P-59 vs. P-51....

[Cowboy1968]

Doing the conversion work on the P-59 had got me to thinking about the machine really on a whole. Was it a bad plane or a good plane: Should it have seen action?

Well as we all know its top performance was equal to the P-51D Mustang. It had similar top speed. It was as maneuverable, maybe even to a point of being disadvantaged, because of the machines tendency to over react to pilot input. It had a good armament and a decent range for a first generation jet. Though in the face of the perfomance figures the Army Air Force was disappointed in the machine. They were hoping for a machine that could out perform any US piston engine type avalible. They didn't get that on paper.

In practicality they did....

I say that because after doing some flying in both machines in our sim and reading, yes reading operational manuals i have in my collection, I have some thoughts.

1. Even though both planes could reach over 400 mph at full throttle, the limitations of the P-51 were clear. According to the manuals i have on the P-51, it could only be flown at full throttle at max rpm for no more then 5 minutes before things could go wrong. The P-51D had a military rating of 3,000 rpm at 61 inches of manifold pressure. This put a strain on the Packard engine, and this was the way to achieve top speed. The Packard engine was designed to have a Max Continuous rating of 46 inches of MP and only 2,700 rpm. At around 5,000 ft. the Mustang achieves an IAS of aprox. 247 knots in Max Continuous rating. When you take the P-51 up to its Military Power then your speed becomes 299 knots. And as i said this could only be maintained at these setting for five to ten minutes.

Now the P-59 shows the big step jet engines were from piston engines. At full throttle at 5,000 feet the Airacomet could maintain an IAS of 324 knots. The P-59 could maintain this power setting for fifteen minutes on the engines. Its Max Continuous Rating was set at 95% of the engine's turbine rpm. This gives her a IAS of 304 knots. though to conserve fuel the airplane had a economic cruise of 196 knots at 60% RPM. While the Mustang cruised at 42 " Manifold Pressure on 2,400 rpm for a IAS of 217 knots. The Mustang had a service ceiling 41,900 ft compared to the Airacomet at 46,200 ft. The P-59 could out climb and out run the Mustang on most accounts, but its lack of range and the fact that it wasn't the significant improvement the Army wanted it wasn't put into combat. The P-59 even with drop tanks lacked the range, like most early jets, it has to be considered a point defense machine with a limited offensive capacity due to its short legs.

Though the P-59 did show the advantage of jet over piston engine in flight. At altitude the P-59 didn't loose any of its thrust, while the P-51 lost horsepower the higher it got toward its service ceiling, but that advantage didn't out weigh the limitations on the General Electric torbojet engines. Those disadvantages didn't only include high fuel consumption, but it also had more maintenance headaches. The engines required overhaul far more quickly then the Packard V-1650 of the Mustang.

In my humble opinion though, the P-59 should have been deployed for service at least in the Pacific or the MTO....

That is just my thoughts on both of these wonderful machines.

 

[Blood_Hawk23]

we all know from history that the Jet realy didn't come into its own until Korea. and then again not until Vietnam.

The limiting factor of the early jets were the engines. i should say the reliablity of the engines. the internal componants weren't up to the task. in the case of the ME 262, it was a slow process getting up to speed of combat and then back down for landing. moving to fast on the throttle would damage the blades and cause catistrofic failure. not realy a huge problem for the Meteor which had a different design. although the Meteor lacked the power because of that design limitation. all of the early jets had this sort of problem. thats why they had the high maintenance cycles and reluctance to put them in combat.

The Mustang proved herself time and again. the thoughness of the airframe and engine in combat, not to mention the range and performance, all spoke for themselves. I'm sure the cost would factor in there. as well. maybe that more than anything else was the reason the P-59 was held back.

For me, personally, i'd want what works. the mustang was fast, tough and powerful. she was the peak of pistion technology in WWII. and we had alot of them by wars end. Had the war lasted a couple more years who knows what aircraft would have been in the forefront.the jet was the future. and they still had a ways to go.

I'll have to give the p-59 a go. i've been caught up in WWI for the past year now. maybe its time to climb back into the jet age for awhile.

She does look great.

Till later
John

 

[Cowboy1968]

you bring a valid point about the acceleration. It does take a bit longer to get off the ground, and it does get up to speed slower. But once there it can keep at the 400 mph plus mark, while the Mustang has to pull down to keep from burning the engine up.

The P-59 did not have the same problems that the Me-262 did. It used an engine control system very similar to the Gloster Meteor F:III. Both machines could be ran up to 100% of rpm on the turbines for 15 minutes, and then throttle back to 95% and not loose much thrust or speed.

The biggest problem with the Me-262 engines were that they were being built with sub-standard parts, They were trying to get as many out as they could. Short cuts were taken bad metals used....all a bad combination. and Yes if you applied throttle to fast in the 262 it would flood the combustion chamber and well....that's that....you buy a nice little place out in the country to rest in...

The engine design used on both the Meteor and the Airacomet were the same. They were British in design and the didn't have the combustion problems the Juno engine had.

Both the Meteor and the Airacomet could turn better at lower speeds then the 262....

You were talking about the long drop down in speed that the 262 had, again you didn't have this problem with the other two, because they just didn't fly as fast.

And when the Americans brought the Lockheed P-80 online, well they solved the problem by adding an air brake on the plane. The Brits did the same with the D.h. Vampire.

Once the shock had worn off after the appearance of the 262, will it was just another plane.

I forgot where the quate came from, but it relates one German pilot talking to a first time jet pilot about the 262 in dealing with a fight with a Mustang, "Stay straight and stay at speed, don't turn....you turn your dead." He was telling him this because the P-51 had the advantages in the knife fight...a Mustang could just turn inside the 262 causing the jet to overtake him and this put the Mustang into the proper kill position on the 262. Simply put the 262 was not a dog fighter. It was designed to be an interceptor to hit bomber streams, but Hitler had it remade into a fighter-bomber. this put it in the position of having to face a dog fight it wasn't meant for.

Now even though both the Bell P-59 and the Gloster Meteor were slower, they were designed from the outset to be used as tactical weapons. Their lower max speed gave them the advantage of being able to turn almost as tight as a piston plane, and well they can dogfight.

All things being said and done....the 59 was a decent airplane, but the AAF felt it didn't justify the expense to duplicate what the Mustang was on paper...

but hey, when you fly the Airacomet against the 262, if it turns you have it....the best way for a 262 to survive allied fighters is not to fight allied fighters.

 

[bearcat241]

we all know from history that the Jet realy didn't come into its own until Korea. and then again not until Vietnam.

Oh boy! You'd better go back and take a looong look at the mid to late '50's. Now that's when the jet really came into its own, a good decade before the SEA air war began. Practically all of the hot kites deployed in Vietnam were just old 1950's designs with upgraded electronics, weapons systems and engine tech, but the basic airframes were all the best of the 50's designs, including infamous airframes like the F-4 Phantom, F-8 Crusader and Mig-21.