Modern day propeller fighter - hypothetical

"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.

John Keeney wrote:

snip

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.

A couple of alternatives for the centerline gun

- Through the prop hub as per WWII engine mounted guns (wasn't the original
idea for a 20mm Birket/hispano like this from WWI?).

- Rear engine as per some studies for CAS in the 80s, BA?

Or both as per Dornier 335, hmmm 2 x Bear engines (15,000hp each) might be a
bit much. Or maybe the Voyager idea of 2 different powers, one small for
cruise efficiency and range with a bigger one for combat (oil etc
preheated). The cruise engine optimised for cruise at FL300+ should give
good range together with some protection from flak and being bounced (A
nice preliminary study for a mere 100K, recommending a more detailed
study).

For combat alpha and beta pitch could be used on one or two to control
acceleration/deceleration without spool up time. Single power lever of
course.

The main limit to power would probably be prop problems with precession
during violent manouvering being only one.

Radar could be wing mounted with electronic correction for night/cloud
sighting.

Trike gear would be essential even for a single engine, the ground loop rate
was bad enough at WWII p/w ratios let alone with p/w x 2+ and the sort of
ground angle required by biggerprops. A Pitts with 1,000hp might be a bit
of a handfull.

I suspect 300M might be a bit low for development now. The Australian Wamira
trainer from the early 80's chewed up AUD70M before cancellation before
flight, there were many reasons spec changes being the main one To give one
exanple, had to be side by side, had to be tandem, other people might want
the other so has to be either!!!. Instead the PC9 (pre Texan II) was
bought, this is roughly equivalent to the Bf109A, Spit 1, P40A in
performance.

AFAIK the PC9 and Texan II are loosely derived from the Bf109, although no
common parts, the chain went, Bf109 begat the lower powered PC3 trainer
(cheaper to operate and better manners) then the PC7, PC9 and Texan II went
through an incremental process of desired handling and MORE GRUNT.

regards

jc

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 02:07:05 +1100, wrote:

John Keeney wrote:

snip

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.

A couple of alternatives for the centerline gun

- Through the prop hub as per WWII engine mounted guns (wasn't the original
idea for a 20mm Birket/hispano like this from WWI?).

- Rear engine as per some studies for CAS in the 80s, BA?

Or both as per Dornier 335, hmmm 2 x Bear engines (15,000hp each) might be a
bit much.

I imagine it might be a bit large too :-)

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:37:38 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:


Or both as per Dornier 335, hmmm 2 x Bear engines (15,000hp each) might be a
bit much.

I imagine it might be a bit large too :-)

Make for interesting an interesting piece of flying boom refuelling also.


greg

--
In the beginning. Back in nineteen fifty-five
Man didn’t know about a rock ’n’ roll show
And all that jive.

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 02:07:05 +1100, wrote:

John Keeney wrote:

snip

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.

A couple of alternatives for the centerline gun

- Through the prop hub as per WWII engine mounted guns (wasn't the original
idea for a 20mm Birket/hispano like this from WWI?).

- Rear engine as per some studies for CAS in the 80s, BA?

Or both as per Dornier 335, hmmm 2 x Bear engines (15,000hp each) might be a
bit much.

I imagine it might be a bit large too :-)

Just how long would the main gear have to be?