Adler, you've posted before that you would have liked to see the P-83 in service. I agree that it made a good long-range fighter and would have had decent performance once the problems had been fixed (better control surfaces, tail extention, better flaps, add air-breaks), but many here have said that it (and the basic configuration of the original Airacomet) wasn't worth development. She wasn't, pretty, but had good climb rate, powerful armament with the .60 cal. guns of the 2nd prototype, and incredible range of course. I think the range and high ceiling would have made it a good recon a/c even after it was obsolete as a fighter, and with the heavy load possible (2x 250 gal drop-tanks) it would potentialy have carried a hefty bombload and made a good fighter-bomber. What's your take on this?
I also think that if the P-59 had continued development with improvements after the YP-59As were out it might have developed into somthing akin to the Meteor. As the Meteor Mk I was not much better than the YP-59A and had had much more time to develop and streamline the (engineless) design. The early P-59 development was hampered by restrictions on wind-tunnel use and to a lesser extent lack of engine performance specs. In addition, to maintain secrecy the design staff was verry small and couldn't readily cooperate with those working on the P-63 which had similar design features, though eventually they did use some of the P-63's improvements. If the Meteor had been canceed at the same stages as the P-59 it would have been no better. (note that the development as acombat a/c was canceled before the P-59A was in production so the improvements made in the P-59A/Bs were mimimal) Both the Airacomet and early Meteor sufferd from snaking, compressibillity, short range and low engine power. The biggest problem were the wings: they were much larger than necessary, with an area of 386 square ft for an a/c weighing under 11,000 lbs loaded and under 13,000 lbs max. This resulted in a wing loading far lower than was necessary (~32lbs/square ft), admittedly good for a testbed where engines were unreliable and glide capabillities appreciated, but a wing area of around 260-280 square ft would be much more reasonable for a jet. (wing loading ~48-44 lbs/square ft) In addition the P-59, unlike the P-63, didn't utilize a liminar flow wing.In addition, the long 45.5 ft span resulted in poor roll characteristics.
Imagine an improved Airacomet with more streamlined fusalage, air intakes and engine nacelles, improved visibility/bubble canopy, improved control surfaces (possibly boosted), and air-brakes added. Square-off the tailplane. Have wing scaled to 84% of the original (~71% of the original area) resulting in a span of 38.2 ft and an area of ~272 square ft. The wing would be redesigned with improved airflow characteristics if possible. Maximize internal fuel capacity. Use the 2,000 lbf J31-GE-5 engines of the P-59B or maby up to 2,400 lbf as in the Derwent IV. Remove the cannon armament and increase total armament to 5x .50 cal BMG with increased ammo capacity to 250-300 rpg.(I doubt the nose could hold more than 5 guns) Though still not as good as the P-80, I'd expect it would have been tested and entered production by early to mid 1944 and service by very late 1944 or earl '45, like the Mk III mteor. (assuming redesign work began immediately after the initial prototype flew, and that Bell put this project on highest prioety and was continuously suported by the government; all other experemental designs like the XP-77 would be reduced in prioety or canceled. the P-63 would probably continue normaly)
I'd say remove the landing light from the nose, but I'm not sure of the reasoning behind it in the first place... (if it reall needed one, which day-fighters usualy dont, it could have wing-mounted lights as was more common. (with the light gone a larger armament might be possible, though I'm unsure of how much space the nose-wheel takes-up.
I'd expect performance to be somthing like: top speed: 520-540 mph, Range: ~400 mi normal ~700 mi max, climb: 3,800 ft/min max, weights would stay about the same at: ~8,000 lbs empty ~11,000 normal and 13,000 lbs max take-off. (the smaller wings reducing weight but increased fuel increasing it)
I'm not even going to talk about if engines with over 3,000 lbf of thrust at higher efficiency like the Derwent V were used... (ie a scale down J33 instead of the Nene) 8)
With the same kind of modification as seen in the Meteor, the P-59 would have likely seen similar improvements. Then again, if the RAF had abandoned the Meteor focused on the Vampire like the USAAF did with the P-59 and P-80...
She still looks nice in model form though:
Hobbycraft 1/48 P-59A Airacomet YP-59 Airacomet by John Valo (Hobbycraft 1/48)
