What WWII aircraft could fulfill uselful modern military rolls?

[Shortround6]

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.

This sounds like the basis for a Dale Brown Thriller.

You are asking for an endurance of about 16-17 hours which should be doable.

But many of the other items are conflicting and unnecessary.
1.Since few, if any modern subs have any guns bigger than a LMG carried by the crew a heavy forward firing armament is unneeded ( and not carried by the Emily=NCE) since no practical gun can piece the sub hull any way.
2. concentric ring attacks, nice but are you going to strafe the target or bomb it? AC-130s did not bomb and aside from a waist hatch/blister 20mm gun.....NCE
3. "addition to the trainable waist armament" the side firing guns on a AC-130 are not trainable, except possible over a very small arc. guns are aimed by the course of the aircraft.
4. detaining small craft?
5. Air to air refueling? Not a real problem but probe and drogue may be better. Fit the drogue in the rear of an engine nacelle and keep the tail free for all the other gadgets...NCE
6. "deployment, dispersal, retrieval, or other use of maritime devices, such as buoys, sonobuoys, meterological instruments"Sonobouys are expendable items and can be air dropped. Unless you are trying to be really green (anti ocean littering) they are not retrieved. Same with marker bouys, navigation bouys are the work of coast guard ships. Meteorological instruments? Again, air drop unless they are a plot device......NCE
7."Provisions for up to a week of time away from base shall be included". Why? you have fuel for 2/3rds of a day, where are you parking this thing for 5-6 days that you can't get food or water? 9-11 man crew, how many pounds of provisions for 5-6 days? ever pound of provisions is a pound of fuel not carried....NCE
8."As many spare parts as possible must be included....... provision should be made for basic airframe, powerplant, and avionics repairs to be accomplished at sea, or, when possible, in the air" every pound of spare parts is a pound of fuel or weapons load not carried. While some of the old flying boats made provisions for a crew man to reach the engines while in flight by crawl spaces in the wings the actual amount of work that could be done was limited. While some work on the accessories section (pumps, generator, etc)could be done actual work on the power section was limited, nobody was sticking their head out a hatch and trying to open a cowl on an engine at even 130mph. On some flying boats part of the leading edge of the wing would hinge down to form a step/platform for working on the engines in harbor or even on land, other wise rather tall ladders were needed. Working on engines in the open sea?????

Modern engines (or even post WW II piston engines in airline service) could go hundreds (if not over 1000 hours) without major overhaul, spark plug changes and the like may be something else. but without vast quantities of fuel the plane has to land sometime anyway. Modern turbo props may go over 3000 hrs except for the gear boxes (?). The reliability of even mid-war engines let alone post war engines means the requirement/s for inflight repair and mid ocean repair are not needed ( unless as a plot device).

If a four engine plane cannot maintain 1000 meters on 3 engines the plane is way over loaded. Hawker Siddeley Nimrods often cruised with one or two engines shut down to extend endurance. Granted they were jets, but...A better requirement would be with ordance jettisoned and 1/2 fuel load to maintain 1000 meters on TWO engines. Just don't fly over any tall islands.

9. "aircraft must have ballistic protection...." Unless you are playing tag with the smugglers the biggest threat to the aircraft is air to air or ground to air missiles. The plane should never be in small arms range of ground personnel (plot device excepted). Heavier weapons? What do you want, a flying boat equivalent of an A-10? armor protection against automatic cannon fire is going to get real heavy, real quick. Going into enemy airspace controlled by enemy interceptors, not a good idea. Getting close enough to 20-40mm AA guns that they can get shots at you? also not a good idea if you have smart bombs, stand off missiles. While the Emily had protection it didn't have this level of protection.

As for the troop carrying bit. Trooping is one thing, dropping assault squads/commandos in enemy territory is another ( move over Dale Brown, Clive Cussler is moving in). How many men and how big are the boats? While the Emily could carry up to 64 troops it required no bombs, armament reduced to 1 7.9mm MG and one 20mm cannon, and fuel reduced to 13,414 liters from 18,880 liters (troops went where some of the fuel tanks had been. No mention of motorized boats being carried.

 

[Piper106]

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...

A air cooled radial diesel engine I feel would be a good fit for a COIN aircraft. Nice low SFC during loitering periods, could run on the 'one size fits all' kerosine/middle distillate fuel favored by the military, and reasonably battle damage resistant, if the good points of WWII radial engines carry over. Wouldn't something like a Bristol 'Hercules' diesel or a 'Centaurus' diesel be an interesting piece of equipment ! (Actually a valveless loop charged two stroke cylinder or a two stroke sleeve valve engine might be best, but whatever way, from the outside it likely would look like a Hercules or Centaurus). And not that too far fetched, for Bristol had a few prototype air cooled diesel radials running before WWII, the Bristol Phoenix diesel was a 9 cylinder poppet valve engines very similar to the gasoline Pegasus.

In reality the 'fighter mafia' generals that run all air forces wouldn't touch a propeller airplane these days with a proverbial ten foot pole, nor a piston engine one with a hundred foot pole, regardless of capabilities.

Piper106

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In reality the 'fighter mafia' generals that run all air forces wouldn't touch a propeller airplane these days with a proverbial ten foot pole, nor a piston engine one with a hundred foot pole, regardless of capabilities.

Piper106

You forgot the 1000' pole for a taildragger!

 

[Piper106]

You forgot the 1000' pole for a taildragger!

Too true.

But in terms of actual effectiveness, a Hawker Typhoon / Tornado with an air cooled diesel radial, or a diesel AD Skyraider would likely be welcomed by ground troops. With a diesel you are looking at 0.40 to 0.42 (combined fuel and lube oil) lbs per HP/hour SFC or better during loiter, so a LOT of over-cover time would be available.

Piper106

 

[Oreo]

I do like the idea of aviation diesels. Of course Germany used some in WWII, and I suppose there may have been others at times, anybody know? Comes in handy for commonality of supply, as well as safety concerns, and hopefully, fuel efficiency and cost.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I do like the idea of aviation diesels. Of course Germany used some in WWII, and I suppose there may have been others at times, anybody know? Comes in handy for commonality of supply, as well as safety concerns, and hopefully, fuel efficiency and cost.

Diamond DA42 being built and flying today...

 

[Piper106]

I do like the idea of aviation diesels. Of course Germany used some in WWII, and I suppose there may have been others at times, anybody know? Comes in handy for commonality of supply, as well as safety concerns, and hopefully, fuel efficiency and cost.

As far as I know, the only aviation diesels made in any number prior to the current era were the Junkers Jumo 205 / 207 series engines, which means that line died in 1945. In the last ten years there have been a number of small aviation diesels brought to the market, particularly in Europe, but again, as far as I know, they have all been less than 300 HP, too small for any significant military use.

Piper106

 

[Jabberwocky]

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.

A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you. However, there are now several tier one suppliers offering Al-Li alloys for aerostructures and most commercial manufacturers are either incorporating the material in their upcoming aircraft or planning to use it on next generation aircraft.

Its not just COMAC and Bombardier. Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and UAC are all using or planning to use Al-Li on upcoming aircraft (entering service in the next 2-5 years). Rumour is that Boeing will go to Al-Li for the 777X and Airbus is using Al-Li for about 14% of the structure of the A350 (although they predominately selected the CFRP route for larger aircraft). Quoting Airbus from 2005: "Third generation of Al-Li alloys are now ready to be implemented on aircraft as the disadvantages encountered on the first generations (reduced ductility and fracture toughness in the short--transverse direction and reduced thermal stability) have been solved..."

Its also finding its way into some military aircraft.

I'm not saying its the be all and end all, but if I was re-desigining a WW2 aircraft right now, a mix of Al/Al-Li, titanium, GRFP and other carbon fibre composites would be the route I'd take.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

From Oshkosh..

Cessna unveils turbodiesel 182
A Cessna 182 powered by a 230-horsepower Jet-A-burning piston engine will be available in the second quarter of 2013, Cessna Aircraft announced July 23. The thinly masked Turbo182 NXT on display at the Cessna exhibit at EAA AirVenture drew widespread attention even before the official start of the show and unveiling. Cessna's Jeff Umscheid said the aircraft is a response to customer demand. "This is what the market has been begging for," he said, calling the aircraft a game changer. Powered by a turbocharged, direct-drive SMA SR305-230E-C1 engine, the Turbo 182 NXT will burn 11 gph at a max cruise speed of 155 knots, Umscheid said, granting owners a lower fuel burn and increased range from avgas counterparts.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you. However, there are now several tier one suppliers offering Al-Li alloys for aerostructures and most commercial manufacturers are either incorporating the material in their upcoming aircraft or planning to use it on next generation aircraft.
.

Don't really disagree but it's still a bit in the future

 

[JoeB]

As far as I know, the only aviation diesels made in any number prior to the current era were the Junkers Jumo 205 / 207 series engines, which means that line died in 1945. In the last ten years there have been a number of small aviation diesels brought to the market, particularly in Europe, but again, as far as I know, they have all been less than 300 HP, too small for any significant military use.

Piper106

Yes, as I was referring to originally, aircraft diesels look set to probably oust gasoline engines from their current last (albeit quite big, numerically) stronghold in general aviation applications below around 300hp, perhaps before very long. We'd have to see what progress they might someday make against turbines in higher power ranges.

But that <300hp power range also includes a now important military a/c category: UAV's. For example, the MQ-1 'Predator A' in USAF service is powered by the a 115hp Rotax (Austrian firm specializing in small gasoline engines for eg. snowmobiles and such, but also widely used on ultra light a/c, as well as UAV's) gasoline engine, but its US Army counterpart the MQ-1C Grey Eagle is powered by a 135hp Thielert Centurion diesel, same type used in the Diamond a/c Flyboyj referred to above. The larger MQ-9 Predator B/Reaper is powered by a 900hp TPE-331 turbine. But there are plenty of UAV types smaller than Predator A, typically powerd by gasoline engines up to now, but the focus is on shifting them to distillate burning engines to get rid of the need for a separate logistics pipeline for small amounts of gasoline, which comes out astronomically expensive per gallon as delivered to forward deployed forces.

Note that the military refers to small a/c engines capable of burning distillate as 'heavy fuel engines', somewhat confusing since 'heavy fuel' has long meant residual fuel rather than distillate in marine parlance. Here it means distillate rather than gasoline. The larger of these engines are typically diesels like the Centurion. Smaller ones, like for example Ricardo's Wolverine 3hp for very small UAV's, are spark ignited multifuel engines than can burn distillate.

Joe

 

[Oreo]

Shortround 6, in your lengthy post #41, which I won't quote, for clutter's sake, you make some very good points, including revealing a few deficiencies in my thinking.

To clear a few things up:

I did not realize turboprops were so reliable, going 1,000 hours or more without an overhaul. No wonder they are so popular. I was under the impression, true or false, that typical WWII era piston engines needed an overhaul every 100 hours or less. So, sorry about that confusion, and I learned something valuable. I hereby retract that part of the specification.

Next, the ability to cruise with one engine out, I kind of made that requirement to see whether anybody would include a twin- or tri-motored flying boat rather than a four. Any four engined a/c ought to be able to cruise safely with one engine out, but not all can with two out. A twin on the other hand, losing an engine is some pretty serious business, especially if your power-to-weight ratio is marginal to begin with. Was wondering if anybody would mention the PBM or XPBB.

My plane is asking for more versatility than a P-3 Orion. The advantages of a flying boat are that it can take off, and land, in many many places without special preparation. It should be able to go to the end of its 16-17 hr. endurance, and then refuel, either in mid-air, or from a submarine or surface craft, as Axis flying boats sometimes did during WWII. Therefore, the crew should be prepared for being away from home base for many days at a time. They may also land in certain places where there is no fuel resupply, and take off again after several days at their outpost. This is great for landing special ops teams ashore in remote places, and going back for them later, or servicing remote outposts.

Just because an H8K did not do a certain thing, does not mean my fantasmal aircraft can't or shouldn't. I want it to be a true multi-role maritime aircraft, able to conduct the following missions:

Anti-submarine patrols and attacks
Anti-surface vessel patrols and attacks
Long-range reconnaissance
Long range cargo and resupply missions
Liaison with naval units
Servicing, deployment, and maintenance of military and meteorological devices
Bombing of land targets
Airborne assault troop deployment, by various means
Maritime Search and Rescue
Coastal sovereignty patrol and interdiction (anti-smuggler, for instance, Coast Guard duty)
Refueling of other a/c
Possibly other roles, such as fire-fighting?

My theoretic air force or navy is interested in being able to deploy its air, ground, and naval forces around a broad area of ocean in an easy, seamless fashion. It does not wish to have to construct new bases or rely on existing air fields. It wishes to be able to deploy its paratroopers, marines, and other spec ops troops around a broad area quicly and efficiently. It wishes to maintain many outposts and defend many military and civil interests in its country and around the ocean area it has influence over. It needs to also be able to detect and interdict any vessels that may be a threat to these interests. It believes in having and maintaining resilient, versatile aircraft and resourceful aircrews. It also fields modern fighters to maintain air superiority, and other land-based and possibly carrier-based aircraft to fill various roles.

The air crew does not need to take a lot of fresh water with them. Every time they land they can use a filtration device to obtain fresh water from sea water. Each crew needs to be resourceful and as self-sufficient as possible.

 

[Oreo]

Boy. I'm almost motivated to write a novel about this country I've just described!

 

[Trilisser]

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.

Do you refer to those pieces of junk made by Continental or Lycoming with the letter "O" in their name? Every time I I hear/read someone describing these aerial Briggs Strattons as "modern" I don't know whether to laugh or weep.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Do you refer to those pieces of junk made by Continental or Lycoming with the letter "O" in their name? Every time I I hear/read someone describing these aerial Briggs Strattons as "modern" I don't know whether to laugh or weep.

Piece of junk? These engines been around in their basic designs for years, are extremely reliable and cheap to operate if treated right. Have you had experience on them? They have powered 90% of the General Aviation world for over 60 years. There's a number of reasons why they have been around so long but putting it mildly, what ever you "read or heard" negative about these engines is a figment of someones uneducated imagination...

Not only have I worked on them, I also fly them and I could say you need to research your statement. See how many GA aircraft of the world are powered by them and how many GA engines that tried to compete with them are no longer being built! I also challenge you and/or your sources to come up with reliability statistics on these engines. If you do you'll find that Lycoming and Continental have built the most reliable aircraft engines in the world and have been doing so for close to 60 years! There are few, if any other recip engines that have 2,000 hour overhaul requirements (2,300 hours for the Lycoming O-360 under certain conditions).

There is nothing wrong with an "opposed" or as you put it "O" engine!!! So now laugh or weep, your choice.

 

[Oreo]

Maybe he thinks they have something superior where he lives or works. O in the name? Of course Continental and Lycoming have O in their names. They also have N, C, I, and L.

 

[Shortround6]

Shortround 6, in your lengthy post #41, which I won't quote, for clutter's sake, you make some very good points, including revealing a few deficiencies in my thinking.

Thank you.

To clear a few things up:

I was under the impression, true or false, that typical WWII era piston engines needed an overhaul every 100 hours or less.

It depends on the engine, country of origin and use. Fighter engines generally had the shortest lives, the same model engine in a transport might last twice as long. P&W R-1830s in DC-3s were good for around 300 hours before WW II.

My plane is asking for more versatility than a P-3 Orion. The advantages of a flying boat are that it can take off, and land, in many many places without special preparation. It should be able to go to the end of its 16-17 hr. endurance, and then refuel, either in mid-air, or from a submarine or surface craft, as Axis flying boats sometimes did during WWII. Therefore, the crew should be prepared for being away from home base for many days at a time. They may also land in certain places where there is no fuel resupply, and take off again after several days at their outpost. This is great for landing special ops teams ashore in remote places, and going back for them later, or servicing remote outposts.

Yes, they can do things that land planes cannot. But being away from base for many days at time is pushing things. more on that later.

Just because an H8K did not do a certain thing, does not mean my fantasmal aircraft can't or shouldn't. I want it to be a true multi-role maritime aircraft, able to conduct the following missions:

The title of the thread is "What WW II aircraft could fulfill useful modern military roles."

You gave a list of specifications and I asked what WW II aircraft could meet the specifications and you replied the Emily. It can't. Now a modern Flying boat may be able to meet the specs but then it wouldn't be a WW II airplane would it?

AS for the missions:
Anti-submarine patrols and attacks
Anti-surface vessel patrols and attacks
Long-range reconnaissance
Are quite plausible given the use of missiles, homing torpedoes and modern sensors. Gun action is out.

Long range cargo and resupply missions
Liaison with naval units
Also plausible but the first cannot be effectively done with the same aircraft as the first 3 missions. Same airframe yes but a different version. Even flying boats are somewhat volume limited and a good transport has no room for weapons and sensor operator consoles, crew lounges and the like. A larger doorway/s and reinforced floor might come in handy as well as a cargo handling system. Using a 80-100,000lb plane for Liaison use is doable but rather wasteful.

Servicing, deployment, and maintenance of military and meteorological devices
Again doable but why? Most of those jobs are either not time sensitive and can be done by boat or the devices can be dropped by parachute.

Bombing of land targets

Only works against the most unsophisticated opponents. Even a Martin Sea master would be a dead duck against a modern air defense system unless support by a strong electronics warfare component. Maybe you can build it in but it is more consoles and more operators.

More later

 

[wuzak]

This could do some of the roles

If you wanted a twin, I'm sure one of thoe engines would work in an engine-out situation. Or the latest 12,000hp+ Rolls-Royce turboprop.

 

[davparlr]

If I remember correctly, the TF-33 (JT3D) used in the C-141 had an MTO of 10,000 hours, would run 30 minutes with zero oil pressure, and would burn just about any aero fuel including avgas (with, of course, some impact to performance). In four years of flying, I heard of only one engine failure in flight an that engine had over 9,900 hours. Very reassuring. Of course the TF-33 was a large slow turning turbofan engine but it does show the great reliability advantage of turbojet/fan/prop engines. That and power-to-weight advantage says you really don't want to use any thing else except for low power applications already mentioned.

 

[Oreo]

"Long range cargo and resupply missions
Liaison with naval units
Also plausible but the first cannot be effectively done with the same aircraft as the first 3 missions."

I disagree. The same airframe can be used, and on any given example, the accessory components can be removed or added as needed. Even my Chevy Astro can do that. Passenger seats can be taken out and work racks can be installed. If you build modular component ability into the airframe, it is rather easy to do. If we need to haul heavy cargo, we can take out all the other stuff. It would be likely that some a/c would be maintained as cargo birds while others would be maintained as patrol birds, but either could be converted to the other as needed.

As for the bombing of land targets, naturally it could not be done unless the situation were safe enough. C-130 gunships face the same problem, and yet there they are. This is also why I stressed the ability for the crew to repair the aircraft either in flight, or after landing. Holes in the hull should be able to be patched in flight, for instance.

BTW, comparing the H8K to the P-3, it is obvious the P-3 is faster and has modern reliable turboprop engines. However, it is half again heavier than the H8K, meaning, construction wise it would be theoretically half again more expensive to produce (other things being equal, which of course they are not). Since it seems that turboprop engines weigh much less than radials of the same power, it would seem we could upgrade on the Emily's power somewhat while still lowering engine weight. Equipment would vary in weight, but we probably would still be cheaper in production compared to the P-3 as long as the production run is long enough to invoke economy of scale. My specification does not call for speed to match the P-3, so less powerful engines can be used, also being less expensive than the P-3. The P-3's engines are 4,600 hp (Wiki) and the H8K's were circa 1,800-2,000 hp, so turboprops of around 2,500 hp could still improve the performance, especially with modern propellers.