Best WW2 plane for Ukraine today?

[FLYBOYJ]

Fit wooden blades to the Ukrainian Москітний instead of the normal hollow metal (steel?) blades, and reduce the fore&aft radar signature by ~90%. (There were some operational Mossis fitted with wooden blades early-war, but it was a relatively small number.) Whether this would make a significant difference I will leave upto otheres to debate.

I believe the Mosquito had a de Havilland manufactured propeller with the blades made from aluminum. With that said, a wood prop may absorb some of the radar depending on the position of the blade. I don't think the spinner is going to help much as it's held on with metal fasteners, and lastly even with wood props you have an aluminum hub which I doubt will be shielded by spinner.

 

[ThomasP]

It is not that the wood blades would absorb the radar waves. It is that aluminum blades would have generated a majority of the return signal fore&aft, similar to the front turbine blades on a jet engine if the radar can 'see' them directly. The return from the metal blades would be far more than from the engines and such. Depending on the wavelength and PRF of the radar the return could be measured in multiples of the propeller disc area.

I do not know if the later blocks of the F/A-18A had mods to reduce their radar return from the front, but the direct line to the turbine blades on the A model had the effect of generating an overall larger radar signature that the F-14A had from the front.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It is not that the wood blades would absorb the radar waves.

Remember I said "may." The only way to verify this would be to place a model at a radar range and test the return

It is that aluminum blades would have generated a majority of the return signal fore&aft, similar to the front turbine blades on a jet engine if the radar can 'see' them directly. The return from the metal blades would be far more than from the engines and such. Depending on the wavelength and PRF of the radar the return could be measured in multiples of the propeller disc area.

Agree

I do not know if the later blocks of the F/A-18A had mods to reduce their radar return from the front, but the direct line to the turbine blades on the A model had the effect of generating an overall larger radar signature that the F-14A had from the front.

Interesting

 

[Macandy]

Piston engined aircraft lead very short, very exciting lives against even the most basic MANPADS

 

[Admiral Beez]

This thread is about WWII weapons being used in a current war setting.

Some WW2 weapons are being used. Not aircraft of course.

 

[MiTasol]

I believe the Mosquito had a de Havilland manufactured propeller with the blades made from aluminum. With that said, a wood prop may absorb some of the radar depending on the position of the blade. I don't think the spinner is going to help much as it's held on with metal fasteners, and lastly even with wood props you have an aluminum hub which I doubt will be shielded by spinner.

Steel hub on hydromatic props of that period - the alloy hubs only came in with light weight composite blades in the 80s. And the spinner was all metal but they may have been experimenting with fabric reinforced bakelite or even fibreglass. The spinner backplate is a substantial metal component as well.

Rotol props had wood blades but they were compressed wood so may not absorb much radar - and the hub is a massive unit in comparison with the HS/dH prop

 

[MiTasol]

I wish that posters who insert articles would actually read them themselves

Compensating for the British deception (the author is simply guessing in regards to the deception factor, since he shows no sources in regards to the deception factor)
brings a CEP of about 6 km for the V2. B-17 with the Norden Bomb sight had a CEP of 1km

Meaning the bomb drop by a B-17 was 6 times more accurate than a V2.

The article is clearly lopsided due to the author trying to promote the V2, e.g. quote:
……In accuracy and collateral damage high altitude bombing was not much better in accuracy than the V2

Comment by a reader of this article:
The evidence of the Bombing Survey is there: A CEP of 1000m as obtained by Norden equipped B-17s and B-24 over Europe as compared to the V2's theoretical of 4.5km-6km

As I mentioned, I had served in a Bundeswehr Pershing1 unit - therefore we had also studied the Redstone and V2 rockets history.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Actually the B-17 is far more accurate because you are discussing a circular error not a straight line error so 1/2km radius versus a 3km radius

 

[MiTasol]

Sure it will - great STOL aircraft, can carry small bombs which a person in the gunners position can hurl out of the aircraft, and can be easily hidden, but then again, all the other aircraft can probably fulfil the same role.

Just like in wwI - not much accuracy but no doubt modern bomblets would be far more devastating and if they arrived in the night from a quiet aircraft would play hell with sleep and moral, Might be a good night time use for some of those home made drones the Ukranians are using. even just dropping a handful of hand grenades with a fragile plastic safety pin.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Actually the B-17 is far more accurate because you are discussing a circular error not a straight line error so 1/2km radius versus a 3km radius

The discussion wasn't about the accuracy stats of the B-17, but about the assertion that the V-2 was an accurate weapon.
But thanks for the input.


Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[BlackSheep]

Going Total Recall here, but what WW2 aircraft would be useful in sizeable quantities in Ukraine's fight with Russia today? My immediate thought goes to the Douglas A-26 Invader.

View attachment 663140

My thought exactly. A-26K

 

[BlackSheep]

I think the thread is going for what WW II aircraft might be usable today for Ukraine, not what could take on the VKS directly. That's how I interpret it. The B-29 was part of the "measure/counter measure" development tree that lead to the high altitude no-man's land. There are a few prop planes from WW II that would be good for counter insurgency missions. Those, however, would probably be meat on the table for today's MANPADs and really can only be used in uncontested airspace. Ukraine needs a boatload of F-16s or F/A-18s. We know how Putin honors commitments so F-35's are out. Besides, no time to train air and ground crews. They have to think outside the box. Something like an ultra light. Sneak it in close to the bad guy lines, assemble in any of many wrecked structures and used in unconventional means. Lawn mower engines are far less maintenance heavy than a Merlin or an R-3350. I'll go out on a limb and say a lawn mower engine uses a bit less fuel than an Allison V-1710. I'm not an FAA licensed mechanic so I don't know for sure. Ukraine seems to be using unconventional tactics. Hence my idea of a "Rosie the Rocketeer".

Ultralights. Back in the'80s, I remember reading about Israeli' (IDF) research into economical methods of defeating tanks and ultralights were on the list. Tests were conducted consisting of 4 single-pilot ultralights against one MBT resulting in minimum average 50% shoot downs. Remember this was the mid-'80s, the ultralights were armed with RPG-type weapons and the game was played at close quarters. Ultimately, the value of an Israeli pilot made this form of attack uneconomical. Another country with a larger population and/or a lower premium on the lives of it's fighters might find the destruction of a $3-$8 million MBT by 100k of aluminum/fabric/RPGs much to it's liking. Times have really changed. The same study found positive situational results when snipers could be forward deployed against helicopters utilizing wire-guided munitions and pop up attacks.

 

[MiTasol]

Given the Ukranians are taking out tanks with home made drones I think they are on the right track and just need to produce more and/or come up with night time uses where they can target the Russians in a non precision way or add night vision to the drones. Taking out a tank while the crew are asleep near it would definitely demoralise many of the Russian crews. Just being woken by landing bomblets or hand grenades would not do their sleep patterns any good either.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Ukranians have used their Bayraktar in night attacks with devestating results.

We haven't heard bout the Bayraktar lately, because they've run low on the much needed LGMs it uses.

 

[MiTasol]

I was thinking more of their drones which appear home made and do not need fancy laser guided weapons.
I have to go out most of the day but will find a photo of one when I get home and post it

Meantime the allies need to supply the Ukranians lots more LGMs

 

[MiTasol]

A quick youtube search showed the one I was thinking of plus another video on how they are converting agricultural drones.

from

and see

 

[Admiral Beez]

Somehow improve the engine performance and add some modern AP rounds and the 75mm armed Henschel Hs 129 might do well in Ukrainian hands.

 

[Shortround6]

Anything more sophisticated than a Piper L-4 is a waste of money.
Does anybody really think that 1940 Ford sedan is a solution for 2022 transportation needs?
Any number of turbo prop powered agricultural aircraft would be so much better than any WW II piston powered aircraft.
For one thing you can run them on todays fuel.
A modern (which means 10 years old) turbo prop weighs under 1/3 of what an R-2800 engine does and will equal the R-2800 in max continuous power.
Modern (20-30 years old) turbo prop trainers are almost too numerous to count.

Some can lift over 3000lbs of external ordnance.
Many of the newer versions have sensor suites way beyond the MK I eyeball.

Just about any WW II aircraft much above the Piper/Auster type aircraft takes too much logistics (fuel and maintenance/parts), too much adaptation (new electronics, new weapons) to be useful.

A number of armed trainers, if equipped to a high standard, already have flare/chaff dispensers built in for instance. The one in the photo appears to have cockpit protection.

 

[GrauGeist]

There's also a good selection of COIN aircraft readily available, which have current weapon and avionics compatibility.

Types like the A-29 (pictured in SR's post above), AT-6B, AT-802U and so on.

 

[MiTasol]

But why present the Russians with a big target (WW2 or modern) containing irreplaceable humans that they can see (and hear for a short time) when a drone is almost silent, a much smaller target and the human is out of gun and missile range. The cost of the munitions on the aircraft are not lower than those on a drone so there is no cost benefit. There is a weight benefit - several tonnes instead of only a small amount - but the ability to sneak in and precision target must almost balance that out and the drone also has a live video feed that provides real time intelligence rather than waiting for the mk 1 eyeball to report what they saw as they flashed by. And the drone can go back if the operator wants and take another look without an unacceptable risk.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But why present the Russians with a big target (WW2 or modern) containing irreplaceable humans that they can see (and hear for a short time) when a drone is almost silent, a much smaller target and the human is out of gun and missile range.

I imagine such a fantastic hypothetical was posted for the sake of discussion.