What WWII aircraft could fulfill uselful modern military rolls?

[Oreo]

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]

Not asking for much are you?

Just which actual WW II aircraft could meet this specification?

 

[Jabberwocky]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

......................................
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]

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....

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]

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]

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

 

[Trilisser]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[JoeB]

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]

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.

Joe

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

 

[JoeB]

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]

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]

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.