Gloster Meteor & Bell P-59

[KJ_Lesnick]

NeoConShooter

Yes!

Makes enough sense, wings are needed to produce lift and even more to maneuver, but once above a certain amount produce too much drag.

To reduce landing and take off speeds and increase the safety of engine out opps.

I assume the wing-area was based on the originally projected thrust of 1250 lbs or 1400 lbs?

If you have any information on the following, I'm curious

1. What was the takeoff speed of the P-59?

2. What was the L/D ratio of the P-59?

3. While it seems unrelated, what was the L/D ratio of the DH-106 Comet (yes I know it's an airliner, but the point is one of L/D and thrust to weight and I know it came up very short on T/W)

The P-51 was IIRC, rated at less than Mach 0.85, actually around 0.76

The P-51 was able to retain a decent degree of maneuverability up to Mach 0.78 based on RAF tests, the plane's maximum safe dive was Mach 0.85; the Spitfire's maximum safe-dive was Mach 0.85, though the Mk.VIII achieved 0.891 in one dive, and a PR.XIX did 0.94...

As to your questions, there are so many other factors that naming any one as the culprit would be silly.

Actually, I think I may wish to take this statement back... I don't know what the maximum mach number of the P-59 is, the Gloster Meteor is 0.82 (I'm not sure if that's level or in a dive though).

Regardless, the variables that I can readily think of that would play a role in mach limits for dive would be

• Thrust: Overcomes drag
  
• Gravity: Being in a dive effectively results in gravity acting as a source of thrust in a way (pulls the plane down against the force of gravity)
  
• Drag: Older planes could not even get up to a high enough speed where compressibility effects would take hold
  
• Airfoil geometry: Affects critical mach number, shockwave intensity, which affects airflow over the tail, when the downwash goes away, and plays a role in aeroelastic issues such as flutter.
  
• Tailplane position: Determines how much of the tailplane is in the wake of the wing
  
• Tailplane geometry: Affects shockwave formation along the tail which in turn affects elevator effectiveness as well as buffeting and possibly flutter
  
• Wing/Fuselage interference effects: The airflow pattern over the wing and body interfere with each other producing a source of drag even at subsonic speeds; at higher speeds, the curvature of the fuselage causes the airflow to accelerate over it, the same happens to the wings; the two combine together to produce shockwaves of intensity that can be greater than one would expect
  
• Tailplane/Fuselage interference effects: As above, though probably not to the same extent, as the fuselage is narrowing down at the tail
  
• Nacelle/Airframe interference effects: This assumes the nacelle is not in the wing-root, but effectively the two have their own airflows which combine to produce drag; the curvatures combine to accelerate the airflow to potentially high speeds which can produce powerful shock formation)
  
• Elevator effectiveness: With and without turbulent airflow over the tail from the wings and the tail itself, with and without downwash (that goes away as you near the sound-barrier); these variables can contribute to make the elevators ineffective
  
• Elevator control loads: Even if the tailplane can deflect a useful amount of air within it's travel, it's control loads may reach a point where no human being can realistically move them without hydraulic boost
  
• Presence of stabilizer trim: The Me-109, and Me-262 both had this feature -- modern airliners are fitted with these too as a general rule.  It effectively increases trim beyond what the elevators may be able to provide (with less drag)
  
• Presence of stabilator: The whole tail moves so elevator effectiveness is not as big a concern
  
• Flutter: If the elevator, tailplane, wing, or vital structure vibrates itself apart, the plane will not be able to recover from the dive.
  
• Maneuvering speed: The maximum speed at which point you can pull full back on the stick without breaking the wings off (some airplanes would be unrecoverable at high altitudes, but would become partially controllable at low altitudes due to the air temperature differences which affect the sound-barrier: The change in mach allows the plane to begin to respond, which in turn allows the plane to come out of the dive, which in turn causes it to slow down, which in turn causes more control to return until it's all back: At high speeds it becomes possible to yank the wings off the plane as you're pulling full-back on the stick -- the higher the maneuvering speed, the less likely this is to occur)
  

The Spitfire was a hugely over rated aircraft because of it's effects on the Battle of Britain.

Far as I know it's diving speed was excellent and it's turn rates seemed very good (not sure exactly how they compared with the P-40, P-51 and Me-109), roll-rate was good as far as I know and superb with the LF variants.

But closer examination shows that the hurricane did most of the heavy lifting in that battle, but got none of the good publicity!

There were more Hurricanes used in the battles far as I know...

I know that this last sentence will start a fire storm of controversy

Don't worry: I'm not British

[wuzak]

The Spitfire was a hugely over rated aircraft because of it's effects on the Battle of Britain.

Far as I know it's diving speed was excellent and it's turn rates seemed very good (not sure exactly how they compared with the P-40, P-51 and Me-109), roll-rate was good as far as I know and superb with the LF variants.

It really depends on what version you are talking about with some of those factors.

The Spitfire always out-turned the Bf 109.

If you are comparing with the P-51B/C/D/K then you realy ought to compare the Spitfire XIV.

The Spitfire XIV could out-roll a P-51B/C/D/K up to 350mph IAS. So pretty much at all times except flat out at low altitudes and in dives.

The Spitfire XIV could out turn a P-51B/C/D/K at all times.

The Spitfire XIV could outclimb the P-51B/C/D/K through-out the altitude range (may be some cross-over points where the gear changes occured for the supercharger).

The P-51B/C/D/K had better acceleration in a dive than the Spitfire XIV - but not a significant margin.

The P-51B/C/D/K had better zoom climb than the Spitfire XIV, the advantage remaining until normal climbing speed was reached.

Against the Bf 109, it was judged that the Spitfire XIV with a half full 90 UKG slipper tank attached was superior to the Bf 109G in most, if not all, respects of flight performance.

The Bf 109 was never really strong in roll - is main advantages were dive and climb.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wuzak

It really depends on what version you are talking about with some of those factors.

True enough

The Spitfire always out-turned the Bf 109.

How did the P-51 and Me-109 compare?

If you are comparing with the P-51B/C/D/K then you realy ought to compare the Spitfire XIV.

Why just out of curiousity?

The Spitfire XIV could out-roll a P-51B/C/D/K up to 350mph IAS. So pretty much at all times except flat out at low altitudes and in dives.[/quote]Makes enough sense, roll rate is a very important aspect of fighter performance as it allows one to rapidly reverse turns

The Spitfire XIV could out turn a P-51B/C/D/K at all times.

The Spitfire XIV could outclimb the P-51B/C/D/K through-out the altitude range (may be some cross-over points where the gear changes occured for the supercharger).

Does this pertain to fuel load?  (i.e. would it make a difference if one was fully fueled with drop tanks, and one was on fumes?)

The P-51B/C/D/K had better acceleration in a dive than the Spitfire XIV - but not a significant margin.

I thought the Spitfire was overall faster in a dive?  I wouldn't be surprised if the acceleration would allow it to put some distance between itself and the Spit though...

The P-51B/C/D/K had better zoom climb than the Spitfire XIV, the advantage remaining until normal climbing speed was reached.

Gotcha...

[kitnut617]

It really depends on what version you are talking about with some of those factors.

The Spitfire always out-turned the Bf 109.

If you are comparing with the P-51B/C/D/K then you realy ought to compare the Spitfire XIV.

The Spitfire XIV could out-roll a P-51B/C/D/K up to 350mph IAS. So pretty much at all times except flat out at low altitudes and in dives.

The Spitfire XIV could out turn a P-51B/C/D/K at all times.

The Spitfire XIV could outclimb the P-51B/C/D/K through-out the altitude range (may be some cross-over points where the gear changes occured for the supercharger).

The P-51B/C/D/K had better acceleration in a dive than the Spitfire XIV - but not a significant margin.

The P-51B/C/D/K had better zoom climb than the Spitfire XIV, the advantage remaining until normal climbing speed was reached.

As has been mentioned before, the two aircraft are like apples and oranges. The Spitfire was designed as a ""point"" defense fighter whereas the P-51 while initially supposed to help in that role, it was really at it's best as a long range escort fighter.

[KJ_Lesnick]

sandiego89

The P-59 has a huger, thick wing especially.

Why was the P-59's wing thicker than the Gloster Meteor?  I can make some guesses which include

• Differences in aerodynamic knowledge in the US and UK: The British had more knowledge regarding transsonic design
• The fact that the aircraft was given a very short development time, and limited access to wind-tunnels

Always marvel at the size and thickness of the wing walking under the on at the Smithsonian.

I haven't been to the Smithsonian in years!


Kitnut617

As has been mentioned before, the two aircraft are like apples and oranges. The Spitfire was designed as a ""point"" defense fighter whereas the P-51 while initially supposed to help in that role, it was really at it's best as a long range escort fighter.

The P-51 was designed as I understand it to be an interceptor and do what the P-40 could do which could be used defensively or offensively