![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Nev" wrote in message ... Some of the latest developments in propeller aircraft has fascinated me. It also brought up an interesting hypothetical question; mostly when reading about modern day warbird replicas. With relatively easily available technology off the shelf (no rail guns or laser cannon please). Lets say a reasonable development budget of oh say $300 million. The question is are we capable of producing superior prop aircraft than the great fighters of WWII and what configuration would it take? Su we have nearly sixty years of additional power, aerodynamic, explosive, fusing, gun, electronics and materials research to draw upon. To keep the discussion relatively focused we'll put in a couple of rules: 1. Mission: Air superiority/dominance during WWII. Land based. It should be able to clear the skies of any and all opposition at all ranges and altitudes. 2. Must be a propeller aircraft. I assume you mean to allow turboprops. If you stick to piston engined planes you'll blow your budget trying to recreate the engine base. 3. Only armanent allowed are guns/cannons. No guided missiles. I guess dumb firing rockets will be ok since they were used during WWII. With the above two exceptions all of modern technology is allowed to be used for example composite materials, radars, titanium armour, fly-by-wire (will dynamic instability benefit the agility of a prop plane?) advanced aerodynamic configurations (rear mounted engines). Gun sights tied to radars and computers would be "death dot" types. Gatling gun or high speed revolver would shred any WWII fighter in a second. To make matters really intesting helicopters are fine. Just as long as the driving force isn't a jet. Helicopters are not suitable for the mission: less than half the needed speed. If we were to design a new prop, gun armed aircrafy would it essentially look pretty similar to a carbon fibre, turbo-prop P-51 Mustang or would it be some bizzare split wing, dual rear engined travesty? Depends on who does the designing: Rutan would make something bizarre. I'ld guess you'd end up with an all weather plane between a P-38 and P-61 in size. Likely twin turbo prop to free up the center line for radar and the gun. Slightly sweep wing and aerodynamics to give a top speed something better than 550mph. Engines and pilot virtually proofed against any air fighter guns of the period and the rest pretty robust. Boom & zoom tactics, blast one and blow through, reposition and repeat. Superior speed and targeting makes it mighty attractive. Or heck, something bigger but with a CIWS or two mounted, then you would even have to point the nose at'em. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Questions Regarding Becoming a Marine Fighter Pilot. ? Thanks! | Lee Shores | Military Aviation | 23 | December 11th 03 10:49 PM |
Veteran fighter pilots try to help close training gap | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 2nd 03 10:09 PM |
Sensenich W72CK-42 propeller for sale | Steven P. McNicoll | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 18th 03 03:02 AM |
A-4 / A-7 Question | Tank Fixer | Military Aviation | 135 | October 25th 03 03:59 AM |
Joint Russian-French 5th generation fighter? | lihakirves | Military Aviation | 1 | July 5th 03 01:36 AM |