XFY-1 and XFV-1 competition

[devi]

I where read that (precisely I do not remember), that in competition participated ten firms:

1) Convair Model 5--------------XFY-1
2) Lockheed Model 081-40-01---------XFV-1
3) Goodyear Model GA-? (or ?)
4) Martin Model 262
5) Northrop Model 63A
6) ? Model ?
7) ? Model ?
8) ? Model ?
9) ? Model ?
10) ? Model ?

 

[Matej]

Convair correct, Lockheed correct (by the way, short time it was designed as XFO-1), Martin correct and Northrop design is N-63A.

 

[hesham]

I think Temco model-39 submit to this competition.

 

[devi]

Hi hesham.
Show us please 3-view drawings, figure and characteristics of Temco Model 39

 

[hesham]

Hi Devi,

you can find it and anther design for Northamerican in this topic

US VSTOL projects (page 6).

 

[devi]

Hi hesham.
I think, that Temco Model 39 did not participate in this competition because had no the turbo-propeller engine.

 

[Skybolt]

Grumman Model 92?

 

[devi]

Hi Skybolt.

I too so think, it should be Grumman Model 92 (If it participated in competition)

 

[devi]

Friends

"among the dozen projects subjected by industry, those of Convair and Lockheed were kept by BuAer as the most promising."

I have taken this information from the French site.

What can you tell in this occasion?

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Note that variable attitude gun pods are implied...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I've always wondered why this concept got to the stage of prototype hardware when it seems, on the face of it, rather a non-starter.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

To go along with XFY-1...

 

[blackkite]

Hi! I used to saw surprising XFY-1 flying,take off/landing Youtube video in this forum. Any one know where? Is that real movie?

 

[flateric]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4pHRZxgus0

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Skeets and Erasmo Pinero this last summer

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

The XFY-1 last month...

 

[blackkite]

Flateric! Many thanks again. We really enjoy these videos. Very dangerous plane.

 

[flateric]

...and I'm enjoying Tailspin Turtle postings!

 

[OM]

...The 1950's produced a lot of aviation weirdness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ1D_eiHafY&feature=related

...But that's what made that era so much fun to study ;D

 

[Johnbr]

Great video.

 

[OM]

Moderator,

This a duplicate video attachment and duplicate topic to:

<BIG FAT SNIP FROM HELL>

...Merge the threads if he wishes, but be advised that when I ran the search beforehand, *nothing* turned up after the page sat there churning for about two minutes.

[shakes head in mild dismay]

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'd be interested in any other reports of similar issues, its never taken me more than a couple of seconds for a search. Topic merged.

 

[Triton]

Video of Convair XFY-1 test flight in color.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010&feature=player_embedded

 

[Justo Miranda]

Bill Chana's variant with gun pod
From
-Naval Fighters -number twenty seven

 

[Stargazer]

An aircraft proposal designated Goodyear GA-28A/B appears in the Spangenberg Index at the very same time and in the same box as the Martin 262 (November 1950).

 

[Stargazer]

Confirmed. The Goodyear GA-28A is variously described as a "research and transition trainer" and a "transition training and research aircraft", while GA-28B is simply described as a "convoy fighter".

 

[OM]

...Found another clip of the XFY-1. This one's from Langley of a 0.13 scale model, with one of the wildest paint jobs I've seen. Which, considering how, er, "dull" some of those paint jobs models from Langley could sport at times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAAU8JUFt1E

 

[Wingknut]

I love the Pogo but particularly the Chana gun-pod variant. A quote from Chana about the prone-pilot Pogo:

"Skeets and I put a chair on the hangar floor at the tip of the Pogo's vertical tail," Chana recalls, "and I stood on the chair and just envisioned possibly flying it from that position." Chana saw that a vertical landing with the pilot in what would then be a standing position would be a lot easier than the neck-wrenching dentist-chair job Coleman had until then been doing. "I presented the idea to Convair, but it was too late in the Pogo's development to consider it," Chana says.

Source: 'The Convair XFY-1 Pogo' by Stephan Wilkinson, http://www.456fis.org/CONVAIR_XFY-1_POGO.htm

 

[Triton]

From Code One magazine:

After World War II, both the US military studied the feasibility of vertical take off and landing, or VTOL, aircraft. In 1951, the Navy awarded Lockheed and Convair contracts to develop research prototypes that could lead to combat aircraft. The lone Lockheed XFV-1, often called 'Pogo Stick,' was flown thirty-two times in conventional mode. Although pilots did maneuver the aircraft at altitude in vertical mode, an under-performing engine prevented any vertical takeoffs or landings.

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=19

 

[bercr]

XFV-1 at Edwards Hi-Res photos here (perhaps scanned by Tommy ??)

http://www.alternatewars.com/Archives/XFV-1/XFV-1.htm

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

XFV-1 at Edwards Hi-Res photos here (perhaps scanned by Tommy ??)

http://www.alternatewars.com/Archives/XFV-1/XFV-1.htm

Not me. Alternatewars is Ryan Crierie's website and it's likely that he did those himself.

 

[Stargazer]

Came across this interesting piece of data in an old issue of Naval Aviation News:

 

[Triton]

Testing of the Convair XFY Pogo at Lindbergh Field, San Diego. Circa 1955. From the archives of the San Diego Air and Space Museum http://www.sandiegoairandspace.org/research/

http://youtu.be/KtC49ysX_b8

 

[flateric]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4_X3XqFJ2w

 

[LowObservable]

Thanks, Triton.

Two things strike me, watching that.

I don't believe that the XFY-1 had any control effectors other than the throttle and the elevons and rudder, operating in the propeller slipstream.

And the moment you took off, there were only two ways of reaching the ground - vertical landing and ejection.

 

[cluttonfred]

I have a different take. It strikes me that there was nothing wrong with the Pogo from purely aerodynamic or mechanical view, it was really an issue of ergonomics, how to provide the pilot with the controls, displays and views to operate safely in both horizontal and vertical modes. One could easily imagine a 21st century version with fly-by-wire controls, just flip a switch to convert from vertical to horizontal and change modes on the controls. A Pogo with a large-screen, multi-function display and a high-resolution, wide-angle day/night camera in the belly would likely provide for much less hairy landings than looking backwards while sitting at a 45-degree angle!

 

[Stargazer]

I have a different take. It strikes me that there was nothing wrong with the Pogo from purely aerodynamic or mechanical view, it was really an issue of ergonomics, how to provide the pilot with the controls, displays and views to operate safely in both horizontal and vertical modes. One could easily imagine a 21st century version with fly-by-wire controls, just flip a switch to convert from vertical to horizontal and change modes on the controls. A Pogo with a large-screen, multi-function display and a high-resolution, wide-angle day/night camera in the belly would likely provide for much less hairy landings than looking backwards while sitting at a 45-degree angle!

Something along the lines of the Puffin, maybe?!?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/puffin.html

 

[taildragger]

I have a different take. It strikes me that there was nothing wrong with the Pogo from purely aerodynamic or mechanical view, it was really an issue of ergonomics, how to provide the pilot with the controls, displays and views to operate safely in both horizontal and vertical modes. One could easily imagine a 21st century version with fly-by-wire controls, just flip a switch to convert from vertical to horizontal and change modes on the controls. A Pogo with a large-screen, multi-function display and a high-resolution, wide-angle day/night camera in the belly would likely provide for much less hairy landings than looking backwards while sitting at a 45-degree angle!

As I recall, the landing transition to vertical flight was a problem also. Even with perfect ergonomics, landings required a pullup maneuver that put the aircraft at a considerable altitude that required a long, fuel-consuming descent. I'd guess that the Pogo would have to descend fairly slowly to avoid putting it's highly loaded airscrew into the "swirl-mode" that's claimed at least one V-22.

 

[Bill Walker]

I seem to recall that one of the reasons the VTOL fighter program was cancelled was the difficulty in performing the vertical landing on the small escort ships the aircraft was intended for, in rough seas. I'm not sure that modern fly-by-wire solutions would make this any better. The Canadian military and at least one contractor did a lot of theoretical research in the 1980s into landing helicopters onto small ships using autopilots driven by sensors picking up targets on the bouncing ship, and decided that a human in the loop, plus Beartrap, was still the best way to go.

 

[AeroFranz]

Amen to that. Thirty years later it's still damn hard to design Rotary-wing UAVs capable of landing on a helo deck in sea state 5.