Gloster Meteor & Bell P-59

[kitnut617]

A lot of the lack of speed problem was the shape of the Mk.I & Mk.III engine nacelle, it cause huge amounts of drag.  But Gloster were already aware of this and used one of the F.9's as a FTB for various nacelle shapes.

This is one of my models I'm building of the F.9's that portray this aircraft (but not yet finished), the nacelle shape affectively added another 100 mph to the aircraft:

.

It was discovered later that the "'whole"" airframe restricted the overall speed of the aircraft to a bit more than 650 mph, and the design didn't go much further.

The work done with this aircraft was later used on the Mk.IV and all later versions of the Meteor. BTW, the prototypes weren't called Meteors, they had a number of code names but according to Tony Buttler's research at Kew, Rampage was used mostly as it appears more often in transcript than others

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw,

I did say I looked all over the place...

... and what I found was basically that the P-59B had 60 gallons more than the P-59A: That tells me almost nothing

[kitnut617]

A lot of info can be found in the Aerofax book called Meteor by Tony Buttler & Phil Butler. Hundreds of photos to look at too.

[sandiego89]

rickshaw,


... and what I found was basically that the P-59B had 60 gallons more than the P-59A: That tells me almost nothing

And the first hit that Rickshaw googled for you has it all:

XP59- standard 570 US gallons (max 870)
p59A- 290 US gallons (max 590)
p59B- 356 US gallons (max 656)

In each case the max gallons is increased by 200 gallons, imagine this is with two 100 gallon external tanks.  A google image search does show most P-59's in clean configuaration, but I did see a few shots of a P-59 with an external tank on each wing outboard the landing gear.  They appear to be in the @100 gallon size.   

http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/xp59.html

Rough rule of thumb weight for JET-A fuel is 6.75 US pounds for each US gallon.  This does vary with specific gravity, fuel type, quality, blend etc.  So up to 5,800 pounds of fuel for our not so mighty P-59.  And no I do not know what specific gravity/type of fuel they used at the time.  

[KJ_Lesnick]

And the first hit that Rickshaw googled for you has it all:

XP59- 870 US gallons
p59A- 590 US gallons
p59B- 656 US gallons

Wait... why did the XP-59A have more than the P-59A and B?

Rough rule of thumb weight for JET-A fuel is 6.75 US pounds for each US gallon.

As I understand it: Avgas was 6.02 lbs/us-gal; JP-4 was 6.55 lbs/us-gal, JP-7 was 6.7 lbs/us-gal, and JP-5 was 6.84 lbs/us-gal.

I don't know what JP-1, -2, and -3 weighed in at though they weren't long lived it appeared.

[sandiego89]

And the first hit that Rickshaw googled for you has it all:

Wait... why did the XP-59A have more than the P-59A and B?

I don't know, perhaps because early XP perfomance was so lackluster that that much fuel(weight) was not realistic?  I modified my entry above a bit. 

[jcf]

XP-59A internal fuel capacity was 290 gals, the base standard for all versions.
YP-59A/P-59A was the same.

Fuel capacity was increased on the P-59B by adding additional tanks in the outer wing panels,
one source sez a 66 gal tank in each wing (132 gal), another claims a total increase of 55 gals,
another shows an increase of 66 gals total.

Two 150 gal tanks could be carried externally, so total on XP-59A/YP-59A/P-59A would be 290 + 300 = 590.

P-59B internal could be 290 + 132 = 422; or 290 + 55 = 345; or 290 + 66 = 356.  
Add 300 to any of the above results for P-59B total, 722 or 645 or 656. Take yer pick.  

The 870 number is listed against the XP-59A in a stats chart in the book The American Fighter by Enzo Angelucci with Pete Bowers,
and frankly I think it's a typo, and the book is itself not a very reliable source.  

Note that the numbers I've used all come from books I have on my shelves, not a web search.

[sandiego89]

Nice research Jon, funny how sources can differ...I pulled a few of mine off the shelf as well and have nothing to add.

I have a soft spot for the P-59 even though it is ugly, underpowered and by all accounts a flop.  Love the photos with the dummy propellor at Muroc.  Something about those early jets.....

[wuzak]

Fuel capacity was increased on the P-59B by adding additional tanks in the outer wing panels,
one source sez a 66 gal tank in each wing (132 gal), another claims a total increase of 55 gals,
another shows an increase of 66 gals total.

Joe Baugher has in increase between the P-59A and B of 55 Imperial Gallons, which is 66 US Gallons.

The twenty-first and remaining twenty-nine Airacomets of the P-59A order were completed as P-59Bs. Serials were 44-22629/22658. They had the uprated J31-GE-5 jets of the later P-59As, but had internal fuel capacity increased by 55 Imp gall. Maximum range was increased to 950 miles. Empty weight of the P-59B was increased to 8165 pounds and normal and maximum loaded weights were 11,049 pounds and 13,700 pounds respectively. The last P-59B was delivered in May of 1945.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p59.html

[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?

Here is a data sheet for the Meteor F.III.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor3ads.jpg

It states that the internal fuel was 330 Imp. Gallons.

Note also the take-off over a 50ft obstacle - 1,000 yards. For comparison, the chart for a Spitfire XIV

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV-ads.jpg

shows the same take-off is 590 yards. Remembering that the Spitfire XIV coudl not use anywhere near full power for take-off due to torque reaction and narrow undercarriage.

[rickshaw]

rickshaw,


... and what I found was basically that the P-59B had 60 gallons more than the P-59A: That tells me almost nothing

And the first hit that Rickshaw googled for you has it all

Sssh!  I was hoping she/he/them/it would work it out for themselves!   

[KJ_Lesnick]

JCF

XP-59A internal fuel capacity was 290 gals, the base standard for all versions.  YP-59A/P-59A was the same.

Okay, I computed this out and got a fully fueled weight of 9065.8 lbs for the XP-59A, and an armed weight of 9269.1 lbs based on a crude estimate of belt link ammo, and known weight of projectiles (M-4).

290 gallons of fuel is 1745.8 lbs @ 6.02 lbs/gal
345 gallons of fuel is 2076.9 lbs @ 6.02 lbs/gal
356 gallons of fuel is 2143.12 lbs @ 6.02 lbs/gal
422 gallons of fuel is 2540.44 lbs @ 6.02 lbs/gal

300 gallons (drop tanks) is 1806 lbs


wuzak

Thanks!

[NeoConShooter]

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? Yes!
  
• 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... To reduce landing and take off speeds and increase the safety of engine out opps.
  
• 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? The P-51 was IIRC, rated at less than Mach 0.85, actually around 0.76, again, IIRC. As to your questions, there are so many other factors that naming any one as the culprit would be silly.
  

.
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?

There are so many factors involved in these questions that there is no simple, or even several simple answers to them. The Spitfire was a hugely over rated aircraft because of it's effects on the Battle of Britain. But closer examination shows that the hurricane did most of the heavy lifting in that battle, but got none of the good publicity! I know that this last sentence will start a fire storm of controversy, but I can prove my points if I have to.

[jcf]

Joe Baugher's site is a series of 'articles' based on published resources, some sections are copied verbatim.
He lists his references on each page.

His American Military Aircraft pages are not, nor are they intended to be, an 'authoritative' source, the
pages are a decent quickie reference, but are best used as a starting point for further research.

The use of Imperial Gallons in some entries means the info came from a British source.

[kitnut617]

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

It's a well known fact  ---- also a well known fact, there was nearly three times as many Hurricanes as there were Spitfires so not much of a surprise that they were used more than the Spitfire. Another well known fact, the Hurricane didn't perform very well at high altitude --- which was the Spitfires domain ---