I think the
Yakovlev Yak-25 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was the last fighter (albeit an interceptor) with outboard nacelle-mounted engines.
Yakovlev Yak-25 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also the Me 262 was considered in having wing-root buried engines (a design incorporated in the HG III, somewhat similar to the P-59A's layout, albeit much more streamlined) but the external surfaces of 004's got too hot for this placement iirc, and required regular maintenance which nacelle placement facilitated.
The original concept of the 262's design was to have engines that were far smaller than those that developed (closest was the HeS-30, 006) and were to be mid-mounted in the wing, similar to the Meteor, but much smaller.
I'm not sure where Soren is getting this info on the 262's agility, and that comparison he sites is insubstanciated and possibly a comparison to the original Goblin-(under)powered XP-80 (2,400 lbf); a completely different design (the L140) of which only one prototype was made (now at the NASM adjacent to a Me 262 and FH Phantom), the XP-80A (L141) was a drastic improvement in aerodynamics (more streamlined with rounded wing and tail tips and thin "knife edge" wings), technology, and performance. Pluss that "comparison" he sites doesn't even say the 262 is more maneuverable, only faster and with better acceleration, climb, and crit. Mach number. (which it certainly would compared to the XP-80 which barely broke 500 mph and had fairly thick wings and low thrust/weight)
Though I certainly don't agree with Geezer either, the Me 262 was certainly viable! And it had flown with 004A's nearly 3 years before the original XP-80 (though only months prior to the rather poor, as it was, XP-59A) But the 262 had been in development since late 1939! The major problem was the engines, a problem exacerbated by the cancelation of Heinkel's class-1 engine designs. Otherwise the 262 (and/or the He 280) could have been in production by early 9943 and in active service by the end of that year.
And though .50's were certainly better for dogfighting than Mk 108's (note: this is a 30mm weapon, not 37mm as was wrongly stated, a 30mm shell is ~1/2 the size of a 37mm) the rof of the M2 was only ~20% higher so this would result in less firepower lead-wise. The reason for the superiority is the higher velocity and better ballistics, as well as the higher volume of fire. Mk 103's would be good but were heavier, slower firing, and with a much higher recoil. Personaly the Brits 4x 20mm Hispano Mk V cannons were one of the best of the war. The MG 151/20 was good, but with a lower muzzel velocity, ROF, and poorer ballistic shape. The best dogfighting gun of the war was probably the 15mm MG 151/15, with high ROF (comperable to the M2), excelent ballisics, very high Muzzel velocity (considderably more than the M2 BMG) with the very powerful 15mm round. Immagine a Me 262 sporting 6 of those! Even the faster-firing M3 machine gun was of limited use in Korea, while still quite powerful, was virtually inaffective aganst almost every part of a Mig 15, except the engine. 20mm cannons or .60 calliber guns (incedentaly, developed from the MG 151/15, but with similarly improved ROF to the M3) would have been a better choice fot the ASAF fighters.
One interesting thing though, is that the US has dever used fighters with outboard jet engines. The P-59 had the nacelles half-burried in the fusalage into the wing-roots. The Navy's FH Phantom and F2H Banshee had the engines burried in the wing-roots.
And about the LE slats, they were generaly retracted at high speeds, even often in maneuvers, but durring hard turns the LE of the wing would loose pressure, allowing the slats to extend, so turning would have been marginally improved by them.
One thing the P-80 had (again absent in the YP-80A) was air-breaks, this was an obvious advantage on the Me 262...