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.


Why is being prop-driven a requirement, afraid the people on the ground
will fall asleep during aircraft operations? Using a prop limits the
aircraft to much lower airspeeds than current fighters. I think there's
been one or two exotic birds that have operated about Mach 1

Why not build an air-superiority fighter with an open cockpit?

--

Scott
--------
Monitor the latest efforts of "peaceful Muslims" at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

In article ,
(Nev) wrote:

The question is are we capable of producing
superior prop aircraft than the great fighters of WWII..?


probably not.

new prop planes have been designed for modern air forces, but these are
made to different specifications. these planes might be used for
missions that require slow speeds, such as reconnaissance. or they are
built for low-budget customers- not at all the high performance
machines that you are looking for.

the task then becomes a question of engineering man-hours. you would
begin by identifying modern materials and devices that are superior to
what existed 60 years ago. this is the easy part.

then you would have to start designing and testing ways to use your
21st century technology for this 20th century application. that would
be the hard part.

let's say you actually did this, hired a team of good engineers to
spend millions of dollars on the question and started manufacturing the
results. the odds are that your effort would still fall short.

during wwii, the best minds of the entire world were devoted to this
question. the large scale use of these planes allowed a great deal of
trial-and-error refinement. there would be no similar opportunity in
the modern world.

to get the real-world testing, you would have to hypnotize everyone on
the planet to forget jet technology, but to not forget any other
technology that might contribute to this issue. then get everyone in a
big war again so you can sit back and observe the results.

the question rapidly becomes too silly to consider.

On 2 Dec 2003 20:05:13 -0800, (Nev) wrote:

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.

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.

Take one Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprop giving 14,795 shp as used in the
Tupolev 95 Bear. With four engines the Bear gave: 575 mph (925 km/h)
Ceiling: 39,370 ft (12000 m) For a single engine fighter, it should be
able to cruise climbing straight up. An even more mind boggling
configuration would be two NK-12MV's in a twin boom design, a la the
P-38.

The real value of this design would be using the TU-95's transonic
counter-rotating propellers, which probably provide an upper limit on
speed.

Come to think of it, the single engine version would probably resemble
the Convair XFY-1, Pogo. POWERPLANT: One Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop
(which consisted of two T38 turboprops coupled together) driving a
pair of Curtiss-Wright 16-foot three-bladed contra-rotaing propellers
in the nose.

Specifications of Convair XFY-1 Pogo: (From
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/fypogo.html)

Engines: One Allison XT40-A-6 turboprop, rated at 5500 shp. Projected
performance with the 6955 ehp XT40-A-16: Maximum speed: 610 mph at
15,000 feet, 592 mph at 35,000 feet. Initial climb rate 10,500
feet/minute. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 2.7
minutes, 30,000 feet in 4.6 minutes. Service ceiling 43,700 feet.
Endurance was one hour at 35,000 feet. Weights: 11,760 pounds empty,
16,250 pounds gross. Dimensions: wingspan 27 feet 7 3/4 inches, length
34 feet 11 3/4 inches, vertical span 22 feet 11 inches, wing area 355
square feet. Armament was to have consisted of four 20-mm cannon or 48
2 3/4 FFARs


John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

In article ,
(John Bailey) wrote:

On 2 Dec 2003 20:05:13 -0800, (Nev) wrote:

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.

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.

Take one Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprop giving 14,795 shp as used in the
Tupolev 95 Bear. With four engines the Bear gave: 575 mph (925 km/h)
Ceiling: 39,370 ft (12000 m) For a single engine fighter, it should be
able to cruise climbing straight up. An even more mind boggling
configuration would be two NK-12MV's in a twin boom design, a la the
P-38.

The real value of this design would be using the TU-95's transonic
counter-rotating propellers, which probably provide an upper limit on
speed.

A better config for a "modern" prop fighter could be a very beefy
version of the Japanese Shinden interceptor. Pusher prop, swept wing,
canard. A larger version of this, with a 20mm gatling in the belly and
a radar in the nose?

http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/shinden/

Scale that sucker up by 50% or so in each direction, put a big engine
and some weapons in it, and there ya go...

If you're in love with a twin boom aircraft, dig out the plans for the
P-61 Black Widow. Lots of room for guns (it already has a radome and a
seat for an operator), extremely good handling for a plane that size,
and you could even keep the turret with a minigun or two.

Stick a couple of 20 mm gatlings in the belly, crank up some advanced
engines (modern turboprops would give it about *five* times as much
power), and have fun.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"John Bailey" wrote in message
...
On 2 Dec 2003 20:05:13 -0800, (Nev) wrote:

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.

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.

Take one Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprop giving 14,795 shp as used in
the
Tupolev 95 Bear. With four engines the Bear gave: 575 mph (925 km/h)
Ceiling: 39,370 ft (12000 m) For a single engine fighter, it should
be
able to cruise climbing straight up. An even more mind boggling
configuration would be two NK-12MV's in a twin boom design, a la the
P-38.

The real value of this design would be using the TU-95's transonic
counter-rotating propellers, which probably provide an upper limit
on
speed.


Those sorts of performances I think were achievable with piston
engines.

The Luft46 web site lists a few German pusher prop aircraft that were
projected as replacements for then current Lufwaffe aircraft.
Achieving as much as 584 mph on an ordinary 1750HP Jumo 213 V12 piston
engine seems to have been accepted.

This scimitar prop aircraft is one of the fastest at 584mph.
http://www.luft46.com/dornier/dop252.html

The advantage would be fuel efficiency and the lack of refractory
alloys needed for the engine. The cost of making high octane fuel is
exorbitant compared to make Jet fuel.

I recall seeing GE tested scimitar shaped pusher prop engines, I think
it was on a 727.

From: "The Enlightenment"

snip

I recall seeing GE tested scimitar shaped pusher prop engines, I think
it was on a 727.

I seem to recall it being on the right engine of a DC-9. I wonder what became
of that idea.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:

From: "The Enlightenment"

snip

I recall seeing GE tested scimitar shaped pusher prop engines, I think
it was on a 727.

I seem to recall it being on the right engine of a DC-9. I wonder what became
of that idea.

I remember what may be the same picture, a DC-9 fitted with a high-bypass
turbofan, and multiple scimitar-shaped fan blades extending from the
first-stage fan. Damned if I can find it now, though. Nothing like it so
far on the NASA Dryden site. Any other ideas?

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/

In article ,
George Ruch wrote:

(B2431) wrote:

From: "The Enlightenment"

snip

I recall seeing GE tested scimitar shaped pusher prop engines, I think
it was on a 727.

I seem to recall it being on the right engine of a DC-9. I wonder what became
of that idea.

I remember what may be the same picture, a DC-9 fitted with a high-bypass
turbofan, and multiple scimitar-shaped fan blades extending from the
first-stage fan. Damned if I can find it now, though. Nothing like it so
far on the NASA Dryden site. Any other ideas?

The one thing I can remember about the program was that the suckers were
too loud to fly over most cities in the US.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

George Ruch wrote:

I remember what may be the same picture, a DC-9 fitted with a
high-bypass turbofan, and multiple scimitar-shaped fan blades
extending from the first-stage fan. Damned if I can find it now,
though. Nothing like it so far on the NASA Dryden site. Any other
ideas?

They called in an unducted fan or ultra-high bypass turbofan.

Pictures:

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rarebird/0809.html

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/NASM/Img0052.jpg

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:11:57 -0700, George Ruch
wrote:

I remember what may be the same picture, a DC-9 fitted with a high-bypass
turbofan, and multiple scimitar-shaped fan blades extending from the
first-stage fan. Damned if I can find it now, though. Nothing like it so
far on the NASA Dryden site. Any other ideas?

We put ours on the spine of the Jetstar and drove it with bleed air.

That DC-9 you recall probably belonged to GE, which has a test
facility in Mojave.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer