Modern ww2 fighter

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

-Two period correct possibilities come to mind but obviously (?) did not come to mind back then: 1) for straight calculations get better slide rules. I recall hearing about a giant cylindrical slide rule built for the US Coast Guard for tide calculations. 2) MIT, Stanford, Cal Tech, Stevens or some institution of that ilk working on Mr. Babbage's analytical engine.
-To what extent more accurate calculations would have helped I don't know but sometimes "acceptable" calculations can be reached faster on a better machine.
 
Some years ago, german students used computers to try design an improved Bismark. They used only technologies and knowledge available in mid 30s. The computers allowed them to try every single option. The end result was a ship faster, better armored, and overall better armed than the historical Bismark and within the 35000t limit!
 
Well, if you assume modern computer capabilities I think you have to assume modern analytic methods as well, as in aerodynamics, including propeller design. They probably would end up with somewhat different airfoils and propellers and possibly better radiators. .

On the other hand, supposedly Ed Heineimen got a student intern to work on figuring out the best airfoil to use for the A4D he was designing. He did not hear from the intern for a while and found the guy had been running wind tunnel test after wind tunnel test, producing reams of data to find the best airfoil. Ed said, "Let me show you something." He took a piece of plywood, cut it to the same planform as the A4D wing, sanded down the leading edge to make it smooth and had the intern run the tests.

"How much difference did that make, using just a flat piece of plywood rather than one of your airfoils?" Ed asked the student. The student replied, "Hardly any."
 
Last edited:
The Bismarck was badly designed as the Germans had never designed a ship that big and lost much of its ship building knowledge during the inter War years. The follow on Z plan battleships after Bismarck would have been better. So doesn't surprise me that a more effecient Bismarck was possible.

One example is the P-51 which had 5 years on the 109 and Spitfire so had improved design which was not available to 109.

Although the problems with the 737 Max shows that human beings can be the weak link in design and the best computers and best software cannot compensate for good old fashioned dumb assery.
 
After looking at this thread, I believe the technology of the day was capable of building most any shape. The challenge would be to use the engines and propellers of the time and come up with a better aerodynamic model that would have been able to be produced at the time. The issue, to me, would be what characteristics would you improve upon. If you make it more maneuverable, then it would need to be lighter, probably slower and more prone to damage. If you optimize top speed, you would be less maneuverable and perhaps lose some of the great flying traits. I'm SURE almost all fighters would have gotten better canopies with modern fluid dynamics calculations, and perhaps better ordnance attach points to lose less speed with racks, but the the basic design would likely not have to change. It would be tough to get a modern, clean, waxed finish to hold up in field conditions, so we'd likely not get much from that.

What comes to mind readily for me is some Reno speed modifications for PR aircraft. Many have some really good mods that lose their "goodness" somewhat without the additional power of modern technology applied to old engines. So, they might go faster than WWII aircraft, but would not be ... say ... 100 mph faster. Perhaps 30 - 50 mph faster.

What would be a real benefit would be modern avionics. A Garmin GTN 750 navigator would have made the war MUCH easier and they could ALWAYS find their targets. But. modern technology was not specified, so it would not likely be allowed.

Interesting, to be sure, but I'm not sure where to go with the premise. A turboprop P-51 with a glass cockpit would be WAY cool, but then I suppose it would only be fair to allow the other side similar improvements. In real life, they were closely-matched. Why not in a "what if?"

What about everything else the same but modern adaptive LCD camouflage panels on the surfaces? THAT might make a huge difference.
 
Hi,

Although I am an engineer I don't know a lot about airplane design. However, I recall seeing some data from NACA on early full-scale wind tunnel tests that they did on the Brewster Buffalo prototype to improve performance, which included a lot of improvements to "design details" that helped improve overall performance. With modern Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) programs I would suspect that you might be able to do similar analyses on a computer instead, earlier in the design process (prior to having built a prototype), which may allow you to make more extensive changes to a design to try and achieve bigger improvements on performance.

Similarly, as I understand it the structural design of early monoplane wings, like that on the F4F-3 and the folding wing F4F-4, were based on alot of assumptions, and that later in the war the designers at Grumman were able to take lessons learned and other experience and shave a fair bit of what out of the wing design of the FM-2. I would suspect that modern Finite Element Modeling (FEM) software would likely make it easy to find the areas where weight could maybe be saved (by thinning up structure that isn't too highly stressed) reasonably early in a design, hopefully also improving performance.

Additionally, since a propeller is kind of a device that converts the power out of an engine into thrust, and there is a tradeoff in being strong enough to withstand the loads it will be subjected to while also being light and efficient, I would suspect that FEM and CFD could be used to not only develop potentially more effective propellers, but these tools could also potentially help analyze and address engine cooling issues (especially for radial engines) as well as potentially improving the design of both inline and radial engines themselves.

As such, I would kind of suspect that with modern tools like CFD and FEM programs that you could maybe make a number of incremental improvements throughout a design.

Pat
 

Computers are a tool which may enable you to check certain ideas faster and do more in depth analysis, but they do not actually make you any better able to find some new outstanding design that was never thought of before. Its all limited by the systems available at the time and not by modern computers. Eg. moon landing, and concorde both pretty much done without any "modern" computing effort, so thats not the deciding factor.
 
If you look at what was produced at the end of the war or just after but obviously designed during it like the Bearcat P-51H Hornet and Spitfire Mk 24 the guys at the time had a pretty good idea of what they were doing with the materials they had.
 
I think that the "modern" technology that would have done the most good would be something you would never expect.

The aerosol spray can did not exist in WWII because they did not understand the technology associated with creating such sprays. This really showed up in the early jet engines where it was very important to get the air and fuel mixed properly in the burner cans. The US Pressure Carburetor sprayed fuel into the eye of the supercharger but no doubt they could have done a better job if they understood the process more thoroughly. Modeling such interactions is not easy to do. The V-2 missile used multiple injectors for the thrust chamber because they found a design that worked reasonably well and then just used several of them when they built a larger engine. Even in the late 1950's with the Atlas and Thor engines a lot of trial and error (BOOM!) was required to get the designs worked out. On the Thor engine they had a design that worked - until they added strap on solid boosters and found the additional thrust created an instability. On the Atlas and Thor the gas generator was running pretty close to the margins and did not tolerate minor assembly mistakes, as one experience I had showed (see attached).

Applying some pretty basic lessons learned painfully and expensively, about designs of injectors and the creation of aerosols not to mention the possibilities of computer CFD analyses, could have helped multiple areas more than you would ever expect.


.
 
How modern do you want?

Limiting the modernism to design technology, there would be little improvement in raw performance, but the aircraft's behavior would be predictable through stall, the cockpit ergonomics would be infinitely better, and controls would be consistent in feel.

Adding modern structural materials and construction methods would permit a better structural fraction, fewer corrosion problems, and lower maintenance needs.

Introducing modern engines and electronics gives RAF Tornados, French Rafales, and US F-22s. Limiting the engines to turboprops, one ends up with Tu-95s and C-130s, and 5,000 hp single-engine fighters
 
Two final comments: I'm surprised no one has mentioned the various attempts to modernize the P-51 with turboprop engines. I remember seeing both recip and turbo Mustangs flying out of Sarasota-Bradenton airport (SRQ) in the early/mid '60s. It is also worth remembering that the A12/SR71 from Lockheed first flew in the early '60s; they were developed without the benefit of computer design tools and CAD/CAM production.
 
I remember reading that the P-26 was originally meant to have a one-piece wing and retractable landing gear.
I wonder how performance would've been affected if the original design had been utilized?
...maybe augment with a better supercharger? Enclosed canopy? 3 bladed prop? (what about the shape of that prop?)
 
Last edited:

My take on the OP is that there would be no jets, electronics, etc.

The limit was to use modern simulation software in the design of aircraft from the 1930s, such as the Spitfire.

The engine would be stronger, lighter and more powerful, just because the structures and combustion would be optimised.

Likely a Merlin with modern FEA and CFD would be able to run with a higher CR and boost.

Likewise, the block, crankcase and head castings would have material where it was needed and less where it is not.

The aircraft structure could be carefully analysed and made stronger without adding weight. Or it could be made lighter. Possibly it could be both.

The aerodynamics would be improved greatly, as the engineers will be able to identify problem areas and try solutions quickly, rather than going through days, weeks or months of hand calculations.
 


No need to wonder


Boeing YP-29, yes it is a bit later than the P-26 but an early version (pre-P-26) would hardly have been better




3 prototypes, all a bit different



The retractable landing gear with about 1/2 the wheel exposed was pretty standard for the time. It meant that a wheels up landing often did little harm to the actual airframe and repairs were often (but not always) easy.

Without better fuel (engines using 87 and 92 octane were tried) a better supercharger wasn't going to get you much and P & W was still using GE supercharger designs at this time.
The YP-29s went through (were tested with) a variety of R-1340 engines but basically the plane/s were around 15-17mph faster than the P-26.
 
Ok, so we have a "then" to compare to when we reanalyze with modern equipment / technique / knowledge.
Thanks for making us aware of that Shortround. New to me! =)

Elvis
 

Interesting. Can you give the source?
 
Was just looking through Morgan and Shacklady and saw the chapter about the Aerolite Spitfire, an experimental program to build a Spitfire fuselage from fibre reinforced plastic. The fibres used were natural fibres, such as flax.

Modern analytic methods would be able to help make a composite structure made from such materials much more viable. Whether it would be truly viable depends on the materials used and the technology to make them.
 


I think a better example would be the USN's and Kriegmarine's heavy cruisers. The USN ships were about 4,000 tons lighter, longer-ranged, had nine, vs eight main battery guns, and superior heavy AA and AA fire control. They were also, demonstrably, quite tough.
 
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
948
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
563
Dimlee
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
604
spicmart
S
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
5
Views
554
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register