What WWII aircraft could fulfill uselful modern military rolls?

[razor1uk]

There was a time, well many infact, this and that are the 'new way' and the old ones are dead, like the abbandonment of guns for missles -certainly a more UK Commenwealth thing of late and eary 50's 60's..), or the orignal industrial myopia against turbines in the late 30's.

So if there's to be a rough example of a WW2 A/C that could be re-engineered ala modern, we need some ideas. So far its a toss up between mass production unavailable powerfull piston engines of say over 1600hp at medium altitude.

No real idea of electricals, but hazzarding a guess...

Passive radar warning sensors kit,

3 passive IR sensors (each wing/side tail),

A HF or UHF radio, radio compass and possible GPS,

At least one LCD/'glass' pit plus usual back up instruments,

Some non Microsoft (to stop those 'Windows crashed again, so this plane aint flying' moments...) based hardware and software,

An oxygen generation/recycling system (if it is at all needed) that was not designed or borrowed from the catalogue of those who did the F-22's,

Must be made into 'standard' tricycle - as apparently only civies or show/memorial/historic flights or racers still/mostly fly tail draggers,

Must be albe to have back up reccon or COIN ability (internal or podded external)- to appear more legimate to mil types and/or export market - with modern tech, FLIR/IR (akin to what Police Helo's use) cams, and such could easily be linked the glass display and or maybe via radio burst encoding algorithm up/down-link.

I haven't yet suggested what possble A/C's, for a 'small' A/C, I think a P39/P63 could be a candidate for internal shaft turbine with bifrucated inlets exhaust, but the plane is possbly on a little on the smaller side... scale it up to P47 sized fuz - or turboprop an AH/AD-1 based/sized A/C...

Larger A/C or twins, Me 262 with centmetric radar in nosecone (ala Bluefox sized; as used in Lynx or Hawk.200), with t-props... Tu-2, He-219, B-26, Ki-43, G8M Razan (or was it Fujuko/Fujisan?)...

Anyboddy else want to throw in some things towards generating a spec list...

And for some title typo humour...

Military (Bread) Roll

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One WW2 era aircraft that will never lose its usefulness:

The venerable C-47/DC-3.

 

[gumbyk]

Assuming that for some reason, an airforce would want to reproduce WWII aircraft for modern use, here's the likely scenario (IMO)
1. They would want more power/better reliability - turbo-prop. This would require re-engineering the engine mounts, and relocating the engine further forward (to keep the empty CofG in limits)
2. The wing would become a limiting factor (load factor/performance characteristics/ or simply to increase max. weight to use the extra power) re-engineer wing with modern aerofoil.
3. Control surfaces would have to be re-engineered to remove fabric, as within modern air-forces, these skills don't exist.
4. Crew accommodations would need to be re-designed, as no current crew would fly in something with such basic fit-out (debatable, I know)

So, you're left with an aircraf that is so modified, that it suddenly isn't what you started with.

 

[Oreo]

Some of the airfoils may be problematic, but some of them evidently were not. It all depends what you're trying to do. The Stirling's airfoil was certainly ponderous, and the Beaufighter's airfoil may have held it back a tad. They redesigned the Typhoon into the Tempest with a much thinner wing and only gained a slight speed increase. Ditto P-39 to P-63.

Anyway, one thing about this thread, is that I started it with the idea in mind to let our imaginations be productive, not counterproductive. We are not in the position of saying, "ok, lads, here we are in the real world, and we must find a solution to some problems we have, and we are actually going to build a plane to do it." No, we are actually dreaming a bit here. My version of reality for the hypothesis of the thread is this: These things are not at all likely to happen, but they could happen."

Along those lines, we also have the ability to do the following things in our musings:

1. Reinstate production lines based on old design drawings, or reconstitute the drawings by filling in the gaps with what info we do possess

2. Also reinstate older engine types as need be, making new production lines to build them. We may also modify these engines or replace them in any way that makes sense, even building "newly-designed" piston engines if need be, eg, diesel versions.

3. We can constitute whatever programs are necessary to properly train pilots and other personnel to operate and maintain these aircraft.

4. We can make structural and/or material enhancements to improve strength, reliability, functionability, or reduce weight.

5. More leeway is given for engine selection for multi-engined a/c since the powerplant is a smaller percentage of its aerodynamic design and identity. A Spitfire with a turboprop just isn't exactly a Spitfire anymore, is it? However, a Mosquito with turboprops is not so great of a change.

Now I want to concentrate less on the "would it ever happen" and more on "what modern roles could such aircraft fill?"

 

[Shortround6]

Your example fo the Typhoon/Tempest bears looking into. A Typhoon with a 2200 hp engine ( rounded down a bit) could do about 355mph at sea level. A tempest with the same engine could do about 375mph. As you say not a big change, except according to the cube root law the Typhoon would have needed about 2600hp to go 375mph at sea level. Cutting drag can do a lot of good things.

Your own post is at odds with itself:

"We are not in the position of saying, "ok, lads, here we are in the real world, and we must find a solution to some problems we have, and we are actually going to build a plane to do it."

"Also reinstate older engine types as need be, making new production lines to build them. We may also modify these engines or replace them in any way that makes sense, even building "newly-designed" piston engines if need be, eg, diesel versions."

Which is it, "We are not in the position.." or "modify these engines or replace them in any way that makes sense[/I]"?

For example, from a 1992 edition of Jane's I would bring up the GE CT-9C Turbo prop.

Dry weight......................795lbs.
Max T-0........................1750hp
Max Cruise at 15,000ft.....1499hp

The last includes exhaust thrust and maybe subject to question. Power core is the engine used in the Blackhawk and Apache Helicopters, amongst others. Specific fuel consumption of the parent engines is under 0.47lbs per hp/hr. at continuous ratings of 1662hp at sea level. Earlier versions were used the Saab 340 and others:Saab 340 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice the 290mph cruise at 25,000ft for a 37 passenger airliner. That is best (long) range cruise. Max Cruise is 325mph at 15,000ft. Range with 35 passengers and baggage, reserves for a 45 minute hold at 5,000ft AND a 115mile diversion is 945 miles at max cruise and 1123miles at long range cruise. Swapping 5 passangers and baggage for fuel increases the range to 1509 miles at long range cruise with the same reserves. Plane will hold 850 US gallons with full tanks. Granted this is an airliner and not stressed for combat maneuvers.

Try substituting that engine for a Merlin, no radiators either..

Or try the P&WC PW100 series. Dry weights go from 861 to 1060lbs, T-O power range from 1800 to 2750shp. (as of 1992). max cruise range from 1512 to 2134shp. fuel consumption is about 0.50 at max continuous (give or take a bit), used in aircraft like the: ATR 72 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shortround6]

Continuing into the crazy the Allison/RR GMA 2100 shows what the big turbo props could do. based off the power section used in the V-22 Osprey the dry weight of one version was 1548lbs for a T-O rating of 6,000hp. SFC of 0.41lb/h/shp. Some of these with 6 bladed propellers are used on the C-130J.

Stick four on a B-29. double the power and save over 2 tons of weight.

Many turbo props are "flat rated", unlike old piston engines that are rated at a standard temperature and pressure and under hot/high conditions power falls off, the turbine engines have torque sensors and are under rated. when the throttle is opened the the sensors work through the management system to limit the power delivered to a pre-determined value. If the sensors show that the engine is not reaching the rated power the fuel delivery is increased until it does ( up to a certain point) so instead of a turbo prop delivering, say 1200hp at sea level ant 15 degrrees C and falling off as it climbs like a piston engine, the turbo will be rated for 1200hp at up to 32 degrees C and/or up to certain altitude for instance, actual limits depend on engine model. Some turbo props are also allowed an 'emergency' power level. Some twins have interconnected power management so if one engine fails the other automatically gives another 100hp or so over the "normal max rating".


As an Idea of what could/has happened when redoing a WW II era aircraft with turbine engines see: BT-67 Overview

Note the 515lb weight for the engines replacing the over 1400lb P&W R-1830 engines. One reason for the 40in fuselage extension?

If you are trying to make any sense at all, nobody is going back to big piston engines, gas or diesel.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Many turbo props are "flat rated", unlike old piston engines that are rated at a standard temperature and pressure and under hot/high conditions power falls off, the turbine engines have torque sensors and are under rated. when the throttle is opened the the sensors work through the management system to limit the power delivered to a pre-determined value. If the sensors show that the engine is not reaching the rated power the fuel delivery is increased until it does ( up to a certain point) so instead of a turbo prop delivering, say 1200hp at sea level ant 15 degrrees C and falling off as it climbs like a piston engine, the turbo will be rated for 1200hp at up to 32 degrees C and/or up to certain altitude for instance, actual limits depend on engine model. Some turbo props are also allowed an 'emergency' power level. Some twins have interconnected power management so if one engine fails the other automatically gives another 100hp or so over the "normal max rating".

Also remember that you are monitoring engine torque which also comes into the measurment. On older turboprop aircraft a slide rule sometimes measured parameters and gave you "go - no go" numbers.

 

[OldManP]

Well dad'gum, this is/was quite the discussion...the kind i had hoped would pick up in the Modern Skyraider thread. But to add to the fun here, I would agree mostly with razor1uk concerning the equipment:

-But I would say 5 passive IR sensors

-Multiple (4+) radios (capable of 30MHz to 2000 MHz) with an array of additional capabilities

-Datalinks (SADL/Link 16)

-Would not restrict the 'glass' cockpit to one, but maximize to all crew positions

-Agree with visual/ir sensor(s), but disagree with offboarding it, no need for radioburst--other capabilities exist with better quality/framerate/bandwidth/distance received


Medium size A/C: Douglas A-26

 

[meatloaf109]

One WW2 era aircraft that will never lose its usefulness:

The venerable C-47/DC-3.

Got one more, the PBY Catalina.

 

[OldManP]

I was told, at one point in my life, that one reason that seaplanes lost their "luster" was b/c of their needed upkeep and tendency for rust/corrosion due to seawater. Figuring today's composites and lubrication/treatments could reduce this drastically...sounded like a good reason to bring 'em back! I'm game!

+1 for the Catalina...was that the plane in the show "Tails of the Golden Monkey"?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Got one more, the PBY Catalina.

In what role where it could operate economically and effectively?

 

[OldManP]

CSG (Fleet) Defense. Port security. Island/Remote site airlift transport. Rescue

 

[meatloaf109]

Tales of the Gold Monkey, that was a Grumman Goose.
FBJ, I was thinking rescue mostly...But I think OMP nailed it.