Here is a new Youtube video on the XP-50 fighter. It covers some interesting points on its development and illustrates how good a design it was.
The XP-50 showed much promise. If put into service in 1942 I think it would have been able to hold its own in the Pacific through the entire war. Against the Luftwaffe it may not have had as much advantage but it would have had the range for bomber escort missions. It also could have been improved for USAAF service.
The two main improvements I think would have benefitted the design would be changing to a conventional tail and using the P&W R-1830 engines. While having a twin tail helps with the low speed handling for carrier operations with a twin engined aircraft this is not so critical for land based airplanes. A conventional tail simplifies the manufacturing. And it's stronger for the same weight. And improves the rear visibility a little.
The P&W R-1830 engine with turbocharging worked well in the P-43 Lancer. And with its slightly narrower width is a better fit for a fighter. How much better would the XP-50 had been with these suggested changes? Probably not a huge amount but somewhat better. What prevented the XP-50 from being produced and put into service was in 1942 and 1943 other new fighter planes where being produced by American companies that filled the requirements. And Grumman was fully occupied building it's Naval planes. But there was some massive production capacity that might have been better utilized. Curtiss.
Perhaps the XP-50 should have replaced the P-40. It likely would have been a better fighter in everyway. With about twice the horsepower of a P-40 driving two propellers it would've been faster and with a much faster climb rate. Heavier armed and capable of carrying a heavier bombload then the P-40. Much longer ranged. And with the added protection of two robust radial engines for those long overwater missions in the Pacific and for absorbing combat damage from air or ground attack missions.
What circumstances in mid-1942 could have gotten Curtiss to halt production of the obsolescent P-40 and switch their Buffalo plant over to P-50 production? Production of the P-50 in late 1942 and 1943 would have helped outfit U.S. and Allied squadrons with a more capable airplane then the P-40. Lockheed and Republic just couldn't build their P-38s and P-47s fighters fast enough. And the P-51B was more then a year away. An interesting what-if alright.
The XP-50 showed much promise. If put into service in 1942 I think it would have been able to hold its own in the Pacific through the entire war. Against the Luftwaffe it may not have had as much advantage but it would have had the range for bomber escort missions. It also could have been improved for USAAF service.
The two main improvements I think would have benefitted the design would be changing to a conventional tail and using the P&W R-1830 engines. While having a twin tail helps with the low speed handling for carrier operations with a twin engined aircraft this is not so critical for land based airplanes. A conventional tail simplifies the manufacturing. And it's stronger for the same weight. And improves the rear visibility a little.
The P&W R-1830 engine with turbocharging worked well in the P-43 Lancer. And with its slightly narrower width is a better fit for a fighter. How much better would the XP-50 had been with these suggested changes? Probably not a huge amount but somewhat better. What prevented the XP-50 from being produced and put into service was in 1942 and 1943 other new fighter planes where being produced by American companies that filled the requirements. And Grumman was fully occupied building it's Naval planes. But there was some massive production capacity that might have been better utilized. Curtiss.
Perhaps the XP-50 should have replaced the P-40. It likely would have been a better fighter in everyway. With about twice the horsepower of a P-40 driving two propellers it would've been faster and with a much faster climb rate. Heavier armed and capable of carrying a heavier bombload then the P-40. Much longer ranged. And with the added protection of two robust radial engines for those long overwater missions in the Pacific and for absorbing combat damage from air or ground attack missions.
What circumstances in mid-1942 could have gotten Curtiss to halt production of the obsolescent P-40 and switch their Buffalo plant over to P-50 production? Production of the P-50 in late 1942 and 1943 would have helped outfit U.S. and Allied squadrons with a more capable airplane then the P-40. Lockheed and Republic just couldn't build their P-38s and P-47s fighters fast enough. And the P-51B was more then a year away. An interesting what-if alright.
Last edited:
