WHIF P-59

[Chris707]

And another:

[KJ_Lesnick]

Was the P-63's laminar-flow wing as good as the P-51's wing?

[apophenia]

Was the P-63's laminar-flow wing as good as the P-51's wing?

It was as bad. What's important is the quality of manufacturing and maintenance. If either fail to ensure surface smoothness, laminar flow is lost. None of the aircraft of that time -- P-51 and P-63 included -- were able to maintain much laminar flow on their wings.

For the record, the P-51's airfoil was root NAA/NACA 45-100; tip NAA/NACA 45-100.

[kitnut617]

From a couple of books I've read and the superiority myth of the laminar flow wing---

When Rolls Royce converted a Mustang Mk.I into a Mk.X (top pic) by attaching a Merlin engine to it, it was tested beside a Spitfire which had the same engine and prop combo.  In just about every equal comparison test they did, the Mustang ended up about 30 mph faster with the engine settings identical.  At the time they put it down to the laminar flow wing and a lot of human resources at various manufacturers in the UK was diverted to investigate this info.  It led RR to develop their own fighter using spare wings from a number of Mustang Mk.I's that were allotted to them and they proposed their fighter (second photo)

Supermarine developed a laminar wing for the Spitfire and one set was attached to a Mk.XIV fuselage (third photo) which created the first Spiteful prototype.  Then, after some similar testing between it and a standard Mk.XIV it was found that the speed advantage the Laminar flow wing gave was very disappointing, the two aircraft having almost the same speed.  The project almost got binned but they persevered with the Spiteful and got it to be one of the fastest piston engined aircraft.  But it was only a few mph faster than the later Spitfire Mk.21/22/24's which didn't have a laminar flow wing, just a refined standard wing.

In hindsight, there had to been other factors that contributed to the Mk.X being 30 mph faster, which can be ascertained by the performance of Reno Racer Mustangs.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Was Bell required to use a conservative design?  Or did they choose such a design because of the time-table?

[TsrJoe]

from 'Research & Development, Projected & Cancelled SIG.' newsletter no.6, March 1996 ...

Bell 'jet cobra', Bell XP.59B designs

[KJ_Lesnick]

TsrJoe,

I'm not entirely clear here... was this the requirement?  Or was this their desire?

[kitnut617]

TsrJoe,

I'm not entirely clear here... was this the requirement?  Or was this their desire?

Your questions aren't being very clear either KJ, what Joe posted looks like a page out of a book showing two ideas that were studied and that is about all.  I'm interested to find out what reason your line of questions are for though, would you care to explain.  Is it real world ? or what-if world ?  When you asked could the US have built a meaningful jet aircraft, what do you mean by that ?  At the time jet engine technology was very basic, but on the cutting edge all the same.  I don't think you would have got anything better than the P-80 because up to then none of the countries had had to deal with 600 mph aircraft. In 1941 they were still looking at trying to break the 400 mph barrier with what they had.

[apophenia]

I'm not entirely clear here... was this the requirement?  Or was this their desire?

Kendra, I'm not sure if this answers your question. The 'Jet Cobra' was simply Bell trying it on with a rough concept. The XP-59B, on the other hand, was a genuine fighter project with USAAF backing.

The Bell Model 29 XP-59B was to be a clean-sheet design owing nothing to the earlier P-59s (all Model 27s, including the production twin-jet P-59B). The XP59B was to be powered by a single I-16 with wing root inlets, exhausting at the rearl.

The problem with the XP-59B project was lack of progress on Bell's part. In late Nov 1942, Col RP Swofford of the USAAF Fighter Branch, Experimental Engine Section recommended to his boss that the entire XP-59B program be reaasigned to a company other than Bell. [See 'Technology and the Air Force: A Retrospective Assessment' by Jacob Neufeld.]

As is well know, the XP-59B data was given to Lockheed around the same time as the data for the Halford H-1. Lockheed redesigned the XP-59B with their own wings and the result was the Goblin-powered L-140/XP-80.

[tahsin]

A meaningful jet for the Luftwaffe would be a Me 262 deployed in the hundreds for a March 1944 Grossschlacht that would stop American air raids and deter the B-29s enough to reach a compromise peace deal . A meaningful jet for the US or UK would have established some or of a dynasty that would stay in business . P-80 is obviously meaningful enough .

"... with their own wings and the result was the ... L-140/XP-80." What ?!  Isn't that a P-38 nose up there ? Sir , you are besmirching the Atlanta plane .

[jcf]

A meaningful jet for the Luftwaffe would be a Me 262 deployed in the hundreds for a March 1944 Grossschlacht that would stop American air raids and deter the B-29s enough to reach a compromise peace deal . A meaningful jet for the US or UK would have established some or of a dynasty that would stay in business . P-80 is obviously meaningful enough .

"... with their own wings and the result was the ... L-140/XP-80." What ?!  Isn't that a P-38 nose up there ? Sir , you are besmirching the Atlanta plane .

Atlanta??? Not, try Burbank, California.

Lockheed began operations in Marietta in 1950 when, at the request of the US government, they re-opened a
government builtplant that had been used by Bell to build B-29s.
The Lockheed-Georgia Company came into being in 1961, as the successor of Lockheed's Georgia Division.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Kitnut617,

I'm interested to find out what reason your line of questions are for though, would you care to explain.  Is it real world ? or what-if world ?

I was just wondering if the USAAF required that Bell base the P-59 on the P-39 or P-63, or if they were free to come up with a new design.

When you asked could the US have built a meaningful jet aircraft, what do you mean by that ?

When I say this I mean a design that was significantly faster than the current propeller-driven fighters such as the P-51 (I would speculate at least 550 mph would be required for this to be do-able, though I could be wrong), and possessed reasonable handling qualities (The Bell P-59, and Gloster Meteor were about equally underpowered, but the P-59 had lateral instability issues)

[apophenia]

tahsin: I oversimplied the origins of the XP-80. Kendra is asking about the performance of Bell designs - specifically the P-59 and XP-59B. The critical difference between the latter and the XP-80 is airfoil (especially at the root).

Lockheed paid a lot of attention to streamlining details but then the XP-59B never really reached the detail stage. Do you really think that a "Lightning" nose was aerodynamically superior to the P-59's in any dramatic way? If not, that snoz from Burbank is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Kendra: Bell was "free to come up with a new design" distinct in all ways from the P-39 and P-63. They did and failed to produce a design worth pursuing. That's why the XP-59B design was moved. At the time. aircraft makers like Lockheed and NA usually delivered the goods when they promised something. Bell did not.

[KJ_Lesnick]

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

[kitnut617]

I was just wondering if the USAAF required that Bell base the P-59 on the P-39 or P-63, or if they were free to come up with a new design.

From what I understand (reading the Ginter book), all Bell was instructed on, was what engine they were to use.  The design of the aircraft was entirely up to Bell as to how these engine were installed.

When I say this I mean a design that was significantly faster than the current propeller-driven fighters such as the P-51 (I would speculate at least 550 mph would be required for this to be do-able, though I could be wrong), and possessed reasonable handling qualities

I think you need to look at where USAAF aircraft design was back in 1941, remember, the USA wasn't in a shooting war until the end of that year and there was a strong 'isolationist' movement which didn't want the USA involved in the war that had been already ongoing for two years, there didn't seem to be any rush to have the absolute latest technology then, but you'll find that they were still working on getting fighter designs to get over 400 mph.  And like I said in an earlier post, none of the Allied countries had any research in supersonics , nor did they have supersonic wind tunnels to test theories even if someone was researching supersonics.  Allied aircraft designers were only just beginning to brush on phenomena like the compressabilty problem and didn't really understand it.  The Germans on the other hand did have people researching supersonics and they did have supersonic wind tunnels because of their rocket development.  I have a book which is called V-2, co-written by a fellow who's name is Dornberger or something like that.  He was the Commandant of the Rocket Research Facility and it says in the book they had V-2s flying [sort of] before 1939 and even had a design for a two-stage V-2 at that time which had it been launch from the west coast of France, would have hit the east coast of the USA in about 30 minutes after launch.  Britain and the USA had absolutely nothing to compare -----  so why do you think the US could have produced anything more 'meaningful' than what they did ?