Embodying many innovatory features and designed by
Robert J Woods, the FM-1 Airacuda was a five-seat
long-range bomber destroyer. Powered by two engines
mounted as pushers, the Airacuda accommodated two
gunners in forward extensions of the engine nacelles,
these crew members being provided with wing crawlways
enabling them to gain the fuselage in the event
that it proved necessary to evacuate the nacelle gun
positions. The prototype, the XFM-1 powered by two
1150hp Allison V-1710-13 12-cylinder liquid-cooled
engines driving three-blade propellers via 1.62m extension shafts, was flown on 1 September
1937. Twelve evaluation models were subsequently
ordered, nine as YFM-1s and three as YFM-1As which
differed in having tricycle undercarriages. Power was
provided by 1,150hp Allison V-1710-23s, but three
YFM-!s were completed with V-1710-41s of 1,090hp as
YFM-1Bs. The 12 YFMs were delivered to the USAAC
between February and October 1940, and their armament
comprised one 37mm T-9 cannon with 110 rounds
in each engine nacelle, one 7.62mm M-2
machine gun with 500 rounds in each of the retractable
dorsal turret and ventral tunnel positions, and one
12.7mm M-2 gun firing from each of the port
and starboard beam positions. Twenty 13.6kg
bombs could be accommodated internally.
My cousin, Brian Sparks, was the test co-pilot who was disabled for life, when trying to bail from this hastily designed plane. The plane's questionable "...reputation probably did much to keep pilots and crews away." from this attractive aircraft. Unfortunately, it ended up becoming a "Hanger Queen". en.wikipedia.org /wiki /YFM-1_Airacuda
The Aircuda was classified as a heavy fighter, the design imperative being the perceived need to intercept hordes of enemy long-range bombers well out over the Atlantic before they reached the American mainland. The aircraft had minimal defensive armament because the scenario envisioned intercepting the bombers after they were outside their own fighter escorts range. The Aircuda used an innovative central gun control in the main fuselage to aim the 3 cannons, with the nacelle gunners serving primarily as loaders. According to a USAAC test pilot it tended to pitch severly depending on throttle settings, but was extremely stable in the landing approach. One of the design defects he cited was that the Aircuda used a 4 cylinder APU to provide power to all electrical systems, including the main powerplants. He cited a number of instance in which the APU failed, resulting in a total loss of power in the mains. Usually the APU could be restarted in-flight, but on one occasion he was forced to dead-stick the landing. Not a big confidence builder in the pilot ranks. At any rate, the need for the aircraft never materialized, and it was soon superceded by far more capable aircraft.
I think they weren't accepted due to their slow speed and poor maneuverability. other fighters would have been able to blow it out of the sky and it would barely be able to keep up with others.
I am 80% of the way in building 1 plastic model of all 275 WW2 aircraft built by 17 separate countries. At this stage all the more common kits are finished (185). Finding the rare birds such as the Airacuda is proving difficult but the XFM-1 would be most interesting. Been shopping and digging all over the world--the Czechs offer many limited run kits some of which are buildable but you takes a chance. Mach II from France has a PBM-2 Coronado but they have a lousy rep and inflated prices although I built their Martin Mariner sucessfully--was told at an IPMS contest that I should get an award for just getting it together!!
So, if the difference between YFM-1 and YFM-1B was only the different power rating of the engines why did model maker VALOM decided to produce both versions? Were there any external differences at all?? It is a REALLY cool looking aircraft though!!!
I built a scale R /C a few years ago (twin O.S. Max 15's) and it was almost impossible to control - bad elevator response and horrendous landings. But, good luck Leslie if you try it..Recommend modified wing area to increase lift and heavy tri-landing gear.
Yes, I am considdering building this aircraft as a R /C Model and am currently looking for good 3-view drawings. It would be nice to have section cuts of the aircraft and I will probably find them someplace. If I can find enough information on the aircraft I will design and build at least one of them.
My father always thought this was a cool plane. I have to agree.be nice to see pictures from inside,ect. I was stationed at tustin /el-toro[84-87],i think this is where they were tested.
20
reply