AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Helldivers 2 seattle9/2/2023 ![]() ![]() The major difference between the prototype XSBC-3 and the production aircraft was the engine. SBC-3 (Curtiss Model 77A) The VS-3 CO's SBC-3, assigned to USS Saratoga (CV-3), circa 1939. With this new configuration, the Navy placed a production order. In March 1936, this aircraft was re-engined with a 700 hp (522 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-1535-82 fourteen-cylinder, twin-row, air-cooled engine driving a three-blade propeller and redesignated XSBC-3. The Wright XR-1510-12 engine in the XSBC-2 proved to be mechanically unreliable. The XSBC-2 won and a contract for this aircraft was signed in April 1935 and it made its first flight on 9 December 1935. The XSBC-2 had to engage in competitive tests against the Great Lakes Aircraft's XB2G-1 and the Grumman Aircraft Engineering's XSBF-1. It was powered by a 700 hp (522 kW) Wright XR-1510-12 fourteen-cylinder, twin-row, air-cooled engine driving a constant speed Curtiss Electric three-blade propeller, an enlarged canopy, enlarged vertical fin and rudder and retractable tail hook. It was an all-metal aircraft with fabric covered control surfaces. On 14 June 1934 this aircraft crashed- attributed to wing failure- in Lancaster, New York, about 6 mi (9.66 km) from the Curtiss plant, during one of the tests and it was destroyed.Ĭurtiss-Wright made a proposal to the Navy to build one replacement aircraft that would be a staggered wing biplane, would not have folding wings but would have leading edge slots and the lower wing would have full span flaps. In early 1934 flight tests, especially dive-bombing, began. In January 1934 the designation scout bomber (SB) was introduced and the aircraft was finally redesignated XSBC-1. In its role as a scouting aircraft, bombing equipment for a 500-pound (227-kilogram) bomb had to be designed and provided. ![]() XS4C-1 (Curtiss Model 73) Īfter testing the XF12C-1 was rejected as a fighter, and on 7 December 1933 this aircraft was redesignated in the scout category as the XS4C-1 and re-engined with a 700 hp (522 kW) Wright R-1820-80 radial engine driving a two-blade propeller. The first flight was in July 1933 but in September 1934, the parasol wing failed in the dive bomber tests. Designed for aircraft carrier usage, the parasol wing folded back, a new feature for the Navy, for storage and the aircraft had an exposed tail hook for carrier landings. Finally, the 700 hp (522 kW) Wright R-1820-80 nine cylinder, single row, air-cooled radial engine was installed and the resulting aircraft, designated XF12C-1 flew in 1933. Both of these engines were prototypes and neither went into production. This aircraft was initially powered by a Wright R-1510-92 engine but this was unsuitable so the aircraft was re-engined with a 775 hp (578 kW) Wright R-1670 fourteen cylinder, two row, air-cooled radial engine, which was also unsatisfactory. The main landing gear retracted into wheel wells in the fuselage just forward of the lower wing and the tail wheel retracted into the fuselage. The wings, rudder, elevators and flaps were fabric covered. The two crewmen, pilot and radio operator/gunner, were housed in tandem cockpits enclosed by a sliding canopy and the turtledeck behind the rear cockpit could be folded down to allow the gunner to use his machine gun. It was the last combat biplane the Navy purchased and the last combat biplane manufactured in the United States. The SBC was an all-metal, two-seat scout-bomber biplane with “I”-type interplane struts. ![]() On 30 June 1932, BuAer signed a contract with Curtiss to design a two-seat monoplane with a parasol wing a retractable undercarriage and powered by a 625 hp (466 kW) Wright R-1510-92 fourteen cylinder, two row, air-cooled radial engine driving a two-blade propeller. The Navy then asked Curtiss to supply a prototype of a two-seat monoplane which was technically more advanced. Both of these aircraft were two-seat biplanes. Seven companies submitted proposals and two companies, the Douglas Aircraft with their XFD-1 and the Chance Vought with their XF3U-1 were given contracts for one prototype each. 113, which detailed a requirement for a high-performance fighter with fixed undercarriage to be powered by the Wright R-1510 or Pratt & Whitney's R-1535 radial engine. There was controversy in the United States Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) in the early 1930s regarding two-seat fighter planes, monoplanes and the retractable undercarriage In 1931, the Navy issued Design Specification No. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |