Bell aircraft after the P-39?

[tomo pauk]

The P-39 is accepted by the USAAC as it was historically so; no turbo. What should the Bell company be designing and, hopefully, produce next? All while using the engines and aerodynamics of the day.
Hints: P-63 was meh, the P-59 was a dog, X-5 was more of an experiment than a workable military aircraft. Time frame is 1941-1955.

Note: thread is not about the P-39.

 

[GrauGeist]

Perhaps follow through with the XP-52/XP-59 project?

Though I'd suggest working with the V-1710 instead of fooling around with the XIV-1430. The idea of using the R-2800 *may* have worked, but I suspect cooling issues would have been a constant problem, much like other buried radial projects of the time.

 

[tomo pauk]

The XP-52 begs to be powered by jet engine(s).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A few things, first reality and then to fuel a "what if."

I think Bell as a corporation realized that with the war ending, they needed to go into a different direction to stay in business. They sold off their huge facility in Marietta Georgia to Lockheed and laid off thousands at their Buffalo plant. The P-59 and later XP-83 were busts and brought nothing new to the table. Now Bell did have a niche in the "X" plane development starting with the X-1. I think where Bell failed (or chose not to go) was to use the data and technology from their X programs and successfully bid on contracts offered during the post war years. Now I can be wrong here, it is quite possible that Bell did offer proposals that would have enabled them to continue to build fighter aircraft, but might not have been chosen by the US military.

 

[GrauGeist]

Bell actually went in the right direction during the war, with their Model 30 helicopter.
It had bugs, but by the third prototype, they had the enough experience and data, that Model 30 #3 became the base for their highly successful Model 47.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Bell actually went in the right direction during the war, with their Model 30 helicopter.
It had bugs, but by the third prototype, they had the enough experience and data, that Model 30 #3 became the base for their highly successful Model 47.

Yep - and that's where they sought out a post war niche that, as we know, became highly successful. Unfortunately that business sector was eventually broken off and probably did nothing to support any R&D funding for fixed wing combat aircraft development.

 

[tomo pauk]

An useful P-63, still with same layout:
belt-fed 20mm instead of the 37mm, no wing guns, use the big wing in order to carry more fuel (200 gals minimum).

P-59: it was too big, wing was size of what Me 210/410 had, or ~30% bigger than a P-47. Bigger wing than on the Gloster Meteor by 10%, and by ~60% (!!) greater than on the Me-262. So avoid that blind alley, go with no more than 300 sq ft wing, obviously with the rest of the aircraft sized accordingly.
Or - don't go with two engines, but make something like the Vampire, or an XP-52 powered by jet engine instead of a piston engine. I'm not sure how well the Bell engineers were introduced to the Gloster E.28/39, make a fighter shaped like that one (but with a bigger wing, ~200 sq ft instead of 146).

 

[SaparotRob]

Based solely on anecdotal evidence, I think Bell got a bad rap with the P-59. As I understand it, Bell got the order for the plane without having enough information on the engine.
Joking aside, Bell had the most experience building aircraft with a mid engine layout.

 

[GrauGeist]

Based solely on anecdotal evidence, I think Bell got a bad rap with the P-59. As I understand it, Bell got the order for the plane without having enough information on the engine.
Joking aside, Bell had the most experience building aircraft with a mid engine layout.

That was the demise of the P-59A: Bell was given vague data regarding the engine, basically just enough to make it fit, but no critical data such as thrust-to-weight ratio or dry weight, which would have allowed for airframe weight calculation and related adjustments.

To be honest, the P-59A was an opportunity lost, since it's development to production timeline would have meant that had it been successful, it would have been a contender to engage the Me262 on equal terms in Europe.

 

[tomo pauk]

Bell was given vague data regarding the engine, basically just enough to make it fit, but no critical data such as thrust-to-weight ratio or dry weight

Dave - do we have a good source about what data was Bell supplied with, and when?

 

[MIflyer]

How about this? First concept for the P-59.

 

[SaparotRob]

Might not even need that pesky cabin heater.

 

[GrauGeist]

Dave - do we have a good source about what data was Bell supplied with, and when?

I haven't seen any detailed information on the discussion between Bell and the Army, Tomo.
Most of what I've read were overviews of how the engineers were kept in the dark about exact details of the engine due to the secrecy.

I wonder if perhaps Tony or Callum may have come across any details during their various engine researching?

 

[Aeroweanie]

Bell did land the contract for the X-16, which would have been an operational design, but Lockheed clobbered them with the U-2.

 

[MIflyer]

The Bell company was located fairly close to the GE engine plant and that was a factor in their selection for the P-59.

Lockheed was the first US firm that wanted to build a jet, even before the war started, and wanted to build both the airframe and the engine. The US Govt replied that Lockheed was an airframe manufacturer and needed to stick to what they knew, and had a full plate already. And that was exactly what the German govt told Heinkel and in response the company bought a small engine company, Hirth, just so they could be approved for engine work. Jet engines have a lot more to do with aerodynamics than do piston engines, which is why Sir Stanley Hooker ended up as head of RR jet aircraft engine development. So Lockheed would not have been a bad choice.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

How about this? First concept for the P-59.

View attachment 671360

Ruh-roh, Raggie.

 

[b0ned0me]

They sold off their huge facility in Marietta Georgia to Lockheed

I thought that was a government owned B-29 plant with Bell acting as a hostilities-only management contractor, and Lockheed buying the mothballed factory from the DoD years after Bell got their Dear John from Uncle Sam.

Or have I got my mammoth defense plants mixed up again? The US built so many of the damn things i can't keep them straight.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I thought that was a government owned B-29 plant with Bell acting as a hostilities-only management contractor, and Lockheed buying the mothballed factory from the DoD years after Bell got their Dear John from Uncle Sam.

Or have I got my mammoth defense plants mixed up again? The US built so many of the damn things i can't keep them straight.

You are correct! Lockheed took control of the plant during the early 50s where they were refurbishing B-29s. Later they built B-47s there.

 

[pararaftanr2]

The P-39 is accepted by the USAAC as it was historically so; no turbo. What should the Bell company be designing and, hopefully, produce next? All while using the engines and aerodynamics of the day.
Hints: P-63 was meh, the P-59 was a dog, X-5 was more of an experiment than a workable military aircraft. Time frame is 1941-1955.

Note: thread is not about the P-39.

Helicopters.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The P-39 is accepted by the USAAC as it was historically so; no turbo. What should the Bell company be designing and, hopefully, produce next? All while using the engines and aerodynamics of the day.
Hints: P-63 was meh, the P-59 was a dog, X-5 was more of an experiment than a workable military aircraft. Time frame is 1941-1955.

Note: thread is not about the P-39.

Absolutely nothing with fixed wings.