Goblins

[EJW]

[Boikat]

Weird.  Not the aircraft, since weird is good.  

"Weird" in that I just took the Goblin out for a spin this morning.

[homebrewer]

Minor point: Raise the tyres out of the concrete a bit...

I have to wonder what was the philosophy behind this little jet. It had to have a small fuel tank (limited range) and it ain't much longer than a 20mm cannon.

[captmjk]

[quote]Minor point: Raise the tyres out of the concrete a bit...

I have to wonder what was the philosophy behind this little jet. It had to have a small fuel tank (limited range) and it ain't much longer than a 20mm cannon.

[homebrewer]

[quote]The Goblin was intended to be a parasite fighter that was dropped from a bomber if engaged by enemy interceptors and fight them off.

[EJW]

[quote][quote]The Goblin was intended to be a parasite fighter that was dropped from a bomber if engaged by enemy interceptors and fight them off.

[Mitch.]

That looks like it shouldn't fly.

[patchz]

That looks like it shouldn't fly.

Wikipedia says different.

McDonnell built two Goblin prototypes (USAF Serial no. #46-523 and #46-524). During wind tunnel testing at Moffett Field, California, the first prototype XF-85 was damaged. Consequently, the second aircraft was used for the initial flight trials; its first flight was on 23 August 1948. As a prototype B-36 was unavailable, all XF-85 flight tests were carried out using a converted Boeing EB-29 Superfortress parent ship. On the first flight, after a little over two hours it became obvious that turbulence around the bomber created difficult control problems. In flight, the tiny fighter was stable, easy to fly and recovered well from spins.[2] However, many pilots found it difficult to hook the Goblin to its bomber's trapeze.

Termination of the XF-85 program in mid-1949 was the result of a number of factors:

Docking with the bomber "host" proved much more difficult than thought; even experienced test pilots had trouble. (On the other hand, Chuck Yeager stated that the XF-85 test pilot was particularly incapable of formation flying.)
The XF-85 was no match for the conventional enemy fighters it would have to engage to defend the bombers - it was slower and much more lightly armed.
The increasing range of jet escort fighters (along with the advent of in-flight refuelling) allowed them to accompany bombers on their full missions.
Tight budgets meant that less important programs such as the XF-85 were canceled.

[Fozzer]

[quote][quote]Minor point: Raise the tyres out of the concrete a bit...

I have to wonder what was the philosophy behind this little jet. It had to have a small fuel tank (limited range) and it ain't much longer than a 20mm cannon.

[olderndirt]

(On the other hand, Chuck Yeager stated that the XF-85 test pilot was particularly incapable of formation flying.)

Believe Yeager's good friend and fellow ace, Clarence "Bud" Anderson was one of those test pilots.

[Brando14100]

Interesting aircraft. I like hte 3rd one best.

8-)

[patchz]

[quote][quote][quote]Minor point: Raise the tyres out of the concrete a bit...

I have to wonder what was the philosophy behind this little jet. It had to have a small fuel tank (limited range) and it ain't much longer than a 20mm cannon.

[Boikat]

[quote]Ok, y'all knew I had to try it. That thing is nimble and loads of fun. It's just a lttle weird watching in Spot view when taking off or landing. Can't wait to add smoke fx.

[patchz]

[quote][quote]Ok, y'all knew I had to try it. That thing is nimble and loads of fun. It's just a lttle weird watching in Spot view when taking off or landing. Can't wait to add smoke fx.

[Boikat]

[quote][quote][quote]Ok, y'all knew I had to try it. That thing is nimble and loads of fun. It's just a lttle weird watching in Spot view when taking off or landing. Can't wait to add smoke fx.