Why did no piston engine WW2 fighters have swept wings or tricycle

>>1968587
don't take my word for this but IIRC the speeds at which piston engine planes flew were too small to make heavily swept wings work

>>1968587
Because the advantages of swept wings come into play when airspeeds exceed ~250+ kts. Conventional straight wings (ie non-supercritical wings) do not behave the same in compressible flow, and the boundary layer has difficulty staying attached, reducing control effectiveness. Also, stall characteristics for swept wings are terrible, and if an aircraft were to stall it wouldn't be pretty. Pilots did not have a whole lot of experience or flight time before they were deployed, so it's even more dangerous.

Basically the planes did not go fast enough to require a swept wing.

Interesting fact, nearly all early-war German fighter planes used Rolls Royce engines.

>>1969420
t. aeronautical engineer

Since the swept wing question has been answered, the reason they didn't use tricycle landing gear in WWII was because tail draggers are better for unimproved airstrips.

>>1969443
No they didn't. The Bf 109 and Ju 87 prototypes used RR Kestrels because DB and Jumo were late on delivering the respective engines.

File: Northrop_F2T-1N.jpg (43KB, 550x442px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 550x442px

>>1968587

P-61 and P-38 both had retractable tricycle gear.

>>1969482
If they'd been any later they'd of probobly used the Kestrel's anyway.

>>1969508
Unlikely. They only had 4 Kestrel engines which they got in trade for a He 70 mail airplane to Rolls Royce. (A persistent wheraboo myth is that the Spitfire's wing design was copied from the He 70, which falls apart when you realize that the Spitfire flew 2 months before the trade)

>>1969594

I think he meant backwards-swept, my niggla.

>>1969472
Just a pilot who likes aerodynamics

>>1968587
Love or hate the Gnazis

They were Aesthetic as fark

>>1969599
>P-63
>having forward swept wings
Look under the nose.