• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

XP-67 Moonbat

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
82
Time's right to start a thread on my namesake, the XP-67 Moonbat (a.k.a. simply as the Bat). Here's a good link about it.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/xp67.html

Moonbat
 

Attachments

  • 5427L-3.jpg
    5427L-3.jpg
    44.9 KB · Views: 1,040
  • 5427L-4.jpg
    5427L-4.jpg
    18.6 KB · Views: 925
  • xp67-8.jpg
    xp67-8.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 943
  • XP-67.jpg
    XP-67.jpg
    71.7 KB · Views: 1,006

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
3,348
Website
www.amazon.com
Here good drawings
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0001.jpg
    Escanear0001.jpg
    225.3 KB · Views: 1,114
  • Escanear0002.jpg
    Escanear0002.jpg
    264.9 KB · Views: 444
  • Escanear0003.jpg
    Escanear0003.jpg
    253.4 KB · Views: 431

Clioman

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
130
Reaction score
7
Some more pics...
 

Attachments

  • XP-67UnkDate.jpg
    XP-67UnkDate.jpg
    113.8 KB · Views: 277
  • 29nov43.jpg
    29nov43.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 229
  • Cockpit - XP-67.jpg
    Cockpit - XP-67.jpg
    82.7 KB · Views: 182
  • lftsidecockpit-xp-67.jpg
    lftsidecockpit-xp-67.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 187

amsci99

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
239
Reaction score
10
I have no aero-engineering background but this looks like an early attempt at blended wing body. Pity it did not enter service, would have like to see it in action against the late war FW-190Ds.
 

Kevin Renner

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
95
Reaction score
4
Wasn't the P-67 along with other A/C supposed of recieved one of the 24 cylinder P&W sleeve valve engines but when it was cancelled to allow P&W to concentrate on the R4360 they had to make due with lesser power plants?
 

Clioman

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
130
Reaction score
7
Some background on the XP-67:

McDonnell Acft Corp. first approached the AAF regarding a fighter design in the fall and winter of 1939. This led the AAF to include McDonnell in its Request for Data R-40C, sent out on 8 March 1940. McDonnell answered w/a proposal for what it called Model I on 11 April; the design was "of fairly conventional shape, having the [submerged] powerplant located aft of the pilot and driving 2 two-stage pusher propellors located immediately back of the wings by means of extension shafts and right angle gear drives." The proposal called for either an Allison V-3420-B2 or a P&W H-3130. The proposal lost out, but placed well enough for the AAF to purchase the data for $3,000.

McDonnell came back with revisions to Model I and a new Model II on 30 June 1940; the latter was a complete revision of Model I, having two Continental engines in a "conventional twin-engined arrangement with provisions for a crew of two." The AAF rejected both on 31 July because their cost/performance improvement ratios weren't attractive enough. Tests of various shapes and planforms in the University of Detroit's windtunnel resulted in McDonnell's Model II-A proposal, submitted on 24 April 1941. The proposal was revised in response to AAF Materiel Comd comments and resubmitted, with the resulting Model II-A offer "very similar" to the final design. The initial design's armament consisted of six .50 cal machine guns and four 20mm cannon; propulsion was via two Continental XI-1430-1 engines. McDonnell's Model II-A design (w/add'l minor revisions) received the go-ahead in May under Classified Project No. MX-127 and Expenditure Order 431-25. The Designation 'XP-67' was approved on 29 July, and on 30 September 1941, McDonnell received a $1.6M contract (W535-AC-21218) for two examples, a mockup, spin model, nacelle tests, final data, and reports; the first airplane was to be delivered on 29 April 1943.

Add'l note of interest: In April 1943, McDonnell proposed to install dual-rotation propellors on the second aircraft. Wright Field concurred, calculating that the change would add 7-10 mph, improved rate of climb (400 ft/min @ 25,000 ft) and an increase in combat ceiling. Accordingly, action was initiated to provide contra-rotation engines (not specified) and "Curtiss 512-551 dual-rotation propellors." Of course, the whole program was subsequently cancelled after Acft #1 (42-11677) was damaged beyond economical repair by an in-flight fire on 6 September 1944. When it was grounded, 677 had only flown a total of 43 hours. Aircraft #2 (42-11678) was only 15% complete when the axe fell.

Source: AAF Technical Rpt, "Final Report of the XP-67 Airplane," n.d. [NPRC 342-69A-0449, Box 56]
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
162
There appears to be quite a bit of difference between the wing shapes on the two sets of drawings.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,740
Reaction score
3,326
amsci99 said:
I have no aero-engineering background but this looks like an early attempt at blended wing body. Pity it did not enter service, would have like to see it in action against the late war FW-190Ds.
I think you are very sharp eyed. This was a very ambitious fighter by James McDonnell.
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,810
Reaction score
96
The XP-67 was in fact the final result of an evolution.

The blended wing/fuselage philosophy of the Martin Model 178 -In 1938 James Mc Donnell was chief
engineer at Martin -was also evident in the Mc Donnell Model 1 pusher design.
This led to the blended wing/fuselage/nacelle fighter which became the XP-67.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,539
Reaction score
320
Pity it did not enter service, would have like to see it in action against the late war FW-190Ds.

Neither I'm not an aeronautical engineer but the XP-67 wasn't a dogfighter. It was intended to be a bomber-destroyer. Personally I wouldn't go action with it against late war FW-190Ds...not a good idea ;)

I'd like to ad a little comment here:

Sometimes, I think unbuilt project lovers tend to over estimate that designs against built designs. The XP-67 looked futuristic and beautiful but it was a total failure from the enginering point of view. Too radical and ambitious for the existing technology thus unpractical. It was a nightmare to operate its engines confined in that fuselage and suffered from overheating. While McDonnell was wasting time and money with the XP-67 concept, the jet era suddenly. Many times, the reason an aircraft never entered service is simply because it wasn't the right aircraft.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,103
Reaction score
1,590
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
lark said:
The XP-67 was in fact the final result of an evolution.

The blended wing/fuselage philosophy of the Martin Model 178 ...

And the Model 176, a medium bomber. Courtesy Stan Piet, Martin Aviation Museum.
 

Attachments

  • model176.jpg
    model176.jpg
    89.1 KB · Views: 491

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
695
And from an AAHS Journal, here's two drawings of the Model 1....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • xMcDonnell Model 1 - 1.jpg
    xMcDonnell Model 1 - 1.jpg
    160.5 KB · Views: 351
  • xMcDonnell Model 1 - 2.jpg
    xMcDonnell Model 1 - 2.jpg
    215.8 KB · Views: 447

saturncanuck

Any landing you can walk away from, is a good one.
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
299
Reaction score
8
Website
www.aerofile.ca
I realize this is an old topic, but I always loved the design of the XP-67 "The Bat" and wondered what would have happend if it had seen service.
 

Bodmas

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
I'm with Pometablava: the Moonbat seems to sport Fafnir type wings - the blending stuff - which seems to have curtailed manouverability [at least upon such beasts as the Dornier 17Z] and hence, it would probably not be a good idea to pit it against such an agile fighter as the FW19D. I could be wrong

It is a truly beautiful aircraft design though
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
162
The Fw190D was not a particularly manoeuvrable fighter. Particularly when compared to the Fw190A series.
 

Boogey

B'Boomelang
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
200
Reaction score
13
I've found some more photos of the McDonnell XP-67 in my USAAF pursuits list.
And, by the way, I'm looking for any draught of British bomber project Short S.36 Super Stirling
on the Air Ministry specification No B.8/41.
It would be also fine to look at the Short S.34 Modified Stirling.

Sorry @ XP67_Moonbat & Johnbr, but so heavy and expensive fighter couldn't do much,
when imaginably entering the action, being only a little faster ( 720 km/h ) than P-51 D
to fight against Me-262, seeing no German bombers on the sky in that time ( 1944 )
and being too big and unmanoeuvrable to fill the role of speed ground attack, although it's six 37 mm.
P-51, P-47, Hawker Typhoon and Tempest and Mosquito did the job ;)
And P-61 when we think of the Moonbat as the nightfighter.
 

Attachments

  • McDonnell XP-67 ( 1 ).jpg
    McDonnell XP-67 ( 1 ).jpg
    12.5 KB · Views: 1,406
  • McDonnell XP-67 ( 2 ).jpg
    McDonnell XP-67 ( 2 ).jpg
    15.7 KB · Views: 388
  • McDonnell XP-67 ( 3 ).jpg
    McDonnell XP-67 ( 3 ).jpg
    15 KB · Views: 385
  • McDonnell XP-67 ( 4 ).jpg
    McDonnell XP-67 ( 4 ).jpg
    16.8 KB · Views: 363
  • McDonnell XP-67 ( 5 ).jpg
    McDonnell XP-67 ( 5 ).jpg
    17.3 KB · Views: 364

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
154
er, getlemen, the XP-67 wasn't a "project".... so please add material only if you have development/derivative/alternate configuration documentation. Otherwise, use the Aerospace Today and/or Useful Links section, please.

Thanx !
 

Meteorit

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
425
Reaction score
35
But...from Forum Rules 5.5 (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4839.0.html):
The primary purpose of the "Secret Projects" sections of this forum is to document real, but unbuilt, projects. Prototypes that didn't enter series production are also acceptable. Aircraft built in series production should generally be discussed in the "Aerospace" section.
(emphasis added)

I thought prototypes were generally acceptable? Has this changed? And on the other hand, there are several unbuilt projects currently in the Aerospace section...
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,810
Reaction score
96
The main purpose of the projects chapters is - unbuilt projects.
Most of the protoypes or one-off's we know are described and/or documented
in printed form or on other sites.
Information or documentation about initial unbuilt concepts of these prototypes
or unbuilt planned development is very welcome.
All the other info or questions about existing prototypes can easely be put
in the departments mentioned by Skybolt.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
3,348
Website
www.amazon.com
Mc Donnel Model 1 additional info from
-Airplane five-view album by B.C.F. Klein
-Air Enthusiast 2001 by Alain Pelletier
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0003.jpg
    Escanear0003.jpg
    73.3 KB · Views: 119
  • Escanear0002.jpg
    Escanear0002.jpg
    112.1 KB · Views: 226
  • Escanear0001.jpg
    Escanear0001.jpg
    349.9 KB · Views: 519

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
644
I know Pelletier of course, but I don't think he draws, he is a writer! This Alain Peter guy is probably a different person — we have a saying in French which could translate like this: "There isn't only one donkey named Smith"... In other words, there can be several guys called Alain with an interest in aviation!
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
644
:eek: :eek: :eek: Oh! Okay, I never realized he also did 3-view drawings! My mistake. ::)

Well... You must be right about Alain Peter being actually Alain Pelletier then... ;D
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,563
Reaction score
871
I wonder how the old XP-67 would have done if they just yanked the engines out and put in jet engines?
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
644
Don't know how it would have done, but I can tell you how it would have looked: a lot cuter than a Gloster Meteor! (not to mention the pretty ugly Phantoms, Banshees and Demons that followed...)
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
644
Straight from NASA's online archives:
 

Attachments

  • LMAL_33918.jpg
    LMAL_33918.jpg
    418.7 KB · Views: 739
  • LMAL_33919.jpg
    LMAL_33919.jpg
    432.8 KB · Views: 668

Johnbr

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
758
Reaction score
192
I Read that the second prototype was to have two Merlin's and two jet engine.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
644
Johnbr said:
I Read that the second prototype was to have two Merlin's and two jet engine.

Hybrid propulsion? But making it a four-engine aircraft doesn't make much sense... Are you quite sure?
 

Johnbr

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
758
Reaction score
192
That is what I read in several places.It makes no sense to me ether.I would just go with the jets.
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
245
I heard the same. It's not that far-fetched, if you look at other mixed-propulsion projects taking place around the same time (say, Ryan Fireball). Early jets were the only way to go fast but a really lousy proposition for endurance.
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
250
AeroFranz said:
I heard the same. It's not that far-fetched, if you look at other mixed-propulsion projects taking place around the same time (say, Ryan Fireball). Early jets were the only way to go fast but a really lousy proposition for endurance.

Which, strangely, LM seems to be revisiting for their public MQ-X bid.
 

Similar threads

Top