Com-Central.net

[img][/img]
This is another "odd" airplane picture my son found. Since he's spending the night at a friends learning how to play his new bass guitar, I thought I would post it for him instead. I have the info on this bird and will post it after you all try your hand at identifying it first. I have a feeling XcalibeR or Jo wingnut will probably get this first as usual.

Boeing L-15

www.boeing.com/history...scout.html

Wow, That one really had me stumped. Thanks XcalibeR. The nose of it looked like a Cessna, but that tail and main fusalage, if you want to call it that, was difficult. Now I have one for you all, and I have a feeling XcalibeR will get this one too.

Is that a Tiger Cat Wingy?

- jo_wingnut

Wow, That one really had me stumped. Thanks XcalibeR. The nose of it looked like a Cessna, but that tail and main fusalage, if you want to call it that, was difficult.

I thought the same thing. Looks like someone took an OA-1 and cut it off behind the cockpit, lol. After many unsuccessful searches under Cessna and other such things, I finally did a Google of "Observation aircraft". It was the fifth thing on the list

- jo_wingnut

Now I have one for you all, and I have a feeling XcalibeR will get this one too.

And yep, I sure do. But I'll let someone else try it this time. It's fairly easy, if you need a hint, try visiting the link to the L-15 and read up on that plane. The pictures are quite interesting too.

- jo_wingnut

Wow, That one really had me stumped. Thanks XcalibeR. The nose of it looked like a Cessna, but that tail and main fusalage, if you want to call it that, was difficult. Now I have one for you all, and I have a feeling XcalibeR will get this one too.

McDonnell XP-67.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p67.htm

Yep, You got it correct. Give that man a cigar. Here is the specifications on it.

The XP-67 was McDonnell's only propeller-powered fighter. On Aug. 14, 1941, the U.S. Army Air Forces placed its first order with the tiny McDonnell Aircraft Corp. for two prototypes of a novel, twin-engine, long-range fighter with a pressurized cabin.
Engineers tried to improve the airplane's aerodynamics by merging the center fuselage with rear portions of the engine nacelles. This resulted in the XP-67's unique bat-like shape. The turbo-supercharged 12-cylinder, inverted-V, liquid-cooled engines would be housed in long nacelles and would drive four-blade propellers in opposite directions. They were to maximize the use of exhaust to increase engine thrust.
The XP-67 was completed in St. Louis, Mo., in December 1943, but the temperamental engines caused the airplane's first flight to last only six minutes. Problems continued with the engines, and the XP-67's top speed was 200 mph slower than required. The second prototype was never finished.
Specifications
First flight: Jan. 6, 1944
Wingspan: 55 feet
Length: 44 feet 9 inches
Height: 15 feet 9 inches
Weight: 20,000 pounds
Speed: 405 mph
Ceiling: 37,400 feet
Range: 2,384 miles
Power plant: Two 1,060-horsepower thrust Continental XI-1430 engines
Accommodation: One crew
Armament: Six .50-caliber machine guns, four 20 mm cannons

- jo_wingnut

Yep, You got it correct. Give that man a cigar.

Thank you wingnut! A Graycliff "Presidente", red label, will do just fine!

McDonnell XP-67?

Nice lines, looks like it should have been faster than anything else.

With six .50 cal.s and four 20mm.s would not have taken much time on a target to cut it apart.

That's two .50s more than a P-61 Black Widow had.

See? Toldja!!

It should have been waaayyyy fast Sabre45, but it was an interesting story at the web link above....they used some kinda newfangled Continental engines that didn't generate the power requirements that were originally spec'd. Like so many other efforts it's a great example of how aircraft design is always a set of compromises.....more powerful engines would have led to cooling problems in a tightly-cowled design like this that would have led to more radiator area that would have given more drag that would have then slowed it down......

That's why yur best designs just go with radial engines and plow their way through the air with brute force.....and why the world speed record for recip prop-driven aircraft is held by a radial-powered aircraft. Hooo-YAH!

And yeah....great armarment......woulda been a heckuva butcher bird huh?

[img][/img]
Here is what Jeffrey and I found on this type bird, and under the government contract it was built. Good job XcalibeR!
BOEING-WICHITA YL-15-BW SCOUT
U.S. Army Boeing-Wichita (Model 451) YL-15-BW Scout liaison aircraft, msn 20012, U.S. Army serial number 47-432. This two-seat aircraft featured maximum visibility for the observer and good flight control at low speed. It could also be disassembled and transported by truck. One prototype was built and ten prototypes but after tests, the Army rejected the design and transferred the ten YL-15s to the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior which operated them with civil registrations. An order for 47 L-15-BWs was cancelled.
47-423/432
Boeing YL-15 Scout 429 in 1987 was at US Army Aviation Museum, Fort Rucker, AL. Still there in 1990. 431 (c/n 200011) to civilian registry as N1068T.

[img]http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/zview?cm=view&fn=50/xp-67.zip&an=XP-67.JPG[/img]

FS2002/FS2004 McDonnell XP-67.

The XP67 was twin-engine interceptor that had a somewhat revolutionary design by McDonnell Aircraft.
When viewed from above the aircraft had an unusual profile, in that the engine nacelles and fuselage were shaped to provide true aerofoil sections throughout.
The exhaust gases from the turbo-supercharged Continental engines were used as a jet-assist to increase performance. however, the rated horsepower of the "Hyper" engines was not achieved and the aircraft fell short of performance estimates.
Performance proved to be far from satisfactory, and modifications were made to improve certain stability problems.
The aircraft was destroyed in a fire on 6 September 1944 and the project was canceled before the second aircraft was built.

By Kazunori Ito.

available at www.flightsim.com


fled

SUUUU--WEEEEEEEET!!!

Holy Cow! Thanks for the info Fled!

I'm simply shocked and amazed at to what extent people have gone to in order to prove my answer above was correct...someone even made an FS2002/2004 model for me! What a community we have....