WHIF P-59

[kitnut617]

Didn't the XP-52 have a slightly swept-wing?

Yes it did, but it wasn't anything to do with aerodynamics, more to do with covering the cg of the aircraft.

[KJ_Lesnick]

You mean Bell didn't have a clue that this would provide aerodynamic advantages?  I was under the impression that even in the US there was at least a small body of research into swept wings (The germans had more was my impression)

[apophenia]

Aerodynamic research is done all the time but investigating swept wings for speed advantage doesn't mean that the Langley guys 'got it'. So, let's look at early Bell designs with wings swept for aerodynamic advantage.

The L-39 was a low-speed research aircraft but note that this P-63 conversion commenced after German research documents had been captured by the US Army. In the meantime, Bell had been contracted to build an aircraft dedicated to beating the sound barrier -- and the Bell X-1 did just that still using unswept wings.*

Then there's the Bell X-5, a warmed-over captured Messerschmitt prototype. Sure, Bell added a few tweeks to the P.1011 when building the X-5 but, other than the wing glove for in-flight variable-geometry, none of it aerodynamic.

* Purists would note that the X-1 was designed by the USAAF and NACA not Bell. And the Bell plant was chosen in 1944 to build the X-1 because it had available facilities not because of Bell's design expertise.

BTW, the later forward-swept X-1 concepts/modelling also originated with NACA engineers not with Bell.

[kitnut617]

You mean Bell didn't have a clue that this would provide aerodynamic advantages?  I was under the impression that even in the US there was at least a small body of research into swept wings (The germans had more was my impression)

KJ, if you want an early swept wing aircraft, look at a C-47 Dakota.  Now you tell me if that was for a speed advantage or not ?

But to answer your question, it wasn't just Bell ------

As an aside, reading about the Me.262 I was surprised to see that the swept wing on that wasn't really anything to do with aerodynamics either, it was simply that they got the cg wrong.  Also the leading edge between the engines and the fuselage was originally 90 degrees to the centerline.

[tahsin]

Sir , you are besmirching the Atlanta plane .

Atlanta??? Not, try Burbank, California.

This was an attempt at the USAAF attempt the name the P-38 as Atlanta for some obscure reason .

The only relevance of the snoz is that entry level Whiffers look at aircraft and see the external shape . P-59B , as already cleared , does not exist , was not aware of it until this thread and the most likely source of anything on the P-80 , has to be the Lightning ?

[jcf]

One of the reasons that the German swept-wing research was so quickly accepted was because it confirmed NACA work by R.T. Jones:

http://www.hiller.org/files/docs/2000Q3.pdf

http://www.hiller.org/files/docs/2000Q4.pdf

[KJ_Lesnick]

Why was Robert T. Jones' work completely ignored in the United States?

[jcf]

The rarely-illustrated turbojet version of the Bell Model 20/XP-59 proposal. As the mockup shows, to clear the jet's efflux, the Model 20J's tailplane was raised (compared to the original Model 20 and Model 16/XP-52 concept).

The turbojet intended for the Model 20J was a Menasco/Durand I-12 producing 3,550 lbf. When Utah mine deposits of strategic unobtanium proved much smaller than anticipated, both I-12 and the Model 20J had to be abandoned.