WI Twin Boom American Jet Fighters in WWII?

Prior to November 1941 Bell was working on a pair of piston engined twin boom fighter designs the XP-52 which later evolved into the heavier XP-59.

Here is an artist's rendering of what a completed XP-59 might have looked like.

t7476692-16-thumb-xp59_1939_1.jpg
Now, in OTL these designs never got past the mock-up stage and were quickly cancelled due to the perceived need to focus on more traditional aircraft. When the US began to work on it's first jet fighter the Bell Airacomet, it was given the designation XP-59 to confuse potential spies. What resulted was a serviceable early entry into jet propelled flight but one unsuited to combat operations due to its high weight and low thrust.

The interesting thing about the design of OTL's P-59 is that the British only provided basic information about the capabilities of the jet engines the Americans had agreed to produce. As a result, the designers of the Airacomet put together a fairly conventional plane that was ill-suited to the power plants it ended up receiving. But what if, the designers were given more information about their prospective power plant? Would they consider revisiting the twin-boom designs of the XP-52 and XP-59? Some have argued that had the designers stuck with the original design, the resulting plane would have had much higher performance.

Now, I highly doubt that this aircraft will make any impact on the course of the war. The range would likely be atrocious as was common with all early jet aircraft. At most, perhaps some would be deployed in Britain in 1944 and manage to shoot down a few V-1 flying bombs. I do think it would affect the early development of US jet fighters, though I'm not sure how. Would it develop along similar lines as OTL's Vampire?
 
The Airacomet would not become a contender because the wing was too big to accelerate to flying speed with weak engines too slow to spool up. The De-Havilland twin-booms used a single centrifugal engine of greater power, and only went twin-engine with the more slender axial-flow engines, with the Sea Vixen. Historically, twin booms served the purpose of allowing a shorter jet pipe. How important you think that is determines whether you care about the layout.
 
A raised or swept up tail would also allow a shorter jet pipe as well. That is a simpler airframe solution to avoid an excessive tail pipe.
 
Due to the perceived unreliability of the first jet engines. I believe that one of the initial requirements for the first US jet fighter was multi-engine redundance. Hence making a pod and boom configuration not a real solution with the relatively fat centrifugals available.

A close look at the Bell P-59A and subsequent mods shows that the problem of tailpipe length was neatly sidestepped. Absolute minimum ducting, at both ends was vital for the early engines.

Similarly, according to Bob Stanley who had to fly it, the large wing was appropriate for an airplane which might become a powered glider at any moment.

Dynasoar
 
Due to the perceived unreliability of the first jet engines. I believe that one of the initial requirements for the first US jet fighter was multi-engine redundance. Hence making a pod and boom configuration not a real solution with the relatively fat centrifugals available.

A close look at the Bell P-59A and subsequent mods shows that the problem of tailpipe length was neatly sidestepped. Absolute minimum ducting, at both ends was vital for the early engines.

Similarly, according to Bob Stanley who had to fly it, the large wing was appropriate for an airplane which might become a powered glider at any moment.

Dynasoar

Right, the other option explored on that was the Ryan Fireball. I actually saw one once, still in flying condition.
 
Top