• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed P-80 with Jumo 004 turbojets

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
524
IMHO these wind model tests were to research the aerodynamics of underwing jet engine pods with axial-flow jet engines. Reminds me a little of the evolution the of the B-47 Stratojet and early American axial-flow jet engines like the Westinghouse J30 engine family. No source to prove it, just my two cents.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,685
Reaction score
1,240
Why not use a Meteor ? or better, a P-59 ?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,760
Reaction score
869
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Why not use a Meteor ? or better, a P-59 ?
My guess: the P-80 was relatively well characterized in its standard one-engine configuration. The idea *probably* wasn't to seriously propose a two-engine design, but just an effort to see what would happen had it had two engines of a recognized type. I suspect the end results weren't terribly impressive. More thrust, but not only was the aerodynamics blown out of kilter, but the roll rate would have been trashed due to throwing so much mass so far out from the centerline. Summary: "are two engines better than one?"
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
409
For a 'lawn dart', possibly.
 

Sherman Tank

I don't want to change my personal text
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
130
Reaction score
50
Why not use a Meteor ? or better, a P-59 ?
The Meteor would be harder to convert since its engines were buried in the wings. As for the P-59, it was totally obsolete and didn't fly very well to boot. The P-80 was the perfect platform for this sort of mad science aeronautical engineering project.
 
Top