Aircraft Identification V (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter red admiral
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Yup 
These are too easy for you guys, and to think people were struggling with the L-133 sketch earlier in the thread...
And compared to Bell's competitor's designs, the XP-54 XP-55 and XP-56, the XP-59 might have been the only sucessful one, but I guess we'll never know (in any case it would have likely outperformed the P-59A)... Though it looks like it would have been easy to redesign to a jet using a J-33 or Lisesced Goblin engine, the biggest change would probably have been rasing the tailplane.
These are too easy for you guys, and to think people were struggling with the L-133 sketch earlier in the thread...And compared to Bell's competitor's designs, the XP-54 XP-55 and XP-56, the XP-59 might have been the only sucessful one, but I guess we'll never know (in any case it would have likely outperformed the P-59A)... Though it looks like it would have been easy to redesign to a jet using a J-33 or Lisesced Goblin engine, the biggest change would probably have been rasing the tailplane.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
The Kinner R-5 Playboy
Hmm...Looks like a Fiat RS.14B or AS14 floatplane, or one of the early prototypes (MM.380), but what happened to the nose Kris?!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Basicly like the original XP-59 (not the XP-59A airacomet) but somewhat smaller as it used a 1600 hp Contenental "hyper" engine instead of the 2000 hp "R-2800 double wasp" of the planned XP-59. (a sketch of the XP-59 can be seen on the previous page). Info on XP-52 and XP-59 can be found here: Bell XP-52 Bell P-59 Airacomet (the original xp-59 is metioned at the begining of the second link while the rest is on the Airacomet)
Here's another pic of the XP-59, a wind tunnel model, and the original sketch of what I posted earlier.
Here's another pic of the XP-59, a wind tunnel model, and the original sketch of what I posted earlier.
Attachments
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Nord 1601
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Thanks, I was wondering what that was. Now back to the challenges!
Also the XP-59 isn't exclusively a paper project as it at least got as far as wind-tunnel models and development/prototypes had been ordered by the USAAC but the program was killed off as the XP-59A project got underway.
Another further development (albeit a bit obscure) can be seen in the mock-up below. Anyone want to guess who it was for. (ie. what US military branch or foreign service was it to be used by?)
Also the XP-59 isn't exclusively a paper project as it at least got as far as wind-tunnel models and development/prototypes had been ordered by the USAAC but the program was killed off as the XP-59A project got underway.
Another further development (albeit a bit obscure) can be seen in the mock-up below. Anyone want to guess who it was for. (ie. what US military branch or foreign service was it to be used by?)
Attachments
Matt308
Glock Perfection
I was thinking the same think, Grampa.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
It's another Bell project as I said. (related to the XP-59 as seen in the canopy, nose intake, and 3x .50 cal guns in the boom; opposed to the J-21 design) But can you guess which military/military-branch it was built for? (Hint: not the USAAF)
Glider
Captain
Bell XP-52 built as a guess for the USMC. If it wasn't for the USAAF then it has to be the USMC. I cannot see how that could land on a carrier.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
And that's probably why the Navy dropped it. But the mock-up was for USN.
But it doesn't seen to be that bad as a carrier fighter, wat makes it hard to land (not the tricicle gear as jets have those and in 1945 the FH Phantom did so, so what, the prop position? Though it may have needed 2 arrestor hooks, 1/boom) And it wouldn't have been a version of the XP-52 since 1. the Contenental engine had problems and 2. the navy disliked liquid-cooled engines and the XP-59 was an overall better design.
As I said it was quite obscure and never even reveived a millitary designation, but the original picture clearly states it as a Navy project.
Pic from Air Warfare Forum :: View topic - Bell-XP-59
Still I have to wonder how a jet conversion (J33 or maby a J36 Goblin engine, though the Goblin would better match the smaller/lighter P-52 airframe) of the XP-59 design would hace done, it probably would have required less alterations than the J-21 to J-21R as the R-2800 is larger than the J33 so threr would be ample room. The only major change would have been raising the tailplane above the jet exaust. The XP-59 is also significantly cleaner/sleaker than the J-21. And as said before the original design was the best of its specification, more promising and practical (though still radical) than the XP-54, 55, and 56. It was the only one to have its planned engine available and with a realitively stable airframe (no radically swept wings or tailless designs) and more powerful than the XP-54, and the estimated 450 mph and 950 mi range were none too shabby. (better firepower too) Though it might be pushing it, though if it underperformed with the 2000 hp 2800 ther's always the P-47M/N's 2800 hp model.
But it doesn't seen to be that bad as a carrier fighter, wat makes it hard to land (not the tricicle gear as jets have those and in 1945 the FH Phantom did so, so what, the prop position? Though it may have needed 2 arrestor hooks, 1/boom) And it wouldn't have been a version of the XP-52 since 1. the Contenental engine had problems and 2. the navy disliked liquid-cooled engines and the XP-59 was an overall better design.
As I said it was quite obscure and never even reveived a millitary designation, but the original picture clearly states it as a Navy project.
Pic from Air Warfare Forum :: View topic - Bell-XP-59
Still I have to wonder how a jet conversion (J33 or maby a J36 Goblin engine, though the Goblin would better match the smaller/lighter P-52 airframe) of the XP-59 design would hace done, it probably would have required less alterations than the J-21 to J-21R as the R-2800 is larger than the J33 so threr would be ample room. The only major change would have been raising the tailplane above the jet exaust. The XP-59 is also significantly cleaner/sleaker than the J-21. And as said before the original design was the best of its specification, more promising and practical (though still radical) than the XP-54, 55, and 56. It was the only one to have its planned engine available and with a realitively stable airframe (no radically swept wings or tailless designs) and more powerful than the XP-54, and the estimated 450 mph and 950 mi range were none too shabby. (better firepower too) Though it might be pushing it, though if it underperformed with the 2000 hp 2800 ther's always the P-47M/N's 2800 hp model.
Attachments
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Its a P-63F.
