Best World War II Aircraft?

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Glider

My personal choice based on the Title of the Thread is the C47 Dakota. There were transports that carried a heavier payload a longer distance, but no plane dominated its role to such a degree in all theaters.

Since I think the C-47/DC-3/R4D/Russian Li-2 is the most significant aircraft of the first 50 years of flight (excluding the Wright Flyer), I agree with your assessment.

[FLYBOYJ]

YEP!!!!!!

[lesofprimus]

Agreed.....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As I said before I agree as well.

[Gnomey]

I agree too as I also have said before.

[evangilder]

Originally Posted by delcyros

Absolutely. There was an often underrated pioneering aspect in the aviation world of the mid 40´s.
I personally tend to think that the Bell P 59 Airacobra could have been what the allies needed. It has an excellent thrust-to weight ratio, a common type wing configuration and layout, a decent, fuselage mounted gun array. The only thing it lacks was speed. A thinner wing and proper aerodynamic engine shildings could do the job.

I disagree. The P-59 was a dog. It did not meet what was called for in terms of specification. It did however pave the way for jets for the US. You may want to read up Joe Baugher's article on the P-59:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p59.html

The performance of this aircraft wasn't even a match for the modern piston powered fighters of the day, so it would likely have not done well in combat.

[delcyros]

Nice article, thanks a lot.
I do not think that the P-59A/B would have been crap with better engines. By late 1944 at earliest, this plane could have seen service over europe. Engine layout allows for an easy replacement (image 2 Ghost engines) and the psychological factor that the allies also had a jet is not to underestimate.
Other than piston A/C, the jet´s can keep top speed for a much longer time, that´s good to intercept V-1. The speed lag is worrisome but this remains on aerodynamic worse designed nacelles and the engines itself. By then a good jet engine was simply missed everywhere, not just in Germany alone.
Imagine a P-59 (C) with 2 1500 lbs jet engines and drop tanks. Excellent powerload, thrust to weight ratio, time to altitude and roll rate are expected.

[syscom3]

By the time the P59 would have had better engines, the P80 would be available.

[delcyros]

I stress the opposite, Syscom. Engines were avaiable in mid 44, when the P-80 was in preliminary prototype stage. The P59 would have been avaiable by then.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im with delycos on this however I disagree that it would have been better with better engines. Larger engines mean more weight which in turn effects the performance of an allready sluggish aircraft.

[delcyros]

In general, yes. But in this specific case: no.
The reason lays down in the technical advance by 1942-44 in the jet tech. departement. The early jet engines to fit Meteor-III and XP-59 were based on the Welland engines with reversed flow. This made the engines comparably heavy. The Ghost engine of 1942 and the GE J 33 had direct flow, thus increasing the thrust output while in the meantime reducing the weight & fuel consumption considerably. That and the fact that the P59 B with direct flow engines (not J-33 sadly) had such a superior thrust to weight ratio (> 0.32, which is better than either P-80, Meteor-III, He-162, Ar-234 and Me-262) makes me think it could have been a decent jet fighter. Not as fast as a Me-262 but more maneuverable, avaiable in numbers, with excellent acceleration, good turning abilities (at least for a 1st gen. jet), excellent climb and more than a match for german piston A/C and Ar-234 / Me-262 jet bomber.

[evangilder]

You are basing that on a number of assumptions though. Was the airframe designed for higher powered engines? Could it have handled manuevering at the higher speeds? You have to remember that the US was behind the Germans and the Brits and were the last of the three to even try their hand at building a jet engine and airframe. Both the Germans and Brits were already flying jets before the US even built one. The P-59 was a good start into the jet age, but I think you are making it out to be a better aircraft than it really was.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by delcyros

I stress the opposite, Syscom. Engines were avaiable in mid 44, when the P-80 was in preliminary prototype stage. The P59 would have been avaiable by then.

Remember that General Electric was having a terrible time building the engines in enough numbers.

[delcyros]

You are correct but GE had the basic tooling level to finally solve this problem. Indeed the US was superior in this field and paved the way for allied jet engine mass production. I admit that many assumptions are given and the final outcome -strongly hypothetic- is somehow questionable. The P-59 wouldn´t have been a world beater but I tend to think it just got not the credit it desires. I might be wrong, true.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by delcyros

You are correct but GE had the basic tooling level to finally solve this problem. ......

.

The had the tooling but couldnt get the engine design to work reliabily. The problems were eventually solved.

As in any racical new design, you just cant push technology and not expect delays or problems.