Why bother, didn't the Finns already do it for us?
XP-39 II - The Groundhog Day Thread
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Hello Stig
I appreciate your effort and my intention was not criticize you, only to note that JG 52 was not the only formation in the area with 109s at that time and while it suffered greater losses than mentioned during one week longer period at least some of those were caused by the USAAF and that anyway JG 52 did not suffer catastrophic losses in June 44.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,536
- Dec 6, 2006
Bell didn't need any help. They died of self inflicted wounds. Bell simply wasn't particularly good at designing fighter aircraft. The Airacuda was a fundamentally flawed design, badly executed. The same could be said of the XP-77. With the P-59 Bell achieved the virtually impossible by designing a jet fighter that was slower then contemporary piston engine fighters. The XP-83 was Bells last hurrah and proved inferior to the competition. After WWII the only fixed wing aircraft Bell built were purely experimental. A common theme with Bell's aircraft was stability issues. In addition they tended to be overweight.
Bells success with helicopters after the war had nothing to do with the Bell aircraft design team. Arthur Young approached Bell with his design for a helicopter, which morphed into the very successful Model 47.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The problem with the P-59 in my mind is the huge wing. The P-59 wing area is 386 sqft, the Me 262 is 238 sqft, the P-80 is 237 sqft. This could have been driven by incorrect customer requirements or, poor engineering of builder.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
There was a thread recently that dealt with the P-59. Either from posts or links, it was mentioned that Bell was given the job of building an airframe without the actual weight, dimensions or thrust of the engines. So that's what they came up with.
Last edited:
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
The P-39 was the least overweight of the other Allison powered single engine planes. Still overweight.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Overweight.... Hmmm...
What constitutes "overweight"?
What constitutes "overweight"?
- Thread starter
- #748
Shortround6
Major General
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The original P-59 (not the P-59A jet) wasn't all that bad looking.
Definately has a bit of Airacuda styling to it.
Definately has a bit of Airacuda styling to it.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That's pretty neat!
According to whom? After all, despite carrying the much heavier 37mm cannon and the weight of the long driveshaft, the P-39 was lighter than the P-40 models with the same engine versions. This was reflected in the P-39s higher speed, higher rate of climb and superior ceiling to equivalent P-40 models. Indeed, it's fair to suggest the Allied war effort would have been better off it Curtiss had been told to build P-39s instead of P-40s.
The Airacuda suffered due to a bad concept, but was still faster and heavier-armed than equivalent attack aircraft such as the A-18 Curtiss Shrike
The XP-77 was as unlikely as many other similar lightweight fighter designs made in France, but it still managed to reach 330mph on a 500hp engine, which was quite an engineering achievement.
The XP-59 was vastly constrained by both the restrictions of the requirement and the restrictions on information about the new jet engines given to Bell by the USAAC. They weren't given any design information on the engines other than rough external dimensions! At the same time, they were told they had to make the aircraft big enough to carry two engines, lots of fuel and be very safe for pilots unused to the new jets. The result was designed more as a trainer than a fighter. BTW, the only other operational fighter to get the same J-31 engine was the Ryan Fireball, which was actually slower than the XP-59. Bell's development of a better fighter design, the XP-59B, was transferred to Lockheed and was developed into the P-80 Shooting Star, which was far superior to contemporary prop fighters.
And how many successful fighter designs did Bell's much bigger competitor Curtiss make after the P-40? Yup, zero.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well that is completely and utterly false!!!
The only thing Lockheed gained from Bell as the dimensions of of the H-1 engine. After that, Kelly Johnson and his team had the XP-80 produced in 143 days and the rest of the design had nothing to do with anything Bell was doing on the P-59.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Bell had the XP-83 as a follow-on to the P-59A.
McDonnell had the FD.
Lockheed started on the P-80 in 1939 as the L-133 project and it went through several revisions, HOWEVER, the Bell XP-59B that was dumped on Lockheed was entirely seperate from the P-80 project and one should not confuse the two.
This is the XP-59B:
McDonnell had the FD.
Lockheed started on the P-80 in 1939 as the L-133 project and it went through several revisions, HOWEVER, the Bell XP-59B that was dumped on Lockheed was entirely seperate from the P-80 project and one should not confuse the two.
This is the XP-59B:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The only thing Lockheed picked up (or was dumped with) with regards to the P-59B was the requirement to build a jet aircraft. Parts of the P-80 actually came from the P-38 (the nose section and wingtips IIRC). Bottom line, Bell couldn't deliver the goods, the rest is history.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Lockheed was urged to ramp up their jet project in 1943, so they fell back on the L-133 to develop the P-80.
The fact that the XP-59B project was given to Lockheed to sort out didn't have any influence on the P-80. You could say *technically* that the P-80 was a clean-sheet design.
With the P-59A being a dead end and the XP-83 not proving to be any better, I'm pretty sure that Lockheed told the Army that the 58B wasn't worth the effort to pursue.
The fact that the XP-59B project was given to Lockheed to sort out didn't have any influence on the P-80. You could say *technically* that the P-80 was a clean-sheet design.
With the P-59A being a dead end and the XP-83 not proving to be any better, I'm pretty sure that Lockheed told the Army that the 58B wasn't worth the effort to pursue.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I don't think we'll ever know if Johnson even looked at what Bell started. The company designation for the XP-80 was the L-140 and Johnson went to Wright Patterson in June 1943 to sell the Lockheed concept to the AAF. Johnson promised to deliver a prototype in 150 days, again the rest is history.
Sorry, but the L-133 was nothing at all to do with the P-80. The L-133 was a twin-engined, blended-body, canard design exercise that went no further than paper, and nothing like the much smaller P-80. The L-133 was actually even bigger and heavier than the P-59! This is an artist's impression of the L-133-2-01 design, and it's clear the XP-59B was a lot closer to the eventual P-80 than the L-133:
Oh no, someone else is repeating that "completely and utterly false" story! How dare they! Quick, Flyboy, go sort 'em out!
- Status
