See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/296648796

Aerodynamics of the Bell P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra

Conference Paper · May 2000

DOI: 10.4271/2000-01-1678

CITATION READS

1 3,448

1 author:

David Lednicer
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
15 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David Lednicer on 26 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Aerodynamics of the Bell P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra
Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
This paper provides a retrospective of the
aerodynamics of the Bell P-39 Airacobra and the Bell P-
63 Kingcobra. Design details and information obtained
from several drag reduction investigations conducted on
these aircraft are presented. Additionally, results from a
modern Computational Fluid Dynamics analysis of these
aircraft are shown.
INTRODUCTION
The Bell P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra were
novel aircraft in their time. Both incorporated unorthodox
features in their layout and design. Over time, both have
come to be regarded as “also-rans” among American
fighter aircraft. This is in part due to the fact that they
were lacking in range and performance at altitude,
compared to their contemporaries.
Perhaps because of their innovative features, both
aircraft were extensively tested by the National Advisory
Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), along with several
British aeronautical research agencies. It is interesting to
note that a picture has recently surfaced (Ref. 1) of a P-
39, supplied to the USSR, in the full-scale wind tunnel at
the Central Aerodynamics and Hydrodynamics Institute
(TsAGI). Today reports from the American and British
testing are still readily available and present a treasure
trove of information. This paper will discuss the findings of
this testing and use modern analyses to gain further
insight into the aerodynamics of these aircraft.
P-39 AIRACOBRA DESIGN ORIGINS
The Bell XP-39 was designed to meet a 1936
United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) requirement for a
single-engined interceptor aircraft (Ref. 2). The other
aircraft designed to meet this requirement were the
Curtiss XP-37 and Seversky AP3. The Seversky design
1
2000-01-1678
David A. Lednicer
Analytical Methods, Inc.
was not built, but test specimens of the XP-37 and XP-39
were built. At the same time, the Lockheed XP-38 was
designed and built for a similar requirement for a twin-
engined interceptor. All three aircraft were powered by a
turbosupercharged version of the Allison V-1710 engine,
this version having both an exhaust gas driven
turbocharger and a mechanically driven supercharger.
Compared to the other two aircraft, the XP-39 Airacobra
was an innovative design (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 XP-39 Three View
The pilot was situated in an early version of a
bubble canopy. Entrance to the cockpit was through
doors resembling those of an automobile. The engine was
located aft of the pilot and drove the propeller through a
10-foot long extension shaft, which ran between the pilot’s
legs. This freed up the nose area for armament, including
a cannon, which fired through the propeller hub. Much
was made of the fact that this resulted in a configuration
“with as trim and clean a fuselage nose as the snout of a
high velocity bullet” (Ref. 3). Also innovative at the time,
the coolant radiator was buried in the left wing root, being
fed by an inlet in the wing leading edge. Air from this
radiator exited over the upper surface of the wing. The oil
cooler and intercooler were mounted in the aft fuselage
and were fed by scoops on the right and left side of the
fuselage, respectively. The turbocharger unit was
mounted in the belly of the aircraft. Lastly, like the XP-38,
the Bell design had tricycle landing gear, a first for a
fighter aircraft. In the end, the Bell and Lockheed designs
were chosen for further development.
Despite having won its competition, the XP-39
was found to be short on performance at altitude. Flight-
testing had found its top speed at 20,000 feet to be lower
than the 400 mph claimed in the original proposal. Within
two months of its first flight on April 6, 1939, it was
delivered to the NACA research facility at Langley Field
Virginia for testing in the 30x60 foot full-size tunnel. The
hope was that modifications could be developed that
would yield drag reductions. The results of these tests
showed that there were serious deficiencies in the engine
oil and coolant duct systems. Additionally, the NACA
researchers were quite critical of the turbosupercharger
installation. Using a drag buildup scheme, a number of
potential areas of drag reduction were found. NACA
concluded that a top speed of 429 mph could be realized
with the aerodynamic improvements they had developed
and an uprated V-1710 with only a single-stage, single-
speed supercharger.
At a pivotal meeting with the USAAC and NACA
in August 1939, Larry Bell proposed that the production P-
39 aircraft be configured without the turbocharger. In
retrospect, elimination of the turbocharger without
substituting comparable supercharger capability sealed
the fate of the aircraft as an “also ran”. Historians have
questioned Bell’s true motivation in reconfiguring the
aircraft. The strongest hypothesis is that Bell’s factory
didn’t have an active production program and he was
desperate for cash flow (Fig. 2). Similarly, the USAAC
was desperate for a new fighter and they viewed
turbochargers to be unreliable and time consuming to
develop.
Fig. 2 Bell Aircraft Finances 1935-1939
The USAAC placed a small production order for
the reconfigured P-39 (Fig. 3) in late 1939, but it was the
start of World War II in September 1939 that saved the P-
39 from obscurity. In early 1940, France placed an order
for 165 P-39s, under the designation P-400. After the fall
of France in June of that year, the production contract was
2
assumed by Great Britain. This order is credited with
helping save the Bell Company in a time of great financial
crisis.
Between 1939 and 1944, 8,764 P-39s were built.
The French order, assumed by Great Britain, rose to a
total of 675, of which only 284 actually ended up in RAF
service. The Soviet Union took delivery of 4,924 aircraft.
247 were supplied to Free French units later in the war.
The remainder were accepted by the USAAC (and
USAAF). Small numbers later ended up in service in
Australia, Portugal and Italy, after the capitulation of that
country in September 1943.
Fig. 3 P-39Q Three View
XFL-1 AIRABONITA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Mention should be made of a second Bell aircraft
related to the P-39. In 1938, the US Navy issued a design
request for a single engine carrier-based fighter aircraft.
Vought, Brewster, Grumman, Curtiss and Bell responded
with proposals. The Bell proposal was for a fighter based
upon the P-39. As tricycle landing gear was not
considered acceptable for carrier operations, the aircraft
was reconfigured as a taildragger. This meant the main
landing gear had to move forward and the oil and coolant
radiators were moved aft in the wing. They were now fed
by large scoops on the underside of the wing and coolant
air exhausted, through slits, over the upper surface of the
wing. In November of that year, Bell got a contract to
build a prototype of their proposal, as the XFL-1 Airabonita
(Fig. 4).
The aircraft first flew on May 13, 1940. On the
first flight, the emergency flotation bags installed in the
wing somehow inflated. Luckily both bags soon ripped off
and the pilot managed to safely land the aircraft. In the
end, the Airabonita was found to have CG problems, to be
23% over the proposed design weight and not meet
minimum performance requirements. The program was
canceled and appropriately enough, the single airframe
was used as land fill at the Patuxent River Naval Air
Station. The Vought proposal went on to become the F4U
Corsair, which was a huge success and the Grumman
proposal became the XF5F-1, which led to the F7F
Tigercat, which was also successful.
turbosupercharged engine of the XP-39 was flat rated at
1,150 hp to 25,000 ft. The single stage supercharged
engines of production P-39s were sea level rated at
between 1,090 and 1,150 hp. Critical altitude varied
between 12,000 and 15,500 feet. The Allison engine drove
the propeller through a ten-foot long driveshaft, which
passed between the pilot’s legs. In the nose, the power
was transmitted through a reduction gearbox to the
propeller. On all aircraft except the XP-39, the coolant
radiator was mounted in the wing centersection and oil
coolers were mounted in both wing roots. The radiator
and coolers were fed by inlets in the wing root leading
edge and the air from these units exited through outlets in
the belly of the aircraft. Engine intake air was brought in
through a scoop mounted just behind the canopy.

Fig.4 XFL-1 Three View

P-39 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

The P-39 was a rather small single engined fighter

aircraft. Airframe wetted area was substantially less than
most other contemporary fighters. To enable analysis of
these aircraft, computer models have been built for use
with the VSAERO (Ref. 4) panel code. Wetted areas
calculated from VSAERO models of several fighters are
as follows:

Table 1 Wetted Area Summary

Aircraft Wetted Area

Bell P-63C KingCobra 914.6 ft 2
Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat 891.8 ft 2
NAA P-51D Mustang 882.2 ft 2 Fig.5 Pressures Calculated on the Upper Surface of the P-
2 39 Using VSAERO
Supermarine Spitfire IX 831.2 ft
Bell P-39N Airacobra 773.1 ft 2
Focke Wulf Fw 190D-9 761.6 ft 2

The wing of the P-39 was originally designed with

a NACA 0015 at the root and a NACA 0009 at the tip.
After initial scale wind tunnel testing, the tip airfoil was
changed to a NACA 23009 and all P-39s were built with
these airfoils. Additionally, the wing taper ratio was
reduced from 3:1 to 2:1, the area grew from 200 to 213.6
ft2 and the span was reduced from 35 to 34 feet at the
time the tip airfoil was changed. The wing was mounted
on the aircraft with four degrees of dihedral and two
degrees of incidence and had no twist. The pressure
distribution calculated with VSAERO at a typical cruise
condition is shown in Fig. 5 and 6. Noteworthy is the
relatively forward location of the suction on the wing upper
surface, resulting from the use of NACA 4-digit and 5-digit Fig. 6 Pressures Calculated on the Lower Surface of the
airfoils. P-39 Using VSAERO

All P-39s were powered by variants of the Allison NACA FULL-SCALE TUNNEL TESTS OF THE XP-39
V-1710, an engine with a V-12 layout. The
3
 During June and July 1939, the XP-39 was tested
in the 30x60 Full-Scale Wind Tunnel at the Langley
Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory (Ref. 5 to 7). NACA
researchers started by testing the aircraft as received and
then removed components one by one, resulting in an
idealized configuration, with the cockpit canopy removed
and the airplane completely faired and sealed.
Modifications to fix some of the components found to be
causing the most drag were also tested.
As received, the drag coefficient of the XP-39 was found to
be .0329 at a lift coefficient of .15. Removing the induced
drag and correcting for the low tunnel Reynolds number
results in a zero-lift drag coefficient of approximately
.0272. This is an equivalent flat plate drag area of 5.816
ft2. The drag coefficient based upon wetted area (CDswet) is
approximately .0075, a rather unflattering value. Using
this zero-lift drag value to calculate the aircraft’s
performance at 20,000 feet, a maximum speed of only 350
mph results.
In the buildup process, NACA personnel found the
following contributors to the overall airframe drag:
Table 2 Summary of NACA Findings
Component Percentage of
Total Drag
Oil Cooler 14%
Turbocharger 9%
Radiator 7%
Carburetor Inlet 6%
Exhausts 5%
Intercooler 2%
Landing Gear 6%
Canopy 1%
Summing the first six contributors shows that
43% of the airframe drag resulted from the engine
installation. The oil cooler was a particularly bad offender.
It was a sharp edged rectangular scoop, fitted during the
flight test program in an effort to solve cooling problems.
Analysis showed the inlet duct to be rather oversized.
The intercooler duct was also sharp edged and oversized.
The turbocharger, in a protruding installation, also
produced considerable drag. In addition, the exhaust
pipes running down to the turbocharger were partly
exposed and the turbocharger exhaust pipes stuck a
distance into the free stream. The coolant radiator had an
oversized exit and the duct passages ahead and behind
the core were cluttered with structural members and
restricted where the wheel well intruded. The carburetor
inlet was poorly designed and had considerable flow
separation around it. Considering non-propulsion related
drag, despite the landing gear being retractable, it still
4
contributed considerable drag in cruise, as the nose and
main wheels were not covered and protruded partially into
the flow.
NACA recommended burying the oil cooler in the
wing root, with a leading edge inlet feeding it. This was
found to reduce this drag contribution by 73%. NACA
personnel found that by properly throttling flow through the
coolant radiator, the drag of this component was reduced
50%. The drag of the intercooler was reduced 40% by a
better duct design. Lastly, lowering the canopy line
reduced the drag contribution of this component 60%.
BRITISH FLIGHT TESTING OF THE AIRACOBRA
The British P-400 production contract stated that
a maximum speed of 394 mph (+/- 4%) was required at
rated altitude (Ref. 2). In acceptance testing, actual
production aircraft were found to be capable of only 371
mph at 14,090 feet.
To enable the aircraft to make the guarantee
speed, a variety of drag reduction modifications were
developed by Bell. The areas of the elevator and rudder
were reduced by 14.2% and 25.2%, respectively.
Modified fillets were installed in the tail area. The canopy
glass was faired to its frame with putty. The gun access
doors on the wing had been seen to bulge in flight, so
they were replaced with thicker aluminum sheet.
Similarly, the landing gear doors deflected open by as
much as two inches at maximum speed, so a stronger
linkage was installed to hold them flush. The cooling air
exit from the oil and coolant radiators was reduced in area
to match the exit velocity to the local flow. New engine
exhaust stacks, deflected to match the local flow and with
nozzles to increase thrust augmentation, were installed.
The machine gun ports were faired over, the antenna mast
was removed, a single piece engine cowling was installed
and an exhaust stack fairing was added. Lastly, the
airframe was painted with 20 coats of primer, with
extensive sanding between coats. Standard camouflage
was applied over this, this too being sanded to remove the
edges between the colors. Additionally, weight was
removed from the aircraft, resulting in it being about 200
pounds lighter than normal (7,466 lbs gross).
After these modifications, the second production
aircraft (AH 571) reached a speed of 391 mph at 14,400
feet, in flight test. As this speed was within 1% of the
guarantee, the aircraft was declared to have satisfied the
contractual obligations. Despite the success of these
modifications none were applied to other production P-
39s. Later testing of a standard production P-400 by the
Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment in
Great Britain revealed a top speed of only 359 mph (Ref.
8).
Attempting to match the performance of the P-
400 measured by the A&AEE, results in airframe zero-lift
drag of approximately 4.5 feet 2 (a CDswet of .0058). To get
the performance measured with aircraft AH 571 before and
after modification, the zero-lift drag has to be 3.9 feet 2
(CDswet=.0050) and 3.4 feet 2 (CDswet=.0044), respectively.
An examination of the engine power specification (Ref. 20)
shows that the engine was likely not overboosted to reach
this performance, as increases in power are matched by
reductions in critical altitude. As will be seen, these last
two drag values are exceedingly low for this airframe.
Further flight testing in Great Britain, by the Air
Fighting Development Unit at Boscombe Down, produced
the following maximum speed comparison with a Spitfire
VB (Ref. 8):
Table 3 AFDU Speed Comparison
Altitude Superior Aircraft
13,000 feet P-39 (+18 mph)
15,000 feet Even match
20,000 feet Spitfire (+35 mph)
24,000 feet Spitfire (+55 mph)
To assess the Airacobra’s maneuverability in air
combat, mock combats were staged with a Spitfire VB
and a captured Messerschmitt Bf 109E. It was found
“These combats show that when fighting the Bf 109E
below 20,000 feet the Airacobra is superior on the same
level and in a dive”. On the other hand, “Unless it had a
height advantage the Airacobra could not normally
compete with an aircraft similar to the Spitfire V”.
The RAF encountered many problems when they
tried to make their Airacobras operational. One major
problem was that the recoil from the nose mounted
machine guns caused serious compass errors. In the
end, the RAF Airacobras only flew four operational
missions and fired their guns in combat only twice.
NACA FLIGHT TESTING OF THE P-39
During World War II, the NACA Ames
Aeronautical Laboratory conducted an extensive flight test
program with a P-39N, at the request of the Air Technical
Service Command of the USAAF. The P-39N was similar
to the P-400, but had different armament and an engine
with slightly more power. In this testing, measurements
were made of the aircraft’s flying qualities (Ref. 9), drag
(Ref. 10), longitudinal stability (Ref. 11 and 12), maximum
lift (Ref. 13) and surface pressures were measured on the
right wing (Ref. 14) and horizontal tail (Ref. 15 to 18).
The flight test investigation of the P-39’s drag
mainly focused on the drag rise at high Mach number
(Ref. 10). The aircraft tested was a standard service
ready P-39. Data was taken in level flight and dives from
5
high altitude, to a Mach number of .8. The drag
divergence Mach number (dCD/dM=.1) of the aircraft was
found to be .67. In contrast, similar RAE testing of a
Lightning, Thunderbolt, Spitfire XXI and Mustang I showed
them to have drag divergence Mach numbers of
approximately .62, .65, .72 and .73, respectively (Fig. 7)
(Ref. 19). In level flight, the P-39’s zero-lift drag was found
to be 4.76 feet 2 (CDswet=.0062). A contemporary NACA
wind tunnel test of a .35-scale P-39 model (Ref. 12)
resulted in a nearly identical zero-lift drag for the aircraft.
Interestingly, the official performance specification of the
P-39D (Ref. 20), lists a zero-lift drag of only 3.63 feet 2
(CDswet=.0047)! The maximum speed achieved in level
flight during the NACA flight tests was 353 mph at 15,000
feet, equivalent to a Mach number of .49. This speed
corresponds quite closely to that achieved during the
A&AEE flight tests in Great Britain.
Fig. 7 Drag Divergence of Several Fighter Aircraft, as
Measured by NACA and the RAE
As with the drag tests, the NACA longitudinal
stability testing (Ref. 11) was intended to explore changes
in stability with increasing Mach number. One interesting
result was that the power-off stick-fixed Neutral Point was
measured to be in the range of 32.5% to 33.5% MAC,
depending on lift coefficient. Testing showed that power
effects shifted the stick-fixed Neutral Point forward by
approximately 1% MAC. As the aircraft was being flown
at a CG position of 28.8% MAC, this only left a 2.7%
static margin, at low lift coefficients. A contemporary .35-
scale wind tunnel test (Ref. 12) placed the power-off,
stick-fixed Neutral Point at 33.3% to 34.4% MAC,
depending on lift coefficient. The results of a VSAERO
analysis of the P-39 place the power-off stick-fixed Neutral
Point at 34.3% MAC.
The surface pressure measurements made by
NACA on the P-39N (Ref. 15 to 18) are a wealth of data.
Previously, surface pressure measurements had only
been made in flight on lower-speed aircraft. During World
War II, the RAE took limited data on high-speed aircraft,
at one spanwise position on a Spitfire XI (Ref. 21) and a
Mustang I (Ref. 19). The NACA P-39N data provided the
first, extensive database on the effects of high Mach and
Reynolds numbers on airloads in various maneuvers.
Measurements were made power-on and power-off at a
wide range of Mach numbers and lift coefficients, as
shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 9 Comparison of Experimentally Measured and

Calculated Wing Loading at M=.3, CL=.2, Power-Off
Fig. 8 NACA P-39N Test Matrix

To reach the high Mach numbers, the aircraft was

dived from 34,000 feet to a minimum altitude of 10,000
feet. Some of the high lift coefficients were reached in
accelerated flight (i.e., by pulling more than 1g). In
accelerated flight, a certain amount of wing skin wrinkling
and wing twisting was experienced. An attempt was
made to quantify the twisting by painting a grid on the
wing and filming the wing during accelerated flight. The
movement of the grid in the film was then measured. A
wing twist increase of .7 degrees at 5.5gs was measured.
Additionally, a problem was experienced with main
landing gear protruding in accelerated flight. This was
remedied by fitting additional uplocks.

Wing pressures were measured at four chordwise

rows on the wing and horizontal stabilizer. There is also
photographic evidence that data was taken on the vertical
tail, but these data haven’t been located. The lower and
upper surfaces were differenced during data reduction, to
produce chordwise lift distribution plots. Time has not
permitted a detailed comparison of this data with results
calculated by VSAERO, but a representative comparison
is shown in Fig. 9. As can be seen, there are
discrepancies, but agreement is generally good. It should
be noted that portions of the inboard tap rows were
located in the region of the main landing gear doors, which
probably disrupted the local flowfield. Additionally, the
most inboard row was located just outboard of the oil
cooler inlet in the wing leading edge.
Fig. 10 Comparison of Experimentally Measured and
Calculated Lift Distribution at M=.3, CL=.2, Power-Off
NACA researchers integrated the surface
pressures to provide spanwise lift and pitching moment
distributions. Comparisons of these distributions and
those calculated by VSAERO, for the power-off, CL=.2,
M=.3 case, are shown in Fig. 10 and 11. The
comparisons show considerable scatter in the
experimental results.

6

Fig. 11 Comparison of Experimentally Measured and
Calculated Pitching Moment Distribution at M=.3, CL=.2,
Power-Off
P-39 “TUMBLING”
Soon after entering service, pilots began to report
that “during flights of the P-39 in certain maneuvers, it
tumbled end over end.” Most of these events happened
after the aircraft was stalled in a nose high attitude with
considerable power applied. Concerned, Bell initiated a
test program. Bell pilots made 86 separate efforts to
reproduce the reported tumbling characteristics. In no
case were they able to tumble the aircraft. This raises the
question as to what was happening.
In his autobiography (Ref. 22) veteran test and
airshow pilot R.A. “Bob” Hoover provides an account of
tumbling a P-39. He goes on to say that in hindsight, he
was actually performing a Lomcovák, a now common
airshow maneuver. Besides being able to do this in a P-
39, he could also do the maneuver in a Curtiss P-40. The
Lomcovák was introduced to competition aerobatics by
the Czechoslovak national team, flying Zlin 526s, in the
1960s. In any of several variations, the Lomcovák involves
autorotating the airplane end over end at the apex of a
climbing outside snap roll (Ref. 23). Most Lomcováks are
entered from a near vertical attitude with power applied,
which matches the description of how P-39 tumbles were
entered.
An informal study of the P-39’s spinning
characteristics was conducted in the NASA Langley
Research Center 20-foot Free-Spinning Tunnel during the
1970s (Ref 24). A study of old reports showed that during
earlier spin testing in the facility, the aircraft had never
tumbled. However, it was noted that all testing had been
done with a simulated full ammunition load, which drew
the aircraft’s center of gravity forward. After finding the
original spin test model of the P-39 in storage, the new
study first replicated the earlier testing, with consistent
results. Then, the model was reballasted to simulate a
7
condition of no ammunition load, which moved the
aircraft’s center of gravity aft. Under these conditions, the
model was found to often tumble when thrown into the
tunnel.
COBRA I AND II
Soon after World War II ended, it was announced
that the Cleveland Air Races would resume on Labor Day
weekend, 1946. Three Bell test pilots, Alvin “Tex”
Johnston, Chalmers “Slick” Goodlin and Jack Woolams
formed a partnership to enter two P-39s in the Thompson
Trophy Race to be held during the weekend’s races (Ref.
25). Bell had bought two USAAF surplus P-39Qs for their
propellers, for use in the L-39 program. The three pilots
bought these aircraft from Bell, along with the P-63
propellers that had originally been installed on the L-39s.
They and a group of volunteers set about
preparing these two aircraft, named Cobra I and Cobra II
for pylon racing. All unnecessary equipment was stripped
from the airframes, including armor plate, weapons
systems, radios and batteries. Cockpit armor glass was
replaced with thin Plexiglas. The heavy self-sealing fuel
tanks were removed and replaced by specially
constructed U.S. Rubber Company light weight fuel cells.
Even the engine starters were removed, in favor of a hand-
cranked inertia starter, augmented by a ground power
supply. The control surfaces were all reskinned with
metal. An engine water injection system was added in
the nose and a 28-gallon aft fuselage fuel tank was added.
To help with cooling, an auxiliary oil cooler, in a duct, was
attached to the centerline bomb shackles. The engine air
intake was modified, in all probability having a P-63C inlet
section added to the Airacobra scoop. This was done to
raise the scoop further away from the fuselage and
eliminate the possibility of ingesting the fuselage
boundary layer. As the Thompson Trophy Race began
with a standing start, the aircraft electrical systems were
converted from 24 to 36 volts. This decreased the time it
took to retract the landing gear to five or six seconds.
Lastly, the standard Allison V-1710-85 engines were
replaced with V-1710-135s taken from RP-63s. Unlike
most P-63 engines, these V-1710-135s were single-stage
supercharged, like the P-39’s V-1710-85s. However, the
V-1710-135s were capable of a higher power output (2,000
hp) than the V-1710-85s.
All these modifications resulted in the two aircraft
having a 478.8 lbs decrease in empty weight compared to
a P-39Q. However, loaded for the Thompson Trophy
Race, Cobra I and II actually weighed 48.7 lbs more than
the maximum gross weight of a P-39Q. This was mainly
a result of the large fuel load required for the race and the
100 gallons of water-alcohol mixture needed to allow high
power settings to be maintained.
A flip of the coin decided that Jack Woolams
would be flying Cobra I and Tex Johnston would fly Cobra
II. On Wednesday, August 28, Woolams qualified at Tony LeVier P-38L-5 370.193
392.8 mph and Johnston qualified at 409.1 mph, taking Earl Ortman P-51D 367.625
the pole position. Woolams felt that his engine wasn’t
running properly, so he flew Cobra I back to Buffalo on Bruce Raymond P-51D-15 364.655
Thursday, where his engine was changed. On a test run Robert Swanson P-51K-10 362.052
Friday evening, Cobra I crashed into Lake Ontario and Cook Cleland FG-1D 357.465
Woolams was killed. It was theorized that either the aft
fuselage had failed or the windshield had exploded in Woody Edmundson P-51D-20 354.395
Woolams’ face, as a result of torsional flexure of the Steve Wittman P-63C-5 341.215
forward fuselage. Reinforcement strips were quickly Howard Lilly P-63A-7 328.154
added to the aft fuselage of Cobra II, along with a
H.L. Pemberton P-63F-1 306.406
reinforcing wire running between the windshield posts.
Charles Tucker P-63C-5 DNF
Table 4 Qualifying for 1946 Thompson Trophy Race George Welch P-51D-20 DNF
Jack Woolams P-39Q-10 DNS
Pilot Airplane Speed (mph)
Tex Johnston P-39Q-10 409.091
George Welch P-51D-20 394.304 How was Cobra II able to qualify in 1946 at such a
Jack Woolams P-39Q-10 392.728 high speed? Indications are that a combination of
reduced zero-lift drag (to about 4 feet 2, or CDswet=.0052)
Charles Tucker P-63C-5 392.157
and increased power available (2,000 hp) made this
Tony LeVier P-38L-5 376.438 possible.
Cook Cleland FG-1D 361.809
P-63 KINGCOBRA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Steve Wittman P-63C-5 358.090
Howard Lilly P-63A-7 346.155 Recognizing the need to improve the performance
H.L. Pemberton P-63F-1 346.043 of the P-39, in early 1941, the USAAF funded the
Robert Swanson P-51K-10 344.608 development of the XP-39E (Ref. 2). This aircraft made
use of the Allison V-1710-47 engine, which had two-stage
Earl Ortman P-51D 344.388 supercharger. The new first stage was located aft of the
Bruce Raymond P-51D-15 343.403 engine and driven by a hydraulically coupled extension
Woody Edmundson P-51D-20 334.079 shaft. All flying surfaces were redesigned to have square
tips and the wing span was increased to 35 feet 10
inches, while wing area increased to 235.6 feet 2. The root
airfoil, a NACA 0015 on other models of the P-39, was
On Monday, September 1st, pursued by George changed to a NACA 0018, to gain internal volume. The
Welch in a P-51D and Tony LeVier in a P-38, Tex empty weight of the aircraft grew from 5364 lbs to 7631
Johnston went on to win the 1946 Thompson Trophy Race lbs, a 42.2% increase. A prototype XP-39E first flew on
on Monday at an average speed of 373.9 mph. February 21, 1942. It was soon found that the two-stage
supercharger improved the aircraft’s altitude performance,
Cobra II was raced by other pilots in the 1947 and resulting in a speed of 393 mph at 24,000 feet. This
1948 Thompson Trophy Races, qualifying in 1948 at 418.3 performance is representative of a zero-lift drag of
mph. However, it never won again. The airframe later approximately 4.45 feet 2, a slight improvement on the P-
ended up in California, where in 1967 Mike Caroll set 39N. Otherwise, the XP-39E was inferior to standard
about modifying it for use at the National Air Races in production P-39s. As a result, only three XP-39Es were
Reno, Nevada (Ref. 26). The wing span was reduced to built.
26 feet and an Allison V-1710-G6, capable of 2,850 hp
was installed. On its first test flight after the modifications At roughly the same time that the XP-39E
were complete, on August 10, 1968, the aircraft went out development effort started, a parallel effort to develop a
of control. Caroll bailed out, but was struck by the new aircraft, with the same general layout as the P-39,
horizontal stabilizer and killed. The airframe was was started. A more advanced Allison V-1710-63, also
destroyed in the ensuing crash. with a two-stage supercharger, was used. However, in
comparison with the XP-39E, the new design was to have
Table 5 1946 Thompson Trophy Race Results more power, less drag and less empty weight.
Additionally, the wing was designed to make use of the
Pilot Airplane Speed (mph) then-new NACA laminar flow airfoils. Preceded by the
Tex Johnston P-39Q-10 373.908 North American P-51 Mustang, the new Bell design was
only the second production airplane to be designed and
8
flown with laminar flow airfoils. Being an all-new design, it and the area was 248 ft 2 (Fig. 12). The wing was mounted
was designated the P-63 Kingcobra. on the aircraft with 3.66 degrees of dihedral and 1.3
degrees of incidence and had no twist.
During development, the aircraft’s gross weight
grew from 8,500 lbs to 10,000 lbs, but a concerted weight
reduction effort reduced this to 7,525 lbs, on par with that
of the P-39D. The XP-63A first flew on December 7, 1942.
Initially, the aircraft had longitudinal stability problems that
were finally solved when larger horizontal tail surfaces,
developed by Bell and NACA, were installed. USAAF
testing soon showed that the aircraft was capable of a
maximum of 398 mph at 22,000 feet, while NACA testing
produced a maximum speed of 421.5 mph at 24,100 feet.
The USAAF performance matches the zero-lift drag values
measured in flight, which will be discussed later. While
top speed had improved over the P-39, combat range had
dropped to only 65 miles. The original specification had
no range requirement, only requiring a one-hour Fig.12 P-63A Three View
endurance. As a result, the P-63 only carried 126 gallons
of internal fuel, half the internal fuel of its contemporaries.

Table 6 Fuel Capacity of Some WWII Fighters

Aircraft Internal Fuel (Gallons)

P-47C Thunderbolt 305
P-51B Mustang 269
F6F-3 Hellcat 250
F4U-1D Corsair 237
P-51A Mustang 180
P-40E Warhawk 148
F4F-3 Wildcat 147
P-63A Kingcobra 126
P-39D Airacobra 120
Fig.13 Pressures Calculated on the Upper Surface of the
P-63 Using VSAERO
Despite its shortcomings, the P-63 entered
production and 3,303 were built. Many were used in Most P-63s were powered by variants of the
training programs, and 2,421 were delivered to the Soviet Allison V-1710 with a two-stage supercharger. These
Union. Another 107 were delivered to the French, two engines were sea level rated at 1,150 hp and critical
went to Great Britain and Honduras operated some after altitude varied between 21,500 and 27,500 feet. As on the
World War II. Kingcobras supplied to the Soviet Union P-39, the Allison engine drove the propeller through a ten-
arrived too late to see combat in Europe (Ref. 27). foot long driveshaft, which passed between the pilot’s
However, they were used in combat during Operation legs. In the nose, the power was transmitted through a
Autumn Storm, the August 1945 Soviet invasion of reduction gearbox to the propeller. On the P-63, the oil
Manchuria. The sole air-to-air victory by a Kingcobra cooler was mounted in the wing centersection and coolant
occurred during this invasion. radiators were mounted in both wing roots. The radiator
and coolers were fed by inlets in the wing root leading
P-63 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION edge and the air from these units exited through outlets in
the belly of the aircraft. Engine intake air was brought in
As already shown, while the P-39 was a relatively through a scoop mounted just behind the canopy.
small airplane with relatively small wetted area, the P-63
had a relatively large wetted area. The wing of the P-63 Views of the pressure distribution calculated on the P-63
was designed with a NACA 66(215)-116 a=.6 at the root are shown in Fig. 13 and 14. As the NACA 6-series
and a NACA 66(215)-216 a=.6 at the tip. The wing taper airfoils used on the P-63 have a pressure recovery
ratio was approximately 2:1, span was 38 feet 4 inches beginning much further aft than the NACA 4-digit and 5-

9
digit airfoils used on the P-39, the wing suction extends
much further aft.
Fig.14 Pressures Calculated on the Lower Surface of the
P-63 Using VSAERO
NACA FULL-SCALE TUNNEL TESTS OF THE P-63
Like the XP-39, the first P-63A built was delivered
to the NACA research facility at Langley Field Virginia for
testing in the 30x60 foot full-size tunnel. The test program
conducted on the P-63A was less extensive than that
performed on the XP-39. Initial testing found that the drag
coefficient of the P-63A as delivered was .0221 at a lift
coefficient of .15 (Ref. 28 and 29). Removing the induced
drag and correcting for the low tunnel Reynolds number, a
zero-lift drag coefficient of approximately .0179 results.
This is an equivalent flat plate drag area of 4.439 ft 2. The
drag coefficient based upon wetted area (CDswet) is
approximately .0048, a considerable improvement over the
XP-39 and P-39. By sealing and fairing the P-63A,
NACA found that this was lowered an additional 22.6%.
During the testing, it was found that the drag of the
cooling system could be reduced by recontouring the inlet
lips. Control surface gap seals were found to be effect in
reducing the drag of these surfaces. An investigation was
also made into how to reduce the drag of the aircraft’s
armament.
NACA FLIGHT TESTING OF THE P-63
At the request of the Air Technical Service
Command of the USAAF, NACA conducted a series of
test to develop modifications to improve the high-speed
performance of the P-63A (Ref. 30). These tests were
performed on the same airframe used in the NACA full-
scale wind tunnel test. Baseline performance tests were
made before the full-scale tunnel entry. Tests to evaluate
the drag improvement items identified during the tunnel
test were performed after the tunnel entry. The
modifications actually flown included; a revised carburetor
10
inlet scoop, revised cooling system inlets, seals around
the coolant-flap actuator rods, a seal over the carburetor
hot-air opening to shut this off, fairings over the cannon
and machine gun muzzles and seals over lightening holes
in the spars of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers.
An average speed difference of 6 mph was
recorded between the baseline and modified
configurations. This was slightly less than expected from
the full-scale tunnel results. Credit for this increase was
divided equally between the reduction in drag and the
increase in pressure recovery at the carburetor due to the
new duct design. The investigators felt that there was a
potential for an additional 2 mph improvement if the
increase in pressure recovery at the carburetor did not
reduce the first stage supercharger hydraulic coupling at a
given airplane altitude.
A tuft test made during this flight investigation
identified areas of flow disturbance behind the machine
gun muzzles on the upper forward fuselage, at the sharp
corners of the windshield armor glass, behind the
carburetor inlet scoop and on the wing-fuselage fillet. In
particular, it appears that the flow on the aft third of the
wing-fuselage fillet was separated. As noted,
“Modification of this fillet to eliminate the decrease in
fuselage width ahead of the wing trailing edge should
improve the flow at the fillet.”
RAE FLIGHT TESTING OF THE P-63
British engineers, like the Americans, had a
growing interest during World War II in the application of
laminar flow airfoils. In 1942, the Hawker Typhoon was
redesigned with a new wing, incorporating laminar flow
airfoils, as the Hawker Tempest. Similarly, Supermarine
designed a wing with laminar flow airfoils that was used on
the Spiteful, a follow-on to the Spitfire. In an effort to learn
more about the practical application of laminar flow
airfoils, in 1945 the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE)
undertook a flight test program with one of the two P-63As
that Great Britain had received (Ref. 31). The aircraft was
equipped with a wake rake array mounted outboard,
behind the wing, to allow the momentum deficit to be
measured. This was not without precedent. Some
previous, similar studies had included those made by
Curtiss-Wright on a P-40 (Ref. 32), by NACA on various
aircraft (Ref. 33), by NACA on the XP-47F (Ref. 34), by
NACA on the XP-51 (Ref. 35 and 36) and by the RAE on a
Spitfire XI (Ref. 37).
In the case of the P-63A, the RAE first tested it in
an “as delivered” configuration. The wing airfoil was
designed to be capable of supporting laminar flow to 60%
of chord. In the “as delivered” configuration, a profile drag
was measured which was representative of the wing
section with boundary layer transition at the leading edge
(0% laminar flow). Reducing the surface roughness
reduced the drag at low lift coefficients to a level
representative of laminar flow to 35% of chord.
Measurements were made of the surface waviness. This
showed peak wave amplitudes, above the mean, of
approximately .011” over a two inch span. The waviness
criteria of Ref. 38 shows the critical wave height to be
.0053” for this application. To reduce the waviness, RAE
personnel stripped the wing to bare metal. The wing was
then sprayed with two coats of primer paint and a coat of
paint type filler. After the paint was dry, it was sanded in
a chordwise direction, using sanding blocks, whose
curvature matched the local surface curvature. This was
repeated several times. Surface waviness was then
measured and found to be no more than .005”. In flight,
this configuration was found to have a profile drag
representative of boundary layer transition at 60% of
chord. NACA testing of the XP-47F (Ref. 34) and XP-51
(Ref. 35) showed the same result – surface waviness
needs to be minimized to allow extensive chordwise runs
of laminar flow.
Fig.15 L-39 (80% Slats) 3-View
L-39 DEVELOPMENT
After the end of World War II, it became
increasingly apparent that future fighter aircraft would be
designed with swept wings. The high-speed advantages
of swept wing aircraft were well known, from German
wartime test data. However, there were questions
regarding the low speed handling characteristics of swept
wing aircraft. The US Navy was particularly concerned
about the applicability of swept wing aircraft to carrier
operations. To answer these questions, the US Navy
contracted Bell to convert two P-63s for research in this
area. The two aircraft, designated L-39s, were a
composite of P-63A fuselages married to P-63E outer
wing panels, installed with 35 degrees of sweep (Fig. 15).
To move the CG aft, lighter P-39 propellers were installed
and ballast was added in the aft fuselage. A four-foot aft
fuselage plug was added to improve directional stability
and to move the CG further aft. For simplicity, the main
gear was fixed in the extended position, but the
retractable nose gear was retained. After the Navy test
program was complete, one of the aircraft had a wing
11
representative of that intended for the Bell X-2 installed for
further low-speed testing (Ref. 42).
L-39 TESTING
In the course of the Navy flight test program, the
two aircraft were used to evaluate leading edge devices.
Two different designs of leading edge slats, with different
slat gaps, were installed on the aircraft. Flights were
made with these slats covering the outer 0%, 20%, 40%,
60%, 80% and 100% of the wing’s span (Ref. 39 to 41).
With no leading edge slats, the stall
characteristics of the L-39 were found to be poor. After
stalling, the aircraft would quickly roll-off, to bank angles
as high as 75 degrees (Ref. 2). With slats covering the
outer 20% of each wing, the stall characteristics showed
little improvement. When the slats were extended to
cover the outer 40% of each wing, the stall characteristics
were improved and the aircraft didn’t roll-off as much.
With slats covering the outer 60% of each wing, the stall
characteristics were excellent. Little difference was found
when the slats were extended to cover the outer 80% of
each wing. However, when the slats were extended to
cover 100% of each wing, the stall characteristics again
became unsatisfactory. Little difference in stall
characteristics was found between the two slat gaps, but
the pilots never viewed the narrow slot favorably.
Pictures of the pressure distribution calculated by
VSAERO on a model of the L-39, with slats retracted, are
shown in Fig. 16 and 17. The greater chordwise extent of
suction, seen on the P-63, is still present, but is now
swept with the planform. Additionally, it can be seen that
the suction on the lower surface of the horizontal tail has
increased in strength, indicating an increase in loading of
this surface.
Fig.16 Pressures Calculated on the Upper Surface of the
L-39 Using VSAERO

Fig.17 Pressures Calculated on the Lower Surface of the
L-39 Using VSAERO
CONCLUSION
There are many lessons to be learned from the
saga of the P-39 and P-63 programs. Fundamentally, the
most important, is that an aircraft is only as good as the
specification to which it is designed. The XP-39 and P-63
were designed as interceptors. However, the reality of
World War II meant that they were rarely employed as
such. Instead, the combat reality demanded an aircraft
capable of performing the high altitude air superiority and
fighter escort missions. Neither aircraft was capable of
performing these missions, so they instead were used for
second tier missions.
Looking back on the development of the XP-39, it
can be seen that the airplane had excessive drag as first
flown. In the haste to get it into production, its
turbocharger was removed, in the hopes that drag
reduction would offset the reduction in power at altitude.
However, this drag reduction was not fully realized and the
P-39 proved to be short of performance at altitude. With
better aircraft available for the high altitude air combat
missions, the P-39 was relegated to ground attack and
training missions.
The P-63 started out with both its weight and drag
under better control than the P-39. While the P-63 met
the specification it was designed to, it was short on range.
The aircraft was very tightly packaged and it was found
that there was no way to add more fuel capacity. This
doomed the P-63 to also be relegated to ground attack
and training missions.
Extensive test data were taken on these aircraft
during their lifetimes. These data covered the areas of
aircraft drag, Mach number effects, longitudinal stability,
laminar flow and slats on swept wings. Fortunately, much
of these data are documented in reports that are still
12
widely available. These data are still quite useful today. It
is hoped that the collection of information in this paper will
provide engineers with new configuration design and drag
reduction ideas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to extend his gratitude to
Birch Matthews for providing technical data that made this
effort possible. In addition, his book, Ref. 2, proved
invaluable in preparing this paper. Thanks also go to the
Key Publishing for permission to use Fig. 3, 4 and 12,
which originally appeared in their publications Air
International and Air Enthusiast.
REFERENCES
1. Smith, Blake W. Warplanes to Alaska; The Story of a
WWII Military Supply Lifeline to Alaska and Russia
Through the Canadian Wilderness, Hancock House,
Blaine Washington, 1999.
2. Matthews, Birch, Cobra! Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-
1946, Schiffer Military/Aviation History, Atglen
Pennsylvania, 1996.
3. Woods, Robert J., “Why a Rear Engine Installation,” Parts
I and II, Aviation, March and April 1941.
4. Nathman, James K., VSAERO User’s Manual, Version
6.1, Analytical Methods, Inc., 1999.
5. Silverstein, Abe and Nickle, F.R., “Tests of the XP-39
Airplane in the NACA Full-Scale Wind Tunnel,” NACA MR,
September 1939.
6. Dearborn, C.H. and Silverstein, Abe, “Drag Analysis of
Single-Engine Military Airplanes Tested in the NACA Full-
Scale Wind Tunnel,” NACA ACR, reissued as NACA WR
L-489, October 1940.
7. Coe, Paul L., “Review of Drag Cleanup Tests in Langley
Full-Scale Tunnel (From 1935 to 1945) Applicable to
Current General Aviation Airplanes,” NACA TN D-8206,
June 1976.
8. Anon., “The Calamitous ‘Cobra,” Air Enthusiast, Vol 1 No
3, August 1971.
9. Hoover, H.H., “Measurements of the Flying Qualities of a
Bell P-39D-1 Airplane (AAF No. 41-28378),” NACA MR
L4J19, reissued as NACA WR L-602, October 1944.
10. Gasich, Welko E. and Clousing, Lawrence A., “Flight
Investigation of the Variation of Drag Coefficient With
Mach Number for the Bell P-39N-1 Airplane,” NACA ACR
5D04, reissued as NACA WR A-61, Mary 1945.
11. Turner, William N., Steffen, Paul J. and Clousing,
Lawrence A., “Compressibility Effects on the Longitudinal
Stability and Control of a Pursuit-Type Airplane as
Measured in Flight,” NACA ACR 5I13, reissued as NACA
WR A-60, October 1945.
12. Robinson, Robert C. and Perone, Angelo, “The High-
Speed Longitudinal Stability and Control of the Bell P-
39N-1 Airplane as Calculated From Propeller-Off Tests of
a 0.35-Scale Model,” NACA RM A6L27, January 1947.
13. Spreiter, John R. and Steffen, Paul J., “Effect of Mach and
Reynolds Numbers on Maximum Lift Coefficient,” NACA
TN 1044, March 1946.
14. Clousing, Lawrence A., Turner, William N. and Rolls, L.
Stewart, “Measurements in Flight of the Pressure
Distribution on the Right Wing of a P-39N-1 Airplane at
Several Values of Mach Number,” NACA ARR 4K09,
reissued as NACA WR A-13, April 1945.
15. Sadoff, Melvin, Turner, William N. and Clousing,
Lawrence A., “Measurements of the Pressure
Distribution on the Horizontal-Tail Surface of a Typical
Propeller-Driven Pursuit Airplane in Flight; I – Effects of
Compressibility in Steady Straight and Accelerated
Flight,” NACA TN 1144, July 1947.
16. Sadoff, Melvin and Clousing, Lawrence A.,
“Measurements of the Pressure Distribution on the
Horizontal Tail Surface of a Typical Propeller-Driven
Pursuit Airplane in Flight; II – The Effect of Angle of
Sideslip and Propeller Operation,” NACA TN 1202, May
1947.
17. Sadoff, Melvin and Clousing, Lawrence A.,
“Measurements of the Pressure Distribution on the
Horizontal Tail Surface of a Typical Propeller-Driven
Pursuit Airplane in Flight; III – Tail Loads in Abrupt Pull-
Up Push-Down Maneuvers,” NACA TN 1539, February
1948.
18. Clousing, Lawrence A. and Turner, William N., “Flight
Measurements of the Horizontal Tail Loads on a Typical
Propeller-Driven Pursuit Airplane During Stalled Pull-
Outs at High Speed,” NACA MR, reissued as NACA WR
A-81, April 1944.
19. Staff of the High Speed Tunnel and High Speed Flight
Sections, “Research on High Speed Aerodynamics at the
Royal Aircraft Establishment from 1942 to 1945,” edited
by W.A. Mair, ARC R&M 2222, September 1946.
20. Jewett, J.F., “Performance Estimate on the P-39D-1,” Bell
Aircraft Corporation Report 14-943-502, May 1942.
21. Charnley, W.J. and Mair, M.A., “Measurements of
Pressure Distribution on a Spitfire Wing in Flight at High
Speeds,” ARC R&M 2160, August 1945.
22. Hoover, R.A. “Bob” and Shaw, Mark, Forever Flying,
Pocket Books, New York City New York, 1996.
23. Williams, Neil, Aerobatics, St. Martin’s Press, New York
City, New York, 1975.
24. Holcomb, Mal, private communication, February 2000.
25. Matthew, Birch, “Cobra….,” American Aviation Historical
Society Journal, Fall 1963.
26. Kinert, Reed, Racing Planes and Air Races; 1969
Annual, Covering 1968 Air Races, Aero Publishers, Inc.,
Fallbrook California, 1969.
27. Mellinger, George, “Soviet Kingcobras Detailed,” Air
Enthusiast, No 86, March/April 2000.
28. Lange, Roy H., “A Summary of Drag Results From
Recent Langley Full-Scale-Tunnel Tests of Army and
Navy Airplanes,” NACA ACR L5A30, reissued as NACA
WR L-108, February 1945.
13
View publication stats
29. Cocke, Bennie W. Jr. and Hart, Claude B., “Tests of the
Bell P-63A Airplane in the NACA Full-Scale Tunnel,”
NACA MR, March 1944.
30. Voglewede, Thomas J. and Klawans, Bernard B., “Flight
Tests of the Effect of Several Modifications on the
Maximum Speed of the P-63A Airplane,” NACA MR
L4L08, December 1944.
31. Smith, F. and Higton, D.J., “Flight Tests of “King Cobra”
FZ.440 to Investigate the Practical Requirements for the
Achievement of Low Profile Drag Coefficients on a “Low
Drag” Aerofoil,” ARC R&M 2375, August 1945.
32. Day, W.H. and Schwarzbach, J.M., “A Flight Investigation
of the Effects of Surface Finish on Wing Profile Drag,”
Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, April 1946.
33. Zalovcik, John A., “Profile-Drag Coefficients of
Conventional and Low-Drag Airfoils as Obtained in
Flight,” NACA ACR L4E31, reissued as NACA WR L-139,
May 1944.
34. Zalovcik, John A. and Skoog, Richard B., “Flight
Investigation of Boundary-Layer Transition and Profile
Drag of an Experimental Low-Drag Wing Installed on a
Fighter-Type Airplane,” NACA ACR L5C08a, reissued as
NACA WR L-94, April 1945.
35. Zalovcik, John A., “A Profile-Drag Investigation in Flight on
an Experimental Fighter-Type Airplane – the North
American XP-51 (Air Corps Serial No. 41-38),” NACA
ACR, reissued as NACA TM 79885, November 1942.
36. Beeler, De E. and Gerard, George, “Wake Measurements
Behind a Wing Section of a Fighter Airplane in Fast
Dives,” NACA TN 1190, March 1947.
37. Mair, W.A. and Charnely, W.J., “Profile Drag
Measurements on a Spitfire Wing in Flight at High
Speeds,” ARC R&M 2159, June 1945.
38. Holmes, Bruce J., Obara, Clifford J. and Yip, Long P.,
“Natural Laminar Flow Experiments on Modern Airplane
Surfaces,” NASA TP 2256, May 1984.
39. Sjoberg, S.A. and Reeder, J.P., “Flight Measurements of
the Lateral and Directional Stability and Control
Characteristics of an Airplane Having a 35o Sweptback
Wing With 40-Percent Slots and a Comparison With
Wind Tunnel Data,” NACA TN 1511, October 1947.
40. Sjoberg, S.A. and Reeder, J.P., “Flight Measurements of
the Longitudinal Stability, Stalling and Lift Characteristics
of an Airplane Having a 35o Sweptback Wing With 40-
Percent Slots and a Comparison With Wind Tunnel
Data,” NACA TN 1679, April 1948.
41. Sjoberg, S.A. and Reeder, J.P., “Flight Measurements of
the Stability, Control and Stalling Characteristics of an
Airplane Having a 35o Sweptback Wing Without Slots and
With 80-Percent Slots and a Comparison With Wind
Tunnel Data,” NACA TN 1743, November 1948.
42. Lockwood, Vernard E. and Watson, James, N., “Stability
and Control Characteristics at Low Speed of an Airplane
Model Having a 38.7 o Sweptback Wing With Aspect Ratio
4.51, Taper Ratio 0.54 and Conventional Tail Surfaces,”
NACA TN 1742, December 1948.