Shortround6 said:
The Early jet aircraft designs were overtaken by the rapid progress in Jet engines. In 1942 it wasn't possible to build an effective fighter using a single jet engine. For the Americans the P-80 was initially designed for a 3,000lb thrust engine but soon switched to the 4,000lb thrust J33 which first ran in Jan 1944 (although note at full rating?) which was over double what any engine in 1942 was achieving.
Granted the J33 was heavy but with the need for two engines the placement of the engines did tend to limit placement. How much the desire to keep the engines separated by a certain amount of distance in order to make sure a malfunction (thrown turbine blades) in one engine didn't take out the other influenced things I don't know.
No disagreements here. There is no doubt that engine development was the critical design driver where the Allies, US and Britain, had a significant advantage over the Germans by wars end. They had the big engines, effectively in production.
Axcent said:
Given that the Gloster E28/39 had a single engine buried in the fuselage the P-80 probably had less influence than you think.
Also edited to add that (according to wiki at least) design work for the De Havilland Vampire started in 1941.
Which is what I stated, "large single engine buried in the fuselage, which, by the way was incorporated in the earliest British and German test planes." Neither the Gloster E28/39 nor the He 178 led to any production aircraft and each countries design went to a different place. The Vampire got a raw deal when their engine went to the P-80, maybe preventing it from being available in WW2. In my opinion, it would have been a formidable opponent to the Me 262, which I don't think the Meteor really was.
Wuzak said:
As did the Heinkel He 178.
See above.
GrauGeist said:
The Me P.1101 (Bell X-5) was a good enough proof of that concept.
As I said "The big impact on future jet fighter designs were the very late German aircraft designs including the P 1101 and German research." I think the P 1101, with its ground adjustable wing sweep could have evolved quickly into the first swept wing fighter.
Stona said:
The early engines were so short lived and unreliable that having them fitted under the wings, almost as a modular power egg arrangement, may have been a significant operational bonus.
Which is what I meant when I said "Both were designed with specific requirements that hampered follow-on fighter designs and this was the wing nacelle mounted engines."
Both the P-80 and the Vampire uncovered a new aerodynamic challenge, high speed ducted inlet design, something that has become much more important in the world of stealth design. In fact the damage done to the first P-80 was due to a collapsed inlet. This was the engine replaced by the Vampire engine.
The lineage for the Me 262, Meteor, and Vampire designs ended very quickly, but the P-80, and even the poorly specified twin engine P-59 design, can be traced to modern aircraft. I'm not saying the P-59 or P-80 specifically influenced follow-on aircraft, several designs started before these, but rather they represent the first of a long line of successful design concepts. Attached are some examples of the lineage of the two design concepts. Pictures are out of order should be P-80, F9F, Hunter, F-35 and P-59, F-4, F-22.