Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BlueJ1 on September 28, 2006, 06:32:59 PM

Title: Aviation question
Post by: BlueJ1 on September 28, 2006, 06:32:59 PM

Shortly following WWII prop engine fighters were quickly being replaced by jet engines and left behind for other types of aircraft. Is this because prop engine aircraft had reached it's pinicle? Or did prop engine fighters still have room to grow if jet engines hadnt been realized so soon?

Title: Aviation question
Post by: DiabloTX on September 28, 2006, 06:34:14 PM

Yes to both.

Title: Aviation question
Post by: Chairboy on September 28, 2006, 06:39:26 PM

If the jet hadn't come along, it's likely that prop development would have advanced to wankel rotary engines.  Jets offered high performance and fuel flexibility that props couldn't match for military, especially when coupled with turboprops.

General aviation never really commanded the type of money needed to fund concentrated development the way the military could, that's why the Cessnas and Pipers and whatnot all use basically late 1930s/early 1940s technology for their engines.

Title: Aviation question
Post by: Debonair on September 28, 2006, 06:42:06 PM

the postwar F4U-5 certainly outperformed the -4 as far as piston engines props go, i'd like to see what they could have gotten out of a turboprop Corsair:O :O

Title: Aviation question
Post by: BlueJ1 on September 28, 2006, 06:48:10 PM

Another question,

It seems that helicoptors are going no where fast. Meaning besides new gadgets and weapons there dosnt seem to be any real major advances. Am I right in saying this?

Title: Aviation question
Post by: Debonair on September 28, 2006, 06:49:51 PM

going nowhere is what choppers are best at

Title: Aviation question
Post by: Chairboy on September 28, 2006, 07:05:41 PM

Check out the Carter Copter:
http://www.cartercopters.com/

Title: Aviation question
Post by: Toad on September 28, 2006, 07:08:33 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
, that's why the Cessnas and Pipers and whatnot all use basically late 1930s/early 1940s technology for their engines.

Somewhat.

It's also because of lawyers.

Title: Aviation question
Post by: Dux on September 28, 2006, 07:17:33 PM

Quote

Originally posted by BlueJ1
Another question,

It seems that helicoptors are going no where fast. Meaning besides new gadgets and weapons there dosnt seem to be any real major advances. Am I right in saying this?

True helicopters are limited in speed (about 200 kias) because of retreating-blade stall (google it if you're interested)... that's why tilt-rotors and the like are in development.

Title: Aviation question
Post by: storch on September 28, 2006, 07:31:13 PM

the australians developed what was arguably the best ever piston engined fighter in the CA-15 Kangaroo.

Grumman had the F8F Bearcat and the F7F Tigercat

North American had the P-51H and the P-82

SAAB had the S-21A

DeHavilland had the Hornet

Hawker had the Fury and the Sea Fury

Supermarine had the Griffon Spitfires

Chance Vought had the F4U-7 and The AU-1s

Douglas had the AD-1 Skyraider

LaGG had the La-9 which was an absolute monster

these immediately come to mind