Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on November 12, 2001, 06:25:00 AM
-
Ever wonder about that?
Take all the knowledge gained in WW2 and adding modern advances in engine power, computers, prop design, lighwieght composites, airframe, constuction and systems design then build a "WW2 style" gun armed piston engine fighter. What could we do?
Any ideas what this thing would perform or even look like?
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
i bet if the US did it the plane would look NOTHING like a WWII fighter. I'm guessing it would look more like a stealth bomber but smaller. the plane would probably fly at 800mph.(just a guess)
-
HIA!
Maybe be A-10 Warthog with props?
But be warned, it would gave a glass-tail :D
Andreas (JV44)
... I love the A-10, here in Germany I live near a airbase (Noervenich) whey they be. The sound of the engines and their tight turns in the mountain area here are unbeatable :)
-
What are the limitations?
Sensors?
robotics?
Proximity fused or guided rounds?
What would a modern Merlin or Db605 look like..
How much HP could they generate in how small a package now? How would it be turboed?
Very few advances applied directly to large piston engines for Air craft usage that I know of. Looking at what they have achieved in tank engines though it leads me to belive that they could make a Griffon look pretty mediocre if they wanted too.
-
a Titanium Chaing Lightning with 4000HP engines and meeeeaaan 20mm Gatling on nose, fly-by-wire and all nifty avionics and automatic Ch1 Whinin' Betty AI.
:D
-
It wouldn't be a fighter.. it'd be a ground attack plane... and it'd be called the Ov10 Bronco.
AKDejaVu
-
"Seventh Carrier" anyone? I really laughed at the Zeke with 4000hp engine, was it in 5th or 6th book?
;)
-
The late war WW2 prop fighters were about as advanced as you can go with reciprocating engines...
Just look on how long F4Us were actually in ACTIVE service ! And then was another big radial engine powered bird that was in wide use and actaully developed after the war,the A-1 Skyraider..
But as far as speed and performance they'd be no better than their WW2 counter parts, they'd be more reliable, carry more stuff and be more surviveable but that's as far as it goes.
Cheers
DW6
-
they achieved perfection in the 40's
(http://pages.prodigy.net/jollyrogercain/_uimages/pages.prodigy.net/jollyrogercain/.wi_Sparky%20P-51.jpg)
can't do much better than that
<G,D,R>
:D
-
I know your goal santa.
He wanna make FW190A8 put into it new engine and then he will flame HT that A8 FM is crap because he have own A8 and this one flying better :D :D
-
Because of limitations with propellers, performance wouldn't be much better than late 40's planes like the F8F, Spiteful, AD-1 Skyraider and similar aircraft.
I agree though, if the USAF built one, they'd make an ugly POS with crappy performance that costs 10 times whatever anyone else is using, then be afraid to use it in combat because it might get shot down.
J_A_B
-
Top speed is going to run into the same limits that air racers or post-WWII prop fighters ran into. But maneuverability, climb, acceleration, etc. would all be far better than WWII planes if there was a serious (I mean like ATF or ATB) development program. I imagine they could build something the size of a Bearcat with about 1/2 the empty weight and maybe 5 times the horsepower. It would need a lot of props though. :)
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Must have copied the url for the wrong plane Pugg :) This would have been the penultimate USAAF/USN prop plane:
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/xp72-1.jpg)
Westy
-
My Guess It would look like something Burt Rutan builds.
You cant go much faster today with props than they did in the 40s. Nobody has invented the SuperSonic Prop yet. The Big savings might be in weight. Also Piston Engines might be slightly more efficent thus smaller. Still, If its going to have any reliablity, its not going to have a huge increase in HP. I would expect range to improve also.
-
Take everything that worked on a Mustang, marry it to a Piper Cub, roll 'em into a hanger, turn out the lights and leave a 2000hp turboprop hangin in the attic; leave 'em be fer a coupla months.
'Wallah!'
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p51-25.jpg)
Piper Enforcer. Circa 1982.
-
They have a wierd looking turboprop propellor. It looks like little blades on the outside of jet engine.
-
(http://www.kitparade.com/features00/images/images_7/xp72mm1.jpg)
XP-72 SuperBolt. 28 cylinder Pratt & Whitney Wasp Major radial engine generating 3,500 HP with a top speed somewhere above 500 MPH. 2 3 bladed contra-rotating props. Armament of either 6 .50 cal or 4 37mm cannon. :D
-
Ahem,
For what it's worth. The 500 MPH mark is the current holy grail at reno for interested unlimited warbird owners / pilots. This is with a HIGHLY modified tuned to the gills mustang. Last I heard Rare Bear wasn't going for it. As far as I know it hasn't been done yet in level flight over a marked course.
As another said earlier, given te limitations of propellers and airframe drag performance in 2001 won't be much better than in WW2 particularly when you figure the "stuff" you need to actually fight with instead of just go fast around a race course.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Remember that those Reno racers are still using WWII technology. There are a lot of good people working on those engines but they don't have the budgets to do REAL development. It's still souped up surplus war equipment. There is a lot of room for improvment if they could start with a blank sheet of paper and a few billions dollars.
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
eaglec wrote:
I know your goal santa.
He wanna make FW190A8 put into it new engine and then he will flame HT that A8 FM is crap because he have own A8 and this one flying better
<Stops working on "Project 1">
<thinks>
Damn.
Orel knows. He's also figured out why I'm always low on cash.
</thinks>
That's ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE orel. I'd never even conceive such an idea :D
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: StSanta ]
-
well, I'm damned sure it would be a 7000 perk in AH, whatever it is :D
Didnt the british work in a piston engine called "Crecy" during WWII?. IIRC that little toejamty thing had an output of 3500hp in an engine the size and weight of a merlin :eek:
-
Originally posted by J_A_B:
........then be afraid to use it in combat because it might get shot down.
J_A_B
:confused:
Tumor
-
Who in his right mind would go for a complicated and heavy piston engine anyway when turboprops of literally any power output required are available? No hussle with multistage turbos - full power available all the time. Twin engines for survivability and to accomodate nose mounted gatling and Bob's your uncle - an ultimate prop driven fighter with quite possible thrust/weight >1... ;)
-
I can't tell you how many times I've wondered that, too. In an age of composites, computer/robotic equipment, CAD and such, you'd think we'd all be flying around in modern day P-51s and such. I know I sit back, watch the old planes on the WINGS channel and think "I wonder if they'd sell me one?".
Problem is, far and wide, cost and liability. Sure, P-51s are nice, but go check out how expensive it is to insure something as lowly as a Cessna.
I still daydream and visit sites like www.viper-aircraft.com (http://www.viper-aircraft.com) and others. I'd love to own a warbird someday, but the cost to FLY and cost to MAINTAIN/Service are huge.
But, in my daydreams, I'm a gazillionaire, arent you? :D
-
Dago Red lost an engine last year after the final race at Reno, as Skip Holm prepared to go for 500 MPH, after clocking 489 MPH earlier in the week. While the Reno unlimited class planes are W.W.II based, they are heavily modified. Only most of the very basic structure remains, the rest is either replaced or so heavily modified it is barely recognizeable. Of course, due to the events of 11 September, this year's Reno races were canceled because no VFR flights were allowed.
There are several factors restricting the piston engine prop driven planes. Horsepower really isn't one of them. Most of it is due to propellers. The technology of prop driven piston engine powered planes pretty well topped out during the war. The planes that won the trophy for the next few years were mostly P-39's with P-38 engines, and the P-39 held most records for years.
Horsepower isn't much of a problem for radial powered planes, but the radial engine creates a great deal of drag because of size and cooling needs. The Republic engineers had turned up the boost on the P-47 engine enough to make 3500 horsepower back in 1943, and run it that way for 24 hours straight.
It isn't a big problem for some inline Vee engines either. When I was working in tractor pulling, we had Allison engines making over 3000 horsepower at 60" of manifold pressure, and running with only oil and spark plug changes for an entire season. We did this with only the built in crankdriven centrifugal supercharger, and not the turbochargers like the P-38 used (the P-38 was the only Allison powered plane to use turbochargers, and that is why it ran well at high altitudes). Now I'm not as sure about the Merlin engines, we never ran them, they seemed to be less durable to me. I have no experience with the Griffon. There are still a few tractors using the Allison engine, and they are competitive, which tells me they are making well over 4000 horsepower.
Being a seriously devoted race engine builder with some Allison experience, I'd say you could get 4500 reliable horspower from an Allison set up like the P-38 installation by using normal techniques like headwork (bigger and better valves, porting and polishing), increasing the compression ratio, and using new technology camshafts. You'd need to replace the carb with fuel injection, and use a newer technology turbocharger too.
The problem is getting a prop to harness the power. You'd need at the very least a counter rotating four blade twin prop setup. Those things are terribly complex and relatively fragile. These are the problems that faced engineers after W.W.II, and caused many problems with prop driven bombers. The complex gear boxes with hollow shafts and reduction ratios just could not take the power. I'm sure that with the advances in metallurgy and engineering gear boxes and hubs could now be built. But they'd be very expensive. Another thing about those gear boxes is that they would be fairly large and heavy, creating weight and drag problems.
I'm not real sure what the rules on those things are at Reno (if I had a real warbird I'd be playing with it and not posting here, besides, I'd say it would be real hard to have a plane you could fly AND race successfully). The planes at Reno rely a great deal on donations and sponsors to keep them running, and there is very little to be won in the way of money. The only exposure a sponsor gets is at the race, and on a rare cable TV clip. Except possibly some aircraft magazines. Money is very short, so development is limited.
The critical Mach on most of the original airframes was between .67 and .80, so aerodynamics may not be a huge factor, but it does contribute. Several could be controllable in a dive approaching 600 MPH, so the basic airframes could likely get the job done. Mostly it is a matter of drag. One sure sign of how big a factor drag is would be that several of these planes were able to reach speeds of around 450 MPH in level flight at critical altitude.
Renegade Savage
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Renegade Savage ]
-
By the way, last year at the PRI show there was a beautiful V 12 engine designed for aircraft and marine use on display. It was normally aspirated and fuel injected, and made over 2000 horspower. If it is there again this year, I'm going to get some information on it. The damned thing was sexy. Not as sexy as the Allsions I saw on a pulling tractor this Spring, but it was nice.
Renegade Savage
-
Something else I saw when I read back through this thread. There was a prop driven plane in development at one time that had two counter rotating props and was very fast. It had the reliability problems I mentioned above, although it was very fast. It did have a couple of other serious problems. Evidently the props exceeded the speed of sound, and they were extremely noisy. They were so noisy that they had trouble measuring the noise in decibels at the time. The other problem was that the sound of the plane (due to the props and engine) made people physically ill, in fact violently ill. Ground crew reported that they got sick enough to suffer the dreaded "dry heaves" for quite some time. The cockpit noise was truly deafening, the pilots also got sick and temporarily deaf, and were severely hampered by the noise. Communication was nearly impossible. Sounds like fun.
Renegade Savage
-
Savage,
Your probably thinking of the Falconer(sp?) V-12. I beleive it was devoloped for the thunder mustang.
Try this link for information on each. http://www.thundermustang.com/ (http://www.thundermustang.com/)
Grimm
-
Grimm,
I've seen the Falconer, which is basically 1 and 1/2 400 CID small block Chevy engines. The one I saw last year is different. It made over 2000 horsepower normally aspirated. I hope they'll be back with it this year, I'll be there in three weeks, for my favorite weekend trip of the year.
Renegade Savage
-
This thread got me thinking about a few things.
I figure top speed at altitudes over 20K could approach 550 MPH, maybe more, due to increased horsepower, better props, reduced weight, and lower drag.
The increase in climb rate, turn rate, ceiling, and payload could be sizeable too.
In all honesty, other than a toy (albeit a real nice toy), it wouldn't be real useful. It would probably still be too slow and too vulnerable. Low altitude speed would probably still be limited to just over 500 MPH, and it would still be vulnerable to heat seeking and radar guided weapons. Having enough fuel to be able to loiter would likely make it too have and large to be fast or effective.
Renegade Savage
-
Savage,
What is the PRI Show????? :)
-
Originally posted by Grimm:
Savage,
What is the PRI Show????? :)
The Performance Racing Industry trade show. Kind of like the SEMA show in Vegas, but this one is in Indy. You have to be in the racing industry in some way to get in. I go every year, and drool incessantly. The "kid in the candy store" syndrome. Very few high performance manufacturers are absent from this show. Several of them do work with aircraft engines. This is my vacation weekend for the year.
Renegade Savage
-
Originally posted by Renegade Savage:
The Performance Racing Industry trade show.
Renegade Savage
Dang, That sounds like Fun! You sould either post up a report or Email it to me. Id really enjoy hearing about it.
GrimmRP@Centurytel.net
-
12-bladed prop, ultra-rugged fixed landing gear, 21st century camouflage scheme. Two wings! Now, for the first time, we present: the Mess o' Schmidt
(http://home.earthlink.net/~dccowan/torque.jpg)