Most Beautiful Aircraft of WW2?

[GregP]

About the P-59 Airacomet, let's give Bell their due.

1) When they asked Bell to design it, they didn't give Bell an engine. They gave them a big block of wood that was sort of the correct shape and said, "It won't be any bigger than that. Use two of them."
2) They didn't give them much information at all, including the thrust it would make, so Bell added a LOT of wing area. It's almost a sailplane.
3) They didn't tell Bell how much fuel it used. An F-86D in loiter mode at 30,000 feet will use about 170 U.S. gallons per hour. Average cruise is around 300 gph. The YP-59A, on the other hand, used earlier I-16 engines and would use 570 U.S. gallons per hour on takeoff! Internal fuel was 280 gallons, so you weren't going to fly very long!
4) They didn't tell Bell how much air it used, so the intakes are oversize and draggy. Too much air goes in, the engine uses what it needs, and the rest mulls around in the intake and then comes back out, creating a lot of drag. By the time Bell actually got engines and figured that out, the airframe was completed, and there wasn't any money for redesign.

They built 3 XP-59, 13 YP-59A, 20 P-59A, and 30 P-59B for a grand total of only 66 airplanes. They weren't very good, but the DID serve to teach our WWII pilots how to fly jet aircraft. That came back to benefit us in spades in Korea. When the WWII / Korean War era pilots finally retired, we lost our expertise and didn't get it back until Top Gun / Red Flag were created to restore the expertise to aerial hunters.

The YP-59A at the Planes of Fame is SN 42-108777. We have had the pleasure of having two or three pilots who actually flew our tail number give talks at the museum. Their stories are very entertaining and offer glimpses into early jet operations that are almost shocking. Seems like a good subject for a new post.

Oh, and the Zero is my favorite WWII fighter, too.

 

[contrails16]

About the P-59 AIracomet, let's give Bell their due.

1) When they asked Bell to design it, they didn't give Bell and engine. They gave them a big block of wood that was sort of the correct shape and said, "It won't be any bigger than that. Use two of them."
2) They didn't give them much information at all, including the thrust it would make, so Bell added a LOT of wing area. It's almost a sailplane.
3) They didn't tell Bell how much fuel it used. An F-86D in loiter mode at 30,000 feet will use about 170 U.S. gallons per hour. Average cruise is around 300 gph. The YP-59A, on the other hand, used earlier I-16 engines and would use 570 U.S. gallons per hour on takeoff! Internal fuel was 280 gallons, so you weren't going to fly very long!
4) They didn't tell Bell how much air it used, so the intakes are oversize and draggy. Too much air goes in, the engine uses what it needs, and the rest mulls around in the intake and then comes back out, creating a lot of drag. By the time Bell actually got engines and figured that out, the airframe was completed, and there wasn't any money for redesign.

They built 3 XP-59, 13 YP-59A, 20 P-59A, ands 30P-59B for a grand total of only 66 airplanes. They weren't very good, but the DID serve to teach our WWII pilots how to fly jet aircraft. That came back to benefit us in spades in Korea. When the WWII / Korean War era pilots finally retired, we lost our expertise and didn't get it back until Top Gun / Red Flag were created to restore the expertise to aerial hunters.

The YP-59A at the Planes of Fame is SN 42-108777. We have had the pleasure of having two or three pilots who actually flew our tail number give talks at the museum. Their stories are very entertaining and offer glimpses into early jet operations that are almost shocking. Seems like a good subject for a new post.

Oh, and the Zero is my favorite WWII fighter, too.

Zero for Life

 

[GregP]

Duplicate post

 

[GregP]

Love the Zero. When the designer, Jiro Horikoshi, designed next airplane (the J2M Raiden), he had more power and it HAS armor and self-sealing tanks. But, it wasn't until the J2M-3 that he got as much as 1,800 hp.

 

[SaparotRob]

About the P-59 AIracomet, let's give Bell their due.

1) When they asked Bell to design it, they didn't give Bell an engine. They gave them a big block of wood that was sort of the correct shape and said, "It won't be any bigger than that. Use two of them."
2) They didn't give them much information at all, including the thrust it would make, so Bell added a LOT of wing area. It's almost a sailplane.
3) They didn't tell Bell how much fuel it used. An F-86D in loiter mode at 30,000 feet will use about 170 U.S. gallons per hour. Average cruise is around 300 gph. The YP-59A, on the other hand, used earlier I-16 engines and would use 570 U.S. gallons per hour on takeoff! Internal fuel was 280 gallons, so you weren't going to fly very long!
4) They didn't tell Bell how much air it used, so the intakes are oversize and draggy. Too much air goes in, the engine uses what it needs, and the rest mulls around in the intake and then comes back out, creating a lot of drag. By the time Bell actually got engines and figured that out, the airframe was completed, and there wasn't any money for redesign.

They built 3 XP-59, 13 YP-59A, 20 P-59A, and 30 P-59B for a grand total of only 66 airplanes. They weren't very good, but the DID serve to teach our WWII pilots how to fly jet aircraft. That came back to benefit us in spades in Korea. When the WWII / Korean War era pilots finally retired, we lost our expertise and didn't get it back until Top Gun / Red Flag were created to restore the expertise to aerial hunters.

The YP-59A at the Planes of Fame is SN 42-108777. We have had the pleasure of having two or three pilots who actually flew our tail number give talks at the museum. Their stories are very entertaining and offer glimpses into early jet operations that are almost shocking. Seems like a good subject for a new post.

Oh, and the Zero is my favorite WWII fighter, too.

Wow. That really explains a lot. I thought the US could have had a better looking first attempt. Now I know why. "Here, take this log and build secret weapon".

 

[N33]

That's really interesting info about the P-59 that I didn't know. I still think it's a good-looking design, though, overall.

I agree that the Zero is an aerodynamically beautiful design, overall, but I can't get over the bulbous canopy. Of course, that bulbous canopy provided very good vision to the rear.

 

[GregP]

Hi N33,

Most of that comes from a book I have on the XP-59A entitled "Flame Powered, the Bell XP-59A Airacomet and the General Electric I-A Engine," by David M. Carpenter. A LOT of very interesting data about the first jet in the U.S.A. . You might look it up online (try "flame powered carpenter") and find a copy in very good condition for very little money. I did and found one that looks brand new ... only because I was working on restoring one for about 9 years, and am STILL going to work on it post-COVID, if any help is needed to proceed.

I have a LOT of work into it, but am FAR from the only one who can say that. The list of volunteers who contributed to it is long, and some are no longer with us. All of us surviving YP-59A workers are looking forward to seeing air under the tires under its own power!

Here's our airplane in flight, back in the 1940s:

The text on the nose says, "Bell Aircraft Corp." When we finish this YP-59A, it will likely be painted very close to this color scheme with the later light blue underside color added, though that is up to the museum as the owner of the aircraft. They generally are sticklers for authenticity on our flying warbirds.

If you get anywhere around Chino, CA, U.S.A., stop by the Planes of Fame and see it!

Here's another of our flying, one-off airplanes:

It is a Seversky 2PA or AT-12, and it flies occasionally at our airshows. Basically, it is a 2-seat Seversky P-35 that was built as a fighter trainer with two MG in the nose for shooting at airborne, towed targets. A smooth-running Pratt R-1830 Twin Wasp pulls it along. If you park it side-by-side with our Republic P-47G razorback, you can really see the family resemblance. The deep fuselage of the P-47 is there ONLY to plumb the turbocharger input and output. All the belly below the wing is either hot exhaust to the turbocharger, the turbo itself, the intercooler, or pressurized fresh air back to the carb. If it were not for the turbo, the cowling would be round and the belly would be almost flat with the bottom of the wing like the AT-12.

 

[Nowotny262]

Fiat G55 Centaur
ME-262

 

[Dash119]

Yes, the photos I looked at were wartime photos. Look again at a D model's canopy, then look CLOSELY at a K Model's canopy, the bulge is there and extends all the way to the rear of the canopy. I don't know what to say if you can't see it looking at wartime photos, it's like a pimple on a pretty girl's nose.

I had never heard of different canopy profiles on the P-51D/K, but having done more research there were indeed multiple profiles.

On that point I stand corrected.

However, my research to this point shows up to five different profiles... The different profiles were not limited to specific models or production locations. That is to say that there may have been 'D' models from Inglewood which have the same canopy profile as a 'K' model from Dallas.

Kim

 

[pgf_666]

Just for looks, the Germans have the first few spots:
1: Horton/Gotha 229 Flying Wing (my official vote)
2: Me 163 B or C (if preproduction prototypes are allowed)
3: Me-262-A

Then come my people, the Italians:
MC-205,202
Fiat G-55
DB powered Regianes, etc.

The Swedish J-21 R

Tie:
'Tang
Spit (In each case, all models)

With an honourable mention to the Tempest II--no fuggly chin scoop....

My mother, who lived through the Battle of Britain, would have said, the Hurricane; she always thought that without it, she'd have wound up in some Nazi baby farm....

 

[Admiral Beez]

Love the Zero. When the designer, Jiro Horikoshi, designed next airplane (the J2M Raiden)

Not nearly as pretty though. While both men had other designs under their bests, Horikoshi, like Mitchell and his Spitfire was famous for essentially a single aircraft series. Had the latter survived another ten years, it would have been something to have them both in conversation.

 

[Barrett]

I cannot find the post I recall from this thread (nine years ago)
but
A Hellcat pilot said the most beautiful airplane he ever saw
was the PBY landing to pick him out of the Pacific Ocean.

 

[SaparotRob]

Can't argue with that.

 

[rob23]

I cannot find the post I recall from this thread (nine years ago)
but
A Hellcat pilot said the most beautiful airplane he ever saw
was the PBY landing to pick him out of the Pacific Ocean.

My grandpa was aboard the USS Bolivar, APA 34, as a gunner on LCVP's and participated at Iwo Jima and other battles. When I could get him to talk about his experiences he'd tell me he really liked to watch the 'Cool Cats' referring to the Catalina. He thought it to be a most beautiful airplane.

 

[SaparotRob]

Loves me them flying boats. I said it before but if I had way too much money, I'd love to have a PBY as recreational vehicle.

 

[PAT303]

Loves me them flying boats. I said it before but if I had way to much money, I'd love to have a PBY as recreational vehicle.

Planes are like women, they are all beautiful in their own way but some just have that ''thing'' that makes you fall for them, flying boats are like that, they have an ''it'' factor that's all their own.

 

[Elvis]

When I was about 10, my dad, who was a diesel mechanic at one of the local navy bases, was flying back in from Canada and Mom and I met him at the local airport.
While waiting I walked down to check out an old airplane. Turned out to be a PBY. I stood next to the tire and it was as tall as I was. I thought that was the biggest thing I'd ever seen at that point.
Those are cool old planes and I'll never forget the awe I felt standing underneath one.

 

[buffnut453]

I cannot find the post I recall from this thread (nine years ago)
but
A Hellcat pilot said the most beautiful airplane he ever saw
was the PBY landing to pick him out of the Pacific Ocean.

Same-same for the Walrus...one of the ugliest aircraft made but a thing of sheer beauty if you're sitting in a life raft in the middle of the oggin.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Planes are like women, they are all beautiful in their own way but some just have that ''thing'' that makes you fall for them, flying boats are like that, they have an ''it'' factor that's all their own.

Look at the interwar period french bombers and think again about that they are all beautiful in their own way!

 

[SaparotRob]

I may have mentioned the Amiot 143.