Modern ww2 fighter

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Basket

Senior Master Sergeant
3,712
1,891
Jun 27, 2007
Has anyone done a modern design of a ww2 fighter using latest modern computers and software?

It would be interesting to compare how a 1930s Spitfire and 2019 Spitfire would look like. Basically this would be 1930s tech but designed with today's computer.
 
It would be interesting to see how a modern computer CAD program would design a late 1930's era fighter versus how the designers of the day would have produced the same concept using current (for late 30's) data, slide rules and perhaps a mockup (or two) in a wind tunnel to validate their calculations.
 
The original poster said nothing about using modern materials, or engines.

I don't suppose most would change much at all.

Sometimes I'm not so sure computers have advanced civilization at all.
When I'm in the check out lane and somebody ahead decides to pay by card, it sure doesn't make things go faster.
 
Thread going sideways.......agree about the checkout. I get enough cash to do me through the week and always get stuck behind someone whose card won't work. Thread returning to orignal course....
 
I was thinking take a Spitfire, throws it through a super computer, better Spitfire comes out and then teleport the new design to 1936 so my fellow British can win the Battle of Britain again.

Must use the technology of the day so unless Mitsubishi had carbon fibre in 1940 then I have to pass on the Zero!
 
It's a nice idea................ but we won The Battle of Britain with our 1930's designs.
 
Might be able to design it a little quicker with computers, but how much would that help ?
Did they know, well enough, the exact strength of every material in it to design it so it was only strong enough for most anticipated situations, and no stronger ?
If they did, computers would shorten development, make for lighter aircraft too.

That seemed to be the Willy Messerschmitt design philosophy , but in Messerschmitt's case while he may have designed it strong enough, sometimes the produced parts wasn't as strong as designed because of material shortfalls, or faults in production. Or at least that was his excuse when some of his aircraft fell apart.
 
Ok, i get the OPs idea.

I once did a thought experiment about a biplane fighter for the 35 to 42 time frame. Retractable gear, gull wing on top, internal bracing for the wings so no rigging, bubble canopy, R1830 or V1710, twin 50s in the nose. Possible to build then but better performance than other biplane models with careful streamlining. But the modern fighters were coming and even if tou could buld a biplane fighter that could have outperformed the Peashooter, why bother?

Be fun to build an RC model of the idea but thats the only real place for it
 
You pretty much just described a Polikarpov I-153 with the exception of it's engine, which was a Shvetsov M-62 (license built R-1820) and the canopy. It also had four 7.62mm MGs.


(Photo source: Flickr)
 
In terms of metals and alloys then one would have to use materials that were readily available in 1935 either in UK or Japan depending on your preference.

So if you knew what was available then that is specified in the design.

No phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range.

I was thinking drag and wing design. Surely this can be improved on by today's standards. Although of course this has to be built in 1935.
 
My one cent worth! I'm a graduate of the slide rule, Marchant mechanical calculator (anyone out there remember those??) design days. In development engineering dating back to the 1960's. And I'm still at it.

Here is the difference as I see it with regard to the 'old way' vs today's technical way. There have always been schedules. Designing the old ways did not allow for many 'what-if's'. You designed it and hoped it would be good and worked as expected. Layouts on a drafting table, on velum, and having to make large changes were discouraged. Major design direction changes were only done if a disaster was immanent with the current direction.

Today, with 3D CAD, and more computing power in my watch then I had available cooperate wide, I'm not turning out designs any faster or better. Nothing to do with age! It has to do with being able to create more design iterations and still try to stay within a reasonable schedule. What happens is that there are so many choices (paths) that one usually winds up (schedules you see) picking a compromise. Cost, complexity, schedules all being factored in. Many times it's usually very close to the first approach.

If today's computing power, and tools, could somehow be tele-ported back and made available to those aircraft designers, they would most likely produce designs that were lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, not to leave out better looking; but the war would have ended before they would be able to agree on any 'compromise' designs.
 
The 153 & the FDB-1 were inspirations. As was the CR-42DB with a DB601 installed. There was a prototype kit plane a few years back called the Lionheart that had strong impact on the aerodynamics and streamlining ideas as well. I always understood it would have been a foolish thing, just a bit of fun to consider what a follow on to the P-12 could have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Modern Jets in WW2/WW1
Replies
4
Views
946
GreenKnight121
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
556
Dimlee
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
603
spicmart
S
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
5
Views
489
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register