XP-67 Moonbat

[Stargazer]

For sale on some well-known online store... This wonderful 1944 McDonnell Aircraft advertisement, featuring no less than the Model 1 project!

Can be purchased here, if anyone's interested.

 

[Steve Pace]

Does anyone have a high res image of this XP-67 planform view? -SP

 

[Artie Bob]

IMHO, one of the most compelling reasons to go with mixed propulsion in the early jet period was acceleration. The take-off roll for early jets was generally considerably longer than prop planes and this was in a period when most airfields were designed with prop planes in mind. The flip side was wave-off ability. One of the jets I flew required a go-around decision as soon as wings were level on final, otherwise you were going to land. The best you could expect was that it might become a touch and go. Maximum endurance was 1.1 hour, but in practice, .9 or even .8 hours might be realistic. Flame-outs on the taxi ways were not that unusual and landing with low fuel state was normal.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

From the Gerald Balzer Collection, the proposed XP-67E - note the mixed powerplants.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Jemiba]

Does anyone have a high res image of this XP-67 planform view? -SP

This photo was on the title of a FlugRevue article many years ago, too. If a high-res scan of it
would be helpful ..?

 

[Steve Pace]

From Flight Journal magazine. http://flightjournal.com -SP

 

[sienar]

WW2 era advertisement that appears to be of a model 1.

 

[Steve Pace]

Check this out... -SP

 

[Stargazer]

Check this out... -SP

Thanks for sharing, sienar and Steve Pace!

When exactly was the article published in Flight Journal? There is no date there...

 

[Johnbr]

I wonder how it was going to do with No-2s Merlin engines and the jet engines on to of that.

 

[Steve Pace]

The February 2013 issue that came out in early December 2012. -SP

 

[Triton]

http://youtu.be/SZHSUTYKf4U

 

[Johnbr]

This a video that has color. Here is all that they have.

Boeing Images - Search Result

Welcome to The Boeing Company's official source for licensed aerospace photography, illustrations and videos.

secure.boeingimages.com

Boeing Images - Search Result

Welcome to The Boeing Company's official source for licensed aerospace photography, illustrations and videos.

secure.boeingimages.com

 

[Steve Pace]

Beautiful! -SP

 

[Apteryx]

Excellent. New photos, and color video of the cockpit, no less. Good info for modelers.

 

[Antonio]

Really beautiful pictures from unseen angles

Sadly it's very disappointing to see Boeing trading with their historical archive pictures when Lockheed Martin, EADS...everybody are offering great documents to their fans for free. I think there is no need for it at Boeing.

A zillion thanks for the generous!!

 

[sienar]

Some nice detail shots of the engine installation.


Rest of the pics here;http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_7:1943_-_McDonnell_XP-67_Bat_(or_MoonBat)_with_Continental_XIV-1430-17/19_Hyper_Engine

 

[hesham]

McDonnel Model-12 Pursuit Project ?

Hi,

was this McDonnell patent for a pursuit fighter,the Model-12 ?.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19430101/85/2/zoom

 

[Steve Pace]

Re: McDonnel Model-12 Pursuit Project ?

Early XP-67... -SP

 

[RAP]

Nice picture of unpainted Moonbat. I'd like to see more pictures of it unpainted.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
http://www.afwing.com/intro/moonbat/xp67_bat-4.htm
Auto translation.
"Prototype
XP-67 of the detailed design has been launched at this time, weapons layout into a wing section in installing 6 37 mm M4 machine gun (each 45 rounds, even before taking into account the single 75 mm gun). City, XI-1430-1 engine, and increase the General Electric D-1 turbochargers, the engine exhaust pipe features a unique design, can make use of waste gas increased thrust. Due to the heavy weapons and other improvements make the XP-67 estimated total weight 9,070 kg."

 

[blackkite]

Later design air intake wind tunnel test model?

 

[blackkite]

Turbo charger and air inlet..
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_7:1943_-_McDonnell_XP-67_Bat_(or_MoonBat)_with_Continental_XIV-1430-17/19_Hyper_Engine

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKksQ-n-cO4

 

[Silencer1]

Re: McDonnel Model-12 Pursuit Project ?

Early XP-67... -SP

On this drawing fuselage/wing cross-sections resembles me SR-71 - the same approach to integral layout of blended fuselage, wing and engines.
XP-67 looks very advanced for it's time. I wonder, if there were attempts to replace piston engines by turbojets? Just a guess, without any historical sources - large size of engine nacelles asking for such solution

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Excellent model.
http://www.inpayne.com/models/planes/xp-67a.html

 

[blackkite]

Nice drawing.

http://postimg.org/image/4ybxt3hkz/full/

 

[Stargazer]

The imaginary variants of the XP-67 created by GTX are now in the Fictional section:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27329.0

 

[Johnbr]

Photos and video of the xp-67.

 

[Johnbr]

the mockup.

 

[RAP]

1942 McDonnell ad with Model 1.

 

[Stargazer]

And another one of Model 1 (I have never seen the Model 2 in any period ad).

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acZ1qeU75Uw

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLzkjGT-v0w

TsurugiJiri
548 subscribers


SUBSCRIBE
The sole completed sleek, sexy and unfortuitously flammable McDonnell XP-67 "Bat" in an original USAAF newsreel. This graceful-appearing aircraft suffered from several issues, including lack of performance, questionable handling and above all severe engine problems. The single completed prototype was written off after an in-flight engine fire in September 1944, with the project being terminated shortly thereafter.

Tech Admin2 years ago
I met James McDonnell who designed this plane. He was a brilliant man. He was retired at the time I met him, but he still knew his stuff.

51

REPLY


Hide 5 replies

Tech Admin2 years ago
I might add that this plane was undone by the crappy engines the War Department foisted on it. McDonnell was forced use modified Continentals, which was a very old design from WW1 and had very little room for upgrades. To get more power, they installed superchargers. Because the Continentals had poorly designed oil sump system, they were prone to fires when pushed hard and this was no exception for the XP-67 here. In fact this prototype seen had an engine fire on its last test run. The pilot got it as close as he could to the fire trucks and turned the plane at the last second so the wind would not blow the flames back on the plane. But it was severely damaged. The Army Air Forces began to lose interest but McDonnell crews repaired the prototype back to running condition, but by the time it flew again, the contract was cancelled. McDonnell wanted Merlin's but the AAF said they were all tied up in going to the war effort and none could be spared for testing. This did not make "Mac" happy, and McDonnell Aircraft had a running history of not getting the right engines to meet their contracts. Turns out the AAF just wanted to see what laminar air flow was capable of and wasn't really serious in pursuing it. They thought laminar would make super planes outta nothing, hence the lousy engines but the design was way ahead of its time. Lockheed always got their engines in 1943, McDonnell always had to fight for them and usually got screwed. When doing the first Navy jet, same thing happened. Westinghouse sent just 1!.
Show less

 

[asiscan]

Wonderful 1942 McDonnell report on a proposed production P-67C, courtesy Ron Downey.
Great stuff but sadly the inboard drawings are missing. Give Ron a big hand!

McDonnell P-67C Engineering Report #236

A xerox copy of the McDonnell company engineering report, #236, on the proposed P-67C aircrafft. Dated 1942. Download here or here or h...

aviationarchives.blogspot.com

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In testing the XP-67 barely broke 400 mph and had a bad tendency to Dutch roll in turns and when rolling the aircraft. The engines gave constant problems. There were several engine fires, the first on 8 Dec 1943 when both engines caught fire due to improper gaskets installed in the exhaust manifolds.
On Jan 6 1944, a flight test lasted just six minutes when both engines started acting up. On Feb 1, both engines were oversped by accident taking out the most of the crankshaft bearings. The plane was returned to the factory for modifications including having the vertical tail increased in height.
Pilot testing reported that the plane's acceleration was poor, rate of climb low, and the take-off run excessively long.
More modifications of the tail assembly took place to try and correct the Dutch roll issue, but it was obvious by mid 1944 that the plane was not going to meet USAAF future needs and the contract terminated. McDonnell turned to development of the FD-1 (FH-1) Phantom jet fighter for the Navy instead.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

McDonnell Aircraft Corporation XP-67 Fighter

As proposed, the McDonnell XP-67 was a high-performance, long-range fighter with unparalleled armament. Design changes and underperforming engines resulted in an aircraft inferior to those already …

oldmachinepress.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

Those Continental XI-1430s were dogs. Nowhere near as much power as they should have been making.

The design dates to when it was thought that no poppet-valve engine could make 1 horsepower per cubic inch (61hp/liter). The development as a "hyper engine" took so long that newer designs like the Merlin were making at or close to that magic 1hp/in^3 before the 1430 was anywhere near reliable enough to fly. It took until 1943 before a 1430 was making 1600hp! By that time, the Allison V-1710 was 385lbs lighter than the I-1430, and the Packard Merlin was all of 25lbs heavier, and either Allison or Merlin could be found in 1500+hp configurations.

The XP-67 was doomed by that bad engine assignment. The Army was not willing to give even two Merlins to McD for testing!

 

[Foo Fighter]

Interesting point re Merlin engines, a pity the original was toasted.

 

[stever_sl]

The XP-67 was doomed by that bad engine assignment. The Army was not willing to give even two Merlins to McD for testing!

The Army was well aware that the I-1430 wasn't going to be continuing. That program had been cancelled while the XP-67 prototype was still being built. Mr Mac had gone around the various offices with concepts for production engines, and a contemporary memo by the Army's XP-67 project officer, John Aldridge, talks about them: "...in view of the feeling that come what may, there is no chance of further engines of this [I-1430] type being built, an engine change in the second [XP-67 prototype] airplane is the most advisable move to make. McDonnell proposes to make this change to either an Allison two-stage engine or the Rolls-Royce 14SM engine. Along with installation of one of those alternate types of engines, McDonnell proposes to install J-32 Westernhouse (sic) Jet Unit in the space now occupied by the turbo in each engine nacelle... This proposal was presented to General Carroll who directed that the matter be held in abeyance pending clarification of the engine allocation picture. Mr. McDonnell wanted to have the program approved at once as he feels that he has man-power available to start work immediately, and should it be decided to put the airplane in production, large savings in time would be accomplished by taking action now..." There's a handwritten note at the bottom of the preserved copy of this memo: "Carroll proposes - (1) select best available engine for No. 2 airplane; (2) if the second a/c is a success, go into production."

But Col Marshall S Roth (Engineering Division, Wright Field) painted a more realistic picture in a telephone conversation with Col R. C. Wilson (Chief of Development Engineering) on July 14, 1944. "McDonnell has been in here several times selling the idea of installing the Rolls-Royce engine with the I-70 in back... [his] conversation will lead you to believe that all there is to it is a couple of new engines and the I-70 in back but it is not that. It is a complete new airplane. The nacelles will have to be changed, and an extra wing panel added, raise the pilot's cockpit, added span, need a new tail, etc. The peculiar shape of that airplane requires everything to be faired in from one thing to another which when put all together means a complete new airplane."

As much as I might wish otherwise, Roth was absolutely right about this. McDonnell's own surviving 3-views of the mixed-propulsion aircraft show very clearly that it would have shared the general shape of the XP-67 but the new nacelles were designed to fit tightly around the I-1430 (whose frontal area was 27% smaller than the V-1710 version contemplated for substitution, according to XP-67's Case History report) would be taller, meaning that the cockpit would have to be raised higher in order to even preserve the already poor vision to the side. That would mean new forward and after fuselage as well, to preserve the shape contouring philosophy that was the basis of the whole concept. So it would be pointless to give MAC either of the alternate engines since neither would fit inside the XP-67's airframe, and there was no time or money (or honestly patience) to have MAC do detail design and wind tunnel testing for what was being shown around in cartoon form as P-67C (fighter) and P-67E (recce).