The "Bandit" Would ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

The "Bandit" Would Have Loved This Firebird... [PIC]

7 Posts
3 Users
17 Reactions
1,290 Views
Rich Sufficool
(@rich-sufficool)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 5032
Topic starter  

Harley Earl brought General Motors into the Jet Age with this 1953 Firebird l, designated the XP-21. This delta wing 2500lb concept car was powered by a 2 speed 370hp Allison Whirlfire Turbo Power gas turbine engine along with a 10hp gas engine to run a generator for everything else including an AC unit for the single occupant stuck under the small bubble top. The actual top end of the car was never investigated. The first run of the car got to 100 mph when the tires began to lose traction and the fearful driver backed off. It was driven on the Indy race track but not for a speed record. One interesting feature was the external brake drums to aid in cooling and the braking was augmented by wing mounted air brake flaps. It was designed to imitate a jet fighter, but it always reminds my of a stubby winged British Avro Vulcan bomber (last pic). Earl contined with the ll (1956), the lll (1959) and the lV (1964). The later generations were both significantly lighter in weight with much less horsepower to reduced the original 1200⁰ exhaust temperature. The Firebird l still exists today at  the GM Museum.

Firebird 1 016
Firebird 1 003 001
Firebird 1 005 001
Firebird 1 020 001
Firebird 1 018 001
Firebird 1 006 001
Firebird 1 025 001
Firebird 1 007
Firebird 1 042 001
Firebird 1 044
Firebird 1 009 001
Firebird 1 012
Firebird 1 044
Firebird 1 027
Firebird 1 032
image

 



   
Quote
Marty Johnson
(@marty-johnson)
Famed Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1715
 

My understanding is concept cars were developed to stoke the imaginations of their design teams.  Frequently, design elements from concept cars would transfer to future production models.  If my understanding is correct, I don't understand why this car was built.  From a cosmetic design perspective, I'm not seeing any element that would ever be applicable to a production car.  Conversely, what was the point?  What am I missing in the rationale for building these extreme designs?   



   
ReplyQuote
Rich Sufficool
(@rich-sufficool)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 5032
Topic starter  

@marty-johnson I can think of two reasons:

1.) Getting the public to flock to their Motorama exhibits where they'd be selling conventional automobiles.

2.) feasibility studies for the potential use of turbines to replace internal combustion engines and teasing the public to accept that potential. In 1953, jet engines were still rather crude, but later developments refined the powerplants to be streetable, which wasn't possible until the 1960s.



   
ReplyQuote
Marty Johnson
(@marty-johnson)
Famed Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1715
 
Posted by: @rich-sufficool

@marty-johnson I can think of two reasons:

Ahhhh!  Both are plausible explanations.  Thanks!  



   
ReplyQuote
(@Anonymous 197205242)
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 5402
 

It certainly is a fascinating automobile and model ! Even if not so practical for everyday driving,it was pretty neat as a design exercise to push the limits.

I believe there was an Ideal Toy version of this car with launcher and I think I may have had it when I was very little. It was a long time ago so I am a bit hazy on this.



   
ReplyQuote
Rich Sufficool
(@rich-sufficool)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 5032
Topic starter  

@mikedetorrice

Here's a toy put out in 1955 in 1/24 that could run on a CO2 cartridge.

image


   
ReplyQuote
(@Anonymous 197205242)
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 5402
 

That CO2 powered Firebird looks exceptionally cool  ! I have a vague feeling mine may have been from Ideal Toy Company and may have has a spring-loaded launching platform but the time period of about 1955 or so seems right in the ballpark.



   
ReplyQuote
Share: