PDA

View Full Version : Modern Props vs WW2 fighters



hughlb2
07-18-2004, 04:39 AM
How do modern high performance props like the Pilatus PC7 or PC9 compare to WW2 fighters?

Would current designs produce an effective fighter in WW2?

hughlb2
07-18-2004, 04:39 AM
How do modern high performance props like the Pilatus PC7 or PC9 compare to WW2 fighters?

Would current designs produce an effective fighter in WW2?

Chuck_Older
07-18-2004, 07:19 AM
Advances in materials, particlulary in composites such as carbon fiber structures, and improvements in metalurgy, fuel metering, CNC machining, aerodynamics, control surfaces (there's actually work going on right now to make wings change shape without moving parts) and non-destructive testing would allow the fabrication of a WWII type design built today, that would make any actual WWII design look like a paper airplane tied to a cinderblock.

*****************************
Killers in America work seven days a week
~ Clash

OldMan____
07-18-2004, 07:30 AM
Look for Embraer ALX( also known as Super Tucano).
Propeller combat plane from Brazil, .. sidewinders and piranhas rox !!!! 570 Km/h sea level

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

Snuffy Smith
07-18-2004, 09:00 AM
"there's actually work going on right now to make wings change shape without moving parts."

I love it--Wing Warping--that's how Orville and Wilber controlled the Flyer. They would have been proud.

B-29 Snuffy & The Skunks
676th Bombardment Sqdn (Very Heavy)
444th Group, 58th Wing, 20th Air Force

WOLFMondo
07-18-2004, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Look for Embraer ALX( also known as Super Tucano).
Propeller combat plane from Brazil, .. sidewinders and piranhas rox !!!! 570 Km/h sea level

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it just had guns i'd like to see that go one on one with a Seafury or a Tempest II cause a Tucano is slow compared with both of those at sealevel.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

hughlb2
07-18-2004, 09:14 AM
@ Chuck_Older
What about if modern materials are disregarded, would say the PC9 be an efficiant airframe design for a WW2 fighter? It seems somewhat similar to the P51 (which was, as you know, a standout design at the time much because of its shape). If we disregard the amount of stress the airframe can take on a PC9 (sort of like in FBhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif), would it be able to outperform end-of-war fighters if it were equiped with a similar late-war engine. I know i'm kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel with this question (blame that on waiting for the patch), but i'm just intrigued by the relationship of modern high-performance prop aircraft to WW2 prop aircraft. Its amazing that 60 years on, some WW2 prop fighters still have phenomenal performance when compared to their modern day counterparts.

@ OldMan___
I checked out that Super Tucano, what a beast!

Chuck_Older
07-18-2004, 09:15 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snuffy Smith:
"there's actually work going on right now to make wings change shape without moving parts."

I love it--Wing Warping--that's how Orville and Wilber controlled the Flyer. They would have been proud.

[QUOTE]

Sorta Kinda...but Ol Will and Orville needed control cables http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
Killers in America work seven days a week
~ Clash

huggy87
07-18-2004, 09:20 AM
Turbine engine props are a huge step forward as well. Military aircraft like the T-34C and JPATS are powered by these modern engines.

Chuck_Older
07-18-2004, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hughlb2:
@ Chuck_Older
What about if modern materials are disregarded, would say the PC9 be an efficiant airframe design for a WW2 fighter? It seems somewhat similar to the P51 (which was, as you know, a standout design at the time much because of its shape). If we disregard the amount of stress the airframe can take on a PC9 (sort of like in FBhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif), would it be able to outperform end-of-war fighters if it were equiped with a similar late-war engine. I know i'm kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel with this question, but i'm just intrigued by the relationship of modern high-performance prop aircraft to WW2 prop aircraft. Its amazing that 60 years on, some WW2 prop fighters still have phenomenal performance when compared to their modern day counterparts.

@ OldMan___
I checked out that Super Tucano, what a beast!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not familiar enough with the aircraft, but I would have to say that many if not all design elements are dependant on advances made in various feilds over the last 6 decades. You can't just, say, directly replace Carbon fiber with aluminum parts that look the same and have the same physical dimensions. For one thing, some of these carbon fiber parts are co-cured (meaning they are bonded together in-process) and some are attached by small carbon fiber pins, eliminating the need for bolts on some parts. The weight increase for just one set of bolts on one stiffening element is enough to matter, so it is hard to say that modern aircraft could even be redesigned and built without using the techniques I mentioned. Then there's the computers on-board.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

*****************************
Killers in America work seven days a week
~ Clash

hughlb2
07-18-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I am not familiar enough with the aircraft, but I would have to say that many if not all design elements are dependant on advances made in various feilds over the last 6 decades. You can't just, say, directly replace Carbon fiber with aluminum parts that look the same and have the same physical dimensions. For one thing, some of these carbon fiber parts are co-cured (meaning they are bonded together in-process) and some are attached by small carbon fiber pins, eliminating the need for bolts on some parts. The weight increase for just one set of bolts on one stiffening element is enough to matter, so it is hard to say that modern aircraft could even be redesigned and built without using the techniques I mentioned. Then there's the computers on-board.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, my question was a long shot to say the least. I agree, the airframe and components that form a modern prop aircraft are all of recent design. WW2 materials would hinder its production and performance (the plane, if it could be built, would never be like it is now). But if you do the reverse - just imagine a Seafire mk47 with titanium wing spars and a HUD!

OldMan____
07-18-2004, 09:51 AM
slow.. mm maybe... but not much (2700km range). It is FAR more meneuverable (our acrobatic team from Brazilian air forces use them).. have fly by wire. And yes it has 2 .50 Mg besides the 2 sidewinder. And it is smaller than a P51 or P47.

It is not a BnZ fighter.. but as TnB woud be lovely. (specially using the 20 mm fast speed cannon under fuselage pod)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

Aero_Shodanjo
07-18-2004, 11:00 AM
Imagine having all 0.303 MG's on spitfire replaced with a minigun...

What a blast.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v351/Aero_Shodanjo/Sig/a86d9f37.jpg