# Modernizing WW2 aircraft



## Ruslvmusl (Mar 4, 2019)

Im new sorry for any mistakes. I always day dream about WW2 aircraft with modern engines or engines redesigned with today's technology and those different style propellers that are supposedly a better design.
Has anyone seen any threads like this on this site or another? I love the mosquito and to think about it being faster that it was and having those new style propellers sounds sexy.
thanks


----------



## ODonovan (Mar 7, 2019)

If you improve the Mossie, at least get the Brits to remove their heads from their bums and switch engines on one side so it can have counter-rotating props. 



-Irish

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 7, 2019)

Ruslvmusl said:


> Im new sorry for any mistakes. I always day dream about WW2 aircraft with modern engines or engines redesigned with today's technology and those different style propellers that are supposedly a better design.
> Has anyone seen any threads like this on this site or another? I love the mosquito and to think about it being faster that it was and having those new style propellers sounds sexy.
> thanks


 There are a number of threads on this site, anyway. 
Modern engines would mean turbo props and the weight/balance and a few other considerations might mean some not so minor changes in the aircraft. 








with a different turbo prop

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ODonovan (Mar 7, 2019)

Cavalier Mustangs... Built here in central Florida to be SUPER sexy. 



-Irish


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 13, 2019)

How well did those Mustangs perform? I know several went to El Salvador and Bolivia


----------



## windswords (Mar 13, 2019)

I want to see a Jug with one of those turbo-prop engines. I am envisioning something like the XP-72 but with 5,000+ Hp. Oh and Maverick guided missiles for ground attack and a pair of Sidewinders for defense.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 13, 2019)

ODonovan said:


> If you improve the Mossie, at least get the Brits to remove their heads from their bums and switch engines on one side so it can have counter-rotating props.
> 
> 
> 
> -Irish


Like the Hornet?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2019)

Some thoughts:

60 years ago when some WW2 airframes were readily available, this might have been a viable option as witnessed by the development of the Cavalier Mustang and Piper Enforcer. Despite a potential market, modified WW2 combat aircraft weren't too successful for the most part. To think about this in today's terms, the only real use for a modified or re-built WW2 combat design would be for a curio or racer.

An attempt to "bolt on" performance will not necessarily achieve an operational or cost effective mission although there are some WW2 and post WW2 aircraft that were very successful with the installation of turboprops, the DC-3/ C-47, Convair 440 and the Grumman Tracker come to mind. As far as combat aircraft, I think history showed us that as far as looks and nostalgia, time and money would be better spent in developing modern airframes that are a more efficient and operator friendly.

The big rain on this parade would be operating tail wheel combat aircraft, something that most designers and operators have steered away from for the past 60 or 70 years.

The following aircraft are the closest I could see operating today that have that flavor of a WW2 aircraft.






Pucara





T-6 II





Tucano





PZL130





KA-1

All photos lifted from Wiki


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2019)

There happens to be one modern built WWII fighter that is constructed from the original blueprints but has modern engines.

That fighter is the Me262 reproductions which are so detailed, that they were given an official type designation and WerkNummers by Messerschmitt.

Me262A-1c (WkNmr 501245) - single-seat
Me262B-1c (WkNmr 501241) - two-seat
Me262B-1c (WkNmr 501242) - two-seat
Me262A/B-1c (WkNmr 501243) - convertible
Me262A/B-1c (WkNmr 501244) - convertible

The only changes made from the original, are the brakes, a reinforced nose gear and modern engines: GE CJ610 (non-afterburning J85) turbojets. The A/B-1c is a "convertible", being able to change the canopy from a single-seat to a two-seat configuration.

Before it's mentioned, even though the Me262 has newer and more powerful engines, the "not to exceed" speed rule is strictly followed, which is Mach .86 (659mph)


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2019)

The size/weight/power of a modern turbo-prop or fan jet engine means you would be using a WW II airframe just for nostalgic reasons. 

A modern turbo prop of around 1200-1300hp weighs less than a quarter as much as a 1200-1300hp WW II V-12, has no radiator or coolant, a smaller oil cooler. 
Since you are saving at least a 1/2 ton of engine weight you can use a smaller wing, lighter landing gear and so on which saves even more weight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2019)

Then again, one might install a 2000-2500 HP turboprop instead of 1500+- HP one, and use weight saving to carry more fuel or ordnance?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2019)

Not sure what you really gain except you get to use the old air frame. 

Swiss target tug that replaced the old V-12 with Lycoming turbo prop in the 70s.






The anteater nose is to maintain the center of gravity. 

Any firewall forward conversion is going to result in a pretty goofy looking airplane. (want to add 6-9 feet to the nose of a Corsair?) 
Or chop 3-4 feet out of the nose of a Corsair or P-47 and try to put the fuel in the wings? 

You would get a more effective plane starting with a clean sheet of paper, much better payload to empty weight ratio. 
You also get to decide if you want a 300-350mph plane with a turbo prop or a 450-550mph plane with a turbofan. Pick the engine that works best at the speed you want to go instead of trying to use brute force to make a propeller plane go 450-500mph. 

Try comparing a BAC Hawk 200 ( from the 1980s ) to a P-47D-30.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2019)

I would also note that modern turbo props have a max continuous rating much closer to their max power rating than many WW II piston engines. I don't think the Allison was ever rated at above 1000hp max continuous (1 hour or more) despite max power going from 1150 to over 1500hp, I could be wrong. Some of the later ones might well be able to stand up to a higher max continuous rating but the army never changed it? 
This means while you don't get the peak speeds from a 1200hp turbo engine that you would get from a 1500-1700hp high boost piston engine your load hauling ability isn't much different. 
A lot of modern turbo props also are flat rated. Instead of max WEP power (or what ever) at 5,000ft at XXLbs of boost on a 15C degree day they are rated at (for illustrations sake) at 1250hp from 0 to 6,000ft at any temperature up to 30 or 35C degrees. The engine management system controls the fuel flow to keep the power at a certain level to save the gear box (usually the weak link in a modern turbo prop or helicopter)


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Not sure what you really gain except you get to use the old air frame.



Using the old airframe is the topic here.



> Any firewall forward conversion is going to result in a pretty goofy looking airplane. (want to add 6-9 feet to the nose of a Corsair?)
> Or chop 3-4 feet out of the nose of a Corsair or P-47 and try to put the fuel in the wings?
> 
> You would get a more effective plane starting with a clean sheet of paper, much better payload to empty weight ratio.
> You also get to decide if you want a 300-350mph plane with a turbo prop or a 450-550mph plane with a turbofan. Pick the engine that works best at the speed you want to go instead of trying to use brute force to make a propeller plane go 450-500mph.



Everyone will agree that clean sheet designs should be better, even though many times the 'legacy' aircraft proved better than the upstart.
For this thread, I want a 450 mph aircraft powered by turbo prop. Brute force is okay.



> Try comparing a BAC Hawk 200 ( from the 1980s ) to a P-47D-30.



I don't think that jet aircraft are the topic here, nor the ww2 aircraft (unless modernized, for example swapping the piston engine with turbo prop engine).


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2019)

Well, if somebody wants to stick a 2500-3000hp turbo prop inside the cowl of a P-47 and surround it with 1500lbs of lead to keep the cg correct and the original cowl lines (looks) for airshow work go ahead.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2019)

Like I mentioned in my post with the Me262, just because you can make the 75+ year old aircraft go faster with modern engines, doesn't mean you should - some simply weren't designed to go beyond a certain speed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2019)

2920 shp PW 127F weights 1060 lbs, dry. We're getting rid of turbo and intercooler that are located well aft the CoG - 300-400 lbs with plumbing?
The 'correct looks' are not high on military's list of priorities. The resulting A/C should not be any longer or uglier than the XP-72.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A modern turbo prop of around 1200-1300hp weighs less than a quarter as much as a 1200-1300hp WW II V-12, has no radiator or coolant, a smaller oil cooler.
> Since you are saving at least a 1/2 ton of engine weight you can use a smaller wing, lighter landing gear and so on which saves even more weight.


Not my speciality but if you change service and overhauls to Wartime Merlin/Allison type intervals I think they would be much smaller and lighter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> The 'correct looks' are not high on military's list of priorities. The resulting A/C should *not be any longer or uglier *than the XP-72.


Well...there _was_ the P-75 and the Do335...


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2019)

Just go for it 




Of course you no longer need the whole belly scoop/bottom of the fuselage either  

Yeah, the turbo in the back can go but then you don't need the pair of oil coolers under engine (one might do for the turbine) and you sure don't need the 28 gallon oil tank (or at least not one anywhere near as big) or 30 gallon water/alcohol injection tank. I doubt you need a 56lb starter motor for the turbine.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I doubt you need a 56lb starter motor for the turbine.


Actually, you do, but you don't need a generator, as your 56 pounder does both.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 17, 2019)

Thank you .


----------

