What WWII aircraft could fulfill uselful modern military rolls?

[davebender]

A modern Fw-189 would require modern (probably turbo prop) engines as you cannot obtain parts for the original Argus air cooled V12. If tricycle landing gear is desired that's the time to make the change as the entire aircraft balance must be adjusted anyway.

Personally I would keep the original MG151/20 cannon. They are well suited for such a lightweight aircraft and mineshells are just as effective vs soft targets today as they were during WWII. Wing hardpoints would carry modern weapons.

 

[Piper106]

One other area where WWII aircraft would be useful is maritime recon or patrol.
The Lockhead P2V Neptune in my mind would still be a good choice for longer patrols further offshore.

For anti-pirate patrols off the east coast of Africa / Somalia in 2012, a P2V however would be too much of a good thing. Another WWII vet that doesn't get much press would seem just about right, and that is the US Navy/Marine version of the Army B-25, the PBJ. I'd have most of the bomb bay filled with extra fuel tanks (I recall and like the phrase 'Tokyo tanks'), just a couple of 250 pound cluster bomb containers. Use the same solid nose with eight 50 caliber machine guns used by the Army aircraft. Seem to me that getting targeted by eight 50 caliber machine guns would take all the fun out of being a pirate, well before their AK47s and RPGs would put the aircraft at risk. .

 

[Oreo]

The point is they won't be useful. Although, depending on use and design can offer better takeoff and landing performance BUT you are operating a configuration that requires more training and has a higher accident potential when operating in hazardous weather conditions, especially during takeoff and landing. In today's world I know of NO modern military flight training syllabi that has any program for a tail wheel check out during primary training, in other words you don't have pilots readily available to fly the aircraft if it became available.

Ok. But you COULD, just like a country could double the size of its millitary or South Korea could build an aircraft carrier. Just because they haven't or don't doesn't mean they couldn't.

BUT--- having said that--- there are probably some tri-gear WWII a/c that could be auditioned for the role.

 

[Oreo]

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

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...

Uh, yes that could be done, but that would be a radical mod for most aircraft, and then we have to ask ourselves, whether it actually is the same WWII aircraft type that we all know and love, or a new type entirely that only sort of resembles our Spitfire, Mustang, etc. but on a tripod.

 

[gumbyk]

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.

So, you are blaming the engine performance on 'poorly designed GA aircraft engine installations' which aren't anything to do with Lycoming or Continental?

Here's my first-hand experience with Lycomings:
CAANZ approved TBO of 4000 hours for one of my customers doing flight training. (Thisincludes both single, and twin-engine aircraft)
The twins have a far harder life than glider towing aircraft, given the number of in-flight shutdowns, and engine failure simulations. The singles would have similar strains put on them, given that they have ab-initio pilots flying them.
I have seen an engine that has run over 4500 hours, and part of the TBO extension procedure, and there was no reason that the engine wouldn't have been able to be put back together and returned to service, as no parts were worn outside of serviceable limits.

 

[Oreo]

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

FlyboyJ, as much as I understand and agree with your disagreement with him about his statements, you seem to be missing the point about the fuel efficiency here. I would think you would understand this. The formula or equation used for fuel efficiency for an engine (whether aviation, industrial, or whatever) includes the weight of fuel consumed, per hour, times the horsepower. This fuel efficiency statement is for the engine itself, not the whole aircraft. In order to get the fuel efficiency for the whole aircraft, IOW, the kilomters per liter, or whatever, you have to factor in the aerodynamics of the aircraft, and the efficiency of the propeller (or propulsion devices). So any given engine has a fuel efficiency factor for any given RPM, and it can also vary as to whether the engine is under load or not. So at an idle, the fuel efficiency factor, measured either in grams per horsepower/ hr, or (as I am more accustomed to) lbs. / hp/ hr, may be a different figure than the efficiency of the engine at full RPM. The dynamic load put on the engine may change it too. Piston engines have a torque curve that gives a good degree of ability to do work at lower rpms, whereas, IIUC, turbine engines have only a limited ability to do productive work at slower rpms. (I understand how it works far better for piston engines than non-pistons). I have followed how the fuel efficiency measurements work for the Nebraska tractor tests, and Trilisser is referring to the same types of measurements for aviation engines. Now, if I can just make sense of whether or not he is saying anything that helps our discussion here. . . . but I got lost in some of the minutia a few posts back.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FlyboyJ, as much as I understand and agree with your disagreement with him about his statements, you seem to be missing the point about the fuel efficiency here. I would think you would understand this. The formula or equation used for fuel efficiency for an engine (whether aviation, industrial, or whatever) includes the weight of fuel consumed, per hour, times the horsepower. This fuel efficiency statement is for the engine itself, not the whole aircraft. In order to get the fuel efficiency for the whole aircraft, IOW, the kilomters per liter, or whatever, you have to factor in the aerodynamics of the aircraft, and the efficiency of the propeller (or propulsion devices). So any given engine has a fuel efficiency factor for any given RPM, and it can also vary as to whether the engine is under load or not. So at an idle, the fuel efficiency factor, measured either in grams per horsepower/ hr, or (as I am more accustomed to) lbs. / hp/ hr, may be a different figure than the efficiency of the engine at full RPM. The dynamic load put on the engine may change it too. Piston engines have a torque curve that gives a good degree of ability to do work at lower rpms, whereas, IIUC, turbine engines have only a limited ability to do productive work at slower rpms. (I understand how it works far better for piston engines than non-pistons). I have followed how the fuel efficiency measurements work for the Nebraska tractor tests, and Trilisser is referring to the same types of measurements for aviation engines. Now, if I can just make sense of whether or not he is saying anything that helps our discussion here. . . . but I got lost in some of the minutia a few posts back.

I understand EXACTLY what he's trying to say. It all goes out the window when the engine is hung on the aircraft and flown as you somewhat eluded to. Do you really think (or know) that a pilot knows or care about fuel efficiency based on fuel weight consumed, per hour, times the horsepower when he or she is calculating fuel consumption for a cross country?!?!? This is crap you deal with in a test cell and for the most part you're splitting hairs unless you have some extremely wide numbers - again as stated, for the most part it goes out the window when the engine mounted on a particular aircraft.

IMO he's splitting hairs trying to justify his point while he has no real world experience operating or maintaining anything he's talking about.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ok. But you COULD, just like a country could double the size of its millitary or South Korea could build an aircraft carrier. Just because they haven't or don't doesn't mean they couldn't.
BUT--- having said that--- there are probably some tri-gear WWII a/c that could be auditioned for the role.

They don't because they know it isn't worth the time or effort and know a tail dragger has no real place in a modern air force for the reasons stated.

 

[Oreo]

Ok, so then, my tri-geared P-39 might be able to fit the description I mentioned. The 4 hr. endurance is the only thing it would have trouble with. The P-63 might do a little better.

I could do a little carbon-fiber installation to improve survivability, maybe even some advanced type of armor like the Chobram-type armor used on tanks, just thinner. I would keep the 37-mm cannon and design new types of rounds to fire in it, including armor piercing. Maybe modern technology could figure out how to give it a higher rate of fire. If possible, I would improve the number of rounds carried.

I would want ballistic protection for the radiators if using an inline engine. Of course some would not want me to use an inline, but it might be too hard to install a turboprop in this design. I still like the aviation diesel engine idea, especially for this type of a/c. I need a diesel engine designed with similar dimensions and power abilities to the Allison V-1710. We could also use it on other a/c types.

A tail-dragger I like for this role is the Whirlwind. Replace the V-12s with turboprops and away we go. Oh, the tail-dragger haters will be blowing fuses on that one.

 

[Oreo]

I understand EXACTLY what he's trying to say. It all goes out the window when the engine is hung on the aircraft and flown as you somewhat eluded to. Do you really think (or know) that a pilot knows or care about fuel efficiency based on fuel weight consumed, per hour, times the horsepower when he or she is calculating fuel consumption for a cross country?!?!? This is crap you deal with in a test cell and for the most part you're splitting hairs unless you have some extremely wide numbers - again as stated, for the most part it goes out the window when the engine mounted on a particular aircraft.

IMO he's splitting hairs trying to justify his point while he has no real world experience operating or maintaining anything he's talking about.

Yes. That much is patently obvious.

 

[Shortround6]

The main problem with using a WW II aircraft for military missions is that you are beating a dead horse.

Lets go one further.

What WW I aircraft could perform Military missions in WW II?

two seaters Like the Bristol and DH 4 could certainly perform artillery spotting given newer radios. Most anything could strafe a column of foot solders. The Felixstowe F.2 flying boat could perform visual anti-sub patrols ( and it carried twice the bomb load of an Anson). In fact given the Ansons radial engines it's serviceability would probably go up If the British had kept 30-50 Handley Page V/1500s in storage they could have been bombing the Ruhr in 1939

Planes built 15-20 years later just worked a whole lot better and the same is true for WW II aircraft and 1950s-60s aircraft let alone what you can build in the last 12 years.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The main problem with using a WW II aircraft for military missions is that you are beating a dead horse.

Sums it up right there

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One other area where WWII aircraft would be useful is maritime recon or patrol.
The Lockhead P2V Neptune in my mind would still be a good choice for longer patrols further offshore.

For anti-pirate patrols off the east coast of Africa / Somalia in 2012, a P2V however would be too much of a good thing. Another WWII vet that doesn't get much press would seem just about right, and that is the US Navy/Marine version of the Army B-25, the PBJ. I'd have most of the bomb bay filled with extra fuel tanks (I recall and like the phrase 'Tokyo tanks'), just a couple of 250 pound cluster bomb containers. Use the same solid nose with eight 50 caliber machine guns used by the Army aircraft. Seem to me that getting targeted by eight 50 caliber machine guns would take all the fun out of being a pirate, well before their AK47s and RPGs would put the aircraft at risk. .

P2 will have the legs over a B-25 but I can tell you from experience the P2 is not the most comfortable aircraft to fly in. To go to the aft end of the aircraft you're cimbing or sliding over the wing assembly in the middle of the fuselage.

 

[davebender]

I agree. It's probably more realistic to consider what WWII aircraft were still useful 20 years later during the 1960s.

 

[razor1uk]

So if a total aerial warfare somehow for which ever reason started tommorrow, and including losses of the latest and better jets of which most nations have for arguments sake, less than 4,000 frontline fighters interceptors, and they were repaired and battered, might their not be a case for some piston or t-prop powered combat A/C to keep up the aerial onslaught/defence?

I'D for similar sake, that quite a few modern systems (radar, elint, radios, FADEC/CEM) could be put into a smaller and most likely cheaper airframe (per unit), if not cheaper, then certainly faster to produce from raw materials than a state of the art £40M (and the rest per unit) A/C.

I appreciate that some are seemingly shooting this thread down indirectly to support their opinions, less amongst them appear to do it for their online status, even in a threatening manner - WhyTF!?

Just because people have a difference of opinion - I hate H-D's but I don't tell everyone; but neither would I expect threats because I said so...

Maturity is seen by others around if not by the mirror upon oursrlves.

 

[Shortround6]

At this point the only high powered piston engines are in museum aircraft, a few private owners and what remaining oddball transports/fire bombers that are left, spare parts are scarce and shops that can service them are also scarce. Fuel for them is also getting scarce. The R-1830s in the DC-3 may run fine ( or not, check with FlyboyJ) and give good performance on 100LL but the higher performing engines need 100/130 or higher to perform without being de-rated.

Even 450-600hp engines usually only exist in museum, warbird, bush planes and cropdusters, and the crop dusters and some of the Bush planes have been switching to turbo props for decades.

The only Piston engines abailable in bulk are the under 400hp private aviation engines.

Tooling up for one of the decades old bigger engines would take months if not 1-2 years.

Turbo props may be more available but even then which ones have been made in the last 20 years?

Again compare even a good (old) jet trainer, like a Aero L-39 to a hypothetical turbo prop aircraft.

The later armed L-39s could have a twin barreled 23mm cannon under the fuselage, could lift over 2500lbs of under wing ordnance. it could do 466mph at 5000 meters and climb at over 4000fpm near sea level.

A single simple turbofan of the Business class. And that is a plane and engine from the 60s.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I appreciate that some are seemingly shooting this thread down indirectly to support their opinions, less amongst them appear to do it for their online status, even in a threatening manner - WhyTF!?

Just because people have a difference of opinion - I hate H-D's but I don't tell everyone; but neither would I expect threats because I said so...

Maturity is seen by others around if not by the mirror upon oursrlves.

If you're referring to me I'll tell you once, mind your own business, your opinion is unwarrented and unwanted and I suggest just sticking to the thread or moving on if there's something here you don't like. If you wish to get into a pissing contest here I guarantee you'll wind up on the urinal end of it. I'm only going to say this once.

 

[razor1uk]

It wasn't only just for your benefit Flyboy, I find this thread quite idea provoking in a what if remade as of todays engineering scenaro, so naturally aimed a blunderbuss to get a heads down to business (ratchetting up isn't my thing) - obviously it got me too as well.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It wasn't only just for your benefit Flyboy, I find this thread quite idea provoking in a what if remade as of todays engineering scenaro, so naturally aimed a blunderbuss to get a heads down to business (ratchetting up isn't my thing) - obviously it got me too as well.

Well that's fine but I'd advise you to keep out of discussions when a mod is involved. Now add to this thread or move on....

 

[Shortround6]

Going back to the origianl post and conditions.

1. Assume that the money is there to make it happen.
2. Assume that the aircraft could be designed again or the original documentation exists for it.
3. Assume that modern avionics, armor, and weaponry may be used
4. Assume that modern production techniques, materials, tooling, and so on, may be used
5. Assume that modest airframe modifications could be made to fit an aircraft to its new role
6. Allowances could be made for a more modern or reliable engine type to be used if necessary, especially for multi-engine types.

We basically have the premise, that regardless of cost, could you make a modern lookalike of a WW II aircraft that could perform modern military roles as well as more modern aircraft.

This rather assumes that few, if any, real advances in aerodynamics or structures has occurred since WWII. It also rather ignores what happens when you replace a 2000lb engine with a less than 1000lb engine. The dry weigh to the engine in the L-29 is about 775lbs and there is no propeller.

For a more up to date aircraft try a newer version

Aero L-159 Alca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a lighter plane empty than a P-47?