Mistakes in Aviation
- Thread starter Flyboy2
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Joe, you strike me as a knowledgeable man on many matters, including aviation metallurgy.
My eldest brother is a metallurgist (with Alcoa in Moscow) and he once told me that 'pure' stainless steel is non-magnetic. I don't know what he meant by pure, but I'm guessing that there are many grades of stainless steel. I've tried a magnet on artery forceps and other surgical stainless steel, and it sticks hard, but no adherence to stainless steel plumbing fixtures.
Why don't magnets work on some stainless steels?: Scientific American
I remember reading that the Bristol 188 and XB-70 were of stainless steel construction and required new welding techniques. Is this because there's no ferrous content in the stainless steel used in aviation? Apart from heat and water resistance, what other advantages would stainless steel have in aviation? Would the Valkyrie have been magnetic?
Now this is way off track, but I have to ask, (and may regret it) what's meant by "If it's red or dusty, don't touch it!" above your siggy? I've been meaning to ask you for some time now and have always assumed that it's related to OH&S in the aircraft maintenance industry?
But after watching this film...
...there could be a completely non-aviation meaning to "don't touch the red dust"...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Joe, you strike me as a knowledgeable man on many matters, including aviation metallurgy.
My eldest brother is a metallurgist (with Alcoa in Moscow) and he once told me that 'pure' stainless steel is non-magnetic. I don't know what he meant by pure, but I'm guessing that there are many grades of stainless steel. I've tried a magnet on artery forceps and other surgical stainless steel, and it sticks hard, but no adherence to stainless steel plumbing fixtures.
Why don't magnets work on some stainless steels?: Scientific American
I remember reading that the Bristol 188 and XB-70 were of stainless steel construction and required new welding techniques. Is this because there's no ferrous content in the stainless steel used in aviation? Apart from heat and water resistance, what other advantages would stainless steel have in aviation? Would the Valkyrie have been magnetic?
Now this is way off track, but I have to ask, (and may regret it) what's meant by "If it's red or dusty, don't touch it!" above your siggy? I've been meaning to ask you for some time now and have always assumed that it's related to OH&S in the aircraft maintenance industry?
But after watching this film...
...there could be a completely non-aviation meaning to "don't touch the red dust"...
Thanks for the complement Graeme. Yes, Stainless steel is non-magnetic. The biggest advantage in using it in aircraft is its anti corrosive properties. It is weldable but it requires a "technique." I actually did some stainless steel welding when I was in A P school many years ago, and lastly aircraft like the B-70 and Bristol 188 were probably non-magnetic. Keep in mind that several other alloys would of been used in their construction.
No my siggy - yes, it applies to aviation. This refers to being in the cockpit with out a full grasp of all the instruments and controls. If one sees something red, its assumed it for an emergency - if someone sees something dusty its assumed it hasn't been used for a while, hence the "red or dusty" warning.
Gotcha! Makes perfect sense now. Thanks.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Speaking of that, they color code the items in the B-25s that fly today like that. When climbing in, they tell you "Grab the yellow, not the red handles" . Same idea. They are very near each other if you are going in the door near the front of the airplane too.
Hello FLYBOY,
You seem to be very versed on flight topics, therefore I would like to forward the following question to you, even if it might sound dumb to you and this thread could also be the wrong one:
How did the Allied Bomber crews prevent shooting down or at their own bombers? If I imagine 20-40 machineguns firing at a Luftwaffe a/c that dived through their formation, was there a regulation like; no fire at less than 200 or 400m range?
Off course I don't mind any other forum member to help me on this question.
Regards
Kruska
You seem to be very versed on flight topics, therefore I would like to forward the following question to you, even if it might sound dumb
to you and this thread could also be the wrong one:How did the Allied Bomber crews prevent shooting down or at their own bombers? If I imagine 20-40 machineguns firing at a Luftwaffe a/c that dived through their formation, was there a regulation like; no fire at less than 200 or 400m range?
Off course I don't mind any other forum member to help me on this question.
Regards
Kruska
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Hello FLYBOY,
You seem to be very versed on flight topics, therefore I would like to forward the following question to you, even if it might sound dumb
How did the Allied Bomber crews prevent shooting down or at their own bombers? If I imagine 20-40 machineguns firing at a Luftwaffe a/c that dived through their formation, was there a regulation like; no fire at less than 200 or 400m range?
Off course I don't mind any other forum member to help me on this question.
Regards
Kruska
Thanks Kruska!
And thank you for the compliment...
I've asked to question to a few B-17 and B-24 gunners I've met over the years. For the most part they told me it was actually pretty easy to avoid hitting another aircraft while in formation as gunners were taught to fire in very short burst. A gunner could expend all the ammo from his position in a matter of seconds so everything was done short and sparingly. Additionally radio communication was critical as well so the "box" knew when they were being attacked and from what direction.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
And stainless steel can be ferromagnetic depending on the type.
Both Iron and Nickel are ferromagnetic in pure form, Chromium is not, but certain alloys of iron (in this case with nickel) can form the non-ferro-magnetic austenitic iron matrix. Austenite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most produced stainless steels are austenitic, but many common stainless alloys are magnetic, and even the austenitic alloys may be very weakly ferromagnetic due to the nickel content. Most high quality stainless cutlery will be nonmagnetic, but often cheaper types will be magnetic and often more prone to corrosion. Stainless steel used on appliances is also often magnetic as are stainless steel plate/sheet often found in hardware stores. Must stainless steel used for knives and cutting tools will also be ferro-magnetic.
See: Stainless steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both Iron and Nickel are ferromagnetic in pure form, Chromium is not, but certain alloys of iron (in this case with nickel) can form the non-ferro-magnetic austenitic iron matrix. Austenite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most produced stainless steels are austenitic, but many common stainless alloys are magnetic, and even the austenitic alloys may be very weakly ferromagnetic due to the nickel content. Most high quality stainless cutlery will be nonmagnetic, but often cheaper types will be magnetic and often more prone to corrosion. Stainless steel used on appliances is also often magnetic as are stainless steel plate/sheet often found in hardware stores. Must stainless steel used for knives and cutting tools will also be ferro-magnetic.
See: Stainless steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I worked as a machinist for a company that made equipment for the fishing and food processing industries, so we used a lot of various grades of stainless steel (SS) and aluminum. The various alloys have differing properties, including hardness, malleabilty, toughness, corrosion resistance, etc. The non-magnetic SSs are generally more corrosion-resistant and higher priced.
The most common welding techniques for both metals are known as TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) and MIG (Metal Inert Gas). Both metals will burn at high heat levels, so an inert gas (usually argon) is sprayed over the welding focus to exclude oxygen. With TIG, the welding rod is hand-held, while MIG guns contain a roll of wire which feeds automatically. TIG is for more delicate work.
Incidentally, I have my great-grandfather's Model '95 (Made in '98 ) Winchester in .35 caliber...and it's stainless nickel steel. 110 years, and no rust yet!
The most common welding techniques for both metals are known as TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) and MIG (Metal Inert Gas). Both metals will burn at high heat levels, so an inert gas (usually argon) is sprayed over the welding focus to exclude oxygen. With TIG, the welding rod is hand-held, while MIG guns contain a roll of wire which feeds automatically. TIG is for more delicate work.
Incidentally, I have my great-grandfather's Model '95 (Made in '98 ) Winchester in .35 caliber...and it's stainless nickel steel. 110 years, and no rust yet!
Hi buzzard,
Been stick welding for years (backyard) and have always been frustrated with burning 'holes' in thin metal despite using low amps and even 1.6mm rods. I have been procrastinating about buying a small a MIG welder for some time now but know next to nothing about them. I can't justify a huge expenditure but my question is when there around 100amps is there much 'quality' in them?
Or is my arc welding technique the problem? (self taught).
Looking at something like this. How many amps do you need to weld aluminium?
(PS, tick the "disable smilies in text" - will solve your problem above)
Been stick welding for years (backyard) and have always been frustrated with burning 'holes' in thin metal despite using low amps and even 1.6mm rods. I have been procrastinating about buying a small a MIG welder for some time now but know next to nothing about them. I can't justify a huge expenditure but my question is when there around 100amps is there much 'quality' in them?
Or is my arc welding technique the problem? (self taught).
Looking at something like this. How many amps do you need to weld aluminium?
(PS, tick the "disable smilies in text" - will solve your problem above)
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
You might want to think of using Flux-cored arc welding. (also called "innershield welding" Uses a set-up like MIG, but uses flux cored wire without the need for sheilding gas, so the set-up is a bit simpler. You will have to chip away slag, and there's quite a bit of spatter like with stick welding though. It's also cheaper and small 110 V machines are common.
Another thing for stick welding is not only the amparage and size of rod, but also the type of rod and current. A low penetration (fast fill, or dummy rod) rtype rod (generally touched to the surface instead of held just above) will help, and make a cleaner, nicer looking weld. (and is easier to use) Also if you have a DC set-up you could use a low penetration arrangement with the ground as the - lead and the electrode +. (thus the arc will be "eating" into the sitick rather than the plate)
But neither is as good as MIG for thin plate, and MIG is also a lot better than them for stainless or aluminum welding)
MIG vs. Flux-Cored: Which Welding Process Is Right for You? | Lincoln Electric
and some welding rod info http://www.mylincolnelectric.com/Catalog/consumableseries.aspx?browse=104|2030| WELDING ELECTRODES
Another thing for stick welding is not only the amparage and size of rod, but also the type of rod and current. A low penetration (fast fill, or dummy rod) rtype rod (generally touched to the surface instead of held just above) will help, and make a cleaner, nicer looking weld. (and is easier to use) Also if you have a DC set-up you could use a low penetration arrangement with the ground as the - lead and the electrode +. (thus the arc will be "eating" into the sitick rather than the plate)
But neither is as good as MIG for thin plate, and MIG is also a lot better than them for stainless or aluminum welding)
MIG vs. Flux-Cored: Which Welding Process Is Right for You? | Lincoln Electric
and some welding rod info http://www.mylincolnelectric.com/Catalog/consumableseries.aspx?browse=104|2030| WELDING ELECTRODES
I wish I could help you, Graeme, but I was a machinist. I played around with MIG and TIG, but the welders set it up for me, so what I wrote is pretty much the extant of my welding knowledge. It looks like KK89 would be much more help than me...
I have known a few people who bought small Mig/TIG machines, and seemed happy with them, but that was a few years ago, and I don't remember the details. Geez, I'm no help at all
Thanks for the 'disabling' info.
JL
I have known a few people who bought small Mig/TIG machines, and seemed happy with them, but that was a few years ago, and I don't remember the details. Geez, I'm no help at all
Thanks for the 'disabling' info.
JL
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I took an ROP welding class my Jr year in high school (2 years ago), I mostly worked with stick arc welders (we usually just called "arc" welding, opposed to MIG or TIG). That's what I got a cirtificate for. I also got some info from my middle school shop teacher.
Also TIG set-ups tend to be expensive, and require a bit more skill to operate. (uses an arc torch held in one hand and operated with a foot pedal to heat metal, while you feed a welding rod in by hand, somewhat like gas welding, but it produses very high quality welds and can be used on almost any metal well, steels, stainless, high alloy steels, copper, nickel, magnesium, aluminum, bronze/other coper alloys)
But another thing, for welding relatively thin steel you might want to consider a gas welding (oxy-acetylene or oxy-MAPP/Propylene) which small set-ups are reasonably priced and work well on such thin metals, but it is a slower process and again requires more technique than "Arc" or MIG (or innershield). And there's the gas refill costs.
But we've gone way off topic.
Also TIG set-ups tend to be expensive, and require a bit more skill to operate. (uses an arc torch held in one hand and operated with a foot pedal to heat metal, while you feed a welding rod in by hand, somewhat like gas welding, but it produses very high quality welds and can be used on almost any metal well, steels, stainless, high alloy steels, copper, nickel, magnesium, aluminum, bronze/other coper alloys)
But another thing, for welding relatively thin steel you might want to consider a gas welding (oxy-acetylene or oxy-MAPP/Propylene) which small set-ups are reasonably priced and work well on such thin metals, but it is a slower process and again requires more technique than "Arc" or MIG (or innershield). And there's the gas refill costs.
But we've gone way off topic.
How about mistakes that prevented a great plane from being even better?
Udet said that the aerodynamic and weight penalty incurred by modifying the Ju88 for the dive-bomber role, made it fly like "a barn door". Considering how well it did as a 'barn door', what might it achieved without the weighty burden of the Luftwaffe dive-bomber dogma.
Kinda' ironic, given Udet's influential role in creating that obsession...
JL
Udet said that the aerodynamic and weight penalty incurred by modifying the Ju88 for the dive-bomber role, made it fly like "a barn door". Considering how well it did as a 'barn door', what might it achieved without the weighty burden of the Luftwaffe dive-bomber dogma.
Kinda' ironic, given Udet's influential role in creating that obsession...
JL
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Yesit did, in fact the Ju 88 would probably have done well in a Mossie like configuration. (no defensive armament) As that added more performance and eliminated crewman lost if it went down, pluss the Ju 88's defensive armament wasn't that good anyway. (one interesting idea would be to put nose guns on it as it could probably have some opertunity to fight it's way out, being fairly agile like the Mossie, also good for strafing)
In testing the V1 (iirc) with DB 600 engines (~900 hp) managed 360 mph with internal load and guns. Another early prototype managed a sustauned 320 mph with 2000 kg external load with early Jumo 211's . The Jumo 211's of early production models making ~1,100 hp. And lets not get into the BMW 801's or later Jumo 211's.
I think the best thing would leave it as is, but probably remove the gunners and flexible mounts, imptove streamlining thusly, further improveing performance. Maybe clip the wings for added speed and better roll. (and less wingloading would still likely be allot better in this config. than it ended up with) Then there's the nose armament possibilities. (in that config it may be a more capable fighter than the Bf 110) The guns could be under the foreward fusalage as to not alter the nose and bombadier station.
The added "pet projects" also lengthened the development time of the Ju 88 and delayed production.
an overview from wikipedia:
But for the biggest mistake that could have advanced the jet designs and made great designs greater the cancellation of the HeS-30 (-006) engine has to be on top.
Again for an overview: Heinkel HeS 30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The best class I engine and possibly most advanced engine to run durring the war and quite practical as well.
Realative lack for support of Heinkel's jet projects in general didn't help either, and the RLM's whole political conundrum on support for advanced designs. With some supporting it, Udet for one was very interested in Heinkels jets (though he adamently opposed the He 176 due to the dangers of rockets, well founded in light of the Me 163) In fact Udet made a deal with Heinkel that if the He 280 flew under its own power by early 1941 (april iirc) he would allow Heinkel to aquire Hirth engine company somthing other members of the RLM in combination with Messersmitt actively hindered. And the HeS 8 shouldn't have been cancelled either, and would have been further along as well without the political problems. IMO the emphesis should have been on class I desing untill they were working well in production conditions, with maybe some work on class II designs, but not more, plus many of the class I's were developing into the performance range of the Class II design. (the 004D 930 kp normal 1050 overrev; 004E 1000 kp normal 1,200 AB, and 003D 1,200 kp with much higher efficiency in this case of the 003D due to use of reaction bladed compressor like the HeS-30 used)
Hirth itsself seemed content with merging with Heinkel, and Ohain received some good help with his development there.
One good way to sum it up is
In testing the V1 (iirc) with DB 600 engines (~900 hp) managed 360 mph with internal load and guns. Another early prototype managed a sustauned 320 mph with 2000 kg external load with early Jumo 211's . The Jumo 211's of early production models making ~1,100 hp. And lets not get into the BMW 801's or later Jumo 211's.
I think the best thing would leave it as is, but probably remove the gunners and flexible mounts, imptove streamlining thusly, further improveing performance. Maybe clip the wings for added speed and better roll. (and less wingloading would still likely be allot better in this config. than it ended up with) Then there's the nose armament possibilities. (in that config it may be a more capable fighter than the Bf 110) The guns could be under the foreward fusalage as to not alter the nose and bombadier station.
The added "pet projects" also lengthened the development time of the Ju 88 and delayed production.
an overview from wikipedia:
But for the biggest mistake that could have advanced the jet designs and made great designs greater the cancellation of the HeS-30 (-006) engine has to be on top.
Again for an overview: Heinkel HeS 30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The best class I engine and possibly most advanced engine to run durring the war and quite practical as well.
Realative lack for support of Heinkel's jet projects in general didn't help either, and the RLM's whole political conundrum on support for advanced designs. With some supporting it, Udet for one was very interested in Heinkels jets (though he adamently opposed the He 176 due to the dangers of rockets, well founded in light of the Me 163) In fact Udet made a deal with Heinkel that if the He 280 flew under its own power by early 1941 (april iirc) he would allow Heinkel to aquire Hirth engine company somthing other members of the RLM in combination with Messersmitt actively hindered. And the HeS 8 shouldn't have been cancelled either, and would have been further along as well without the political problems. IMO the emphesis should have been on class I desing untill they were working well in production conditions, with maybe some work on class II designs, but not more, plus many of the class I's were developing into the performance range of the Class II design. (the 004D 930 kp normal 1050 overrev; 004E 1000 kp normal 1,200 AB, and 003D 1,200 kp with much higher efficiency in this case of the 003D due to use of reaction bladed compressor like the HeS-30 used)
Hirth itsself seemed content with merging with Heinkel, and Ohain received some good help with his development there.
One good way to sum it up is
Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
And as said before there were similar political situations in Britain limiting development. Whittle's Power-Jets Ltd. horrible team-up with Rover delayed development (including the Metoer's) by 2-years. It also postponed the flight and subsequent testing of the E.28/39.
So much so that the Halford H.1 design (inspired by Whittle's 1930 patent, which had long since lapsed) at De Havilland which had been initiated later and at lower prioorety as a private design began to overtake the Rover developments and with 2x early prototype Halford H.1's downrated to 1,500 lbf for safety were the first engines to power the Meteor. Several months later Rover jets finally flew on a meteor. Development was so lagging that only weeks after the Rover jets flew the De havilland Spider Crab (Vampire), also originally a private lower priorety project flew with a full powered Halford H.1 engine. (capable of 2,700 lbf, a more robust but heavier redesigned H.1A, the dimentions stayed the same, and progressively the H.1B produced 3,000 lbf at 10,500 rpm on the bench)
Once Rolls Royce got with Power Jets things really took-off though.
The US had political problems too but a bit different, in the 1930's the NACA did a study on jet and rocket propulsion but by the late 1930's it was dying and they'd concluded that the most promising uses would be for assisted take-off and rockets would be preferred in that case anyway. By 1940 the study was dead. Back in the late 30's lockheed had proposed their almost insanely advanced L-133 project and L-1000 engine, but that went nowhere. (lack of intrest and we now know the basic design was impractical with the engine complex by modern standards) The engine did idle along on a low priority contract in 1942 as the XJ-37 and was built and moved around through several companies into the early 50's, but never bared any fruit. (it was a 16-stage axial flow unit wih 4 turbines)
When the US got the Whittle design in 1941 the NACA basickly got caught with it's pants down and began a new stude with a group of manufactures to work with the design, ironically the NACA own pet project for the study was a troubled and doomed ducted-fan/motorjet design known as "Jakes Jeep," the only company in the study to get anywhere was Westinghouse which resulted in the 10-stage axial-flow 19 in diameter 1,600 lbf ~660 lb J30 tested in 1944, and the post war J34.
Simultaneously GE was working on the Whittle design, and were gaining ground over the troubled Rover arragement, and 1,250 lbf I-A (development of W.1) engines were flown on the XP-59A in october of 1942 ~2.5 months after the Me 262's first sucessful jet powered flight and 5 months before the Meteor's with Halford engines. The I-A gave way to the I-14 used on later XP-59A's and then the I-16 which became the J31 producing 1,600-2,000 lbf. A further development of the Whittle design of course resulting in the 4,000 lbf I-40 becoming J33 being moved to Allison for production. And GE was working on it's own original designs, notably the TG-100 turboprop developed into the TG-180 turbojet becoming the J-35 produced again mainly by Allison.
And while the XP-59 program didn't suffer the same kind of political problems as the British or German a/c it nevertheless was lrestricted by outside limitations. While Gen. "Hap" Arnold was generally a huge boost to the US jet program and the procurment of the Whittle engine he made some decisions that were some of the main reasons for the P-59's poor performance. In order to maintan secrecy he forbit any cooperation with or advice form the NACA or use of wind tunnels. Eventually allowing limited use of low speed tunnel (at Wright field iirc). This resulted in poor streamlining ad particularly problems with the intakes and nacelle-wing interaction. Little data on the engine was availableto Bell either resulting in a very conservative and overengeneered design. With oversized (45.5 ft span 386 ft^2 area) fairly thick as well with 14% at root 12 at tip, in production versions which had clipped wingtips the 14% was constant. (compared to 12.5 at root and 10% at tip for the Meteor I with a 376 ft^2~43' span wing at 13,780 lbs loaded) albeit it was a laminar flow wing. And for a fairly light aircraft at 10,800 lbs loaded the wing loading was ~28 lbs/ft^2, that's comparable to the Hurricane IIB!
But one thing's for sure the P-59A was not underpowered compared to its contemporaries, at ~10,800 with 2x 2,000 lbf J31-GE-5 engines giving it a thrust/weight of .37. (higher than the He 162 with overrev, or the He 280 with 004 engines)
The prototypes powered by the 1,250 lbf I-A's would have been underpowered, less so with the 1,400 lbf I-14's and similar to contemporaries with 1,650 lbf.
So much so that the Halford H.1 design (inspired by Whittle's 1930 patent, which had long since lapsed) at De Havilland which had been initiated later and at lower prioorety as a private design began to overtake the Rover developments and with 2x early prototype Halford H.1's downrated to 1,500 lbf for safety were the first engines to power the Meteor. Several months later Rover jets finally flew on a meteor. Development was so lagging that only weeks after the Rover jets flew the De havilland Spider Crab (Vampire), also originally a private lower priorety project flew with a full powered Halford H.1 engine. (capable of 2,700 lbf, a more robust but heavier redesigned H.1A, the dimentions stayed the same, and progressively the H.1B produced 3,000 lbf at 10,500 rpm on the bench)
Once Rolls Royce got with Power Jets things really took-off though.
The US had political problems too but a bit different, in the 1930's the NACA did a study on jet and rocket propulsion but by the late 1930's it was dying and they'd concluded that the most promising uses would be for assisted take-off and rockets would be preferred in that case anyway. By 1940 the study was dead. Back in the late 30's lockheed had proposed their almost insanely advanced L-133 project and L-1000 engine, but that went nowhere. (lack of intrest and we now know the basic design was impractical with the engine complex by modern standards) The engine did idle along on a low priority contract in 1942 as the XJ-37 and was built and moved around through several companies into the early 50's, but never bared any fruit. (it was a 16-stage axial flow unit wih 4 turbines)
When the US got the Whittle design in 1941 the NACA basickly got caught with it's pants down and began a new stude with a group of manufactures to work with the design, ironically the NACA own pet project for the study was a troubled and doomed ducted-fan/motorjet design known as "Jakes Jeep," the only company in the study to get anywhere was Westinghouse which resulted in the 10-stage axial-flow 19 in diameter 1,600 lbf ~660 lb J30 tested in 1944, and the post war J34.
Simultaneously GE was working on the Whittle design, and were gaining ground over the troubled Rover arragement, and 1,250 lbf I-A (development of W.1) engines were flown on the XP-59A in october of 1942 ~2.5 months after the Me 262's first sucessful jet powered flight and 5 months before the Meteor's with Halford engines. The I-A gave way to the I-14 used on later XP-59A's and then the I-16 which became the J31 producing 1,600-2,000 lbf. A further development of the Whittle design of course resulting in the 4,000 lbf I-40 becoming J33 being moved to Allison for production. And GE was working on it's own original designs, notably the TG-100 turboprop developed into the TG-180 turbojet becoming the J-35 produced again mainly by Allison.
And while the XP-59 program didn't suffer the same kind of political problems as the British or German a/c it nevertheless was lrestricted by outside limitations. While Gen. "Hap" Arnold was generally a huge boost to the US jet program and the procurment of the Whittle engine he made some decisions that were some of the main reasons for the P-59's poor performance. In order to maintan secrecy he forbit any cooperation with or advice form the NACA or use of wind tunnels. Eventually allowing limited use of low speed tunnel (at Wright field iirc). This resulted in poor streamlining ad particularly problems with the intakes and nacelle-wing interaction. Little data on the engine was availableto Bell either resulting in a very conservative and overengeneered design. With oversized (45.5 ft span 386 ft^2 area) fairly thick as well with 14% at root 12 at tip, in production versions which had clipped wingtips the 14% was constant. (compared to 12.5 at root and 10% at tip for the Meteor I with a 376 ft^2~43' span wing at 13,780 lbs loaded) albeit it was a laminar flow wing. And for a fairly light aircraft at 10,800 lbs loaded the wing loading was ~28 lbs/ft^2, that's comparable to the Hurricane IIB!
But one thing's for sure the P-59A was not underpowered compared to its contemporaries, at ~10,800 with 2x 2,000 lbf J31-GE-5 engines giving it a thrust/weight of .37. (higher than the He 162 with overrev, or the He 280 with 004 engines)
The prototypes powered by the 1,250 lbf I-A's would have been underpowered, less so with the 1,400 lbf I-14's and similar to contemporaries with 1,650 lbf.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
And I'm pretty sure the large wings of the P-59, in addition to the conservative and unrefined design, was to allow a high ceiling. It was aimed at (and invisioned by Whittle's original concept) to cruise at 500 mph at 50,000 ft. Ironically the wing proved to have too low of a mach limit to allow this, with a very narrow margin between shock stall and normal stall above 46,000 ft. It did manage to set an unofficial altitude record of 47600 ft.
