"machf" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:11:47 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On 28 Jun 2003 07:07:11 -0700, (Kenneth
Williams) wrote:

The Gloster Meteor, of course!

The Jerrys may have had many of aviation's "firsts" with their jets
but lacked anything good enough to last beyond a few years. The Meteor
lived well beyond the war and established itself quite well.

Too bad you Yanks had such misfortune with that horrid XP-59 and
troublesome XP-80 aircraft.

Keith, you are not really being fair to the US jet a/c you mentioned.

Remember that the P-59 was ordered as a "proof of concept" a/c, to
demonstrate that US forms could adapt to the new technology with respect to
manufacturing procedures, etc. The P-59 was outfitted with direct copies of
a "weak" (so to speak--1st generation) Whittle turbojet. Because of its
experimental nature, it was terrifically overbuilt (and hence noticeably
overweight). If you can locate the performance figures for the 1st batch of
P-59s and compare them to the same for the first batch of "Meatboxes", you
will find close similarities. Later P-59s had more powerful engines, but
featured little or no change in weight because no effort was expended in
productionizing the bird. In short, the P-59 was never intended for combat
use. There was no "misfortune" involved with the P-59 for the USAAF,
although Bell Aircraft may have missed the boat with a too-conservative
approach to its design and development. Bell ignored suggestions to "prove
the concept" by simply fitting a pair of the Whittles to the undersurfaces
of a P-39's wings, then asking for a contract to develop a serious fighter.

I believe also that you mischaracterize the P-80. It was constructed in a
remarkable short time during 1943 to take an Halford engine, then in short
order essentially re-designed and enlarged in order to take a more powerful
engine, also adapted from the British.

The major "problem" associated with its early use was overconfidence on the
part of the first pilots who flew them. A second was a flaw in the
fabrication of early turbine blades, which came from the factory with
impurities near the tips which weakened their structure, and hence would
fail at normal operating temperatures. Another flaw was the fuel system,
again drawn from British practice, which took power via gears from the
powerplant. It was discovered that at max throttle, such as used at takeoff,
this system could not always guarantee sufficient fuel flow sustain
combustion, leading to flameouts; a simple solution was to fit an auxiliary
fuel pump, which was supposed to be engaged by the pilot prior to takeoff,
and during the landing approach, as a precaution. On a number of occasions,
crash investigation discovered that the pilot had failed to engage the aux
pump.

Meeting and overcoming unanticipated development problems is part and parcel
of making a warplane operational. The contrast in time-frames between the
Me-262's initiation and its "readiness" for combat and that of the P-80's is
remarkable. By 1945, the P-80 demonstrated docile engine characteristics,
the ability to operate at 39-40,000 ft altitude, reliable powered ailerons,
no controllability problems, high overall quality control, an efficient
laminar-flow wing, and the ability to take off on a mission, climb to cruise
altitude, fly 500 miles, drop tip-tanks, and fight at 100 per cent power for
15 minutes before having to return to base, with enough fuel remaining for
one missed approach.

The basic design, hailing from 1943, proved adaptable of taking engines of
from 4,000 to in excess of 6,000 lbs thrust; of being the basis for a very
successful two-seat land-based trainer; the basis for a two-seat
radar-equipped rocket-firing all-weather interceptor; of being adapted for
carrier-borne pilot training; and of accepting afterburning for increased
acceleration and climb. The F-80 gave excellent service in the Korean
conflict, obtaining the first victory in all-jet combat, downing a
Soviet-built Mig-15.



Kenneth Williams

Actually the P-80, in its various iterations, served quite long and
well.

I'm not sure, but I think the Bolivian Air Force still has (or had until
very
recently) its T-33s in service.

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying