The Curtiss XSB3C was a proposed dive bomber that Curtiss-Wright designed as an enlarged and improved successor to its own SB2C Helldiver, in answer to a United States Navy request for proposals issued on 3 February 1941. It would have had a larger tail, a revised wing planform, tricycle landing gear and heavier armament, with an internal bomb bay for up to 4,000 pounds of bombs or two torpedoes and a Wright R-3350 radial engine of 2,500 horsepower. The Navy ordered two prototypes after inspecting the mockup in December 1941, but during 1942 the design was judged inferior to the competing Douglas XSB2D, and its need for 115/145 octane fuel was considered hard to handle aboard ship. The prototype contract was cancelled and no XSB3C was ever built.
Facts
Engine Class Comparison
Body StyleAircraft (no road body style) 1 Connections
Exemplifies
Source Curtiss XSB3C (Wikipedia)
Of Make
Source Curtiss XSB3C (Wikipedia)
In the Other Atlases
Manufactured By
Also in Business Atlas: the manufacturer of this subject.
Source Curtiss XSB3C (Wikipedia)LeadQuote, Lead
The Curtiss XSB3C was a proposed development by Curtiss-Wright of the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver dive bomber
Originated In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject originated.
Source Curtiss XSB3C (Wikipedia)Lead, country of originQuote, Lead, country of origin
submitted to meet a U.S. Navy requirement for a new dive bomber
Sources
1. Curtiss XSB3C (Wikipedia)
Lead
The Curtiss XSB3C was a proposed development by Curtiss-Wright of the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver dive bomber
Specifications (XSB3C-1), power
Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-3350-8 radial piston engine, 2,300 hp (1,700 kW)
Design and development
and no examples of the XSB3C were ever built.
Lead, country of origin
submitted to meet a U.S. Navy requirement for a new dive bomber
Design and development, fuel
This, combined with the aircraft's requirement for 115/145 octane fuel, which was considered difficult to handle aboard ship
View the SourceReader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.