Bell X/YP-59, P-59A/B Airacomet

[Cliffy B]

Just nabbed one of Amodel's 1/72 P-59A/B Airacomets but I'm running dry on ideas.  I've got two so far, one USAAF and one USN.  The USAAF one will be done up in an arctic dazzle camo and stationed on Iceland in 1945 as a stopgap until the F-80s and Canadian Meteors can get there in decent numbers.  The USN one will be a stateside armed trainer done up in overall GSB with the orange fuselage stripe (reserve aircraft) with HVARs and 500 pounders.  I'm still debating on whether or not to fold the wings  

I did read that the USN received two Airacomets and "quickly" came to the decision that it was completely unsuitable for carrier operations.  However, that is all I can find on the USN Airacomets.  Does anyone know anymore details on to why it was so unsuitable?  Was it a power issue, handling, visibility, what?

I know that even the B model with more powerful engines then all of the other versions was still outperformed by some piston engined machines.  Could engines from the F-80 had be substituted?  What about from the Meteor?

Any ideas ladies and gents?

[Pablo1965]

In the related about it, I read the american carriers  have problem to receive an impact of the weight and speed of a P-59. 

[rickshaw]

Considering the design, I'd say power and visibility were the main problems.  Early jets weren't the best for carrier ops, while that long nose would have represented a problem.

[apophenia]

Cliffy, I love the idea of an Iceland-based intercepter in funky, dazzle camo!

A few notes about the USN Airacomets. The Airacomet did have some lateral stability problems but the real issue was carrier take-off performance and a superior aircraft seemed to be in the offing (although rickshaw's right about the reality of early jets and carrier).

For the USN, the conservative approach was the Ryan FR-1 Fireball composite fighter (which used the YP-59's J31-GE-3 BTW) The USN hoped the piston/jet combo would give them reasonable carrier TO performance and better cruise economy but with a jet's higher top-speed). The more radical approach was the twin-jet McDonnell FH-1 designed from the outset for carrier use.

The P-59A actually had more powerful engines that the FH-1 (2000 lb.st GE J31-GE-5s vs 1,560 lb.st Westinghouse J30-WE-20s). But, thanks to lower weight, smaller size, and better streamlining, the FH-1 was 70 mph faster. And that speed came at lower altitude - think kamikaze. Sounds good. Unfortunately, the axial-flow J30-WE was under-developed.

About substituting F-80 or Meteor engines on the P-59. The answer lies in the size/weight of the various engines. The P-59's J31-GE was 41.5" diameter, 72" long, and weighed 860 lbs. The Meteor F.3's Derwent was similar: same diameter but slightly longer (84") and heavier (975 lb dry weight, each).

The F-80 is another kettle of fish. The F-80's J33A-23 is much bigger (50.5" diameter, 107" long, and weighed almost 1800 lbs). That's why Bell totally redesigned their XP-59B as a single-engined fighter which was transferred to Lockheed leading to ... you guessed it ... the XP-80