What WWII aircraft could fulfill uselful modern military rolls?

[FLYBOYJ]

So most developed nations don't even have a tail dragger as the earliest form of training A/C then FBJ?

NO - as a matter of fact you may find many military pilots with thousands of hours flying all types of aircraft with no tail dragger time. I know of some of the US test pilot schools (PAX River Edwards AFB) that on occasion run test pilots in training through a tail dragger checkout if an aircraft is available.

Mind due, if its the design being modernised, I'm sure there's enough expertise to fit a nose gear and adjust the mains to compensate.. so long as the spars aren't moved or cut, the main gear could always be located aft of the main spar btween the aft/supporting trailing(?) spar...

With time and money, anything is possible!

 

[Shortround6]

You could get a WW II aircraft, or replica, or updated version to perform a modern military mission. It is just that a more modern design would do the job a whole lot better.

People have proposed recon, including the Fw 189.

Try the North American Aviation Rockwell OV-10 Bronco instead.

FW 189:

Crew: 3
Wing area: 38 m² (409 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,680 kg (5,920 lb)
Loaded weight: 3,950 kg (8,708 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Argus As 410, 342 kW (465 PS - 459 hp) each


OV-10

Crew: 2
Wing area: 290.95 ft² (27.03 m²)
Empty weight: 6,893 lb (3,127 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 14,444 lb (6,552 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Garrett T76-G-410/412 turboprop, 715 hp (533 kW) each

Note the increase in useful load.

Modern recon planes would use sensors in pods or turrets instead of the eyeball, MK I.

Modern recon planes want to stay out of the range of the shoulder fired missiles, one reason for the popularity of drones. You are no longer risking the pilot.

Not only modern engines but modern construction make a huge difference, not even counting exotic materials. WW II aircraft were made of hundreds if not thousands of pieces fastened together by tens of thousands of rivets. A modern plane could use welding, and use larger pieces formed in large presses that are profile milled or chemically milled to put thickness where it is needed and light weight where it is not. Still aluminium but a rather different form of construction.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You could get a WW II aircraft, or replica, or updated version to perform a modern military mission. It is just that a more modern design would do the job a whole lot better.

People have proposed recon, including the Fw 189.

Try the North American Aviation Rockwell OV-10 Bronco instead.

FW 189:

Crew: 3
Wing area: 38 m² (409 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,680 kg (5,920 lb)
Loaded weight: 3,950 kg (8,708 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Argus As 410, 342 kW (465 PS - 459 hp) each


OV-10

Crew: 2
Wing area: 290.95 ft² (27.03 m²)
Empty weight: 6,893 lb (3,127 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 14,444 lb (6,552 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Garrett T76-G-410/412 turboprop, 715 hp (533 kW) each

Note the increase in useful load.

Modern recon planes would use sensors in pods or turrets instead of the eyeball, MK I.

Modern recon planes want to stay out of the range of the shoulder fired missiles, one reason for the popularity of drones. You are no longer risking the pilot.

Not only modern engines but modern construction make a huge difference, not even counting exotic materials. WW II aircraft were made of hundreds if not thousands of pieces fastened together by tens of thousands of rivets. A modern plane could use welding, and use larger pieces formed in large presses that are profile milled or chemically milled to put thickness where it is needed and light weight where it is not. Still aluminium but a rather different form of construction.

The OV-10 was an excellent aircraft and a good example for this. You don't want to use welding for primary structure for a number of reasons although there were aircraft constructed where all the primary structure was welded together (Vought Kingfisher)

 

[Trilisser]

Standard duralumimium is not weldable. But e.g. that Al-Li alloy is.

 

[Trilisser]

Depends where and where they are operated. Newer smaller turbines are extremely efficient and do offer better fuel consumption to any WW2 in line or round engine.

Do you mind listing a few? A Bristol Hercules can do 190 grams/hp/h at low power cruise. AFAIK no turboprop without heat exchanger can beat that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Standard duralumimium is not weldable. But e.g. that Al-Li alloy is.

Actually you're wrong - you can weld 2024 and 7075 extrusion and sheet with gas, (it's not able to be done with an arc welder)

 

[Trilisser]

It would be fun to reimagine a WW2 engine with the use of modern materials, oils fuels tho.
That 2500 - 3000rpm limit could go.

Highly unlikely, if you want any durability. Besides, you could get lost of more power by using e.g. triptane as fuel...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Do you mind listing a few? A Bristol Hercules can do 190 grams/hp/h at low power cruise. AFAIK no turboprop without heat exchanger can beat that.

What is that an hour in pounds or liters and in what type of aircraft? FYI a PT6 will consume about 200 liters an hour in a twin otter

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Do you mind listing a few? A Bristol Hercules can do 190 grams/hp/h at low power cruise. AFAIK no turboprop without heat exchanger can beat that.

Start here...

Williams International | Product Information

 

[Trilisser]

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.

A Twin Wasp has a TBO of up to 3000 hrs, as does the Bristol Hercules. As for why so many GA aircraft are powered by these junks: they have no other choice as doe to practical monopoly, especially since Germany lost WW2 and the best ranges of GA engines ever, Hirth and Argus, went down along with the parent country.

When these opposed engines were introduced before the war, they were already outdated in terms on engineering; i.e. they were indeed intended as cheap aerial Briggs Strattons for those who don't know any better.

In short, these Lycoshits and Conticraps don't have e.g. any better sfc with 100 LL than the old Hirth and Argus engines had with 80-87 octane fuels. In fact, a WW1 period Liberty engine has lower maximum power sfc than these "modern" "engines". Need I say more?

 

[Trilisser]

What is that an hour in pounds or liters and in what type of aircraft? FYI a PT6 will consume about 200 liters an hour in a twin otter

It is in grams per horsepower per hour. Figure calculated from consumption and power data in Hercules XVI/XVII/XVIII manual.

 

[Trilisser]

Start here...

Williams International | Product Information

No turboprops listed there...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It is in grams per horsepower per hour. Figure calculated from consumption and power data in Hercules XVI/XVII/XVIII manual.

On what aircraft? How will that rate to airframe performance?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A Twin Wasp has a TBO of up to 3000 hrs, as does the Bristol Hercules. As for why so many GA aircraft are powered by these junks: they have no other choice as doe to practical monopoly, especially since Germany lost WW2 and the best ranges of GA engines ever, Hirth and Argus, went down along with the parent country.

Hirth and Argus engines were produced in the post war aftermarket and they vanished because of operating cost and poor product support. If you're going to cry about monoply there was also Franklin and Manasco as well as other US manufactures who produced both opposed and radial engines and they vanished too, so I don't know where you're trying to go with that statement. As far as "Germany producing the best ranges of GA engines," do tell me how? Performance? Reliability? I do know Hirth engines can still be found but are no where relaible as Lycoming and Continental engines. I think that's more of your opinion rather than basing a comparison on performance or reliability.

Twin Wasp 3000 hrs? Compared to a GA engine under 200 HP? Twin wasp overhaul is 1,600 hours for a -94 BTW...

When these opposed engines were introduced before the war, they were already outdated in terms on engineering; i.e. they were indeed intended as cheap aerial Briggs Strattons for those who don't know any better.

Cheap and they work quite well and are also RELIABLE.

In short, these Lycoshits and Conticraps don't have e.g. any better sfc with 100 LL than the old Hirth and Argus engines had with 80-87 octane fuels. In fact, a WW1 period Liberty engine has lower maximum power sfc than these "modern" "engines". Need I say more?

Yes you do need to say more, because you have given NO crediable argument here!! They work - PERIOD, and when coupled with an airframe will burn between 7 and 12 gallons per hour depending on engine and aircraft. They are simplistically engineered because of the certification process GA engines have to go through when dealing with the FAA in the US and now the JAA in Europe. New opposed engines are being produced in mass by Rotax as we speak, if opposed engines are crap, why is Rotax's booming?!?!? Are they crap to?!?!? I can tell you that Rotax makes a very good "OPPOSED" engine configuration. I have maintained and flown aircraft that have them installed...

So I ask you again, have you ever operated or maintained one to give an opinion that Lycoming or Continental (or Rotax) engines are crap?????

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that some Argus engines were built in France during the post war era. The Germans having farmed out some production to French factories during the war. Some of these engines (the V-12s?) were offered (and used) until at least the early 50s. Germans and Italians built licensed Lycoming O-435s of a few different models during the 50s.
Porsche has tried to break into the aircraft market at least twice. A good look at the specifications shows why there was no great leap towards them. The Continental and Lycoming engines may be large displacement for their power, which to some people equals crude and old fashion but they aren't too bad on a power to weight ratio. The Porshe engines while of small displacement showed no better (if as good) a power to weight ratio.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I would note that some Argus engines were built in France during the post war era. The Germans having farmed out some production to French factories during the war. Some of these engines (the V-12s?) were offered (and used) until at least the early 50s. Germans and Italians built licensed Lycoming O-435s of a few different models during the 50s.
Porsche has tried to break into the aircraft market at least twice. A good look at the specifications shows why there was no great leap towards them. The Continental and Lycoming engines may be large displacement for their power, which to some people equals crude and old fashion but they aren't too bad on a power to weight ratio. The Porshe engines while of small displacement showed no better (if as good) a power to weight ratio.

As mentioned, a lot of that was due to the original ceritification process these engines had to originally go through. In terms of engerineering they are very simplistic but for the longest time the Feds wouldn't allow much improvement. In today's world we are seeing some improvement in the certification process because of LSA and the phase out of 100LL.

 

[Trilisser]

So I ask you again, have you ever operated or maintained one to give an opinion that Lycoming or Continental (or Rotax) engines are crap?????

1) Yes, air-cooled opposed engines are crap, as the configuration is really poor for cooling airflow, especially with poorly designed GA aircraft6 engine installations without adjustable cowl flaps.

2) The TBO of the above mentioned engines plummet if they are worked hard, like sailplane towing.

3) The above comments don't apply to Conti's Voyager.

4) No, I have not worked on them. But, neither I can produce milk, yet I can differentiate between bad or good milk.

5) Much of my commentary is based on lengthy discussions over the last 20 years with an FiAF aero engine specialist, who for over 30 years not only dealt with aero engines in practice from AEIO-360 to RR Avon and Adour, also instructed future FiAF mechanics on them.

6) As per FiAF practice, the TBO for the Twin Wasp in general was 3000 hrs if the cyl heads were overhauled every 1800 hrs.

7) One of the major reasons why Lyc and Con have been able to continue their scam is the preferential treatment aviation has had on emission limits. It is highly likely that no spark-ignition engine with air-cooling would be able to meet latest emission standards as applicable to cars.

 

[Trilisser]

On what aircraft? How will that rate to airframe performance?

E.g. on the Beaufighter TF.X (Herc XVII/XVIII). The actual example from the manual is as follows:

-altitude sea level
-settings 1600 rpm/boost +2
-power 730 hp
-fuel flow 42.5 Imp.gals/h
-from which sfc=(42.5 x 4.56 x 0.72 [fuel density])/730=191.15 g/hp/h.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

1) Yes, air-cooled opposed engines are crap, as the configuration is really poor for cooling airflow, especially with poorly designed GA aircraft6 engine installations without adjustable cowl flaps.

Gee, I've flown MANY GA aircraft with opposed engines without cowl flaps and had FEW cooling problems, again more of your opinions?

2) The TBO of the above mentioned engines plummet if they are worked hard, like sailplane towing.

NOT TRUE I manage 7 PA-18-180s with O-360s and they are used ONLY as tow planes. We run them to 2,300 hours and they always make overhaul. BTW we average 1000 hours a year on them and in 8 years I had one valve failure

3) The above comments don't apply to Conti's Voyager.

Whatever you say

4) No, I have not worked on them. But, neither I can produce milk, yet I can differentiate between bad or good milk.

And being an @sshole on here will get you banned in a New York minute

5) Much of my commentary is based on lengthy discussions over the last 20 years with an FiAF aero engine specialist, who for over 30 years not only dealt with aero engines in practice from AEIO-360 to RR Avon and Adour, also instructed future FiAF mechanics on them.

I've been working in the aviation industry for 33 years, hold an A&P license and am also a flight instructor and have worked O-200s to T-56s as far as engines, Cessna 150 to DC-10s for airplanes, L39s and Hueys in the middle, so much for resumes...

Here, I'll toot my horn, a little award I received last year to show you that my experience here is based on a little more than lengthy discussions....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/joe-morales-amt-year-30185.html

6) As per FiAF practice, the TBO for the Twin Wasp in general was 3000 hrs if the cyl heads were overhauled every 1800 hrs.

You're still overhauling the engine at 1,800 hours. And that is one operator's decision CONTRARY to what the manufacturer recommends for commercial operations, there is no top overhaul limits on either continental or Lycoming engines and if taken care of will run in excess of 3,000 hours, not recommended by the manufacturer and not legal if the plane is flown for hire.

7) One of the major reasons why Lyc and Con have been able to continue their scam is the preferential treatment aviation has had on emission limits. It is highly likely that no spark-ignition engine with air-cooling would be able to meet latest emission standards as applicable to cars.

That's not even an argument. No one, until now has tried to enter the GA engine field for the past 60 years. Now you have ROTAX and Thielert entering the market, and if they are reliable, perform and are safe, nothing else matters.

Continental and Lycoming have made the most reliable aircraft engines in the world. They are not engineering marvels and in some cases very inefficient, but they perform and are safe. You're entitled to your "non-professional" opinions but I can tell you I deal with them every day. If an in-line or radial came along and offered the same and reliability and performance, I'd be saying the same thing, BTW - regardless of what country they are produced.
So to say they are "crap" is just your armchair opinion based on engineering prejudices. There are manufacturing and certification processes that have gone into these engines that haven't a clue about!!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So I ask you again, have you ever operated or maintained one to give an opinion that Lycoming or Continental (or Rotax) engines are crap?????

awful lot of good reliable aircraft use Lycoming or Continental engines for them to be crap, huh?

Hell we just had one, a Cessna 414 pull into our hangar today. Not because of its engine either.