Category Archives: U.S. Army Air Force

U.S.A.

Republic P-47 D-15-RA ‘Thunderbolt’, 61 FS, 56 FG (Matchbox)

TYPE: Long-range escort-fighter and fighter-bomber

ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only

POWER PLANT: One Pratt and Whitney R-2800-21 radial engine, rated at 2,300 hp

PERFORMANCE: 433 mph at 30.000 ft

COMMENT: The Republic P-47 D ‘Thunderbolt’ differed little from its predecessor P-47 C apart from changes in the turbo-supercharger exhaust system, water injection as standard for the R-2800-21 engine, and some minor changes. The P-47 D was the first version of the ‘Thunderbolt’ to serve with the USAAF in the pacific theatre. Towards the end of 1943, 8th Air Force ‘Thunderbolts’ began returning from escort missions “on the deck”, strafing targets of opportunity with their unused ammunition, and their success was partly responsible for the adaptation of the ‘Thunderbolt’ for what was  to become its most successful role – that of a fighter-bomber. More than 5,800 P-47D ‘Thunderbolts’ are built, all possessed the original framed sliding canopy introduced on the initial production B-model. Later versions were equipped with an all-round vision bubble-type cockpit canopy (Ref.: 24)

Northrop N-9M-2 (Czechmaster, Resin)

TYPE:  Scaled-down experimental aircraft

ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only

POWER PLANT: Two Menasco C6S-1 ‘Buccaneer’ air-cooled engines, rated at 275 hp each

PERFORMANCE: 258 mph

COMMENT: The Northrop N-9M was considered an approximately one-third scale, 60-ft span all-wing aircraft used for the development of the full size, 172-ft wide Northrop XB-35 and YB-35 flying wing long-range, heavy bomber. On October 1941, the preliminary order for development of the B-35 Flying Wing bomber was confirmed, including engineering, testing, and most importantly a 60 ft (18 m) wingspan, one-third scale aircraft, designated N-9M. It was to be used in gathering data on flight performance and for familiarizing pilots with the program’s radical, all-wing design. The first N-9M was ordered in the original contract, but this was later expanded to three test aircraft in early 1943. A fourth was ordered a few months later after a crash of the first N-9M destroyed that airframe; this fourth N-9M incorporated various flight test-derived improvements and upgrades, including different, more powerful engines. The four aircraft were designated N-9M-1, -2, -A, and -B, respectively. The N-9M framework was partially constructed of wood to reduce its overall weight. The wings’ outer surfaces were also skinned with strong, specially laminated plywood. The central section (roughly equivalent to the fuselage) was made of welded tubular steel. The first flight of the N-9M occurred on 27 December 1942. During the next five months, 45 flights were made. Nearly all were terminated by mechanical failures of one sort or another, the Menasco engines being the primary source of those problems. After roughly 22.5 hours of accumulated flight time, the first N-9M crashed on 19 May 1943. Northrop’s Flying Wing bomber program was canceled in mid 1944, and all remaining N-9M flight test aircraft, except for the final N-9MB, were scrapped (Ref. 24).

Supermarine ‘Spitfire’ Mk. IX, 7th Photographic Group, 8th USAAF (Matchbox)

TYPE: Interceptor fighter, fighter bomber, photo-reconnaissance

ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only

POWER PLANT: One Rolls-Royce ‘Merlin 66’ liquid-cooled engine, rated at 1,720 hp

PERFORMANCE: 404 mph at 21,000 ft

COMMENT: By the end of 1941, the ‘Spitfire’ Mk. V was experiencing increasing difficulty in combating the newer versions of the Messerschmitt Me 109 and found itself completely outclassed by the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. So the need for a higher performance was a matter of the most vital urgency. In order to achieve the desired performance improvement with the least possible delay, it was decided to install the Rolls-Royce ‘Merlin 60’ Series engine in the basic ‘Spitfire’ Mk.VC, this marriage of convenience being designated ‘Spitfire’ Mk. IX. Despite the fact that the ‘Spitfire’ Mk. IX was considered solely as an interim type, it was to be produced in larger quantities than any other Spitfire variant, in total 5.665 aircraft being manufactured. Logical evolutions of the ‘Spitfire’ Mk. IX were the photo-reconnaissance P.R. Mks. IX, X, and XI. A universal camera installation provided accommodation for two F.8 or F.52 vertical cameras, or two F.24 vertical and one F.24 oblique camera. A number of Spitfire P.R.Mk. IX was delivered to the 8th USAAF and the aircraft shown here belonged to the 7th Photographic Group, stationed at Chalgrove, U.K. (Ref.: 12)

Culver PQ-14B ‘Cadet’ (Frank-Airmodel, Resin)

TYPE: Radio-controlled target drone

ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only or radio controlled

POWER PLANT: Franklin O-300-11 air-cooled engine, rated at 150 hp

PERFORMANCE: 185 mph

COMMENT: In 1940, the U.S. Army Air Corps drew up a requirement for a radio-controlled target drone for training anti-aircraft artillery gunners. The first aircraft in a series of target drones was a modification of the Culver LFA ‘Cadet’ commercial sports plane which eventually led to the PQ-14 series used throughout WW II and beyond. In 1942 Culver designed a larger and more powerful derivative of their PQ-8 ‘Cadet’ target as the model NR-D. A single PQ-8 was converted to the new configuration and tested by the USAAF as the XPQ-14. This was followed by YPQ-14A service test aircraft and more than 1400 PQ-14A production models. Of the latter, about 1200 were transferred to the U.S. Navy, which designated them as TD2C-1 ‘Turkey’. The PQ-14A was powered by a Franklin O-300-11 piston engine and had a retractable tricycle landing gear. Like the PQ-8, it was flown manned for ferry or check-out flights and by radio-control from the ground as a target drone. The YPQ14B was a slightly heavier variant, which was followed by a production run of more than 1100 PQ-14B targets for the USAAF. A single PQ-14B was converted to use an O-300-9 engine and designated XPQ-14C (Ref.: 24).

Bell XP-77 (Frank-Airmodel, Vacu formed)

TYPE: Lightweight fighter

ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only

POWER PLANT: One Ranger XV-770-7 air cooled engine, rated at 520 hp, driving a two-bladed propeller

PERFORMANCE: 330 mph at 4,000 ft

COMMENT:  The rapid expansion of aircraft production in the USA before WWII inevitably led to shortage in the supply of light alloy. Interest therefore began to be focused upon the substitution of non-critical materials such as wood. In October 1941discussion between USAAF personnel and engineers of the Bell Aircraft Corp began with the view of developing a lightweight “non-strategic” fighter, designated XP-77. The aircraft was a very small low wing monoplane using resin-bonded laminated wood construction with a stressed skin. The engine was a 520 hp Ranger V-770 air-cooled in-line unit that was intended to be developed in a supercharged version, the V-770-9. Six prototypes of the XP-77 were ordered in September 1942, plus two static test airframes, a mock-up and a full-scale model for wind-tunnel testing. But the lack of the supercharged engine, growth in the bare weight of the prototypes, reduced performance estimates, overrunning costs and increasing supplies of light alloys let to interest in the XP-77 programme waning during 1943. The contract was reduced to only two flying prototypes and the first of these was not ready for flight test until April 1944. Both prototypes were tested briefly by the USAAF but in December 1944 the entire development contract was terminated, the consensus of opinion being that the XP-77 was operationally unsuitable and that its performance showed no improvement over heavier fighters of conventional construction (Ref.: 8).

Boulton Paul Defiant T.T.II, 326th BG, 92nd BG, 8th USAAF (Pavla)

TYPE: Target tug aircraft.

ACCOMMODATION: Crew of two

POWER PLANT: One Rolls-Royce Merlin III liquid-cooled engine, rated at 1,030 hp

PERFORMANCE: 304 mph at 17,000 ft

COMMENT: The Boulton Paul Defiant was a British interceptor aircraft that served with the RAF during the Second World War. The Defiant was designed and built by Boulton Paul Aircraft as a “turret fighter”, without any forward-firing guns. It was a contemporary of the Royal Navy’s Blackburne Roc. In combat, the Defiant was found to be reasonably effective at its intended task of destroying bombers, but vulnerable to the Luftwaffe’s more agile, single-seat Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters. The lack of forward armament proved to be a major weakness in daylight combat and its potential was only realized when it switched to night combat. It was supplanted in the night fighter role by the Bristol Beaufighter and de Havilland Mosquito. The Defiant found use in gunnery training, target towing, electronic countermeasures and air-sea rescue. Among RAF pilots it had the nickname “Daffy”.
About 150 Defiant Mk IIs were converted to target tugs. A wind-driven generator provided power for the target winch. The Defiant T.T.II shown here was a former RAF target tug aircraft later transferred to the 326th  BS of the 92nd BG of the US 8th Army Air Force stationed at Podington, UK (Ref.: 23).

Curtiss AT-9 Jeep (Pavla)

TYPE: Advanced trainer aircraft

ACCOMMODATION: Crew of two – student and instructor

POWER PLANT: Two Lycoming R-680-9 radial engine, rated at 295 hp each

PERFORMANCE: 197 mph

COMMENT: The Curtiss-Wright AT-9 Jeep was a twin-engined advanced trainer aircraft used by the United States during World War II to bridge the gap between single-engined trainers and twin-engined combat aircraft. The AT-9 had a low-wing cantilever monoplane configuration and retractable landing gear. Curtiss-Wright anticipated the requirement for this type of “high-performance” aircraft and designed the Curtiss-Wright CW-25, a twin-engined trainer, which possessed the takeoff and landing characteristics of a light bomber. Using the same basic design as the larger Cessna AT-17 Bobcat, the new CW-25 was designed to be simulate the demands of multi-engined operations. The design featured a small layout, grouping two Lycoming R-680-9 radial engines forward and using a retractable tailwheel landing gear to achieve the performance necessary to meet the requirements of an advanced trainer. The single CW-25 prototype acquired for evaluation had a welded steel-tube fuselage structure with the wings, fuselage and tail unit fabric-covered. The first prototype Model 25 flew in 1941 and the production version entered service as the AT-9 in 1942. Named the “Fledgling” by Curtiss-Wright, it commonly became known as the “Jeep” in the USAAF. The prototype CW-25 had a fabric-covered steel tube fuselage and fabric-covered wings and tail units, but production AT-9s were of stressed metal skin construction. The AT-9 was purposely designed to be less stable and proved to be difficult to fly or land, which made it particularly suitable for teaching new pilots to cope with the demanding flight characteristics of a new generation of high-performance, multi-engined aircraft such as the Martin B-26 Marauder and Lockheed P-38 Lightning. A total of 491 AT-9s were built before production ended and a new production run of 300 of the generally similar AT-9A commenced (Ref.: 23).

Cornelius XFG-1(Frank-Airmodel, Vacu-formed)

TYPE: Fuel transporting towed glider

ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only

POWER PLANT: None

PERFORMANCE: 250 mph

COMMENT: The Cornelius XFG-1 was a military fuel transporting towed glider, without a tail plane and with a forward-swept wing. Its designation “FG” stood for fuel glider and its role was as a fuel transport. It was to be towed behind another aircraft rather like contemporary troop carrying gliders, but its two fuselage tanks held 677 US gal of aviation gasoline. Unlike other troop carrying gliders like the Waco CG-4A Hadrian, the XFG-1 could be towed by bombers or transports at a cruise speed of 250 mph. Proposals seem to have included a piloted tow version behind a large transport, the glider landing loaded on skids having jettisoned its wheels after take-off; or a pilotless version towed behind a B-29 bomber, disconnected and abandoned after fuel transfer was completed; the intent of the scheme being for the glider to act, essentially, as a giant, winged drop tank for extending the range of the towing aircraft. The XFG-1 was a high-wing monoplane, its wing set far back towards its vertical stabilizer. The wing was quite high aspect ratio and of modest forward sweep. Though the earlier Cornelius aircraft had wings that had their incidence variable in the air, the incidence on the XFG-1 could only be adjusted on the ground, with two settings of 3˚ and 7˚. There was no horizontal tail. It had a simple fixed tricycle undercarriage and a conventional single seat cockpit; two examples of the type were built for test purposes only (Ref.:  24).

Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose (Execuform, Vacu formed)

TYPE: Long-range fighter

ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only

POWER PLANT: One Lycoming XH-2470-1 liquid-cooled engine, rated at 2.300 hp

PERFORMANCE: 381 mph at 28,500 ft

COMMENT: The Vultee XP-54 had its origin in the US Army Air Corps Circular Proposal R-40C, which invited manufacturers to submit designs for fighters of high prospective performance, without the customary limitations on design orthodoxy. Besides Curtiss (XP-55 Ascender), Northrop (XP-56 Black Bullet), and McDonald (XP-67 Moon Bat) Vultee Field Division of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Co submitted its design Model 78. This aircraft was powered by an Allison V-1710 (without supercharger) or Pratt & Whitney X-1800 engine driving a pusher propeller, and with a twin-boon layout. A unique feature was that the whole nose section could be varied in elevation to permit compensation for range of the guns it contained. Movement of this nose section was linked to a special compensating gun sight. A contract for the Vultee design, officially XP-54, was placed on June 1940 and the order for a prototype was given at the end of that year, followed by an order for a second prototype on March 1942.  The supercharged Lycoming H-2470 engine was chosen to replace the X-1800 when the latter was discontinued. Work on the XP-54 made slow progress during 1942 and the first prototype did not fly until January 1943. It quickly became apparent that the top speed was as much as 100 mph below estimate, partly because the Lycoming engine was not performing as planned. Although substitution of Allison V-3420 was considered as an alternative for the XP-54, this effectively brought the Vultee fighter program to an end (Ref.: 9).

Curtiss XP-55 Ascender (MPM)

TYPE: Interceptor fighter

ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only

POWER PLANT: One Allison V-1710-95 liquid-cooled engine, rated at 1,250 hp

PERFORMANCE: 390 mph at 19,300 ft

COMMENT: One of the most radical fighter designs to fly during WW II, the Curtiss XP-55 was evolved as a result of Circular Proposals R-40C which called for a fighter powered by the Pratt & Whitney X-1800-A3G engine which, by employing an conventional design, offered enhanced pilot visibility and armament installation, and a considerable reduction in overall drag by comparison with similar powered single-seaters of conventional configuration. An US Army Air Corps specification issued on November 1939 set forth performance requirements and, in addition to Curtiss-Wright, the Vultee and Northrop companies submitted design proposals, these eventually appearing as Vultee XP-54 and Northrop XP-56 and also employing unorthodox configurations. On July 1943 a contract was issued for three XP-55 fighters powered by the Allison V-1710, which engine was selected in preference to the Pratt &N Whitney X-1800 on the basis of reliability and availability. The first XP-55 was completed on July 1943, and flight testing began immediately. This aircraft was destroyed on November 1943 during stall tests. While the second prototype began flight test on January 1944 under restricted conditions, extensive modifications were incorporated in the third XP-55 that began flight test on September 1944. The results of these trials indicated that, in general, the handling characteristics of the XP-55 were satisfactory. A serious handicap was engine cooling which was critical during all phases of operation. The XP-55 attained a maximum speed of 377.5 mph at 16,900 ft. The official conclusions were that the performance did not compare favourably with standard production fighters and further development was abandoned (Ref.: 13)