# What WWII aircraft could fulfill uselful modern military rolls?



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2012)

I've often wondered, whether any of the WWII aircraft could be used today, as opposed to modern designs. I am wondering if, just hypothetically, now, any air force of the world might be justified in requesting a certain WWII type to be manufactured again for their uses. (I recognize this would not be possible in many cases, without a total redesign, since the factory jigs, and even the design drawings of many types are no longer with us).

But if you made a few assumptions:

1. Assume that the money is there to make it happen.
2. Assume that the aircraft could be designed again or the original documentation exists for it.
3. Assume that modern avionics, armor, and weaponry may be used
4. Assume that modern production techniques, materials, tooling, and so on, may be used
5. Assume that modest airframe modifications could be made to fit an aircraft to its new role
6. Allowances could be made for a more modern or reliable engine type to be used if necessary, especially for multi-engine types.

Then what types could perform modern rolls, and more to the point, could they do it economically compared to existing types, if the initial design and manufacturing issues were reasonably solved?


----------



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2012)

Wondering, for one thing, how the use of modern cast aluminum alloys, plastics, composite materials, and carbon fiber, for instance, could improve some of the weight and production issues, making the modified designs even better than they originally were.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 22, 2012)

Il-10 for COIN operations...


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 22, 2012)

P-51 as the Piper Enforcer!


----------



## herman1rg (Jul 22, 2012)

A small point but it's roles not rolls


----------



## renrich (Jul 22, 2012)

I was going to say that almost any WW2 AC could perform aileron rolls. Perhaps one WW2 AC which could still be useful would be the C47. Cargo, gunship.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 22, 2012)

I believe the T-33 (trainer version of the P-80) is still in use today.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2012)

No modern airforce would really want to operate a taildragger.



Oreo said:


> Wondering, for one thing, how the use of *modern cast aluminum alloys*, plastics, composite materials, and carbon fiber, for instance, could improve some of the weight and production issues, making the modified designs even better than they originally were.



"Cast aluminum alloys" have not changed much since WW2. Alloying, casting and heat treating techniques have gotten way better as well as ensuring metallurgical purity but in the end if you have a 2024 aluminum casting, there's little difference from what might produced during WW2.

Composites - whole different story. Equal or greater strength, lighter but harder to repair.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2012)

The h8k emily would be useful as an asw platform, but would need a complete refit of internal systems.
Fiesler Storch would be useful though choppers are moreso


----------



## JoeB (Jul 22, 2012)

Oreo said:


> 1. I've often wondered, whether any of the WWII aircraft could be used today, as opposed to modern designs.
> 2. I am wondering if, just hypothetically, now, any air force of the world might be justified in requesting a certain WWII type to be manufactured again for their uses.


1. If you look at the actual roles and opposition to tactical a/c, and UAV's, in recent wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, there are many missions WWII a/c could perform if they had to. For example WWII fighters or light bombers could competently perform strike/CAS missions, if fitted with key equipment like targetting pods, datalinks, PGM's and so forth, and there's no absolute reason why they couldn't be so fitted. Big WWII fighters were roughly similar in size to single turboprop trainer type a/c sometimes used in those roles, or to UAV's, and a/c like the A-26 would be more equivalent in payload to the larger modern fighters, as rebuilt B-26K/A-26A's were over Laos alongside jets in the 60's.

2. But here I'd say no way, first and foremost because piston engines require a whole separate logistics train to provide avgas instead of the uniform distillate types now used in both a/c turbines and ground vehicle diesels (and tank turbines). And piston engines are more maintenance intensive, less reliable and less available, and their maintenance requires specific skills again which aren't in common with turbine support and would have to be reconstituted.

You could have turbine versions of various WWII a/c, as have been built or converted in the past; Turbodak C-47's for example. But none of the concepts for building *all new* versions of WWII types have been built in quantity, that I can recall. In programs of the 60's like B-26K mentioned, or Cavalier Mustang (which served in some Latin American AF's) the a/c produced were nominally new, had new 1960's FY USAF serial numbers, but the economics of the program were based on reusing lots of components from WWII produced planes. When it's really build from scratch, it doesn't seem to make sense to adapt WWII designs to turboprops, materials and avionics advances, etc rather than just design a new plane optimized to use those technologies most effectively.

And needless to say, there are plenty of missions, though rare in recent COIN type wars, which WWII a/c couldn't perform (air superiority, penetrating highly capable air defenses, etc).

Joe


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2012)

Most WW II aircraft were easily exceeded in capability by planes only 5-15 years newer.

Fiesler Storch vs Helio Courier?

DC-3 vs DHC-4 Caribou 

H8K Emily vs ???

P5M, P6M jet, Shin Meiva PS-1, Convair R3Y Tradewind in original patrol bomber configuration? 

Could some of these old planes perform a modern mission?
Yes

Could they do it better than even a 1950s-60s aircraft?
No.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2012)

Its a bit like old cars really. A 1940s car versus a 2000s car. Both do the same thing. Which does it better? Better includes cheaper. building a 1940 car would be more expensive than a modern design...heavier, unneccessary curves, expensive trim, etc


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 22, 2012)

A lot of people might like the look of old cars, butmost people today would have a hard time even driving a 1940 car of any make, no power steering, weak brakes,manual gears, not much power, etc.

But I don't think they would be as expensive as a modern car if you could produce them in mass production. But not enough people would buy them to support mass production.
Very little of the final cost of a modern car is in the actual structure and drive train, the big dollars are in the very extensive and expensive electrics and electronics and safety systems and accessories.

But no 40's automobile could meet minimum crash standards.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 22, 2012)

Il-10 or AD-1 (first flew March 1945) or similar design would probably be useful for COIN operations, as Tante Ju noted, particularly in the current 'low intensity engagement' environment in Iraq, Afghanistan and parts of Africa. 

Aluminium-lithium alloys and GRPs would be useful in cutting airframe weight, although on a small aircraft, there isn't actually that much benefit, as you still need a minimum skin thickness, regardless of material. CFRPs would be useful in select areas as well. I'd say you could probably cut airframe weight by 15-20% with modern materials. 

Modern avionics, communications suite and an all-glass cockpit would also probably save some weight. US standard WW2 radio equipment in 1944 weighed 99 lbs.

The biggest weight benefit I could see is in the powerplant. The AM-42 on an IL-10 weighed 1000 kg and gave 1800 hp. The R-3350 on the AD-1 gave 2700 hp and weighed 1250 kg. In comparison, a modern turboprop like a PW100 weighs less than 485 kg fully installed and offers a little over 2500 (mechanical) shaft horsepower.

There are a massive amount of options for armament. Guided and unguided bombs, guided/unguided rockets and missiles. If its for COIN, then something like a GSh-30K could also be fitted: 30 mm caliber, 105 kg and 3000 rpm.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 22, 2012)

How would that modern turbo-prop compare fuel consumption wise to a WW2 piston engine of equal hp?


----------



## GregP (Jul 22, 2012)

I'd rather have a turboprop Skyraider with modern aviaonics than, say, a Super Tucano. It carries more, flies faster, loiters longer, hits harder and, with modern avionics, has almost not downside exceot being a conventional gear aircraft, which is an advantage at forward airfields.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> Aluminium-lithium alloys and GRPs would be useful in cutting airframe weight, although on a small aircraft, there isn't actually that much benefit, as you still need a minimum skin thickness, regardless of material. CFRPs would be useful in select areas as well. I'd say you could probably cut airframe weight by 15-20% with modern materials.


Aluminium-lithium alloys are still being developed and although lighter are not as readily as producible as more traditional aluminum alloys (2024).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2012)

GregP said:


> almost not downside exceot being a conventional gear aircraft, which is an advantage at forward airfields.


Yes - as stated, a modern airforce will not buy a tail dragger.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 23, 2012)

Ok, sorry I didn't get back sooner. I think everyone has made some fairly valid points. Naturally, if it were reasonable to still use the types, they would still be in service and production.

About the rolls and roles-- uh, yes, sorry, lol. I know better than that. Just typing faster than thinking, or vice versa.

One question I do have is, how do modern turbo-prop engines stand up to combat damage, compared to piston engines? I am going to guess off-hand they are fairly vulnerable but also relatively easy and cheap to fix if they manage to get back to their base. Then again, I don't have any first-hand knowledge. I only refueled aircraft for three months, and rode on a few, so that's why I'm asking these questions. And somebody did ask about the fuel efficiency, are the turbo-props more fuel efficient than the pistons?


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 23, 2012)

Seems to me most posts are considering aircraft with a combat role, where obsolescence would be rapid and irreversible. In support and logistics an aircraft’s useful lifespan would be much longer. Someone beat me to the Feisler Storch so I’ll go with the Douglas DC-3, with the observation that thousands of the things are still in civilian use today.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 23, 2012)

Ok, now maybe to make this a little more fun, maybe we should issue some specifications.

Here's one:

Specification Oreo:1
Requesting a long-range seaplane for open-ocean anti-submarine operations and other secondary _roles_.

Aircraft must be capable of flying 6,000 kilometers without refueling, at a cruising speed not less than 200 knots, while carrying a payload of 2 tonnes. It must be capable of staying airborne during this entire time, with accommodations for a relief crew. It must have a maximum speed of not less than 260 knots at 1,000 meters altitude. It must be capable of carrying a payload of at least 5 tonnes for a range of 4,000 kilometers. 

It must be able to carry an array of different drop ordinance suitable for use against submarines and other maritime targets, or land targets as need be. It must have a weapons control station where an onboard weapons operator can orchestrate the deployment of guided missiles, smart-bombs, and other electronic warfare devices. It must have an interception-resistance system capable of protecting the aircraft from all known anti-aircraft missiles. Gun armament must be included, both of the fixed-forward firing variety for head-on attacks on submarines or surface vessels, as well as waist armament for concentric ring attacks, ala C-130 gunship. In addition to the trainable waist armament, a trainable gun system should be available as an option, with guns mounted in the bow and tail, and possibly other locations, for use while detaining small craft during coastal patrol operations, particularly anti-smuggling operations. 

Provision must be made for air-to-air refueling, and a system should also be optionally included that would allow the aircraft to function as a secondary refueler as well, with an available tail-mounted fuel dispensing boom. The aircraft must be able to land on the ocean or any fresh-water surface in calm to moderate seas, for multiple purposes, including air-sea-rescue operations, as well as the deployment, dispersal, retrieval, or other use of maritime devices, such as buoys, sonobuoys, meterological instruments, etc. In lieu of offensive weaponry, the aircraft should also be able to carry armed troops to be deployed either by parachute, or by landing on water and boating ashore. Two or more powered inflatable boats will be carried, to enable troops to make beach landings, to board small craft, or to escape should the aircraft be destroyed.

A fully-stocked galley and full off-duty crew quarters with bunks and mess area shall be included. This area shall be as sound-proofed as possible for crew rest. Provisions for up to a week of time away from base shall be included. As many spare parts as possible must be included for the engines, propellers, avionics, armament, and other systems. Since the aircraft is capable of landing on the water, provision should be made for basic airframe, powerplant, and avionics repairs to be accomplished at sea, or, when possible, in the air. The engines must be reliable enough to, under routine circumstances, run for at least 100, and preferably 200 or more hours without major servicing. As much servicing as possible should be possible to accomplish in flight, or at least upon landing on the open sea.

The aircraft must be capable of comfortably maintaining an altitude of at least 1,000 meters with one engine not operating.

The aircraft must have ballistic protection from small arms fire and secondary projectiles, for the crew stations, fuel systems, and as many vital systems as possible. As much protection from heavier weapons should be provided as is reasonably possible, in comparison with modern combat aircraft.

Have fun....


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2012)

Not asking for much are you?  

Just which actual WW II aircraft could meet this specification?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Aluminium-lithium alloys are still being developed and although lighter are not as readily as producible as more traditional aluminum alloys (2024).


 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Aluminium-lithium alloys are still being developed and although lighter are not as readily as producible as more traditional aluminum alloys (2024).


 
Tell that to Alcoa.

They've been working with aluminum-lithium alloys (2020) for major aerostructures applications since the *1950s*. Second generation Al-Li (2090) has been used since the 1980s. Third generation Al-Li alloys (2099 and 2199) are going into the Bombardier CSeries (first flight scheduled next year) and the COMAC C919 (first flight 2016).

Benefit of third gen Al-Li alloys is weight savings of 7-18% over 2024 alloys, plus some structural strength and corrosion resistance benefits. Further development is looking at pushing that to 25%. 

More info, for those that are interested: Alcoa: Innovation: Overview: Papers and Patents: New Aluminum Lithium Alloys for Aerospace Applications


----------



## riacrato (Jul 23, 2012)

GregP said:


> I'd rather have a turboprop Skyraider with modern aviaonics than, say, a Super Tucano. It carries more, flies faster, loiters longer, hits harder and, with modern avionics, has almost not downside exceot being a conventional gear aircraft, which is an advantage at forward airfields.


 
A Skyraider has a 1200 kg engine in its nose. Surely redesigning it for something smaller and much lighter would mean designing an all-new aircraft. Or you take a large and heavy turboprop with power well in excess of what you need. Super Tucano all the way for me. Smaller, cheaper in procurement and maintenance, tricycle landing gear...

Piper Enforcer is the closest to what the thread specifies and makes sense to me, but still with the tail-drag configuration hardly any modern airforce would want it.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 23, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Not asking for much are you?
> 
> Just which actual WW II aircraft could meet this specification?



This one should. . . .
Kawanishi H8K - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other possibilities include PB2Y and Sunderland. Either of those two would need significantly more powerful engines, and I don't know whether the existing airframe would be stressed properly to handle the faster speed. Sunderland would need to have the tip floats modified to retract. The H8K meets the performance specs, or pretty close, on its piston engines. With use of more modern materials, computerised weight-savings in the structure, and the use of composite materials wherever possible for ballistic protection, it ought to do all right. The turboprops should improve the performance and reliability.

The Bv 222 could probably meet the specs, too, with turboprops, but what I didn't say was what the budget was, and in reality, the Bv 222 is too big for this spec, too expensive.

About the missile defense, I should have merely stated that it should have at least the same ability to defend itself from missiles as the P-3 Orion does.

Naturally, avionics would include modern ASV and airborne detection radar, as well as modern navigational, communications, and photographic equipment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> Tell that to Alcoa.
> 
> They've been working with aluminum-lithium alloys (2020) for major aerostructures applications since the *1950s*. Second generation Al-Li (2090) has been used since the 1980s. Third generation Al-Li alloys (2099 and 2199) are going into the Bombardier CSeries (first flight scheduled next year) and the COMAC C919 (first flight 2016).


I'm well aware of the material, there were plans to used it on the Lockheed P-7. I could tell you that fo one reason or another, 2024, 2117 are still dominating, at least on the aircraft I've been around.

It's taken 30 years to reach production on two aircraft. Alcoa is the raw material supplier and will of course push their product. How long do you think it will take to manufacture the raw forgings for such components as landing gear and wing attach fittings (if such material is used there)? You many save 20% in weight depending on how its used on the aircraft, but it many take you twice of long to get the material say in lieu of 2024, at least right now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

Oreo said:


> About the missile defense, I should have merely stated that it should have at least the same ability to defend itself from missiles as the P-3 Orion does.


The P-3 did not carry defensive missiles


----------



## Elmas (Jul 23, 2012)

JoeB said:


> ......................................
> 2. But here I'd say no way, first and foremost because piston engines require a whole separate logistics train to provide avgas instead of the uniform distillate types now used in both a/c turbines and ground vehicle diesels (and tank turbines). And piston engines are more maintenance intensive, less reliable and less available, and their maintenance requires specific skills again which aren't in common with turbine support and would have to be reconstituted.
> .....................................
> Joe



and much heavier than turbines.....


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2012)

Oreo said:


> Ok, now maybe to make this a little more fun, maybe we should issue some specifications.
> 
> Here's one:
> 
> ...



Much of that can already be achieved with a P-3 Orion

Specifications (P-3C Orion)





P-3 aircraft of the Royal New Zealand Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, and the United States Navy 
General characteristics
Crew: 11[1]
Length: 116 ft 10 in (35.6 m[65])
Wingspan: 99 ft 8 in[65] (30.4 m)
Height: 38 ft 8 in[65] (11.8 m)
Wing area: 1300 ft² (120.8 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 0014-1.10 (Root) – NACA 0012-1.10 (Tip)
Empty weight: 77,200 lb (35,000 kg[65])
Loaded weight: 135,000 lb (61,400 kg)
Useful load: 57,800 lb (26,400 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 142,000 lb (64,400 kg[65])
Powerplant: 4[1] × Allison T56-A-14[1] turboprop[1], 4,600 shp[1] (3,700 kW) each
Propellers: Four-bladed Hamilton Standard propeller[1], 1 per engine Propeller diameter: 13 ft 6 in (4.11 m)


Performance
Maximum speed: 411 kn[1] (750 km/h)
Cruise speed: 328 kn[1] (610 km/h)
Range: 4,830 nmi ferry (8,944 km[65])
Service ceiling: 28,300 ft[1] (10,400 m)
Rate of climb: 3,140 ft/min (16 m/s)
Wing loading: 107 lb/ft² (530 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.03 hp/lb (0.06 kW/kg)


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 23, 2012)

Turboprops: as any gas turbine, they have very narrow economical power range. If e.g. a COIN aircraft was given, say, a 1500 shp turboprop to achieve adequate low level speed and TO performance, yet the mission would require plenty of loitering at low altitude at 50 % or less power, turboprop's endurance would be very low compared to a piston engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

And I can't see anyone in their right mind building a large flying boat in this day and age...


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I can't see anyone in their right mind building a large flying boat in this day and age...



Which is sad since I find large flying boats the majesties of the air after large rigid airships. And current bean counting era does not like majesties.


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 23, 2012)

Regarding turborops, digging sfc info is really painful for e.g. I couldn't find a single manufacturer's site giving a full sfc curve for a turboprop. But, in the smaller TP class, RR's brochure for the RR300 gives an sfc of 0.675 lb/shp/h at TO power (100 %) of 300 hp, while 60 % cruise gives a whopping 0.826 lb/shp/h. To put things into perspective, an old P&W Wasp jr. has a cruising sfc of perhaps 40-50 % less...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> Which is sad since I find large flying boats the majesties of the air after large rigid airships. And current bean counting era does not like majesties.


I couldn't agree more. 

In today's world however they are just super impractical and would create maintenance nightmares. Imagine scarping barnacles and zebra mussels off the side of a modern day BV 222!


----------



## A4K (Jul 23, 2012)

Love the flying boats myself...a classic era in aviation sadly gone.


----------



## JoeB (Jul 23, 2012)

Elmas said:


> and much heavier than turbines.....


True, but in mentioning the need for separate logistics infrastructure for its avgas and maintenance requirements I was pointing out what makes gasoline piston engines a total no-go for a modern military. It's the reason AF's and army's have sought to eliminate the last gasoline burning engines even in low power applications (small UAV's, motorcycles, and what not) where the gasoline engine isn't a bad choice, taken in isolation from the logistics issue, and even where it's a question of the more broadly available motor gasoline, not avgas. There's a huge cost external to the plane to re-establish an avgas logistics train, and safety issues too, most notoriously aboard ships.

Aside from that logistics killer though, there are obviously applications where a gasoline engine can still compete. Even in 1000hp class, one idea for re-engining C-47's was fitting them with new Polish PZL made radials, rather than turbines. The very low first cost (back when Poland was an even cheaper place to manufacture in $ terms, than now) would offset the maintenance cost, weight etc. advantages of a turbine, was the idea at least though it didn't catch on much. But somewhere below around 500hp of course pistons can still compete with turbines, still dominate below say 300hp, where there's already an avgas supply infrastructure. Although, a/c diesels will probably put a/c gasoline engines out of business eventually. 

On sfc, you again have to factor in the other side of the coin of the logistics point: relative cost of avgas and jet fuel per lb, not just compare lb/hp-hr. I've read an operator account of piston and turbine re-engined DC-3's operating alongside one another where the turbine ones were said to actually burn less fuel practically speaking, although theoretically a PT6 type would have best sfc in high .5's lb/hp-hr, and the radial more like high .4's, but again you have to consider fuel cost too, and also the radial consumes far more lube oil than the turbine, and that's much more expensive per unit than fuel.
Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

JoeB said:


> True, but in mentioning the need for separate logistics infrastructure for its avgas and maintenance requirements I was pointing out what makes gasoline piston engines a total no-go for a modern military. It's the reason AF's and army's have sought to eliminate the last gasoline burning engines even in low power applications (small UAV's, motorcycles, and what not) where the gasoline engine isn't a bad choice, taken in isolation from the logistics issue, and even where it's a question of the more broadly available motor gasoline, not avgas. There's a huge cost external to the plane to re-establish an avgas logistics train, and safety issues too, most notoriously aboard ships.
> 
> Aside from that logistics killer though, there are obviously applications where a gasoline engine can still compete. Even in 1000hp class, one idea for re-engining C-47's was fitting them with new Polish PZL made radials, rather than turbines. The very low first cost (back when Poland was an even cheaper place to manufacture in $ terms, than now) would offset the maintenance cost, weight etc. advantages of a turbine, was the idea at least though it didn't catch on much. But somewhere below around 500hp of course pistons can still compete with turbines, still dominate below say 300hp, where there's already an avgas supply infrastructure. Although, a/c diesels will probably put a/c gasoline engines out of business eventually.
> 
> ...



Also keep in mind that avgas is planned to be phased out within the next 11 years.


----------



## JoeB (Jul 23, 2012)

On modern flying boats, two currently produced flying boats are the ShinMaywa US-2 and Beriev Be-200, 4-engine turboprop and twin jet respectively. Both are amphibians, but so were a significant % of PBY's ever built, so I wouldn't quibble on that point. Neither manufacturer has exactly lit up the market with 100's of sales, but both have made a few sales even recently. The US Forest Service, after being marketed to a long time, has agreed to evaluate the Be-200 as a firefighting a/c. Also the Chinese Avic concern is planning to build a new version of the Harbin Sh-5 turboprop flying boat of the 1980's, I've read.

Joe


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 23, 2012)

Phasing out of avgas shouldn't be a problem since there are no technical reasons why mogas wouldn't work, albeit with reduced IMEP. Plus there is the possibility of mixing alcohol with mogas with certain but minor modifications to fuel systems.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> Phasing out of avgas shouldn't be a problem since there are no technical reasons why mogas wouldn't work, albeit with reduced IMEP. Plus there is the possibility of mixing alcohol with mogas with certain but minor modifications to fuel systems.


I've taken apart General Aviation engines running on mogas. Although STC for operation many times you will get degraded performance and you also wan't make TBO.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2012)

Oreo said:


> Specification Oreo:1
> Requesting a long-range seaplane for open-ocean anti-submarine operations and other secondary _roles_.
> 
> Aircraft must be capable of flying 6,000 kilometers without refueling, at a cruising speed not less than 200 knots, while carrying a payload of 2 tonnes. It must be capable of staying airborne during this entire time, with accommodations for a relief crew. It must have a maximum speed of not less than 260 knots at 1,000 meters altitude. It must be capable of carrying a payload of at least 5 tonnes for a range of 4,000 kilometers.
> ...



This sounds like the basis for a Dale Brown Thriller. 

You are asking for an endurance of about 16-17 hours which should be doable. 

But many of the other items are conflicting and unnecessary.
1.Since few, if any modern subs have any guns bigger than a LMG carried by the crew a heavy forward firing armament is unneeded ( and not carried by the Emily=NCE) since no practical gun can piece the sub hull any way. 
2. concentric ring attacks, nice but are you going to strafe the target or bomb it? AC-130s did not bomb and aside from a waist hatch/blister 20mm gun.....NCE
3. "addition to the trainable waist armament" the side firing guns on a AC-130 are not trainable, except possible over a very small arc. guns are aimed by the course of the aircraft. 
4. detaining small craft?
5. Air to air refueling? Not a real problem but probe and drogue may be better. Fit the drogue in the rear of an engine nacelle and keep the tail free for all the other gadgets...NCE
6. "deployment, dispersal, retrieval, or other use of maritime devices, such as buoys, sonobuoys, meterological instruments"Sonobouys are expendable items and can be air dropped. Unless you are trying to be really green (anti ocean littering) they are not retrieved. Same with marker bouys, navigation bouys are the work of coast guard ships. Meteorological instruments? Again, air drop unless they are a plot device......NCE
7."Provisions for up to a week of time away from base shall be included". Why? you have fuel for 2/3rds of a day, where are you parking this thing for 5-6 days that you can't get food or water? 9-11 man crew, how many pounds of provisions for 5-6 days? ever pound of provisions is a pound of fuel not carried....NCE
8."As many spare parts as possible must be included....... provision should be made for basic airframe, powerplant, and avionics repairs to be accomplished at sea, or, when possible, in the air" every pound of spare parts is a pound of fuel or weapons load not carried. While some of the old flying boats made provisions for a crew man to reach the engines while in flight by crawl spaces in the wings the actual amount of work that could be done was limited. While some work on the accessories section (pumps, generator, etc)could be done actual work on the power section was limited, nobody was sticking their head out a hatch and trying to open a cowl on an engine at even 130mph. On some flying boats part of the leading edge of the wing would hinge down to form a step/platform for working on the engines _in harbor_ or even on land, other wise rather tall ladders were needed. Working on engines in the open sea?????

Modern engines (or even post WW II piston engines in airline service) could go hundreds (if not over 1000 hours) without major overhaul, spark plug changes and the like may be something else. but without vast quantities of fuel the plane has to land sometime anyway. Modern turbo props may go over 3000 hrs except for the gear boxes (?). The reliability of even mid-war engines let alone post war engines means the requirement/s for inflight repair and mid ocean repair are not needed ( unless as a plot device).

If a four engine plane cannot maintain 1000 meters on 3 engines the plane is way over loaded. Hawker Siddeley Nimrods often cruised with one or two engines shut down to extend endurance. Granted they were jets, but...A better requirement would be with ordance jettisoned and 1/2 fuel load to maintain 1000 meters on _TWO_ engines. Just don't fly over any tall islands. 

9. "aircraft must have ballistic protection...." Unless you are playing tag with the smugglers the biggest threat to the aircraft is air to air or ground to air missiles. The plane should never be in small arms range of ground personnel (plot device excepted). Heavier weapons? What do you want, a flying boat equivalent of an A-10? armor protection against automatic cannon fire is going to get real heavy, real quick. Going into enemy airspace controlled by enemy interceptors, not a good idea. Getting close enough to 20-40mm AA guns that they can get shots at you? also not a good idea if you have smart bombs, stand off missiles. While the Emily had protection it didn't have this level of protection.

As for the troop carrying bit. Trooping is one thing, dropping assault squads/commandos in enemy territory is another ( move over Dale Brown, Clive Cussler is moving in). How many men and how big are the boats? While the Emily could carry up to 64 troops it required no bombs, armament reduced to 1 7.9mm MG and one 20mm cannon, and fuel reduced to 13,414 liters from 18,880 liters (troops went where some of the fuel tanks had been. No mention of motorized boats being carried.


----------



## Piper106 (Jul 23, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> Regarding turborops, digging sfc info is really painful for e.g. I couldn't find a single manufacturer's site giving a full sfc curve for a turboprop. But, in the smaller TP class, RR's brochure for the RR300 gives an sfc of 0.675 lb/shp/h at TO power (100 %) of 300 hp, while 60 % cruise gives a whopping 0.826 lb/shp/h. To put things into perspective, an old P&W Wasp jr. has a cruising sfc of perhaps 40-50 % less...



A air cooled radial diesel engine I feel would be a good fit for a COIN aircraft. Nice low SFC during loitering periods, could run on the 'one size fits all' kerosine/middle distillate fuel favored by the military, and reasonably battle damage resistant, if the good points of WWII radial engines carry over. Wouldn't something like a Bristol 'Hercules' diesel or a 'Centaurus' diesel be an interesting piece of equipment ! (Actually a valveless loop charged two stroke cylinder or a two stroke sleeve valve engine might be best, but whatever way, from the outside it likely would look like a Hercules or Centaurus). And not that too far fetched, for Bristol had a few prototype air cooled diesel radials running before WWII, the Bristol Phoenix diesel was a 9 cylinder poppet valve engines very similar to the gasoline Pegasus. 

In reality the 'fighter mafia' generals that run all air forces wouldn't touch a propeller airplane these days with a proverbial ten foot pole, nor a piston engine one with a hundred foot pole, regardless of capabilities. 

Piper106


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

Piper106 said:


> In reality the 'fighter mafia' generals that run all air forces wouldn't touch a propeller airplane these days with a proverbial ten foot pole, nor a piston engine one with a hundred foot pole, regardless of capabilities.
> 
> Piper106



You forgot the 1000' pole for a taildragger!


----------



## Piper106 (Jul 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You forgot the 1000' pole for a taildragger!


 Too true.

But in terms of actual effectiveness, a Hawker Typhoon / Tornado with an air cooled diesel radial, or a diesel AD Skyraider would likely be welcomed by ground troops. With a diesel you are looking at 0.40 to 0.42 (combined fuel and lube oil) lbs per HP/hour SFC or better during loiter, so a LOT of over-cover time would be available. 

Piper106


----------



## Oreo (Jul 23, 2012)

I do like the idea of aviation diesels. Of course Germany used some in WWII, and I suppose there may have been others at times, anybody know? Comes in handy for commonality of supply, as well as safety concerns, and hopefully, fuel efficiency and cost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

Oreo said:


> I do like the idea of aviation diesels. Of course Germany used some in WWII, and I suppose there may have been others at times, anybody know? Comes in handy for commonality of supply, as well as safety concerns, and hopefully, fuel efficiency and cost.



Diamond DA42 being built and flying today...


----------



## Piper106 (Jul 23, 2012)

Oreo said:


> I do like the idea of aviation diesels. Of course Germany used some in WWII, and I suppose there may have been others at times, anybody know? Comes in handy for commonality of supply, as well as safety concerns, and hopefully, fuel efficiency and cost.



As far as I know, the only aviation diesels made in any number prior to the current era were the Junkers Jumo 205 / 207 series engines, which means that line died in 1945. In the last ten years there have been a number of small aviation diesels brought to the market, particularly in Europe, but again, as far as I know, they have all been less than 300 HP, too small for any significant military use. 

Piper106


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm well aware of the material, there were plans to used it on the Lockheed P-7. I could tell you that fo one reason or another, 2024, 2117 are still dominating, at least on the aircraft I've been around.
> 
> It's taken 30 years to reach production on two aircraft. Alcoa is the raw material supplier and will of course push their product. How long do you think it will take to manufacture the raw forgings for such components as landing gear and wing attach fittings (if such material is used there)? You many save 20% in weight depending on how its used on the aircraft, but it many take you twice of long to get the material say in lieu of 2024, at least right now.


 
A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you. However, there are now several tier one suppliers offering Al-Li alloys for aerostructures and most commercial manufacturers are either incorporating the material in their upcoming aircraft or planning to use it on next generation aircraft. 

Its not just COMAC and Bombardier. Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and UAC are all using or planning to use Al-Li on upcoming aircraft (entering service in the next 2-5 years). Rumour is that Boeing will go to Al-Li for the 777X and Airbus is using Al-Li for about 14% of the structure of the A350 (although they predominately selected the CFRP route for larger aircraft). Quoting Airbus from 2005: "Third generation of Al-Li alloys are now ready to be implemented on aircraft as the disadvantages encountered on the first generations (reduced ductility and fracture toughness in the short--transverse direction and reduced thermal stability) have been solved..."

Its also finding its way into some military aircraft.

I'm not saying its the be all and end all, but if I was re-desigining a WW2 aircraft right now, a mix of Al/Al-Li, titanium, GRFP and other carbon fibre composites would be the route I'd take.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

From Oshkosh..

_*Cessna unveils turbodiesel 182*
A Cessna 182 powered by a* 230-horsepower Jet-A-burning piston engine *will be available in the second quarter of 2013, Cessna Aircraft announced July 23. The thinly masked Turbo182 NXT on display at the Cessna exhibit at EAA AirVenture drew widespread attention even before the official start of the show and unveiling. Cessna’s Jeff Umscheid said the aircraft is a response to customer demand. “This is what the market has been begging for,” he said, calling the aircraft a game changer. Powered by a turbocharged, direct-drive SMA SR305-230E-C1 engine, the Turbo 182 NXT will burn 11 gph at a max cruise speed of 155 knots, Umscheid said, granting owners a lower fuel burn and increased range from avgas counterparts._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you. However, there are now several tier one suppliers offering Al-Li alloys for aerostructures and most commercial manufacturers are either incorporating the material in their upcoming aircraft or planning to use it *on next generation aircraft*.
> .



Don't really disagree but it's still a bit in the future


----------



## JoeB (Jul 23, 2012)

Piper106 said:


> As far as I know, the only aviation diesels made in any number prior to the current era were the Junkers Jumo 205 / 207 series engines, which means that line died in 1945. In the last ten years there have been a number of small aviation diesels brought to the market, particularly in Europe, but again, as far as I know, they have all been less than 300 HP, too small for any significant military use.
> 
> Piper106


Yes, as I was referring to originally, aircraft diesels look set to probably oust gasoline engines from their current last (albeit quite big, numerically) stronghold in general aviation applications below around 300hp, perhaps before very long. We'd have to see what progress they might someday make against turbines in higher power ranges.

But that <300hp power range also includes a now important military a/c category: UAV's. For example, the MQ-1 'Predator A' in USAF service is powered by the a 115hp Rotax (Austrian firm specializing in small gasoline engines for eg. snowmobiles and such, but also widely used on ultra light a/c, as well as UAV's) gasoline engine, but its US Army counterpart the MQ-1C Grey Eagle is powered by a 135hp Thielert Centurion diesel, same type used in the Diamond a/c Flyboyj referred to above. The larger MQ-9 Predator B/Reaper is powered by a 900hp TPE-331 turbine. But there are plenty of UAV types smaller than Predator A, typically powerd by gasoline engines up to now, but the focus is on shifting them to distillate burning engines to get rid of the need for a separate logistics pipeline for small amounts of gasoline, which comes out astronomically expensive per gallon as delivered to forward deployed forces.

Note that the military refers to small a/c engines capable of burning distillate as 'heavy fuel engines', somewhat confusing since 'heavy fuel' has long meant residual fuel rather than distillate in marine parlance. Here it means distillate rather than gasoline. The larger of these engines are typically diesels like the Centurion. Smaller ones, like for example Ricardo's Wolverine 3hp for very small UAV's, are spark ignited multifuel engines than can burn distillate.

Joe


----------



## Oreo (Jul 24, 2012)

Shortround 6, in your lengthy post #41, which I won't quote, for clutter's sake, you make some very good points, including revealing a few deficiencies in my thinking. 

To clear a few things up:

I did not realize turboprops were so reliable, going 1,000 hours or more without an overhaul. No wonder they are so popular. I was under the impression, true or false, that typical WWII era piston engines needed an overhaul every 100 hours or less. So, sorry about that confusion, and I learned something valuable. I hereby retract that part of the specification.

Next, the ability to cruise with one engine out, I kind of made that requirement to see whether anybody would include a twin- or tri-motored flying boat rather than a four. Any four engined a/c ought to be able to cruise safely with one engine out, but not all can with two out. A twin on the other hand, losing an engine is some pretty serious business, especially if your power-to-weight ratio is marginal to begin with. Was wondering if anybody would mention the PBM or XPBB.

My plane is asking for more versatility than a P-3 Orion. The advantages of a flying boat are that it can take off, and land, in many many places without special preparation. It should be able to go to the end of its 16-17 hr. endurance, and then refuel, either in mid-air, or from a submarine or surface craft, as Axis flying boats sometimes did during WWII. Therefore, the crew should be prepared for being away from home base for many days at a time. They may also land in certain places where there is no fuel resupply, and take off again after several days at their outpost. This is great for landing special ops teams ashore in remote places, and going back for them later, or servicing remote outposts.

Just because an H8K did not do a certain thing, does not mean my fantasmal aircraft can't or shouldn't. I want it to be a true multi-role maritime aircraft, able to conduct the following missions:

Anti-submarine patrols and attacks
Anti-surface vessel patrols and attacks
Long-range reconnaissance
Long range cargo and resupply missions
Liaison with naval units
Servicing, deployment, and maintenance of military and meteorological devices
Bombing of land targets
Airborne assault troop deployment, by various means
Maritime Search and Rescue
Coastal sovereignty patrol and interdiction (anti-smuggler, for instance, Coast Guard duty)
Refueling of other a/c
Possibly other roles, such as fire-fighting?

My theoretic air force or navy is interested in being able to deploy its air, ground, and naval forces around a broad area of ocean in an easy, seamless fashion. It does not wish to have to construct new bases or rely on existing air fields. It wishes to be able to deploy its paratroopers, marines, and other spec ops troops around a broad area quicly and efficiently. It wishes to maintain many outposts and defend many military and civil interests in its country and around the ocean area it has influence over. It needs to also be able to detect and interdict any vessels that may be a threat to these interests. It believes in having and maintaining resilient, versatile aircraft and resourceful aircrews. It also fields modern fighters to maintain air superiority, and other land-based and possibly carrier-based aircraft to fill various roles.

The air crew does not need to take a lot of fresh water with them. Every time they land they can use a filtration device to obtain fresh water from sea water. Each crew needs to be resourceful and as self-sufficient as possible.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 24, 2012)

Boy. I'm almost motivated to write a novel about this country I've just described!


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 24, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've taken apart General Aviation engines running on mogas. Although STC for operation many times you will get degraded performance and you also wan't make TBO.



Do you refer to those pieces of junk made by Continental or Lycoming with the letter "O" in their name? Every time I I hear/read someone describing these aerial Briggs Strattons as "modern" I don't know whether to laugh or weep.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> Do you refer to those pieces of junk made by Continental or Lycoming with the letter "O" in their name? Every time I I hear/read someone describing these aerial Briggs Strattons as "modern" I don't know whether to laugh or weep.


Piece of junk? These engines been around in their basic designs for years, are extremely reliable and cheap to operate if treated right. Have you had experience on them? They have powered 90% of the General Aviation world for over 60 years. There's a number of reasons why they have been around so long but putting it mildly, what ever you "read or heard" negative about these engines is a figment of someones uneducated imagination...

Not only have I worked on them, I also fly them and I could say you need to research your statement. See how many GA aircraft of the world are powered by them and how many GA engines that tried to compete with them are no longer being built! I also challenge you and/or your sources to come up with reliability statistics on these engines. If you do you'll find that Lycoming and Continental have built the most reliable aircraft engines in the world and have been doing so for close to 60 years! There are few, if any other recip engines that have 2,000 hour overhaul requirements (2,300 hours for the Lycoming O-360 under certain conditions).

There is nothing wrong with an "opposed" or as you put it "O" engine!!! So now laugh or weep, your choice.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 24, 2012)

Maybe he thinks they have something superior where he lives or works. O in the name? Of course Continental and Lycoming have O in their names. They also have N, C, I, and L.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

Oreo said:


> Shortround 6, in your lengthy post #41, which I won't quote, for clutter's sake, you make some very good points, including revealing a few deficiencies in my thinking.



Thank you. 



Oreo said:


> To clear a few things up:
> 
> I was under the impression, true or false, that typical WWII era piston engines needed an overhaul every 100 hours or less.



It depends on the engine, country of origin and use. Fighter engines generally had the shortest lives, the same model engine in a transport might last twice as long. P&W R-1830s in DC-3s were good for around 300 hours _before_ WW II. 



Oreo said:


> My plane is asking for more versatility than a P-3 Orion. The advantages of a flying boat are that it can take off, and land, in many many places without special preparation. It should be able to go to the end of its 16-17 hr. endurance, and then refuel, either in mid-air, or from a submarine or surface craft, as Axis flying boats sometimes did during WWII. Therefore, the crew should be prepared for being away from home base for many days at a time. They may also land in certain places where there is no fuel resupply, and take off again after several days at their outpost. This is great for landing special ops teams ashore in remote places, and going back for them later, or servicing remote outposts.



Yes, they can do things that land planes cannot. But being away from base for many days at time is pushing things. more on that later. 



Oreo said:


> Just because an H8K did not do a certain thing, does not mean my fantasmal aircraft can't or shouldn't. I want it to be a true multi-role maritime aircraft, able to conduct the following missions:



The title of the thread is "What WW II aircraft could fulfill useful modern military roles."

You gave a list of specifications and I asked what WW II aircraft could meet the specifications and you replied the Emily. It can't. Now a modern Flying boat may be able to meet the specs but then it wouldn't be a WW II airplane would it?  

AS for the missions:
_Anti-submarine patrols and attacks
Anti-surface vessel patrols and attacks
Long-range reconnaissance_
Are quite plausible given the use of missiles, homing torpedoes and modern sensors. Gun action is out. 

_Long range cargo and resupply missions
Liaison with naval units_
Also plausible but the first cannot be effectively done with the same aircraft as the first 3 missions. Same airframe yes but a different version. Even flying boats are somewhat volume limited and a good transport has no room for weapons and sensor operator consoles, crew lounges and the like. A larger doorway/s and reinforced floor might come in handy as well as a cargo handling system. Using a 80-100,000lb plane for Liaison use is doable but rather wasteful.

_Servicing, deployment, and maintenance of military and meteorological devices_
Again doable but why? Most of those jobs are either not time sensitive and can be done by boat or the devices can be dropped by parachute. 

_Bombing of land targets_

Only works against the most unsophisticated opponents. Even a Martin Sea master would be a dead duck against a modern air defense system unless support by a strong electronics warfare component. Maybe you can build it in but it is more consoles and more operators. 

More later


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2012)

This could do some of the roles











If you wanted a twin, I'm sure one of thoe engines would work in an engine-out situation. Or the latest 12,000hp+ Rolls-Royce turboprop.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 24, 2012)

If I remember correctly, the TF-33 (JT3D) used in the C-141 had an MTO of 10,000 hours, would run 30 minutes with zero oil pressure, and would burn just about any aero fuel including avgas (with, of course, some impact to performance). In four years of flying, I heard of only one engine failure in flight an that engine had over 9,900 hours. Very reassuring. Of course the TF-33 was a large slow turning turbofan engine but it does show the great reliability advantage of turbojet/fan/prop engines. That and power-to-weight advantage says you really don't want to use any thing else except for low power applications already mentioned.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 24, 2012)

"Long range cargo and resupply missions
Liaison with naval units
Also plausible but the first cannot be effectively done with the same aircraft as the first 3 missions."

I disagree. The same airframe can be used, and on any given example, the accessory components can be removed or added as needed. Even my Chevy Astro can do that. Passenger seats can be taken out and work racks can be installed. If you build modular component ability into the airframe, it is rather easy to do. If we need to haul heavy cargo, we can take out all the other stuff. It would be likely that some a/c would be maintained as cargo birds while others would be maintained as patrol birds, but either could be converted to the other as needed.

As for the bombing of land targets, naturally it could not be done unless the situation were safe enough. C-130 gunships face the same problem, and yet there they are. This is also why I stressed the ability for the crew to repair the aircraft either in flight, or after landing. Holes in the hull should be able to be patched in flight, for instance.

BTW, comparing the H8K to the P-3, it is obvious the P-3 is faster and has modern reliable turboprop engines. However, it is half again heavier than the H8K, meaning, construction wise it would be theoretically half again more expensive to produce (other things being equal, which of course they are not). Since it seems that turboprop engines weigh much less than radials of the same power, it would seem we could upgrade on the Emily's power somewhat while still lowering engine weight. Equipment would vary in weight, but we probably would still be cheaper in production compared to the P-3 as long as the production run is long enough to invoke economy of scale. My specification does not call for speed to match the P-3, so less powerful engines can be used, also being less expensive than the P-3. The P-3's engines are 4,600 hp (Wiki) and the H8K's were circa 1,800-2,000 hp, so turboprops of around 2,500 hp could still improve the performance, especially with modern propellers.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 24, 2012)

Wuzak is showing us that not all modern militaries have totally shaken off the prop-plane. Wiki states Russia is likely to use the Bear into 2040! And the US still uses the P-3 and C-130 extensively.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2012)

Oreo said:


> BTW, comparing the H8K to the P-3, it is obvious the P-3 is faster and has modern reliable turboprop engines. *However, it is half again heavier than the H8K, meaning, construction wise it would be theoretically half again more expensive to produce (other things being equal, which of course they are not). *Since it seems that turboprop engines weigh much less than radials of the same power, it would seem we could upgrade on the Emily's power somewhat while still lowering engine weight. Equipment would vary in weight, but we probably would still be cheaper in production compared to the P-3 as long as the production run is long enough to invoke economy of scale. My specification does not call for speed to match the P-3, so less powerful engines can be used, also being less expensive than the P-3. The P-3's engines are 4,600 hp (Wiki) and the H8K's were circa 1,800-2,000 hp, so turboprops of around 2,500 hp could still improve the performance, especially with modern propellers.


Not really true..

It will depend on manufacturing techniques, tooling and the lay out of the factory. I built P-3s and it was a fairly easy aircraft to build until some of the tooling wore out.

I still can't see building a large flying boat or amphibian.. Because of the salt water environment you have added maintenance. Operationally you have additional training and operational risks (landing at sea as opposed to a runway) that also add expense and risk.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

Oreo said:


> I disagree. The same airframe can be used, and on any given example, the accessory components can be removed or added as needed. Even my Chevy Astro can do that. Passenger seats can be taken out and work racks can be installed. If you build modular component ability into the airframe, it is rather easy to do. If we need to haul heavy cargo, we can take out all the other stuff. It would be likely that some a/c would be maintained as cargo birds while others would be maintained as patrol birds, but either could be converted to the other as needed.



The convertibility thing always sounds better in theory ( or the sales brochure) than in practice. And somethings are either there or they are not. Larger hatches to accommodate large cargo objects for one, reinforced floors to handle things like crated engines. Some modern (or not so modern jets) had freight versions with these things and were "convertible" to passenger use but had a higher empty weight which cut into the fuel load for the same gross weight. An overhead crane to move cargo to the loading doors/hatches is also rather nice (or rollers in the floor?) anad while the crane mechanism can be removed the structural bracing for it cannot. And according to Murphy, when the manure hits the oscillating air mover, whichever configuration the planes are in will be the wrong one.



Oreo said:


> As for the bombing of land targets, naturally it could not be done unless the situation were safe enough. C-130 gunships face the same problem, and yet there they are. This is also why I stressed the ability for the crew to repair the aircraft either in flight, or after landing. Holes in the hull should be able to be patched in flight, for instance.



If you have that kind of air superiority you should have other planes (land or carrier) that can bomb, you don't get air superiority with flying boats and float planes. 
Damaged land/carrier planes do not have to patch up the hull in order to land. 

BTW, The P-3 was based off a commercial airliner so a good amount of the R&D and even tooling was already in existence. many countries take advantage of a similar situation for smaller coastal recon/patrol planes using modified commuter airliners fitted with sensor suites and operators to hold costs down. 

The more Jobs you try for ( it sings, it dances, it tells jokes, it does the dishes, it even washes windows) the higher the costs actually go.


----------



## Rogi (Jul 24, 2012)

I guess a lot of aircraft could fit into this mold, The Yak series I still see as "useable" harasement/scout aircraft. It really depends on what kind of use were talking about, full combat roles I can't really see for much aircraft of WW2 but I could see a transport/scout role for many WW2 airplanes. It also depends on if your going up against a technologically superior enemy or someone on par with what your air force has at its disposal. 

Is the question more geared towards what we think would be as effective against modern equipement?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

"_Is the question more geared towards what we think would be as effective against modern equipement?_"

A very good point. What are the 'threats' this WW II aircraft (or clone) would be facing. Leaving out the air to air component AA weapons would include the Redeye/Stinger/Strela at all but the most primitive of opposition. Single 12.7mm MG to quad 14.5mm mounts. Single and multiple 20-23mm mounts. Fire control can vary enormously from a wetted finger held skyward and a prayer to Allah to a modern solid state radar and fire control computer. the 40mm Bofors gun is in wide scale use and the "modern" version (1950s on?) has a cycle rate 50-100% higher than the WW II version, high velocity, improved shells ( including proximity fuses) faster traverse and elevation with powered mounts and so on. heavier tube AA is scarce once you get past the 76mm OtoMelara mounted on a wide selection of fast patrol boats scattered all over the globe. A scattering of twin 30mm and 35mm guns fill out the majority of the different mounts. The Modern 20mm guns can have a cycle rate 2-4 times higher than WW II guns and have higher velocity. 

How well the shoulder fired AA missiles could lock onto a Big piston engine (or it's exhaust) I have no idea, although the Strela is credited with an 0-2 Cessna.

Pirates and smugglers would tend more to the smallest heavy MGs and the shoulder fired AA missiles. Third world Navies could have a 300-500 ton patrol boat who's AA suite ( guns, radar,fire control computer) would be the envy of many a WW II Destroyer captain.


----------



## Rogi (Jul 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> "_Is the question more geared towards what we think would be as effective against modern equipement?_"
> 
> A very good point. What are the 'threats' this WW II aircraft (or clone) would be facing. Leaving out the air to air component AA weapons would include the Redeye/Stinger/Strela at all but the most primitive of opposition. Single 12.7mm MG to quad 14.5mm mounts. Single and multiple 20-23mm mounts. Fire control can vary enormously from a wetted finger held skyward and a prayer to Allah to a modern solid state radar and fire control computer. the 40mm Bofors gun is in wide scale use and the "modern" version (1950s on?) has a cycle rate 50-100% higher than the WW II version, high velocity, improved shells ( including proximity fuses) faster traverse and elevation with powered mounts and so on. heavier tube AA is scarce once you get past the 76mm OtoMelara mounted on a wide selection of fast patrol boats scattered all over the globe. A scattering of twin 30mm and 35mm guns fill out the majority of the different mounts. The Modern 20mm guns can have a cycle rate 2-4 times higher than WW II guns and have higher velocity.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the response, but in it lies a crucial explanation in itself  . As you mentioned even the weapons that were in WW2 have evolved, so we in essence have to evolve our answer, or evolve the WW2 aircraft to fit in the role we would like to place it in.

I'd take a modified Yak-3 or 9, better engine (I'm sure we could scavenge one out of a older model Russian Transport that could do the job), better armor (I'm sure metals and such could be substituted from its original frame) and a heavier cannon. For a strafing or (and this being more likeley) having a scout aircraft. I think the Scout itself would be more likely with modern cameras attached to it to find or fufil roles like drug busts and border patrol. Although not that much of a "military" role I think it fits the criteria for the opinion warrented in this case  since Yaks have seen combat in Korea, I guess there already proven as a "modern" WW2 aircraft that could mix it up with almost all tech. out there.

Although a bit "cheating" I think the perfect aircraft even more a military usage would be the Douglas A-1 Skyraider its been through everything its nearly WW2 (trials started in 45 if I'm correct?) and it has been in "modern" warefare (Korea, Vietnam etc) 

One aircraft which I'd like to see re-fined would be the He-162, although it would not last long in any modern engagement I think theres promise in the airframe and some minor tweaks it wouldn't be a bad contender for a fighter on fighter roles (Now don't rip me apart for this one, I can dream can't I people?  )


-I think the Martin Mars would still be able to do a long haul role, busting people for illegal shiping etc and patroling its original route in Hawaii etc and hauling supplies. I think good ole Canada has a crew that still uses the Mars? (although the major issue is money, working with this kind of aircraft for oil, repairs etc)


----------



## JoeB (Jul 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> "_Is the question more geared towards what we think would be as effective against modern equipement?_"
> 
> 1. A very good point. What are the 'threats' this WW II aircraft (or clone) would be facing. Leaving out the air to air component AA weapons would include the Redeye/Stinger/Strela at all but the most primitive of opposition.
> 
> 2. How well the shoulder fired AA missiles could lock onto a Big piston engine (or it's exhaust) I have no idea, although the Strela is credited with an 0-2 Cessna.


1. In the actual wars fought in the last few years 'antiaircraft' weapons have been mainly limited to small arms and RPG's latter a real threat to low flying or hovering helo's though not usually fixed wing a/c, and to a lesser extent MANPADS missiles. Even pretty light AA guns haven't usually been practical for those opponents to lug around or hide. Anyway in situations where helicopters can survive, using IR countermeasures against MANPADS, so could WWII piston airplanes, using countermeasures. Of course in difficult situations of overlapping highly capable AD systems neither a helo (except continously hiding behind terrain) nor slow mover prop could survive.

But slow piston a/c (ie again Predator A) do also survive in real combat environments, in the operational profiles they actually use, usually pretty high up using optronics and PGM's. Surely the theoretical WWII strike a/c would have to be refitted with these capabilities to be of any use either, even besides survivability issues. Roaring around at low altitude strafing what they see and hoping to see friendly forces' recognition panels or avoid civlians targets...just not gonna work in today's politico-military environment.

2. The original uncooled seeker type of shoulder fired missiles (eg Sa-7), which sought hot metal, worked very well against the exhausts of big piston a/c. VNAF A-1's were quite vulvernable to them in the closing stages of the Vietnam War, again without effective countermeasures, lacking the speed of a jet to exit the envelope before the missile got there, and tending to get hit right in the fuselage if so, not in the extreme tail (the all time cumulative kill rate of Sa-7 v fast jets is very low, though they downed some). Later cooled seekers operating in sometimes multiple bands can detect all kinds signatures of an a/c, one mode used by Stinger for example looks for the ultraviolet dark spot the a/c creates against the background of the sky, more sophisticated ones in AAM's so far see the image of the plane...they will pick up any type of a/c which lacks countermeasures able to fool their seekers, and it's best to just stay out of their envelopes (ie long rang optronic sensors and PGM's) and/or dip inside the envelope and be back out before the missile can catch up (as fast jets can do much better than slow movers).

Joe


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 24, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Cast aluminum alloys" have not changed much since WW2. Alloying, casting and heat treating techniques have gotten way better as well as ensuring metallurgical purity but in the end if you have a 2024 aluminum casting, there's little difference from what might produced during WW2.
> 
> Composites - whole different story. Equal or greater strength, lighter but harder to repair.



It would be fun to reimagine a WW2 engine with the use of modern materials, oils fuels tho.
That 2500 - 3000rpm limit could go.

I guess the racers will know all about this one but I'd imagine the power torque outputs (even if turned down a little for reliability) are a vast leap forward on the WW2 levels.

I'm not sure (besides the ubiquitous DC-3/C47) that many of them would have much relevance today.
(I'd have included the Ju52 as well along the Douglas except for the spares problem)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2012)

Oreo said:


> Wuzak is showing us that not all modern militaries have totally shaken off the prop-plane. Wiki states Russia is likely to use the Bear into 2040! And the US still uses the P-3 and C-130 extensively.



Not just those. The US military still uses quite a few Prop Aircraft extensively. Nothing wrong with a good turboprop aircraft. 

C-130 Hercules 
P-3 Orion
E-2 Hawkeye
C-2 Greyhound
C-26 Metroliner
HC-144 Ocean Sentry
T-6 Texan II
C-12 Huron
C-27 Spartan
E-9A Widget
T-41 Mescalero
Cessna T-51
Diamond T-52
U-28 (Pilatus PC-12)
UV-18
C-23 Sherpa
C-31 Troopship
EO-5
RC-12 Huron
T-34 Mentor
Beech T-44

Some of the above aircraft are used in very small numbers, some of them in very large numbers. The point being is that the prop aircraft has not out used it usefulness. 

I don't know a military in the world that does not use them. Many are still designing and building new ones. Take the Airbus A400M for example, which flew for the first time in 2009.


----------



## davebender (Jul 24, 2012)

This aircraft can loiter over a battlefield for hours calling in artillery and air strikes. If the target is small it can attack directly. Just as the aircraft did during WWII.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2012)

davebender said:


> This aircraft can loiter over a battlefield for hours calling in artillery and air strikes. If the target is small it can attack directly. Just as the aircraft did during WWII.



Love the aircraft but it's a taildragger, ain't gonna happen...


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The point being is that the prop aircraft has not out used it usefulness.
> 
> I don't know a military in the world that does not use them. Many are still designing and building new ones. Take the Airbus A400M for example, which flew for the first time in 2009.



In many roles they are far more efficient than turbojets or turbofans. Like the P-3 really - using jets wouldn't really add anything, and would reduce range or require more fuel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2012)

Don't take me wrong though. I am not saying that these aircraft could sustain an airforce.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2012)

part of the problem for modern aircraft relate to cost. Do turboprops techs offer less expensive solutions to providing airpower to an airforce, compared to jet propulsion, or rotary wing aviation?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2012)

wuzak said:


> In many roles they are far more efficient than turbojets or turbofans. Like the P-3 really -* using jets wouldn't really add anything, and would reduce range or require more fuel*.


Depends where and where they are operated. Newer smaller turbines are extremely efficient and do offer better fuel consumption to any WW2 in line or round engine.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 24, 2012)

Generally, a prop-driven aircraft will have greater static thrust, and a shorter take-off roll than a jet type, but the trade-off is high-speed thrust, and reduced top speed. Which is why the C-130/A400M types are utilising turbo-prop powerplants.
Horses for courses, really.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

it depends on the mission. Somewhere there is a crossover point on speed, below the cross over the propeller is more efficient, above the jet is more efficient, turbo fans still falling pretty much in the jet class. Many transport missions, maritime reconnaissance, many training missions and so on don't need speeds of 400mph and up. 

For combat thinks get tricker. The faster planes (still subsonic) spend less time within the AA envelope and just like WW II the faster planes present a more difficult intercept problem. 

In a low threat environment ( bush wars) Turbo props need shorter runways, operate from dirt a bit better, fly fast enough and use less fuel than jets. ( think jet trainer/strike vs turbo prop trainer/strike aircraft). Against more sophisticated enemies the turbo prop may not do as well. A metal prop is probably the next best radar reflector to a front fan turbo fan with metal blades. Nobody seems to be designing stealth turbo props 

Same with rotary wing, what is the mission profile? Look at the Osprey, an attempt to get the best of both worlds. given a short runway a turbo prop can carry a heavier load, faster, with less fuel ( and maintenance) than a rotary wing. *BUT* it needs that runway.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2012)

I know that many / most /all people in charge of procurements don't want tail-draggers, but I didn't ask what _would they buy_ but rather what could be useful. Or, at least that's what I meant. So having said that, let's move on to a tactical aircraft for brush wars in third-world countries.

This spec asks for a relatively inexpensive aircraft to do the following things:
1. Tactical Recon
2. COIN attack
3. Soft ground units attack
4. Destruction of slow enemy aircraft, especially rotor-craft and UAV's.

We want something that:
Flies and maneuvers well at altitudes under 1,000 meters
Handles and maneuvers well within 100 meters of the ground
Carries a drop-ordinance load not less than 1,000 kg (Many that did not do so in WWII could be stressed for it)
Carries a fixed forward-firing armament heavy enough to give good chances of survival against combat helo's
A max speed not less than 250 knots at 500 meters to be able to outrun all rotor craft
Endurance of at least four hours
Efficient loitering characteristics
Ease of maintenance in forward units
Ease of takeoff and landing, especially on rough strips
Resistant to small arms fire
Ability to carry whatever avionics are considered necessary for brush wars. . . .
Preferably a decent view of the ground while flying.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Oreo said:


> I know that many / most /all people in charge of procurements don't want tail-draggers, but I didn't ask what _would they buy_ but rather what could be useful.


The point is they won't be useful. Although, depending on use and design can offer better takeoff and landing performance BUT you are operating a configuration that requires more training and has a higher accident potential when operating in hazardous weather conditions, especially during takeoff and landing. In today's world I know of NO modern military flight training syllabi that has any program for a tail wheel check out during primary training, in other words you don't have pilots readily available to fly the aircraft if it became available.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 25, 2012)

So most developed nations don't even have a tail dragger as the earliest form of training A/C then FBJ?

Mind due, if its the design being modernised, I'm sure there's enough expertise to fit a nose gear and adjust the mains to compensate.. so long as the spars aren't moved or cut, the main gear could always be located aft of the main spar btween the aft/supporting trailing(?) spar...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

razor1uk said:


> So most developed nations don't even have a tail dragger as the earliest form of training A/C then FBJ?


NO - as a matter of fact you may find many military pilots with thousands of hours flying all types of aircraft with no tail dragger time. I know of some of the US test pilot schools (PAX River Edwards AFB) that on occasion run test pilots in training through a tail dragger checkout if an aircraft is available.




razor1uk said:


> Mind due, if its the design being modernised, I'm sure there's enough expertise to fit a nose gear and adjust the mains to compensate.. so long as the spars aren't moved or cut, the main gear could always be located aft of the main spar btween the aft/supporting trailing(?) spar...


With time and money, anything is possible!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2012)

You could get a WW II aircraft, or replica, or updated version to perform a modern military mission. It is just that a more modern design would do the job a whole lot better. 

People have proposed recon, including the Fw 189.

Try the North American Aviation Rockwell OV-10 Bronco instead. 

FW 189:

Crew: 3
Wing area: 38 m² (409 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,680 kg (5,920 lb)
Loaded weight: 3,950 kg (8,708 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Argus As 410, 342 kW (465 PS - 459 hp) each


OV-10

Crew: 2
Wing area: 290.95 ft² (27.03 m²)
Empty weight: 6,893 lb (3,127 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 14,444 lb (6,552 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Garrett T76-G-410/412 turboprop, 715 hp (533 kW) each

Note the increase in useful load. 

Modern recon planes would use sensors in pods or turrets instead of the eyeball, MK I. 

Modern recon planes want to stay out of the range of the shoulder fired missiles, one reason for the popularity of drones. You are no longer risking the pilot. 

Not only modern engines but modern construction make a huge difference, not even counting exotic materials. WW II aircraft were made of hundreds if not thousands of pieces fastened together by tens of thousands of rivets. A modern plane could use welding, and use larger pieces formed in large presses that are profile milled or chemically milled to put thickness where it is needed and light weight where it is not. Still aluminium but a rather different form of construction.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> You could get a WW II aircraft, or replica, or updated version to perform a modern military mission. It is just that a more modern design would do the job a whole lot better.
> 
> People have proposed recon, including the Fw 189.
> 
> ...



The OV-10 was an excellent aircraft and a good example for this. You don't want to use welding for primary structure for a number of reasons although there were aircraft constructed where all the primary structure was welded together (Vought Kingfisher)


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 25, 2012)

Standard duralumimium is not weldable. But e.g. that Al-Li alloy is.


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends where and where they are operated. Newer smaller turbines are extremely efficient and do offer better fuel consumption to any WW2 in line or round engine.



Do you mind listing a few? A Bristol Hercules can do 190 grams/hp/h at low power cruise. AFAIK no turboprop without heat exchanger can beat that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> Standard duralumimium is not weldable. But e.g. that Al-Li alloy is.


Actually you're wrong - you can weld 2024 and 7075 extrusion and sheet with gas, (it's not able to be done with an arc welder)


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 25, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> It would be fun to reimagine a WW2 engine with the use of modern materials, oils fuels tho.
> That 2500 - 3000rpm limit could go.



Highly unlikely, if you want any durability. Besides, you could get lost of more power by using e.g. triptane as fuel...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> Do you mind listing a few? A Bristol Hercules can do 190 grams/hp/h at low power cruise. AFAIK no turboprop without heat exchanger can beat that.



What is that an hour in pounds or liters and in what type of aircraft? FYI a PT6 will consume about 200 liters an hour in a twin otter


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> Do you mind listing a few? A Bristol Hercules can do 190 grams/hp/h at low power cruise. AFAIK no turboprop without heat exchanger can beat that.



Start here...

Williams International | Product Information


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Piece of junk? These engines been around in their basic designs for years, are extremely reliable and cheap to operate if treated right. Have you had experience on them? They have powered 90% of the General Aviation world for over 60 years. There's a number of reasons why they have been around so long but putting it mildly, what ever you "read or heard" negative about these engines is a figment of someones uneducated imagination...
> 
> Not only have I worked on them, I also fly them and I could say you need to research your statement. See how many GA aircraft of the world are powered by them and how many GA engines that tried to compete with them are no longer being built! I also challenge you and/or your sources to come up with reliability statistics on these engines. If you do you'll find that Lycoming and Continental have built the most reliable aircraft engines in the world and have been doing so for close to 60 years! There are few, if any other recip engines that have 2,000 hour overhaul requirements (2,300 hours for the Lycoming O-360 under certain conditions).
> 
> There is nothing wrong with an "opposed" or as you put it "O" engine!!! So now laugh or weep, your choice.



A Twin Wasp has a TBO of up to 3000 hrs, as does the Bristol Hercules. As for why so many GA aircraft are powered by these junks: they have no other choice as doe to practical monopoly, especially since Germany lost WW2 and the best ranges of GA engines ever, Hirth and Argus, went down along with the parent country.

When these opposed engines were introduced before the war, they were already outdated in terms on engineering; i.e. they were indeed intended as cheap aerial Briggs Strattons for those who don't know any better. 

In short, these Lycoshits and Conticraps don't have e.g. any better sfc with 100 LL than the old Hirth and Argus engines had with 80-87 octane fuels. In fact, a WW1 period Liberty engine has lower maximum power sfc than these "modern" "engines". Need I say more?


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What is that an hour in pounds or liters and in what type of aircraft? FYI a PT6 will consume about 200 liters an hour in a twin otter



It is in grams per horsepower per hour. Figure calculated from consumption and power data in Hercules XVI/XVII/XVIII manual.


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Start here...
> 
> Williams International | Product Information



No turboprops listed there...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> It is in grams per horsepower per hour. Figure calculated from consumption and power data in Hercules XVI/XVII/XVIII manual.


On what aircraft? How will that rate to airframe performance?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> A Twin Wasp has a TBO of up to 3000 hrs, as does the Bristol Hercules. As for why so many GA aircraft are powered by these junks: they have no other choice as doe to practical monopoly, especially since Germany lost WW2 and the best ranges of GA engines ever, Hirth and Argus, went down along with the parent country.


Hirth and Argus engines were produced in the post war aftermarket and they vanished because of operating cost and poor product support. If you're going to cry about monoply there was also Franklin and Manasco as well as other US manufactures who produced both opposed and radial engines and they vanished too, so I don't know where you're trying to go with that statement. As far as "Germany producing the best ranges of GA engines," do tell me how? Performance? Reliability? I do know Hirth engines can still be found but are no where relaible as Lycoming and Continental engines. I think that's more of your opinion rather than basing a comparison on performance or reliability.

Twin Wasp 3000 hrs? Compared to a GA engine under 200 HP? Twin wasp overhaul is 1,600 hours for a -94 BTW...



Trilisser said:


> When these opposed engines were introduced before the war, they were already outdated in terms on engineering; i.e. they were indeed intended as cheap aerial Briggs Strattons for those who don't know any better.



Cheap and they work quite well and are also RELIABLE.


Trilisser said:


> In short, these Lycoshits and Conticraps don't have e.g. any better sfc with 100 LL than the old Hirth and Argus engines had with 80-87 octane fuels. In fact, a WW1 period Liberty engine has lower maximum power sfc than these "modern" "engines". Need I say more?


Yes you do need to say more, because you have given NO crediable argument here!! They work - PERIOD, and when coupled with an airframe will burn between 7 and 12 gallons per hour depending on engine and aircraft. They are simplistically engineered because of the certification process GA engines have to go through when dealing with the FAA in the US and now the JAA in Europe. New opposed engines are being produced in mass by Rotax as we speak, if opposed engines are crap, why is Rotax's booming?!?!? Are they crap to?!?!? I can tell you that Rotax makes a very good "OPPOSED" engine configuration. I have maintained and flown aircraft that have them installed...

So I ask you again, have you ever operated or maintained one to give an opinion that Lycoming or Continental (or Rotax) engines are crap?????


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2012)

I would note that some Argus engines were built in France during the post war era. The Germans having farmed out some production to French factories during the war. Some of these engines (the V-12s?) were offered (and used) until at least the early 50s. Germans and Italians built licensed Lycoming O-435s of a few different models during the 50s. 
Porsche has tried to break into the aircraft market at least twice. A good look at the specifications shows why there was no great leap towards them. The Continental and Lycoming engines may be large displacement for their power, which to some people equals crude and old fashion but they aren't too bad on a power to weight ratio. The Porshe engines while of small displacement showed no better (if as good) a power to weight ratio.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that some Argus engines were built in France during the post war era. The Germans having farmed out some production to French factories during the war. Some of these engines (the V-12s?) were offered (and used) until at least the early 50s. Germans and Italians built licensed Lycoming O-435s of a few different models during the 50s.
> Porsche has tried to break into the aircraft market at least twice. A good look at the specifications shows why there was no great leap towards them. The* Continental and Lycoming engines may be large displacement for their power, which to some people equals crude and old fashion but they aren't too bad on a power to weight ratio. *The Porshe engines while of small displacement showed no better (if as good) a power to weight ratio.



As mentioned, a lot of that was due to the original ceritification process these engines had to originally go through. In terms of engerineering they are very simplistic but for the longest time the Feds wouldn't allow much improvement. In today's world we are seeing some improvement in the certification process because of LSA and the phase out of 100LL.


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So I ask you again, have you ever operated or maintained one to give an opinion that Lycoming or Continental (or Rotax) engines are crap?????



1) Yes, air-cooled opposed engines are crap, as the configuration is really poor for cooling airflow, especially with poorly designed GA aircraft6 engine installations without adjustable cowl flaps. 

2) The TBO of the above mentioned engines plummet if they are worked hard, like sailplane towing.

3) The above comments don't apply to Conti's Voyager.

4) No, I have not worked on them. But, neither I can produce milk, yet I can differentiate between bad or good milk.

5) Much of my commentary is based on lengthy discussions over the last 20 years with an FiAF aero engine specialist, who for over 30 years not only dealt with aero engines in practice from AEIO-360 to RR Avon and Adour, also instructed future FiAF mechanics on them.

6) As per FiAF practice, the TBO for the Twin Wasp in general was 3000 hrs if the cyl heads were overhauled every 1800 hrs.

7) One of the major reasons why Lyc and Con have been able to continue their scam is the preferential treatment aviation has had on emission limits. It is highly likely that no spark-ignition engine with air-cooling would be able to meet latest emission standards as applicable to cars.


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> On what aircraft? How will that rate to airframe performance?



E.g. on the Beaufighter TF.X (Herc XVII/XVIII). The actual example from the manual is as follows:

-altitude sea level
-settings 1600 rpm/boost +2
-power 730 hp
-fuel flow 42.5 Imp.gals/h
-from which sfc=(42.5 x 4.56 x 0.72 [fuel density])/730=191.15 g/hp/h.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> 1) Yes, air-cooled opposed engines are crap, as the configuration is really poor for cooling airflow, especially with poorly designed GA aircraft6 engine installations without adjustable cowl flaps.



Gee, I've flown MANY GA aircraft with opposed engines without cowl flaps and had FEW cooling problems, again more of your opinions?


Trilisser said:


> 2) The TBO of the above mentioned engines plummet if they are worked hard, like sailplane towing.


NOT TRUE I manage 7 PA-18-180s with O-360s and they are used ONLY as tow planes. We run them to 2,300 hours and they always make overhaul. BTW we average 1000 hours a year on them and in 8 years I had one valve failure


Trilisser said:


> 3) The above comments don't apply to Conti's Voyager.


Whatever you say


Trilisser said:


> 4) No, I have not worked on them. But, neither I can produce milk, yet I can differentiate between bad or good milk.


And being an @sshole on here will get you banned in a New York minute


Trilisser said:


> 5) Much of my commentary is based on lengthy discussions over the last 20 years with an FiAF aero engine specialist, who for over 30 years not only dealt with aero engines in practice from AEIO-360 to RR Avon and Adour, also instructed future FiAF mechanics on them.


I've been working in the aviation industry for 33 years, hold an A&P license and am also a flight instructor and have worked O-200s to T-56s as far as engines, Cessna 150 to DC-10s for airplanes, L39s and Hueys in the middle, so much for resumes...

Here, I'll toot my horn, a little award I received last year to show you that my experience here is based on a little more than lengthy discussions....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/joe-morales-amt-year-30185.html



Trilisser said:


> 6) As per FiAF practice, the TBO for the Twin Wasp in general was 3000 hrs if the cyl heads were overhauled every 1800 hrs.


You're still overhauling the engine at 1,800 hours. And that is one operator's decision CONTRARY to what the manufacturer recommends for commercial operations, there is no top overhaul limits on either continental or Lycoming engines and if taken care of will run in excess of 3,000 hours, not recommended by the manufacturer and not legal if the plane is flown for hire.


Trilisser said:


> 7) One of the major reasons why Lyc and Con have been able to continue their scam is the preferential treatment aviation has had on emission limits. It is highly likely that no spark-ignition engine with air-cooling would be able to meet latest emission standards as applicable to cars.


That's not even an argument. No one, until now has tried to enter the GA engine field for the past 60 years. Now you have ROTAX and Thielert entering the market, and if they are reliable, perform and are safe, nothing else matters.

Continental and Lycoming have made the most reliable aircraft engines in the world. They are not engineering marvels and in some cases very inefficient, but they perform and are safe. You're entitled to your *"non-professional"* opinions but I can tell you I deal with them every day. If an in-line or radial came along and offered the same and reliability and performance, I'd be saying the same thing, BTW - regardless of what country they are produced.
So to say they are “crap” is just your armchair opinion based on engineering prejudices. There are manufacturing and certification processes that have gone into these engines that haven't a clue about!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So I ask you again, have you ever operated or maintained one to give an opinion that Lycoming or Continental (or Rotax) engines are crap?????



awful lot of good reliable aircraft use Lycoming or Continental engines for them to be crap, huh? 

Hell we just had one, a Cessna 414 pull into our hangar today. Not because of its engine either.


----------



## davebender (Jul 25, 2012)

A modern Fw-189 would require modern (probably turbo prop) engines as you cannot obtain parts for the original Argus air cooled V12. If tricycle landing gear is desired that's the time to make the change as the entire aircraft balance must be adjusted anyway.

Personally I would keep the original MG151/20 cannon. They are well suited for such a lightweight aircraft and mineshells are just as effective vs soft targets today as they were during WWII. Wing hardpoints would carry modern weapons.


----------



## Piper106 (Jul 25, 2012)

One other area where WWII aircraft would be useful is maritime recon or patrol. 
The Lockhead P2V Neptune in my mind would still be a good choice for longer patrols further offshore. 

For anti-pirate patrols off the east coast of Africa / Somalia in 2012, a P2V however would be too much of a good thing. Another WWII vet that doesn't get much press would seem just about right, and that is the US Navy/Marine version of the Army B-25, the PBJ. I'd have most of the bomb bay filled with extra fuel tanks (I recall and like the phrase 'Tokyo tanks'), just a couple of 250 pound cluster bomb containers. Use the same solid nose with eight 50 caliber machine guns used by the Army aircraft. Seem to me that getting targeted by eight 50 caliber machine guns would take all the fun out of being a pirate, well before their AK47s and RPGs would put the aircraft at risk. .


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The point is they won't be useful. Although, depending on use and design can offer better takeoff and landing performance BUT you are operating a configuration that requires more training and has a higher accident potential when operating in hazardous weather conditions, especially during takeoff and landing. *In today's world I know of NO modern military flight training syllabi that has any program for a tail wheel check out during primary training, in other words you don't have pilots readily available to fly the aircraft if it became available.*



Ok. But you COULD, just like a country could double the size of its millitary or South Korea could build an aircraft carrier. Just because they haven't or don't doesn't mean they couldn't.

BUT--- having said that--- there are probably some tri-gear WWII a/c that could be auditioned for the _role._


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2012)

razor1uk said:


> So most developed nations don't even have a tail dragger as the earliest form of training A/C then FBJ?
> 
> Mind due, if its the design being modernised, I'm sure there's enough expertise to fit a nose gear and adjust the mains to compensate.. so long as the spars aren't moved or cut, the main gear could always be located aft of the main spar btween the aft/supporting trailing(?) spar...



Uh, yes that could be done, but that would be a radical mod for most aircraft, and then we have to ask ourselves, whether it actually is the same WWII aircraft type that we all know and love, or a new type entirely that only sort of resembles our Spitfire, Mustang, etc. but on a tripod.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 25, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> 1) Yes, air-cooled opposed engines are crap, as the configuration is really poor for cooling airflow, especially with poorly designed GA aircraft6 engine installations without adjustable cowl flaps.
> 
> 2) The TBO of the above mentioned engines plummet if they are worked hard, like sailplane towing.


So, you are blaming the engine performance on 'poorly designed GA aircraft engine installations' which aren't anything to do with Lycoming or Continental?

Here's my first-hand experience with Lycomings:
CAANZ approved TBO of 4000 hours for one of my customers doing flight training. (Thisincludes both single, and twin-engine aircraft)
The twins have a far harder life than glider towing aircraft, given the number of in-flight shutdowns, and engine failure simulations. The singles would have similar strains put on them, given that they have ab-initio pilots flying them.
I have seen an engine that has run over 4500 hours, and part of the TBO extension procedure, and there was no reason that the engine wouldn't have been able to be put back together and returned to service, as no parts were worn outside of serviceable limits.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> On what aircraft? How will that rate to airframe performance?



FlyboyJ, as much as I understand and agree with your disagreement with him about his statements, you seem to be missing the point about the fuel efficiency here. I would think you would understand this. The formula or equation used for fuel efficiency for an engine (whether aviation, industrial, or whatever) includes the weight of fuel consumed, per hour, times the horsepower. This fuel efficiency statement is for the engine itself, not the whole aircraft. In order to get the fuel efficiency for the whole aircraft, IOW, the kilomters per liter, or whatever, you have to factor in the aerodynamics of the aircraft, and the efficiency of the propeller (or propulsion devices). So any given engine has a fuel efficiency factor for any given RPM, and it can also vary as to whether the engine is under load or not. So at an idle, the fuel efficiency factor, measured either in grams per horsepower/ hr, or (as I am more accustomed to) lbs. / hp/ hr, may be a different figure than the efficiency of the engine at full RPM. The dynamic load put on the engine may change it too. Piston engines have a torque curve that gives a good degree of ability to do work at lower rpms, whereas, IIUC, turbine engines have only a limited ability to do productive work at slower rpms. (I understand how it works far better for piston engines than non-pistons). I have followed how the fuel efficiency measurements work for the Nebraska tractor tests, and Trilisser is referring to the same types of measurements for aviation engines. Now, if I can just make sense of whether or not he is saying anything that helps our discussion here. . . . but I got lost in some of the minutia a few posts back.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Oreo said:


> FlyboyJ, as much as I understand and agree with your disagreement with him about his statements, you seem to be missing the point about the fuel efficiency here. I would think you would understand this. The formula or equation used for fuel efficiency for an engine (whether aviation, industrial, or whatever) includes the weight of fuel consumed, per hour, times the horsepower. This fuel efficiency statement is for the engine itself, not the whole aircraft. In order to get the fuel efficiency for the whole aircraft, IOW, the kilomters per liter, or whatever, you have to factor in the aerodynamics of the aircraft, and the efficiency of the propeller (or propulsion devices). So any given engine has a fuel efficiency factor for any given RPM, and it can also vary as to whether the engine is under load or not. So at an idle, the fuel efficiency factor, measured either in grams per horsepower/ hr, or (as I am more accustomed to) lbs. / hp/ hr, may be a different figure than the efficiency of the engine at full RPM. The dynamic load put on the engine may change it too. Piston engines have a torque curve that gives a good degree of ability to do work at lower rpms, whereas, IIUC, turbine engines have only a limited ability to do productive work at slower rpms. (I understand how it works far better for piston engines than non-pistons). I have followed how the fuel efficiency measurements work for the Nebraska tractor tests, and Trilisser is referring to the same types of measurements for aviation engines. Now, if I can just make sense of whether or not he is saying anything that helps our discussion here. . . . but I got lost in some of the minutia a few posts back.


I understand EXACTLY what he's trying to say. It all goes out the window when the engine is hung on the aircraft and flown as you somewhat eluded to. Do you really think (or know) that a pilot knows or care about fuel efficiency based on fuel weight consumed, per hour, times the horsepower when he or she is calculating fuel consumption for a cross country?!?!? This is crap you deal with in a test cell and for the most part you're splitting hairs unless you have some extremely wide numbers - again as stated, for the most part it goes out the window when the engine mounted on a particular aircraft.

IMO he's splitting hairs trying to justify his point while he has no real world experience operating or maintaining anything he's talking about.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2012)

Oreo said:


> Ok. But you COULD, just like a country could double the size of its millitary or South Korea could build an aircraft carrier.* Just because they haven't or don't doesn't mean they couldn't.*
> BUT--- having said that--- there are probably some tri-gear WWII a/c that could be auditioned for the _role._



They don't because they know it isn't worth the time or effort and know a tail dragger has no real place in a modern air force for the reasons stated.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2012)

Ok, so then, my tri-geared P-39 might be able to fit the description I mentioned. The 4 hr. endurance is the only thing it would have trouble with. The P-63 might do a little better.

I could do a little carbon-fiber installation to improve survivability, maybe even some advanced type of armor like the Chobram-type armor used on tanks, just thinner. I would keep the 37-mm cannon and design new types of rounds to fire in it, including armor piercing. Maybe modern technology could figure out how to give it a higher rate of fire. If possible, I would improve the number of rounds carried.

I would want ballistic protection for the radiators if using an inline engine. Of course some would not want me to use an inline, but it might be too hard to install a turboprop in this design. I still like the aviation diesel engine idea, especially for this type of a/c. I need a diesel engine designed with similar dimensions and power abilities to the Allison V-1710. We could also use it on other a/c types.

A tail-dragger I like for this role is the Whirlwind. Replace the V-12s with turboprops and away we go. Oh, the tail-dragger haters will be blowing fuses on that one.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I understand EXACTLY what he's trying to say. It all goes out the window when the engine is hung on the aircraft and flown as you somewhat eluded to. Do you really think (or know) that a pilot knows or care about fuel efficiency based on fuel weight consumed, per hour, times the horsepower when he or she is calculating fuel consumption for a cross country?!?!? This is crap you deal with in a test cell and for the most part you're splitting hairs unless you have some extremely wide numbers - again as stated, for the most part it goes out the window when the engine mounted on a particular aircraft.
> 
> *IMO he's splitting hairs trying to justify his point while he has no real world experience operating or maintaining anything he's talking about*.


 Yes. That much is patently obvious.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2012)

The main problem with using a WW II aircraft for military missions is that you are beating a dead horse. 

Lets go one further. 

What WW I aircraft could perform Military missions in WW II? 

two seaters Like the Bristol and DH 4 could certainly perform artillery spotting given newer radios. Most anything could strafe a column of foot solders. The Felixstowe F.2 flying boat could perform visual anti-sub patrols ( and it carried twice the bomb load of an Anson). In fact given the Ansons radial engines it's serviceability would probably go up  If the British had kept 30-50 Handley Page V/1500s in storage they could have been bombing the Ruhr in 1939  

Planes built 15-20 years later just worked a whole lot better and the same is true for WW II aircraft and 1950s-60s aircraft let alone what you can build in the last 12 years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The main problem with using a WW II aircraft for military missions is that you are beating a dead horse.


Sums it up right there


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2012)

Piper106 said:


> One other area where WWII aircraft would be useful is maritime recon or patrol.
> The Lockhead P2V Neptune in my mind would still be a good choice for longer patrols further offshore.
> 
> For anti-pirate patrols off the east coast of Africa / Somalia in 2012, a P2V however would be too much of a good thing. Another WWII vet that doesn't get much press would seem just about right, and that is the US Navy/Marine version of the Army B-25, the PBJ. I'd have most of the bomb bay filled with extra fuel tanks (I recall and like the phrase 'Tokyo tanks'), just a couple of 250 pound cluster bomb containers. Use the same solid nose with eight 50 caliber machine guns used by the Army aircraft. Seem to me that getting targeted by eight 50 caliber machine guns would take all the fun out of being a pirate, well before their AK47s and RPGs would put the aircraft at risk. .


P2 will have the legs over a B-25 but I can tell you from experience the P2 is not the most comfortable aircraft to fly in. To go to the aft end of the aircraft you're cimbing or sliding over the wing assembly in the middle of the fuselage.


----------



## davebender (Jul 26, 2012)

I agree. It's probably more realistic to consider what WWII aircraft were still useful 20 years later during the 1960s.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 26, 2012)

So if a total aerial warfare somehow for which ever reason started tommorrow, and including losses of the latest and better jets of which most nations have for arguments sake, less than 4,000 frontline fighters interceptors, and they were repaired and battered, might their not be a case for some piston or t-prop powered combat A/C to keep up the aerial onslaught/defence?

I'D for similar sake, that quite a few modern systems (radar, elint, radios, FADEC/CEM) could be put into a smaller and most likely cheaper airframe (per unit), if not cheaper, then certainly faster to produce from raw materials than a state of the art £40M (and the rest per unit) A/C.

I appreciate that some are seemingly shooting this thread down indirectly to support their opinions, less amongst them appear to do it for their online status, even in a threatening manner - WhyTF!? 

Just because people have a difference of opinion - I hate H-D's but I don't tell everyone; but neither would I expect threats because I said so...

Maturity is seen by others around if not by the mirror upon oursrlves.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2012)

At this point the only high powered piston engines are in museum aircraft, a few private owners and what remaining oddball transports/fire bombers that are left, spare parts are scarce and shops that can service them are also scarce. Fuel for them is also getting scarce. The R-1830s in the DC-3 may run fine ( or not, check with FlyboyJ) and give good performance on 100LL but the higher performing engines need 100/130 or higher to perform without being de-rated. 

Even 450-600hp engines usually only exist in museum, warbird, bush planes and cropdusters, and the crop dusters and some of the Bush planes have been switching to turbo props for decades. 

The only Piston engines abailable in bulk are the under 400hp private aviation engines.

Tooling up for one of the decades old bigger engines would take months if not 1-2 years. 

Turbo props may be more available but even then which ones have been made in the last 20 years? 

Again compare even a good (old) jet trainer, like a Aero L-39 to a hypothetical turbo prop aircraft. 

The later armed L-39s could have a twin barreled 23mm cannon under the fuselage, could lift over 2500lbs of under wing ordnance. it could do 466mph at 5000 meters and climb at over 4000fpm near sea level. 

A single simple turbofan of the Business class. And that is a plane and engine from the 60s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2012)

razor1uk said:


> I appreciate that some are seemingly shooting this thread down indirectly to support their opinions, less amongst them appear to do it for their online status, even in a threatening manner - WhyTF!?
> 
> Just because people have a difference of opinion - I hate H-D's but I don't tell everyone; but neither would I expect threats because I said so...
> 
> Maturity is seen by others around if not by the mirror upon oursrlves.



If you're referring to me I'll tell you once, mind your own business, your opinion is unwarrented and unwanted and I suggest just sticking to the thread or moving on if there's something here you don't like. If you wish to get into a pissing contest here I guarantee you'll wind up on the urinal end of it. I'm only going to say this once.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 26, 2012)

It wasn't only just for your benefit Flyboy, I find this thread quite idea provoking in a what if remade as of todays engineering scenaro, so naturally aimed a blunderbuss to get a heads down to business (ratchetting up isn't my thing) - obviously it got me too as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2012)

razor1uk said:


> It wasn't only just for your benefit Flyboy, I find this thread quite idea provoking in a what if remade as of todays engineering scenaro, so naturally aimed a blunderbuss to get a heads down to business (ratchetting up isn't my thing) - obviously it got me too as well.


Well that's fine but I'd advise you to keep out of discussions when a mod is involved. Now add to this thread or move on....


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2012)

Going back to the origianl post and conditions.

_1. Assume that the money is there to make it happen.
2. Assume that the aircraft could be designed again or the original documentation exists for it.
3. Assume that modern avionics, armor, and weaponry may be used
4. Assume that modern production techniques, materials, tooling, and so on, may be used
5. Assume that modest airframe modifications could be made to fit an aircraft to its new role
6. Allowances could be made for a more modern or reliable engine type to be used if necessary, especially for multi-engine types._

We basically have the premise, that regardless of cost, could you make a modern _lookalike_ of a WW II aircraft that could perform modern military roles as well as more modern aircraft. 

This rather assumes that few, if any, real advances in aerodynamics or structures has occurred since WWII. It also rather ignores what happens when you replace a 2000lb engine with a less than 1000lb engine. The dry weigh to the engine in the L-29 is about 775lbs and there is no propeller.

For a more up to date aircraft try a newer version

Aero L-159 Alca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a lighter plane empty than a P-47?


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 26, 2012)

There was a time, well many infact, this and that are the 'new way' and the old ones are dead, like the abbandonment of guns for missles -certainly a more UK Commenwealth thing of late and eary 50's 60's..), or the orignal industrial myopia against turbines in the late 30's.

So if there's to be a rough example of a WW2 A/C that could be re-engineered ala modern, we need some ideas. So far its a toss up between mass production unavailable powerfull piston engines of say over 1600hp at medium altitude.

No real idea of electricals, but hazzarding a guess... 

Passive radar warning sensors kit, 

3 passive IR sensors (each wing/side tail), 

A HF or UHF radio, radio compass and possible GPS, 

At least one LCD/'glass' pit plus usual back up instruments, 

Some non Microsoft (to stop those 'Windows crashed again, so this plane aint flying' moments...) based hardware and software, 

An oxygen generation/recycling system (if it is at all needed) that was not designed or borrowed from the catalogue of those who did the F-22's,

Must be made into 'standard' tricycle - as apparently only civies or show/memorial/historic flights or racers still/mostly fly tail draggers,

Must be albe to have back up reccon or COIN ability (internal or podded external)- to appear more legimate to mil types and/or export market - with modern tech, FLIR/IR (akin to what Police Helo's use) cams, and such could easily be linked the glass display and or maybe via radio burst encoding algorithm up/down-link.

I haven't yet suggested what possble A/C's, for a 'small' A/C, I think a P39/P63 could be a candidate for internal shaft turbine with bifrucated inlets exhaust, but the plane is possbly on a little on the smaller side... scale it up to P47 sized fuz - or turboprop an AH/AD-1 based/sized A/C...

Larger A/C or twins, Me 262 with centmetric radar in nosecone (ala Bluefox sized; as used in Lynx or Hawk.200), with t-props... Tu-2, He-219, B-26, Ki-43, G8M Razan (or was it Fujuko/Fujisan?)...

Anyboddy else want to throw in some things towards generating a spec list...

And for some title typo humour...





Military (Bread) Roll


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2012)

One WW2 era aircraft that will never lose its usefulness:

The venerable C-47/DC-3.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 26, 2012)

Assuming that for some reason, an airforce would want to reproduce WWII aircraft for modern use, here's the likely scenario (IMO)
1. They would want more power/better reliability - turbo-prop. This would require re-engineering the engine mounts, and relocating the engine further forward (to keep the empty CofG in limits)
2. The wing would become a limiting factor (load factor/performance characteristics/ or simply to increase max. weight to use the extra power) re-engineer wing with modern aerofoil.
3. Control surfaces would have to be re-engineered to remove fabric, as within modern air-forces, these skills don't exist.
4. Crew accommodations would need to be re-designed, as no current crew would fly in something with such basic fit-out (debatable, I know)

So, you're left with an aircraf that is so modified, that it suddenly isn't what you started with.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2012)

Some of the airfoils may be problematic, but some of them evidently were not. It all depends what you're trying to do. The Stirling's airfoil was certainly ponderous, and the Beaufighter's airfoil may have held it back a tad. They redesigned the Typhoon into the Tempest with a much thinner wing and only gained a slight speed increase. Ditto P-39 to P-63.

Anyway, one thing about this thread, is that I started it with the idea in mind to let our imaginations be productive, not counterproductive. We are not in the position of saying, "ok, lads, here we are in the real world, and we must find a solution to some problems we have, and we are actually going to build a plane to do it." No, we are actually dreaming a bit here. My version of reality for the hypothesis of the thread is this: These things are not at all likely to happen, but they could happen."

Along those lines, we also have the ability to do the following things in our musings:

1. Reinstate production lines based on old design drawings, or reconstitute the drawings by filling in the gaps with what info we do possess

2. Also reinstate older engine types as need be, making new production lines to build them. We may also modify these engines or replace them in any way that makes sense, even building "newly-designed" piston engines if need be, eg, diesel versions.

3. We can constitute whatever programs are necessary to properly train pilots and other personnel to operate and maintain these aircraft.

4. We can make structural and/or material enhancements to improve strength, reliability, functionability, or reduce weight.

5. More leeway is given for engine selection for multi-engined a/c since the powerplant is a smaller percentage of its aerodynamic design and identity. A Spitfire with a turboprop just isn't exactly a Spitfire anymore, is it? However, a Mosquito with turboprops is not so great of a change.

Now I want to concentrate less on the "would it ever happen" and more on "what modern roles could such aircraft fill?"


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2012)

Your example fo the Typhoon/Tempest bears looking into. A Typhoon with a 2200 hp engine ( rounded down a bit) could do about 355mph at sea level. A tempest with the same engine could do about 375mph. As you say not a big change, _except_ according to the cube root law the Typhoon would have needed about 2600hp to go 375mph at sea level. Cutting drag can do a lot of good things.

Your own post is at odds with itself:

"We are not in the position of saying, "ok, lads, here we are in the real world, and we must find a solution to some problems we have, and we are actually going to build a plane to do it."

"Also reinstate older engine types as need be, making new production lines to build them. We may also modify these engines or replace them in any way that makes sense, even building "newly-designed" piston engines if need be, eg, diesel versions."

Which is it, "We are _not_ in the position.." or "modify these engines or replace them in any way that makes sense[/I]"?

For example, from a 1992 edition of Jane's I would bring up the GE CT-9C Turbo prop. 

Dry weight......................795lbs.
Max T-0........................1750hp
Max Cruise at 15,000ft.....1499hp

The last includes exhaust thrust and maybe subject to question. Power core is the engine used in the Blackhawk and Apache Helicopters, amongst others. Specific fuel consumption of the parent engines is under 0.47lbs per hp/hr. at continuous ratings of 1662hp at sea level. Earlier versions were used the Saab 340 and others:Saab 340 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice the 290mph cruise at 25,000ft for a 37 passenger airliner. That is best (long) range cruise. Max Cruise is 325mph at 15,000ft. Range with 35 passengers and baggage, reserves for a 45 minute hold at 5,000ft _AND_ a 115mile diversion is 945 miles at max cruise and 1123miles at long range cruise. Swapping 5 passangers and baggage for fuel increases the range to 1509 miles at long range cruise with the same reserves. Plane will hold 850 US gallons with full tanks. Granted this is an airliner and not stressed for combat maneuvers. 

Try substituting that engine for a Merlin, no radiators either.. 

Or try the P&WC PW100 series. Dry weights go from 861 to 1060lbs, T-O power range from 1800 to 2750shp. (as of 1992). max cruise range from 1512 to 2134shp. fuel consumption is about 0.50 at max continuous (give or take a bit), used in aircraft like the: ATR 72 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2012)

Continuing into the crazy the Allison/RR GMA 2100 shows what the big turbo props could do. based off the power section used in the V-22 Osprey the dry weight of one version was 1548lbs for a T-O rating of 6,000hp. SFC of 0.41lb/h/shp. Some of these with 6 bladed propellers are used on the C-130J.

Stick four on a B-29. double the power and save over 2 tons of weight. 

Many turbo props are "flat rated", unlike old piston engines that are rated at a standard temperature and pressure and under hot/high conditions power falls off, the turbine engines have torque sensors and are under rated. when the throttle is opened the the sensors work through the management system to limit the power delivered to a pre-determined value. If the sensors show that the engine is not reaching the rated power the fuel delivery is increased until it does ( up to a certain point) so instead of a turbo prop delivering, say 1200hp at sea level ant 15 degrrees C and falling off as it climbs like a piston engine, the turbo will be rated for 1200hp at up to 32 degrees C and/or up to certain altitude for instance, actual limits depend on engine model. Some turbo props are also allowed an 'emergency' power level. Some twins have interconnected power management so if one engine fails the other automatically gives another 100hp or so over the "normal max rating". 


As an Idea of what could/has happened when redoing a WW II era aircraft with turbine engines see: BT-67 Overview

Note the 515lb weight for the engines replacing the over 1400lb P&W R-1830 engines. One reason for the 40in fuselage extension? 

If you are trying to make any sense at all, nobody is going back to big piston engines, gas or diesel.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Many turbo props are "flat rated", unlike old piston engines that are rated at a standard temperature and pressure and under hot/high conditions power falls off, the turbine engines have torque sensors and are under rated. when the throttle is opened the the sensors work through the management system to limit the power delivered to a pre-determined value. If the sensors show that the engine is not reaching the rated power the fuel delivery is increased until it does ( up to a certain point) so instead of a turbo prop delivering, say 1200hp at sea level ant 15 degrrees C and falling off as it climbs like a piston engine, the turbo will be rated for 1200hp at up to 32 degrees C and/or up to certain altitude for instance, actual limits depend on engine model. Some turbo props are also allowed an 'emergency' power level. Some twins have interconnected power management so if one engine fails the other automatically gives another 100hp or so over the "normal max rating".



Also remember that you are monitoring engine torque which also comes into the measurment. On older turboprop aircraft a slide rule sometimes measured parameters and gave you "go - no go" numbers.


----------



## OldManP (Oct 18, 2012)

Well dad'gum, this is/was quite the discussion...the kind i had hoped would pick up in the Modern Skyraider thread. But to add to the fun here, I would agree mostly with razor1uk concerning the equipment:

-But I would say 5 passive IR sensors

-Multiple (4+) radios (capable of 30MHz to 2000 MHz) with an array of additional capabilities

-Datalinks (SADL/Link 16)

-Would not restrict the 'glass' cockpit to one, but maximize to all crew positions

-Agree with visual/ir sensor(s), but disagree with offboarding it, no need for radioburst--other capabilities exist with better quality/framerate/bandwidth/distance received


Medium size A/C: Douglas A-26


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 18, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> One WW2 era aircraft that will never lose its usefulness:
> 
> The venerable C-47/DC-3.


Got one more, the PBY Catalina.


----------



## OldManP (Oct 18, 2012)

I was told, at one point in my life, that one reason that seaplanes lost their "luster" was b/c of their needed upkeep and tendency for rust/corrosion due to seawater. Figuring today's composites and lubrication/treatments could reduce this drastically...sounded like a good reason to bring 'em back! I'm game!

+1 for the Catalina...was that the plane in the show "Tails of the Golden Monkey"?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2012)

meatloaf109 said:


> Got one more, the PBY Catalina.



In what role where it could operate economically and effectively?


----------



## OldManP (Oct 18, 2012)

CSG (Fleet) Defense. Port security. Island/Remote site airlift transport. Rescue


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 18, 2012)

Tales of the Gold Monkey, that was a Grumman Goose.
FBJ, I was thinking rescue mostly...But I think OMP nailed it.


----------

