|
Description
| Manufacturer: | Vought | |
| Base model: | F5U | |
| Designation: | XF5U | |
| Version: | -1 | |
| Nickname: | Skimmer | |
| Designation System: | U.S. Navy / Marines | |
| Designation Period: | 1922-1962 | |
| Basic role: | Fighter | |
| Status: | Experimental | |
Specifications
| Not Yet Available |
Known serial numbers
Recent comments by our visitors
| SchwingCommander Halle (Saale) - Germany, OTH | Hi Flapjack fan,
did You receive my mail? Hi Rob K., is there a better Version of the Matt-files available as on the CD's?? Best Regards SchwingCommander 06/01/2008 @ 11:50 [ref: 21069] |
| Jeff Kavanaugh Owings Mills, MD | The Vought XF5U was a design that had a great deal of potential. Even though it was eclipsed by fast jets the the F1H Phantom, F2H Banshee, and the Grumman Cougar; it could have been an exceptional attack plane easily replacing the A1-D Skyraider. Also, it could have saved alot of time and trouble that was encountered with the Douglas Skyshark.
As has been mentioned in this discussion group, the big problem was excessive complexity of the power transmission system. In reality, there should have only been 3 transmissions. Unfortunately, engineers sometimes forget the "Keep It Simple Stupid" principle of engineering. This design could actually have applications in this day and age, though after a liberal application of more modern materials, plus fly-by-wire and aerodynamic technologies (symetric supercritical wing). 03/14/2008 @ 18:39 [ref: 20021] |
| flapjack fan , MI | Schwing If you could, would you email those files to me at drfrjg@gmail.com 03/06/2008 @ 22:10 [ref: 19877] |
| SchwingCommander Halle (Saale), OTH | Hi Rob,
where did You get the blueprints for Your model? I have three big files (a ´´really´´ big 4-side-view, a - also big - detail plan with engine, cockpit-armatures, seat a.s.o. and an AutoCAD-dxf-drawing from an italian engineer - more or less good) - they won´t be uploadable - because of this f**k**g 1MB-limit ... write a message Best Regards SchwingCommander 02/11/2008 @ 11:30 [ref: 19645] |
| Ed Penland Yardville, NJ | I saw on TV that the reason that this plane wasn't flight tested was because transporting it to where the flight tests would take place (California) would have had to be by ship as you can't just take the wings off it and put it on a train. This method would have cost more than the Navy wanted to spend so they just had them scrapped in place.
Wouldn't it have been nice if all of the "one off" planes were sent to museums instead of being scrapped. 03/03/2007 @ 20:00 [ref: 15747] |
| Rob K. , NJ | What an absolutely beautiful aircraft. I'm actually in the process of designing and building a 1/8th scale RC model of the Skimmer, using the Paul Matt drawings as reference. As is the norm for these types of projects, I'm trying to collect as much info as possible on the aircraft. If anyone has any additional info or stories on the XF5U please let me know. At 1/8th scale the plane will have a "wingspan" of around three feet. I plan on installing the top-mounted arresting hook and "stability flaps" to make things interesting. 08/22/2006 @ 17:54 [ref: 13955] |
| charlie innes Granby., CT | XF5U-1 I was a junior test engineer on a full size mockup of the mechanical drive system The craft had 6 gear boxes in the system Heavy as these were the ship might have flown had there been a competent mechanical designer in charge There were costly errors that never were corrected .There may have been rosy progress reports that left problems unsolved with the mechanics right up to the last day The aerodynamic design was beautiful and well fabricated. Items were added that increased weight and reduced performance Mr Zimmerman was not pleased to put it mildly and he let management know it That coupled with the various problems mentioned tried the patcience ofmanagement and the navy The project was terminated It never flew. Just maybe with prop jets and no gear boxes it might be of use today. I am sorry the original design was not satisfactory. 02/26/2006 @ 13:03 [ref: 12622] |
| Bryan Tannehill Jacksonville, FL | I'm trying to convince a relative to build an RC version of this aircraft due to it's low induced drag, high maneuverability (roll rate), high top speed, docile stall characteristics, and very low landing speed, 02/19/2006 @ 23:41 [ref: 12551] |
| George , WA | It just seems odd to me that after spending as much time and effort as Vought did on this project they did not fly it. Even if only to verify the validity of the concept and at company expense it would seem worthwhile. 11/07/2005 @ 02:25 [ref: 11637] |
| Ron Griffith , TX | look at the Vought Aircraft Heritage Foundation website - www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage. We have the V-173 in restoration. Both XF5U's were destroyed at contract cancellation right after taxi tests in 1947. The spec for the XF5U was speed of 40 mph to 500 mph. Jets were coming along and the Navy wanted much faster aircraft. The V-173 could take off at 25 mph and land at 16 mph. 08/22/2005 @ 23:15 [ref: 11067] |
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors
