within the wing, which was interesting. The problem wasn't thrust to weight, but simply the amount of thrust, which meant several engines. However, McDonnell thought to ask if the engine could be scaled up and the answer from Westinghouse was yes, of course. The FD-1 was the result.
Click to expand...

Well that explains why they would try more engines. McDonnell was plagued by the engines they were forced to use ever since the XP-67 (as I am shure so were a lot of aircraft manufacturers). It wasn't until they chose the J79 that they finally had an engine that could do their designs justice. Just think, if they had chosen the J67 as their plans originally called for on the F3H-X early designs instead of the J79, history might be a bit different.
 
From, Rivista Aeronautica 1947
 

Attachments

  • 3.png
    3.png
    209.3 KB · Views: 69
  • 4.png
    4.png
    491.8 KB · Views: 67

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom