dark light

  • Peter

Airplanes that didn't make it

Cam across a couple of oddball airplanes.. anyone have any info on these two? Additional oddball aircraft pics welcome.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,892

Send private message

By: mike currill - 19th April 2008 at 08:43

The floatplane is certainly an oddity and obviously not quite what is stated on the caption.
It seems to be of the Kingfisher ilk but has some features strongly reminiscent of the Curtiss SO3 Seamew family. Note the in-line engine (yet apparently with Wasp type radial cooling gills) and the single cantilever strutted tip floats. Also that fin and rudder assembly is enormous.
The photo has been touched up somewhat which doesn’t help.

That’s the machine that came to mind when I saw the picture and Iwas planning to throw in the Curtiss name but you beat me to it. I couldn’t remember the designation and, as I’m at work, I have no access to my reference books.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,488

Send private message

By: RPSmith - 15th April 2008 at 11:16

Lockheed XFV-1 (a.k.a. “Salmon”):eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_XFV

Must have made one hell of a noise at full chat 😀
Whenever I see a pic of this I think “Flash Gordon”:diablo:

Roger Smith.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

7,646

Send private message

By: JDK - 15th April 2008 at 01:59

It wasnt retouched by me…

I wasn’t suggesting it was. 😉 Retouching pre-dates PhotoShop by a century or so, but a crude job like that’s also very obviously retouched.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

8,945

Send private message

By: Peter - 14th April 2008 at 15:02

It wasnt retouched by me… They were part of a collection. Seems like you sent away and got a picture each time or something..

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

7,646

Send private message

By: JDK - 14th April 2008 at 13:34

Well found Thunderbird, thanks!

I’m glad I din’t stick my neck out and call it fictitious… 😀 Who said only Russian aircraft were heavily retouched?

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

662

Send private message

By: 25deg south - 14th April 2008 at 10:45

That’s the beast!
Looks like it flew around Aug 1939 , about a year after the first flight of the Wasp Junior Variant.( According To William Green in his Vol 6 “Floatplanes”)

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

895

Send private message

By: Thunderbird167 - 14th April 2008 at 10:40

XSO2u-1

Looks pretty much like this

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/vought/xso2u-1.htm

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

662

Send private message

By: 25deg south - 14th April 2008 at 10:25

I am somewhat of the opinion of JDK,
However.
The Kingfisher was underpowered and there was a rumoured “oil burning motor ” variant quoted in Vol 111 of Aircraft of the Fighting Powers. ( Yes I know, but it the only evidence I yet have to hand of a non-Wasp Junior Variant)
A Ranger Variant could therefore make sense (about another 150 Hp) and the longer nose etc. could justify the bigger fin and rudder. The cleaned up wing floats could also then apply.
I agree with JDK that the canopy indeed looks odd but I wondered if that was just down to the crude touching up.
So, I think we are either looking at some artist’s licence for an improved Kingfisher, or a highly touched up picture of an in-line engined one-off variant as has been indicated by Michal Los.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

7,646

Send private message

By: JDK - 14th April 2008 at 10:00

The second aircraft is certainly NOT a Kingfisher. I’m torn whether it’s a faked photo for the hell of it, or a heavily retouched photo of a one-off prototype I’ve not seen before.

The tip float isn’t attached to the spar (the Kingfisher’s were on struts)

The tail looks retouched / invented.

The cowling gills are just retouching.

There looks insufficient clearance for a prop that’s going to be big enough to fly the a/c.

The cockpit’s from a birdcage Corsair, but I dunno what the windscreen’s off.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

662

Send private message

By: 25deg south - 14th April 2008 at 09:44

The floatplane is certainly an oddity and obviously not quite what is stated on the caption.
It seems to be of the Kingfisher ilk but has some features strongly reminiscent of the Curtiss SO3 Seamew family. Note the in-line engine (yet apparently with Wasp type radial cooling gills) and the single cantilever strutted tip floats. Also that fin and rudder assembly is enormous.
The photo has been touched up somewhat which doesn’t help.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

3,360

Send private message

By: Bager1968 - 14th April 2008 at 02:31

Funny, all I had to do to find the identity of the second was to right-click on it & select “save image as” and the file name “Vought Sikorsky XOS2U-1” came up.

A little more on-line searching might have got me the engine model & BuNo, but I had already guessed the Ranger engine, as it didn’t look like an Allison or Merlin, which left the Ranger for US-built in-line engines.

I knew all about the Skyrocket already though.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

20

Send private message

By: michal_los - 13th April 2008 at 22:15

Second plane – XSO2U-1 with Ranger XV-770-4 BuNo1440 ??

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

8,945

Send private message

By: Peter - 13th April 2008 at 22:11

correct on the first one… the scond one is a Vought kingfisher.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

3,400

Send private message

By: Nashio966 - 13th April 2008 at 21:57

second looks similar to a kingfisher but obiously isnt, it seems to have an inline engine or an inverted V

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,614

Send private message

By: Archer - 13th April 2008 at 21:47

First one is the Grumman XF5F-1. I’ll have to do some thinking about the second one, somehow Vultee keeps popping up in my head.
Edit: cancel that, I cannot find the type but I’m guessing that it was a competitor for the OS2U Kingfisher from Vought. Someone else will complete the puzzle I’m sure.

Sign in to post a reply