Bring Back WW2 Fighters Into Production

[USAFCAPcTSgt]

Had a radical idea.  What would be awesome is for aircraft manufacturers begin buiding new WW2 fighters.  Have them available for both military and civilian use with the latter missing the bells and whistles of making things go boom.

I see that they won't be the original production copies but the improved versions with better composite materials for the airframes and the guts.  80 years of advancements should yield safer materials and lighter materials.  On the outside, they would be identical to the WW2 counterparts, but on the inside, they would be different.

I can imagine Mustangs and Jugs for 5 million dollars apiece with Warhawks and Wildcats for 3 million dollars apiece.  That's based on WW2 prices with inflation value to current prices.  Those figures could be off.

Military would benefit tremendously with a low cost program of supplementing prop aircraft to the Global Force way of thinking.  The high cost of new stealth aircraft and bombers would be transplanted to hundreds of prop fighters in place of one new jet aircraft.  Modern warfare over less industrialized countries should yield more durable aircraft operating from less optimal runways.

1000 P-51s in the sky would be a lethal swarm of both air supierority and ground attack roles.  Even 1000 Corsairs operating from smaller carriers that are mothballed would be an incredible asset to the commanders of naval fleets.

Privately, the air racing industry would be needing replacement aircraft.  Multi-millionaires and milti-billionaires would be wanting the new additions to luxury items of owning these aircraft.

You know that once America starts doing this, then other countries will follow suit.  RAF getting the Spits and Hurris back.  The Luftwaffe getting the 109s, 190s, and maybe some 262s back in the air.  The JDF might decide to bow out with new Zekes. 

Jets suck up too much gas.  Props might be the end result.

[uptown]

Are you on crack?

[guncrasher]

so you think 1,000 people are gonna spend 5 million dollars on a pony or on a private jet with a hot looking stewardess onboard.



midway

[SIK1]

  

Are you on crack?

+1

[GScholz]

Starting in 1991, Yakovlev have been making new Allison-powered Yak-3s (designated Yak-3M) for the warbird market.

Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhizELx4fng

And no, they are not on crack...

[Seadog36]

Yeah, A single seat 150 gallons per hour fuel consumption aircraft. $6/gal. for avgas = $900/hr fuel bill. You can buy a real Pony for $1.7 mil. why would you pay 5 mil for a plastic one? Crack and too much AH.

[Puma44]

 .

[uptown]

Starting in 1991, Yakovlev have been making new Allison-powered Yak-3s (designated Yak-3M) for the warbird market.

Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhizELx4fng

And no, they are not on crack...

You're as silly as homeboy up there. Making a few old fighters for some rich guys to race is one thing. But do you actually think small countries would be wise in buying hundreds or even thousands of these things for homeland defense?
Have ya ever heard of a missile battery or radar guided missiles? With today's advancements in warfare I ...by myself could operate a drone in Little Rock and kill ever single one of these fighter planes thousands of miles away. They wouldn't even see the drone!  Who doesn't know that by now?!   

You can now buy small drones for surveillance for a fraction of the cost of building a pilot operated aircraft. Police forces here in the U.S. are already considering adding them to their inventory of Communist toys to play with. It's not a far reach from there to slap some explosives or missiles on the wings and let her rip.

[Weirdguy]

Flug Werk Fw190A8/N is technically just what this guy said.  They've put the Butcherbird back into production.  The planes they're building in Germany right now are even using continuations of the serial numbers that were stopped at the end of the war.

Granted, the name of the company is now Flug Werk and not Focke-Wulf, and the engines are Russian engines from the LA-7 (or rather a Chinese copy of the Russian LA-7 engine), but the premise is the same.

[RedBull1]

You're telling me you want us to risk 1,000 men in 80 year old obsolete aircraft that would very easily be shot down but just about any modern day A/A fire?

You want a rugged ground attack aircraft? Get an A-10

You want a Carrier able fighter that will still carry a respectable amount of ordinance? Get a F/A-18E/F

You want stealth? We have operational (although in limited numbers) F-22 and 35's

Trying to throw 80 year old aircraft controlled by wires and chains that can carry 3-4K worth of ord in great numbers into a modern war will only end in mass casualties and likely a unsuccessful mission.

For civilian use, for those that have the money, terrific idea, but for any sort of military operation I can think of hell no



Sorry if this came across a bit rude but...have much crack had you ingested at the time of this post sir?   

 

[USAFCAPcTSgt]

Trying to throw 80 year old aircraft controlled by wires and chains that can carry 3-4K worth of ord in great numbers into a modern war will only end in mass casualties and likely a unsuccessful mission.

why would you pay 5 mil for a plastic one?

You guys weren't paying attention.

I see that they won't be the original production copies but the improved versions with better composite materials for the airframes and the guts.  80 years of advancements should yield safer materials and lighter materials.  On the outside, they would be identical to the WW2 counterparts, but on the inside, they would be different.

No 80 year old parts or an exact production copy.  Nothing about plastic.


Drones?


That's what the stealth aircraft do best.  Take out command and communication bunkers.  Even remote stations for drones won't have enough quantity to be effective.

Jets and props work together.  One doesn't replace the other.  When ground pounders look up and see thousands of enemy planes over their heads, they don't have a good day when bombs begin to fall on them.

Avionics have vastly improved over the last 80 years and would be incorporated into the brand new airframes.  Even ejection seats can be modified.  Since WW2 fighter airplanes are much smaller than present day fighter aircraft, they tend to present smaller cross sections to any enemy radars especially given some of that radar resistant paint.

Sound military tactics and strategy. 

The overall strategy is to build thousands and thousands of lethal prop aircraft to make the other guy not to poke the hornet's nest.  Use massive quantity to transform into solid quality.

The cost of present day jet fighters and maintenance are so high.  Smaller friendly countries with less money would turn to the props for a good defense. 

In the event of a total war, prop aircraft would be built faster than the jet aircraft.  Wartime prop aircraft would be more flexible to other materials in construction if shortages became a reality.

You need to think up better arguements.  Crack?  You would have to be on crack to not see the awesome power of putting people to work building WW2 fighters.

[homersipes]

would be cool if I could afford to buy one 

[B3YT]

Never poo poo a prop . The A1 Sky raider was a very very tough aircraft that could carry more ords than a F4 phantom . Many USN aircrew  owe thier lives to A1 sandy pilots .  For close air support Props make sense compared to fast jets .   They only down side would be the prop which would make  it quite visible to radar  but no more than modern fighters .   imagine Mosquitoes  on a bombing raid . damn that would be scary for the bad guys .  a whole squadron flying in at 50ft or less  at 350 mph  with the sound of merlins blasting at them  as they make a strafing run .  Damn it I have to listen to 633 squadron music now.

[Nefarious]

I saw this post and thought Janes WW2 fighters. What a great game.

[The Fugitive]

You guys weren't paying attention.

Your the one not paying attention. They is no reason why the US would take a step backwards to add prop fighters to the inventory. What they have now was all developed to be BETTER than what they had at the time. What a wing of jugs use to do can be done with a single Warthog, and even THAT plane is "obsolete".

For smaller countries to add/build their force, again why? It is just a waste of money. One little country looking to build up and take another small country is only going run into a smarter little country who will instead of buying a bunch of mustangs will buy a few defensive radar/computer controlled missile setups to easily counter them. Even using a thousand P51 wouldn't come close to doing the damage a couple of modern fighters could do.

CV's were built to bring air support closer to the front. You couldn't roll a hundred F6F's and fly them from Hawaii to Japan and back with out lots of stops for fuel, food, and rest. With todays jets not only is it possible to fly it strait, with refueling and the ease of flying todays jets you can do it with ease. CV's are becoming a thing of the past. They won't get rid of them just yet, but they only need them as a show of force. More and more are being used for helo operations than for jets.

As a toy, yes I can see that. There are plenty of people who haven't a clue as to what to do with their money. That is why the Yaks are being built, the 3/4 mustangs and the 190's. Not as military equipment, but as toys.