| XP-50 | |
|---|---|
 Grumman XP-50 "Skyrocket" | |
| General information | |
| Type | |
| Manufacturer | Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation |
| Status | Cancelled |
| Number built | 1 |
| History | |
| First flight | 18 February 1941[1] |
| Developed from | Grumman XF5F Skyrocket |
TheGrumman XP-50 was a land-based development of the shipboardXF5F-1 Skyrocket fighter, entered into aUnited States Army Air Corps (USAAC) contest for a twin-engine heavyinterceptor aircraft. The USAAC placed an order for aprototype on 25 November 1939, designating itXP-50, but it lost the competition to theLockheed XP-49.
First assignedDesign 34, laterG-41 by the builder,Grumman, the design was entered into competition alongside proposals from Bell, Brewster, Curtiss, Lockheed, and Vought.[2] The XP-50 design was similar to that of the XF5F-1 with modifications to the fuselage nose to house the nose-wheel of the tricycle landing gear and provisions forself-sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor. The planned armament was two 20 mm (.79 in) cannon and two .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns.[3]
During testing, the XP-50 prototype (39-2517) was lost on 14 May 1941, falling victim to a turbo-supercharger explosion that destroyed the aircraft. The test pilotRobert Hall bailed out while the XP-50 plunged into Smithtown Bay in Long Island Sound.[1]
Based upon experience with the XF5F-1 and the XP-50, Grumman had begun work on a more advanced fighter, designated model G-51. Thus, the USAAC decided to replace the XP-50 with the newer design and recommended procurement of two G-51s, designatedXP-65, using the original XP-50 expenditure order to cover the development. Consideration was given to combining the Air Corps and Navy requirements into a common design, but the weight and performance penalties inherent in conflicting requirements were considered great enough that separate designs would be needed. Since the U.S. Navy considered Grumman one of its major production sources and that producing two different model aircraft by Grumman would impede manufacture of aircraft types the U.S. Navy needed, it was decided that development of theXF7F-1 would continue, and the XP-65 as a parallel development was abandoned.[3]
General characteristics
Performance
Armament
Related development
Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
