Why bother, didn't the Finns already do it for us?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why bother, didn't the Finns already do it for us?Then we can fix the Buffalo.
I only summarized the numbers from the article, which is itself much more detailed and takes into account the points you mention.
Kaminsky also mentions loss disputes that inevitably will occur; however, as he points out, only one Jg52 pilot is reported killed. Tbo, I myself thought that he surely must have missed some German/ Axis losses , and maybe he has, but on the whole his research seems pretty solid
I'm not Ivan but thought I would reply anyway.
The whole "British added weight to kill the P-39/400" is my theory and mine alone as far as I know.
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.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.
The P-39 was the least overweight of the other Allison powered single engine planes. Still overweight.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.
Overweight.... Hmmm...
What constitutes "overweight"?
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......Bell simply wasn't particularly good at designing fighter aircraft....
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 Airacuda was a fundamentally flawed design, badly executed.....
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 same could be said of the XP-77.....
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..........With the P-59 Bell achieved the virtually impossible by designing a jet fighter that was slower then contemporary piston engine fighters.....
And how many successful fighter designs did Bell's much bigger competitor Curtiss make after the P-40? Yup, zero..........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.....
. Bell's development of a better fighter design, the XP-59B, was transferred to Lockheed and was developed into the P-80 Shooting Star
Can't recall where I first heard that many (many!) years ago, but here's one.
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.
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:....Lockheed started on the P-80 in 1939 as the L-133 project.....
Oh no, someone else is repeating that "completely and utterly false" story! How dare they! Quick, Flyboy, go sort 'em out!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.