Best World War II Aircraft?

[evangilder]

Absolutely. There was an often underrated pioneering aspect in the aviation world of the mid 40´s.
I personally tend to think that the Bell P 59 Airacobra could have been what the allies needed. It has an excellent thrust-to weight ratio, a common type wing configuration and layout, a decent, fuselage mounted gun array. The only thing it lacks was speed. A thinner wing and proper aerodynamic engine shildings could do the job.

I disagree. The P-59 was a dog. It did not meet what was called for in terms of specification. It did however pave the way for jets for the US. You may want to read up Joe Baugher's article on the P-59:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p59.html

The performance of this aircraft wasn't even a match for the modern piston powered fighters of the day, so it would likely have not done well in combat.

 

[delcyros]

Nice article, thanks a lot.
I do not think that the P-59A/B would have been crap with better engines. By late 1944 at earliest, this plane could have seen service over europe. Engine layout allows for an easy replacement (image 2 Ghost engines) and the psychological factor that the allies also had a jet is not to underestimate.
Other than piston A/C, the jet´s can keep top speed for a much longer time, that´s good to intercept V-1. The speed lag is worrisome but this remains on aerodynamic worse designed nacelles and the engines itself. By then a good jet engine was simply missed everywhere, not just in Germany alone.
Imagine a P-59 (C) with 2 1500 lbs jet engines and drop tanks. Excellent powerload, thrust to weight ratio, time to altitude and roll rate are expected.

 

[syscom3]

By the time the P59 would have had better engines, the P80 would be available.

 

[delcyros]

I stress the opposite, Syscom. Engines were avaiable in mid 44, when the P-80 was in preliminary prototype stage. The P59 would have been avaiable by then.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im with delycos on this however I disagree that it would have been better with better engines. Larger engines mean more weight which in turn effects the performance of an allready sluggish aircraft.

 

[delcyros]

In general, yes. But in this specific case: no.
The reason lays down in the technical advance by 1942-44 in the jet tech. departement. The early jet engines to fit Meteor-III and XP-59 were based on the Welland engines with reversed flow. This made the engines comparably heavy. The Ghost engine of 1942 and the GE J 33 had direct flow, thus increasing the thrust output while in the meantime reducing the weight fuel consumption considerably. That and the fact that the P59 B with direct flow engines (not J-33 sadly) had such a superior thrust to weight ratio (> 0.32, which is better than either P-80, Meteor-III, He-162, Ar-234 and Me-262) makes me think it could have been a decent jet fighter. Not as fast as a Me-262 but more maneuverable, avaiable in numbers, with excellent acceleration, good turning abilities (at least for a 1st gen. jet), excellent climb and more than a match for german piston A/C and Ar-234 / Me-262 jet bomber.

 

[evangilder]

You are basing that on a number of assumptions though. Was the airframe designed for higher powered engines? Could it have handled manuevering at the higher speeds? You have to remember that the US was behind the Germans and the Brits and were the last of the three to even try their hand at building a jet engine and airframe. Both the Germans and Brits were already flying jets before the US even built one. The P-59 was a good start into the jet age, but I think you are making it out to be a better aircraft than it really was.

 

[syscom3]

I stress the opposite, Syscom. Engines were avaiable in mid 44, when the P-80 was in preliminary prototype stage. The P59 would have been avaiable by then.

Remember that General Electric was having a terrible time building the engines in enough numbers.

 

[delcyros]

You are correct but GE had the basic tooling level to finally solve this problem. Indeed the US was superior in this field and paved the way for allied jet engine mass production. I admit that many assumptions are given and the final outcome -strongly hypothetic- is somehow questionable. The P-59 wouldn´t have been a world beater but I tend to think it just got not the credit it desires. I might be wrong, true.

 

[syscom3]

You are correct but GE had the basic tooling level to finally solve this problem. ......

.

The had the tooling but couldnt get the engine design to work reliabily. The problems were eventually solved.

As in any racical new design, you just cant push technology and not expect delays or problems.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Exactly something the Germans had to deal with the whole time.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

using the P-59 offered no advantage over high-performance piston engined fighters, it'd be less reliable, consume more fuel and need more pilot training at a time when America was shitting out pilots, 413mph and 240miles range (P-59A, increased in the B)? what'd be the point, where the hell would she even fight? she'd have to be right on the front and the americans proberly weren't willing to base new technology like that right at the front, if for no other reason because the Germans would just laugh at it, given they were so far ahead, and seriously, who puts a 37mm in a fighter in 1945?

 

[delcyros]

Only Bell and some soviet ground attack A/C. As I pointed out, the development of the P-59 was abandoned to early to give conclusions about it´s potential. The-B with J-31 GE 5 had a top speed of ~450 mp/h and a range of ~ 440 miles at medium altitude (~650 miles at high altitude and economic cruise if we include the time to climb) Put some drop tanks on it, and some aerodynamic cleaning of the engine nacelles and You get a P-59 [C] doing some 480 mp/h with 600 miles medium alt range (~850 at altitude) in mid 1944. Improve the J-31 engines a little further and 500 mp/h are at least possible.
The rapid development of the P-80 renders these thoughts hypothetical.
The nose configuration allowed for an easy gunnery redesign. I am pretty confident that the airframe could handle the weight and recoil of a P-38´s armement. The 37 mm truly is a silly weapon. For some mysterious reasons must have been liked by Bell.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not sure but didn't the P-80 or was it the P-59 nose that was based off of the P-38's anyhow?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not sure but didn't the P-80 or was it the P-59 nose that was based off of the P-38's anyhow?

The P-80's nose was a P-38's nose upside down...

I think the wing tips and stabilizer tips are the same as well..

 

[syscom3]

Flyboy, wasnt the shape of the nose and inlets one of the non-engine related causes for the delays in the P80 program?

I could have sworn that there was an issue with the shape of the nose that produced turbulent flow around the engine inlets.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboy, wasnt the shape of the nose and inlets one of the non-engine related causes for the delays in the P80 program?

I could have sworn that there was an issue with the shape of the nose that produced turbulent flow around the engine inlets.

That's why the turned it upside down...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-80's nose was a P-38's nose upside down...

I think the wing tips and stabilizer tips are the same as well..

Thanks that is exactly what I thought.

 

[Pete57]

I don't agree with the statement that the P-80 cannot be considered a WW 2 plane based on the fact that it did not fly any combat missions.
Indeed I still have not been able to find details of the operations with the 1st FG, but we cannot flatly rule out the possibility that a more 'active' role was not tried.

It appears that the Allied Headquarter were extremely cautious in preventing their new technology from falling into the wrong hands, and initially ordered the RAF's Gloster Meteors to fly missions that were 'away' from the frontlines.
Later on, when it had become clear that the Luftwaffe was a spent force, this order was partly lifted, but the Allies were all along extremely careful to keep the Meteors from falling into Soviet hands, as it was becoming clear who the next 'enemy' was soon going to be.

The deployment of the 1st FG YP-80As, to airfields further north, would have given them the possibility of intercepting the Arado 234s of the Kommando Sommer, that were regularly reconnoitering the Allied lines, without the risk of YPs falling into German hands: indeed a hypothetical scenario, but one that cannot be right away dismissed, especially when one considers the odd coincidence of the beginning of the 1st FG involvement with the Shooting Star, only weeks after the appearance of the Arados over the Allied lines.

If we consider WW 2 aircraft only those that, albeit delivered to more or less operational units, did not take part in actual combat missions we have to leave out such outstanding aircraft as the Dornier 335, the Focke Wulf Ta-154 to quote some.

I consider the Douglas C-47 one of the greatest aircraft not just of WW 2, but also of Korea, Vietnam and many other large and small conflicts, too many in numbers to list and it is an undisputable fact that it dominated its role.

If this post was 'Greatest WW II Aircraft' then I would agree with Glider, although many could claim the title for such airplanes as the B-29 that with only two, single missions brought the conflict to a grinding halt, but this post is 'BEST Aircraft of WW II'.

Perhaps it is just too easy to think of fighters as THE decisive weapon of the war, they are fast and nimble, they wreck havoc amongst the enemy aircraft, fighters and bombers alike, they are flown by flamboyant men, sometimes too cocky, arrogant and over confident; perhaps their exploits overshadow those of the lumbering bombers and transport planes, but it is a fact that no bombs could be carried over a target, and no army could be replenished from the air and protected from enemy attacks without the air superiority which is a fighter pilot's job to gain, and – yes – the jet propulsion was the way ahead for the fighters, even in WW II, as later conflicts were to prove.

The P-80's merits and shortcomings can be compared also against the He-162, the Gloster Meteor, and the Vampire (I have already compared it to the Me-262)

With a maximum speed of 562mph (904kph) at 19,500ft (6,000mt), the Salamander was probably faster than the P-80A at medium altitudes, but that is about the only area where the 162 had an edge. Conversely, the aircraft was troubled by many other problems the worst of them being an incredibly short endurance – about 30 minutes – that claimed the life of at least two operational pilots, and a vicious intolerance to maneuvers that involved abrupt rudder input (not an infrequent occurrence in a dogfight) that claimed, amongst others, the life of a RAF pilot testing the aircraft in England, after the end of the hostilities.
To Heinkel's credit, these problems stemmed from a hasty development of the machine following the Luftwaffe's urge to put it into operational service as soon as possible.

The 'longer nacelle' Meteor IIIs were designated by Gloster G.41Es
Early in the Meteor's development program, Gloster had realized that the aircraft was speed penalized by aerodynamic parasite-drag the tests revealing that the original short and 'fat' nacelles were responsible for that.
Consequently, the nacelles of one of the F.Mk.Is - serialled EE211/G and fitted with Power Jets W2/700 engines, each delivering about 2000lb (900kg) of static thrust - were modified.
At first (November 1944) only the front portion was stretched, but later on (March 1945), following the promising results thus far achieved, the rear portion was stretched as well.
It was determined that the total modification afforded the aircraft a 60mph (97kph) speed gain at sea level.
This modification was applied on the production line of the Meteor F.Mk.III, to the last 15 example then built, but several of the earlier production aircraft were later on converted by means of kits.
The maximum speed range of the short-nacelle, Derwent I engined Meteor – the G.41Ds – varied between 458mph (737kph) at sea level and 465mph (748kph) at 25,000ft (7600ft), as determined by the tests, between February and March 1945, conducted by one the F.Mk.Is, serial DG223/G and fitted with two Rolls Royce W.2B/37 – the Derwent I prototypes.
In turn, the maximum speed of the long nacelle F.Mk.III, is quoted as being 486mph (782kph) at sea level and 493mph (793kph) at 30,000ft (9100mt): a good improvement but still short of the P-80A's performance.

Compared to the P-80A, the Meteor's roll-rate was penalized by the wing mounted pods, and by its 'aileron heaviness', that Gloster had intentionally designed into the Mk.III in order to prevent the airframe's overstressing, this more than offseting the Meteor's maneuvering advantage given by its incredibly low wing load (38% lower than the P-80A's).
As well, the Shooting Star showed a 15 % higher initial climb rate and a slightly higher (2%) ceiling.

CONTINUED...

 

[Pete57]

...CONTINUED FROM MY PREVIOUS POST.

The De Havilland Vampire flew about six months after the Gloster Meteor, and until the introduction of the Meteor's MK.IV variant, the Vampire displayed superior performances.
I have always wondered what made the British Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP) favor Gloster's design over De Havilland's.
Could 6 months really matter that much or was it rather a case of political meddling?
Not only the Vampire offered better overall performances, but it was also simpler, cheaper and faster to produce, and the airframe and the engine were produced by the same company thus easing the critical exchange of information, needed in the design and development stage, between the airframe and the engine manufacturers.
The higher performing Vampire could have been delivered sooner and in greater number to the operational units.
Some claim that the beginning of its production had to be postponed due to the Meteor's prioritization and especially De Havilland's own commitment with the Mosquito production, this problem eventually leading, in 1945, to designating a second production source: the English Electric Company, at Preston.
I believe, this could have already been done as early as 1944 when the tests at Boscombe Down were already showing the Vampire's superiority over the Meteor IIIs!

Praised by all those who flew it, the DH100 was in many ways similar to the German He-162 (both designs were very simple and aimed at using non-strategic materials)
One negative trait the Vampire F.MK.I, shared with its German counterpart was a very short endurance, also in the order of 30 minutes, on internal fuel only; unlike the Salamander, though the De Havilland design allowed the fitting of drop tanks under the wings that in part solved the problem.

The P-80's prototype – the XP-80 – and the Vampire's – the E.6/41 – were powered by the same turbojet, the Halford H.1A, later designated the De Havilland Goblin 1.
It should be noticed that, even though the higher weight of the XP-80 made it underpowered with this engine, both aircraft reached a similar speed, about 500mph (800kph), showing a more aerodynamic design on the XP-80 side.

The Vampire's wing-load was some 4% lower than the P-80's but the latter's hydraulically assisted ailerons may have offset this slight advantage.
With a speed of 530mph (855kph) at sea level, the Vampire F.Mk.I was slightly slower than the P-80A, that reached at the same altitude, a speed of 558mph (898kph), the Shooting Star had a slightly better initial climb rate – 4580fpm against the Vampire's 4375fpm – and enjoyed a 5000ft (1500mt) advantage in ceiling.

So far as the turbulent flow around the P-80 inlets is concerned, this had nothing to do with the aircraft nose section's shape, but rather with the relatively slow boundary layer around the fuselage 'stagnating' inside the air intakes themselves.
The phenomenon was called 'duct rumble' and at times it could be clearly heard by observers on the ground.
In order to investigate it, Kelly Johnson rode 'piggy back' on one flight with either Milo Burcham or Tony LeVier at the controls, and he correctly diagnosed the cause.
The problem was corrected with the installation of so called 'splitter plates' that removed the boundary layer from within the air intakes and vented it out thru some slots in the upper and lower portion of the intakes themselves.
This fix was introduced sometimes in the P-80A-1's production, but some previous aircraft (one of the two XP-80As and the XF-14 prototype, off the top of my head) were fitted with hand-made specimens that were of slightly different shape.

The Bell P-59 Airacomet.
Unlike the first jets of Germany and England, that were designed mainly as engine test beds, Bell designed America's first jet, from the beginning as a fighter, with the equipment and armament to perform this task.
The choice of the Bell Aircraft Company, may seem questionable as they had no real experience in the design of high performance fighter, although their P-39 Airacobra, was turned into a dog by the AAF decision to remove the turbocharger from the production versions to achieve an aerodynamically cleaner design.
The company's lack of involvement in any major project at the time and their close location to the engine factory, being probably major, contributing factors.
The P-59's 37mm cannon armament, probably also reflected the company's previous experience and its later versions – the M-9 and M-10, fitted on the P-63 – were more than decent guns.
If I remember correctly, most of the Airacomet's drag related problems lay in the excessive wing thickness and in the wing/air intake interaction. I believe that, short of a radical re-design, the aircraft - that in its original configuration was slightly inferior, in performances, to the Gloster Meteor F.Mk. I - would always have been inferior to the Meteor F.Mk.III and following versions, the Meteor being indeed an aerodynamically cleaner design.
One field where the P-59 was outperforming any other jet of the time, was the maximum ceiling it could reach, with one aircraft setting an unofficial record of 47,600ft (45,512mt), thanks to its generous wing surface and consequently low wing loading.
Perhaps, it could have been used in a role similar to that of the Lockheed U-2, over a decade later, by replacing its armament with a set of cameras, but then again, would it have been immune from interceptions by the Me-163?

Bell had already designed a completely new aircraft – the XP-59B – that of the original design maintained only the designation; unfortunately for them, the AAF had already decided to put America's jet fighter's future into the capable hands of Loockheed Aircraft Company: the rest – as they say – is history!

Later still, Bell submitted a new proposal for a long range jet escort fighter - the P-83.
This was the Airacomet's 'big brother' with a similar configuration, but with a thinner wing, and more streamlined jet pods that housed two J-33 turbojets (the same engine that powered the P-80) and it was eventually to receive an armament of six of the new T17E3, .60cal. heavy machine-guns.
Except for a greater range, the aircraft showed no improvement over the P-80 and following the construction of two prototypes, one of which used for ram-jet development work, any further development was abandoned, thus ending Bell's involvement with fixed-wing aircraft design and production business.

My apologies for a long post.

Regards.