Transport Atlas

How The World Moves
Sign In
Text size
100%
Theme
Vehicle

Curtiss XSB3C

Military Aircraft

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
Propulsion
Petrol 1
Engine Class
Piston 1
Status
Cancelled 1
Power (kW)
1715 1
Comparison
Body Style
Aircraft (no road body style) 1
Connections

Exemplifies

Aviation, Modes
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)Lead
Quote, 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 origin
Quote, 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 Source
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.