Gloster Meteor & Bell P-59

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm curious as to several things

• Were the huge wings a primary factor in the reasons why the Gloster Meteor F.1's, F.3's, long-winged F.4's, and P-59A's and B's were slow by jet-standards?
  
• Why the Gloster Meteor F.1 through F.3, the long winged F.4's, and the P-59 had such huge wings (Meteor: 43' span, 374 ft² area; P-59B: 45'6" span; 385.8 ft²)?  For the speed they were flying at they didn't need them...
  
• How much internal fuel could the Gloster Meteor F.1 and F.3 carry inside?  (I'm pretty sure they could carry 126 gallons externally in tanks, whether it be US Gallons or UK Gallons)
  
• If the Spitfire could safely pull Mach 0.85 in dives, and actually achieve speeds of Mach 0.891 to 0.94; the P-51 was rated for Mach 0.85 at least: Why did the Meteors (possibly P-59's) have lower mach limits?
  

.
BTW: While somewhat beyond the scope of this, some of Joe Baugher's page list American airplane fuel loads in Imperial Gallons: Did we ever use imperial gallons as a fuel figure, or was that a typo?

[rickshaw]

BTW: While somewhat beyond the scope of this, some of Joe Baugher's page list American airplane fuel loads in Imperial Gallons: Did we ever use imperial gallons as a fuel figure, or was that a typo?

He is quoting his source - more than likely Jane's - directly, I suspect you'll find, Kendra/Robyn...   

[PR19_Kit]

Were the huge wings a primary factor in the reasons why the Gloster Meteor F.1's, F.3's, long-winged F.4's, and P-59A's and B's were slow by jet-standards?

Which jet standards? How many other jets were around at the time to even set a standard? The Me-262 doesn't count here, it had swept wings.

[wuzak]

I'm curious as to several things

• Were the huge wings a primary factor in the reasons why the Gloster Meteor F.1's, F.3's, long-winged F.4's, and P-59A's and B's were slow by jet-standards?
  
• Why the Gloster Meteor F.1 through F.3, the long winged F.4's, and the P-59 had such huge wings (Meteor: 43' span, 374 ft² area; P-59B: 45'6" span; 385.8 ft²)?  For the speed they were flying at they didn't need them...
  
• How much internal fuel could the Gloster Meteor F.1 and F.3 carry inside?  (I'm pretty sure they could carry 126 gallons externally in tanks, whether it be US Gallons or UK Gallons)
  
• If the Spitfire could safely pull Mach 0.85 in dives, and actually achieve speeds of Mach 0.891 to 0.94; the P-51 was rated for Mach 0.85 at least: Why did the Meteors (possibly P-59's) have lower mach limits?
  

.
BTW: While somewhat beyond the scope of this, some of Joe Baugher's page list American airplane fuel loads in Imperial Gallons: Did we ever use imperial gallons as a fuel figure, or was that a typo?

Meteor F.1s had quite low powered engines.

The Bell XP-59 was aerodynamically a dog's breakfast.

The wing span and area were probably required for lifting purposes - especially with the early low powered engines.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

He is quoting his source - more than likely Jane's - directly, I suspect you'll find, Kendra/Robyn...  

Wow, I'm surprised I missed that

When did the US switch from Imperial Gallons to US Gallons?

[wuzak]

rickshaw

He is quoting his source - more than likely Jane's - directly, I suspect you'll find, Kendra/Robyn...  

Wow, I'm surprised I missed that

When did the US switch from Imperial Gallons to US Gallons?

Probably about the same time as it officially adopted the metric system.

[wuzak]

Actually, it was earlier than merication (late 1800s).

The US colonies used the English system of measurements when they were formed.

In 1824 the UK redefined its system into the Imperial weights and measures. The Gallon was redefined in a similar way to the litre was (originally) defined. That is 1 litre was the volume occupied by 1kg of pure water at a stabdard temperature and pressure. The Imperial Gallon was similarly defined as teh volume occupied by 10 pounds of water at a standard temperature and pressure.

Meanwhile, under Jeffereson the US started to standardise units. It was found that there were several different definitions of gallon. In 1832 the US treasury chose the smallest to use for its purposes, aand that became the US standard.

Of course now both the imperial and US gallon are defined by their relationship to the litre.

[sandiego89]

I'm curious as to several things

• Were the huge wings a primary factor in the reasons why the Gloster Meteor F.1's, F.3's, long-winged F.4's, and P-59A's and B's were slow by jet-standards?
  
  

The wing span and area were probably required for lifting purposes - especially with the early low powered engines.

Exactly.  KJ suggest you look at the thrust rating of the engines used by the first versions of the Meteor and the P-59.  Around 1600-1700 pounds of thrust per engine, and empty weights around 8,000 pounds.  Add a few thousand pounds of gas and you have an even worse thrust to weight ratio. They needed lots of wing. The P-59 has a huger, thick wing especially. It was never going to be fast with such a thick wing.   Always marvel at the size and thickness of the wing walking under the on at the Smithsonian.       [/list]

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

Which jet standards?

Admittedly, later standards: Still, many expected 500 miles an hour it would appear -- at least that was the gist I got.


Wuzak

Meteor F.1s had quite low powered engines.

1,700 pounds, later increasing to 2,000 maybe 2,200, or 2,400 right?

The Bell XP-59 was aerodynamically a dog's breakfast.

What aerodynamic qualities made it bad?

The wing span and area were probably required for lifting purposes - especially with the early low powered engines.

I did a little bit of checking and found the following

• The P-59 was built with large thin wings because a lot of area would be good at lower IAS, and thin would be good at high TAS (and probably Mach)
  
• The Meteor I have no idea, but it seems similar logically though it's wings seemed thicker and were smaller in area
  

.
I'm not sure really if this reasoning was good even with the knowledge of the time: You'd have a higher TAS if you could even manage a 400 knot/460 mph cruising speed, you'd be able to outrun all existing planes and so long as your airspeed was equal to existing planes at practical altitudes for cruise, you'd be able to do fine.

Based on the DH Vampire, who's cruise speed was 400 knots

• An indicated airspeed of 286.9 KIAS, and an indicated mach number of 0.664 would be achieved @ 25,000 feet; if the cruise could be held higher (30,000 to 35,000 feet): You would see indicated airspeeds of around 242.7 to 264.25 and indicated Mach numbers of around 0.68 to 0.69
  
• The P-51D in comparison could perform a routine 325 mph (282.4 kts) TAS cruise profile at 10,000 to 25,000 feet, yielding an IAS from 202.5 to 250.5 kts, and an indicated mach number of 0.44 to 0.47; it could also achieve a 395 mph (343.3 kts) high-speed cruise at 25,000 feet, corresponding to an IAS of around 246.17 kts, and an indicated mach number of 0.57
  
• The jet has a higher indicated airspeed for normal cruise (Vampire: 242.7 to 286.9 IAS; P-51D: 202.5 to 250.5), and a higher mach number for cruise (Vampire: 0.664 to 0.69)
  

The higher true airspeeds would allow for the same altitude a higher indicated airspeed and for the same indicated airspeed, a higher altitude: A smaller wing, a thinner wing, or both could be used.

The P-80 did quite well despite having a heavier wing-loading, and around the same T/W Ratio as the P-59.  I'm wondering how much of this was power, and how much was aerodynamics


rickshaw

He is quoting his source - more than likely Jane's - directly, I suspect you'll find, Kendra/Robyn...  

Wow, I'm surprised I missed that

Still, if the US doesn't use these measurements, why did he list them?

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

He is quoting his source - more than likely Jane's - directly, I suspect you'll find, Kendra/Robyn...  

Wow, I'm surprised I missed that

Still, if the US doesn't use these measurements, why did he list them?

Please read what I wrote, again, Kendra/Robyn...   

[wuzak]

Wuzak

Meteor F.1s had quite low powered engines.

1,700 pounds, later increasing to 2,000 maybe 2,200, or 2,400 right?

The Bell XP-59 was aerodynamically a dog's breakfast.

What aerodynamic qualities made it bad?

The wing span and area were probably required for lifting purposes - especially with the early low powered engines.

I did a little bit of checking and found the following

• The P-59 was built with large thin wings because a lot of area would be good at lower IAS, and thin would be good at high TAS (and probably Mach)
  
• The Meteor I have no idea, but it seems similar logically though it's wings seemed thicker and were smaller in area
  

.
I'm not sure really if this reasoning was good even with the knowledge of the time: You'd have a higher TAS if you could even manage a 400 knot/460 mph cruising speed, you'd be able to outrun all existing planes and so long as your airspeed was equal to existing planes at practical altitudes for cruise, you'd be able to do fine.

Based on the DH Vampire, who's cruise speed was 400 knots

• An indicated airspeed of 286.9 KIAS, and an indicated mach number of 0.664 would be achieved @ 25,000 feet; if the cruise could be held higher (30,000 to 35,000 feet): You would see indicated airspeeds of around 242.7 to 264.25 and indicated Mach numbers of around 0.68 to 0.69
  
• The P-51D in comparison could perform a routine 325 mph (282.4 kts) TAS cruise profile at 10,000 to 25,000 feet, yielding an IAS from 202.5 to 250.5 kts, and an indicated mach number of 0.44 to 0.47; it could also achieve a 395 mph (343.3 kts) high-speed cruise at 25,000 feet, corresponding to an IAS of around 246.17 kts, and an indicated mach number of 0.57
  
• The jet has a higher indicated airspeed for normal cruise (Vampire: 242.7 to 286.9 IAS; P-51D: 202.5 to 250.5), and a higher mach number for cruise (Vampire: 0.664 to 0.69)
  

The higher true airspeeds would allow for the same altitude a higher indicated airspeed and for the same indicated airspeed, a higher altitude: A smaller wing, a thinner wing, or both could be used.

The P-80 did quite well despite having a heavier wing-loading, and around the same T/W Ratio as the P-59.  I'm wondering how much of this was power, and how much was aerodynamics

You're talking of cruise speeds of 400mph when the reality was the Meteor F.1 and P-59 barely cracked 400mph flat out in level flight. Wiki lists the P-59 as a maximum 413mph. The F.1 was around the same.

The Trent Meteor was faster - it was an F.1 experimentally fitted with Trent turboprops in 1945.

As for the aerodnamics of the P-59, I believe the air inlets were a big problem.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wuzak

You're talking of cruise speeds of 400mph when the reality was the Meteor F.1 and P-59 barely cracked 400mph flat out in level flight.

My point was if the wings weren't designed so large, the speed could have been increased.  I'd like to point out that the F.4's were reduced to 350 square feet from 374 and profited at least partially from this (though engines helped too).

The FH-1 had a wing loading of around 36.36 lbs/ft^2 where as the P-59 was around 28.6 lbs/ft^2: Both were fairly underpowered (consider the first J31's were producing only around 1400 to 1600 lbf a piece, and the J30's around 1350 apiece at first; later on they increased to 2000 and 1600, though I wouldn't be surprised if the J30 could produce a little more than that)

As for the aerodnamics of the P-59, I believe the air inlets were a big problem.

Okay...

[wuzak]

The FH-1 was also around 1,000lb lighter. Roughly 10% at normal take-off loads, in other words.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I've been looking all over the place and I cannot seem to find the amount of gallons the XP-59A, P-59A, and P-59B carried... I have the empty weights already

From what I've found, the Gloster Meteor F.1 had a fuel-load of around 300 imperial gallons (which if I do my math right, 2168.9165 lbs)

[rickshaw]

Did you try looking here, Kendra/Robyn?