PDA

View Full Version : the truth about the best piston fighter AFTER WAR AND NEVER BUILT ;)



quiet_man
04-15-2005, 06:35 AM
I know you would look at this subject! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My questions for experts and not so experts:
How would next generation fighters have looked without jets?


three main issues I know off were:
1. Torgue
2. weight distribution (engine, weapons, armor)
3. Prop size

two engines push-pull like Do335?
single engine with counter rotating props like the more conventional after war Spits?
single engine push like japanese Shinden?
In America they developed an flying wing with two engines/prop (forgot the name)?
Or P39 with middle engine?

I think Shinden with counter rotating props or Do335 would have been the direction of development

looking forwar to other opinions and input
quiet_man

quiet_man
04-15-2005, 06:35 AM
I know you would look at this subject! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My questions for experts and not so experts:
How would next generation fighters have looked without jets?


three main issues I know off were:
1. Torgue
2. weight distribution (engine, weapons, armor)
3. Prop size

two engines push-pull like Do335?
single engine with counter rotating props like the more conventional after war Spits?
single engine push like japanese Shinden?
In America they developed an flying wing with two engines/prop (forgot the name)?
Or P39 with middle engine?

I think Shinden with counter rotating props or Do335 would have been the direction of development

looking forwar to other opinions and input
quiet_man

WOLFMondo
04-15-2005, 07:00 AM
Do you count turboprops?

Check out planes like the Westland Wyvern which used conventional piston power or turbo prop engines and were very high performance and used counter rotating props. The Wyvern had a 3550HP Rolls Royce Eagle and some had 4050HP turbo props.

The last real generation I guess was the Seafury and Bearcat which were considered by some as the best piston powered fighters ever built.

The Spitfires with counter rotating props are not actually post war designs. One of the XIV prototypes had a counter rotating propeller and the ones you see about now with them are actually Spitfires with Griffons from the old Avro Shackletons decommisioned in the 80's and 90's by the RAF which used counter rotating props.

Badsight.
04-15-2005, 07:05 AM
the Westland Wyvern ---- its the best example of where Prop-Fighter technology was headed if Jets didnt get developed

http://img131.echo.cx/img131/5605/ca4910fg.jpg

http://img131.echo.cx/img131/430/gwyvern22ho.jpg

Prop Fighters after WW2 were headed for counter-rotating props . Gas turbine motors out-perform Piston engines , both for Hp & fuel economy

& heres a unpainted model of the Beast

http://img131.echo.cx/img131/4669/cawyvernbuilduppreviewtitl8iy.jpg

Badsight.
04-15-2005, 07:09 AM
WOLF-Mondo beat me too it dang it

Badsight.
04-15-2005, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The last real generation I guess was the Seafury and Bearcat and La-9 which were considered by some as the best piston powered fighters ever built. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>FIXED

WOLFMondo
04-15-2005, 07:34 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Can you belive that plane was designed as a multi role torpedo bomber!?!? The Blackburn firebrand was the same, meant to be a torp carrier but had awesome performance.

I still prefer the Seafury but the Wyvern has such an great look about it.

Badsight.
04-15-2005, 08:01 AM
oh hell yea

its a BEAST

Iwatapt
04-15-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
I know you would look at this subject! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My questions for experts and not so experts:
How would next generation fighters have looked without jets?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever played "Crimson Skies"? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-15-2005, 10:17 AM
Oh well, speaking of beasts, they may some more examples around late war or post war. Let me list some of them:

Nakajima Ki-87
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/cl-pln10/2002cl/img/ki87.JPG

Lavotshkin La-11
http://home.att.net/~Historyworld/LA-11Profile.JPG

Goodyear F2G
http://www.aerosphere.com/assets/images/corsair_lg.jpg

Fisher P-75
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an33.jpg
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p75-5.jpg

Fiat G-56
http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/fiat/fiat_g56_mm537_set44_torino.jpg

Doflug D-3803
http://www.simviation.com/pageimages/d-3802.jpg

Curtiss YP-60E and XF14C
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_005/XP%20something.jpg
http://www.aerofiles.com/curt-xf14c.jpg


Stopping here, now, due t othere are too much. Not forgetting all those german projects, that never saw daylight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-15-2005, 10:20 AM
Oh another one...cause I like it somehow.
Another Curtiss Prototype: XBTC
http://prototypes.free.fr/xf87/images/xbt2c-1_03.jpg

ElAurens
04-15-2005, 04:25 PM
The Fisher P75 was an abject failure.

I have seen the sole survivor up close and it is just an awful looking thing. Even unarmed and without armor it never met it's performance goals.

It was designed by commitee, and it shows...

Spitf_ACE
04-15-2005, 05:42 PM
Wouldn't having the engine at the back, a la Shinden, leave a plane very susceptible to attacks from it's 6? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

quiet_man
04-15-2005, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iwatapt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
I know you would look at this subject! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My questions for experts and not so experts:
How would next generation fighters have looked without jets?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever played "Crimson Skies"? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no
did I miss something?

quiet_man

quiet_man
04-15-2005, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
The Fisher P75 was an abject failure.

I have seen the sole survivor up close and it is just an awful looking thing. Even unarmed and without armor it never met it's performance goals.

It was designed by commitee, and it shows... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so far the P75 is the only non "standard" design

was this because of the advantages of the standard layout or to save money?

quiet_man

quiet_man
04-15-2005, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spitf_ACE:
Wouldn't having the engine at the back, a la Shinden, leave a plane very susceptible to attacks from it's 6? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the pilot would answer "no" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

quiet_man

jarink
04-15-2005, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originallly posted by quiet_man:
so far the P75 is the only non "standard" design <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I hear someone say "non-standard"? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Convair XFY-1 "Pogo"
http://www.aerofiles.com/convair-xfy1.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2005, 07:53 PM
This thread is exactly why UBI won't publish Oleg's Russian CD for the west market.

ElAurens
04-15-2005, 10:02 PM
I don't understand your comment Lexx.

SkyChimp
04-16-2005, 04:23 PM
How about this:

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/1912L.jpg

I always loved this plane.

pourshot
04-16-2005, 04:31 PM
Or this one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/cac-15.jpg

fordfan25
04-16-2005, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
How about this:

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/1912L.jpg

I always loved this plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what is that chimp?

Badsight.
04-16-2005, 05:42 PM
one hint , look at the extreme tail piece http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

IL2-chuter
04-16-2005, 06:46 PM
Good one chimp, but who in their right mind would name an aircraft <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Fireball</span>. By the way, that's the individual name of the first Pershing lost in combat (to a Tiger). Stay away from calling anything Fireball, jeez. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Engines at the rear. Not a good design for combat aircraft (much too stable or unstable, difficult to get a good balance) though its very efficient for civilian aircraft. USAAF had given up on it (canard concept) before the end of the war although the Japanese had the Shinden in production before prototype flew. (Flew twice, still exists. I've fondled it in person.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

fordfan25
04-16-2005, 07:12 PM
O is that the fire ball? doesnt seem like to good of an idea haveing both types prop and jet. seems like it would almost dubble the cost ect. plus once you switched to jet wouldnt the props just be dead drag.

Korbelz
04-16-2005, 08:12 PM
muhahaha...serious prop killer here and just so happens its post war

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/ac-130_4.jpg

SkyChimp
04-16-2005, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
O is that the fire ball? doesnt seem like to good of an idea haveing both types prop and jet. seems like it would almost dubble the cost ect. plus once you switched to jet wouldnt the props just be dead drag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing was pretty fast. It was apparently the best turning US fighter of WWII - able to outturn the FM-2 Wildcat. And it had a phenominal climb rate - at Cleveland's National Air Races in November 1946 it reached 10,000 feet from a dead stop in something like 100 seconds.

Tully__
04-16-2005, 10:45 PM
Canard designs were showing some promise... and are still re-appearing in jets.

Fritzofn
04-17-2005, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korbelz:
muhahaha...serious prop killer here and just so happens its post war

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/ac-130_4.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


HEY, AC-130 U is cheating :P

allthough, armed with 2*Vulcan, 2*30mm and a 105mm....it's a heeeeell of a punishment this plane can deliver.....

imagine the ME323 with like a QuadVierling and a 75/88MM gun in same design as the AC-130U....i'm sure some german mad man had it on the drawingboard during the end of WW2

Airmail109
04-17-2005, 07:50 AM
IF i ever win the jackpot I am gonna get myself one of those westlands. Wish someone had moddelled one for IL2, then we would have had something to shove up the DO-335s backside! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG52Karaya-X
04-17-2005, 10:53 AM
Look at these and drool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwjager3.gif

http://www.luft46.com/fw/3bf802.jpg

http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwjager1.gif

http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwjager2.gif

"In August 1941, Dipl-Ing Mittelhuber did a study on the design and performance of single-seat fighters with powerplants still under development. This was based on their Fw 190 design, which was just entering service at that time. One such fighter project researched was the aircraft based on the Fw 190 airframe, but with the BMW 802 18-cylinder, twin-row radial engine with a three-speed, single stage supercharger. This engine had a 2600 HP take-off rating, and could deliver 1600 HP at an altitude of 12000 m (39000'). The engine was to be housed in a BMW designed low drag cowling driving a 3.8 m (12' 6") variable pitch propeller. An alternate engine arrangement which was considered but not included in this study was the BMW P.8011 engine. This powerplant had a 2800-2900 HP take off rating. It was basically a BMW 802 with two exhaust gas turbines enclosed in an aerodynamic cowling, and it drove two contrarotating propellers. A bomb load of 500 kg (1102 lbs) or two 300 liter (66 gallon) drop tanks could be carried, or an optional 50 kg (110 lbs) bomb under each wing. No armament was provided for at this design stage. This project was not realized, however, and Focke-Wulf went on to develop their Ta 152 high altitude fighters."

All pics and stuff taken from here:

http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwbmw802.html

WOLFMondo
04-17-2005, 11:15 AM
The Hawker Tempest V had trials with a similar annular radiator and low drag cowling but was never accepted into service because it was too complicated and could days to work out which bit has broken meaning to much down time.

WO2_Kitfox
04-17-2005, 01:54 PM
Without jet "compression" engines (the Germans called it "squeeze"), fighter aircraft would have moved to the turbine prop. Modern aerobatic aircraft use this type engine today. Lightweight fighters like the USN Ryan XF2R Darkshark would have been the direction. Contrarotating props give little advantage with thrust over inherent unreliabilty and complication. Notice how few contrarotating prop military aircraft actually saw service: Tu95 Bear, Fairey Gannet, Avro Shackleton. Everyone loved the performance of the Martin Baker MB.5 fighter, but factually three P-51 could be made for one MB.5. The "push-pull" configuration seems a good one like the Do335 Pfeil. However, the Cessna 335 (O-2) in Vietnam was not so liked (due to #2 engine overheat) and the OV-10 Bronco (with turboprops) replaced it. Its all weight vs. thrust and the turboprop has it over a piston engine.

IL2-chuter
04-17-2005, 02:52 PM
The turboprops advantage is in efficiency at medium and high prop limited speed ranges (nowadays including low speed). It's all about designing towards a particular performance envelope. The military turboprop era (combat aircraft) came about (though was shortlived) basically because the turbojets at the time were very limited. The A-10 is the only current combat plane that comes to my mind that might be a candidate for turboprop power (wouldn't be as good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif).

And, again, though canards are very efficient and have always shown promise in a non-combat environment, until the advent of computer based stability too much stability had to be designed into them to make a predictably performing fighter which is reflected in the fact that, though the first successful aircraft was one and nearly everyone tried it for fighters off and on through the forties, there were no successful such fighter types at that time.

canucksledge
04-17-2005, 03:52 PM
Hawker Sea Fury. Hands down. It scored the first MiG kill in SEA (Pretty darn sure, too lazy to check my facts, but PDS), while the Americans were still scrambling to get the Sabre there. Think it's also the fastest production aircraft built. Not counting the F6F's that got hot rodded for air racing. Production, as in out of the box.

Wyvern's a sweet plane, but it's a jet. No pistons. It just uses the exhaust to turn a prop instead of blowing it out the back. More fuel efficient at lower altitudes, which is why you see them a lot on transport and maritime aircraft. Take a while to spool up to full power from cruise though.

raisen
04-18-2005, 02:52 PM
&lt;snip/&gt;Canard designs were showing some promise... and are still re-appearing in jets. &lt;/snip&gt; because of modern fly by wire....modern canard fast jet designs fly only because of those systems. They are deliberately unstable, dangerously enough that if the systems and back-up sytems fail the manual says one thing - Get out now....

Raisen

Cajun76
04-18-2005, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canucksledge:
Hawker Sea Fury. Hands down. It scored the first MiG kill in SEA (Pretty darn sure, too lazy to check my facts, but PDS), while the Americans were still scrambling to get the Sabre there. Think it's also the fastest production aircraft built. Not counting the F6F's that got hot rodded for air racing. Production, as in out of the box.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif The P-47M and N were both faster, and saw combat in WWII. Prototype XP-47J and XP-72 were 490-500mph class fighters that could have seen action. 100 P-72's were ordered, but since jets were showing promise of even higher speeds, the contract was cancelled. The prototype P-72's were flying by mid '44, and I think they could have seen action, but they weren't needed. Regular P-47D's and N's were sufficient for the threats they faced and were successful in their assigned roles, groundpounding and bomber escort, mostly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Oilburner_TAW
04-18-2005, 03:56 PM
Here's the one to look at..the "Flying Flapjack" made by the same great guys that brought you the Corsair..

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/flapjack.htm

canucksledge
04-18-2005, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canucksledge:
Hawker Sea Fury. Hands down. It scored the first MiG kill in SEA (Pretty darn sure, too lazy to check my facts, but PDS), while the Americans were still scrambling to get the Sabre there. _Think it's also the fastest production aircraft built._ Not counting the F6F's that got hot rodded for air racing. Production, as in out of the box.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif The P-47M and N were both faster, and saw combat in WWII. Prototype XP-47J and XP-72 were 490-500mph class fighters that could have seen action. 100 P-72's were ordered, but since jets were showing promise of even higher speeds, the contract was cancelled. The prototype P-72's were flying by mid '44, and I think they could have seen action, but they weren't needed. Regular P-47D's and N's were sufficient for the threats they faced and were successful in their assigned roles, groundpounding and bomber escort, mostly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, given...BUT... I searched and searched, even going as far as pulling out my Janes Book Of Aircraft for 1946, and the biggest spread I could find between the Sea Fury Mk 10 and the P47N was 6 mph. So yes, it was faster. A bit. Lotta people argue between the two still. Probably stems down to a difference between an american and british foot, or something equally ridiculous. Who knows. I say we buy some and race 'em and find out!

92SqnGCJimbo
04-18-2005, 04:02 PM
i love the wyvern... among british pilots it was known as the single engine bear

after the tu-95

p1ngu666
04-18-2005, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canucksledge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canucksledge:
Hawker Sea Fury. Hands down. It scored the first MiG kill in SEA (Pretty darn sure, too lazy to check my facts, but PDS), while the Americans were still scrambling to get the Sabre there. _Think it's also the fastest production aircraft built._ Not counting the F6F's that got hot rodded for air racing. Production, as in out of the box.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif The P-47M and N were both faster, and saw combat in WWII. Prototype XP-47J and XP-72 were 490-500mph class fighters that could have seen action. 100 P-72's were ordered, but since jets were showing promise of even higher speeds, the contract was cancelled. The prototype P-72's were flying by mid '44, and I think they could have seen action, but they weren't needed. Regular P-47D's and N's were sufficient for the threats they faced and were successful in their assigned roles, groundpounding and bomber escort, mostly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, given...BUT... I searched and searched, even going as far as pulling out my Janes Book Of Aircraft for 1946, and the biggest spread I could find between the Sea Fury Mk 10 and the P47N was 6 mph. So yes, it was faster. A bit. Lotta people argue between the two still. Probably stems down to a difference between an american and british foot, or something equally ridiculous. Who knows. I say we buy some and race 'em and find out! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

seafury would be faster down low, p47n up high i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stathem
04-19-2005, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WO2_Kitfox:
Everyone loved the performance of the Martin Baker MB.5 fighter, but factually three P-51 could be made for one MB.5. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement is a little unfair. If that were the case they'd have still been flying hurricanes and emils at the war's end.

It should have read : Everyone loved the performance of the Martin Baker MB.5 fighter, but the Meteor was in pre-production and the Vampire had flown, so it was clear which way the wind was blowing. Thus it was more effecient to continue developing the current prop types (Spitfire, Tempest, which were doing a more than adequate job) until the Jets were fully online. These were pretty much the same reasons the Do-335 and other outlandish Luft46 prop types were so long in the gestation/stillborn.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/fot0640.jpg

Remember the ultimate incarnations of the Spitfire also saw (active) service

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/Seafire47.jpg

WOLFMondo
04-19-2005, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canucksledge:
Hawker Sea Fury. Hands down. It scored the first MiG kill in SEA (Pretty darn sure, too lazy to check my facts, but PDS), while the Americans were still scrambling to get the Sabre there. _Think it's also the fastest production aircraft built._ Not counting the F6F's that got hot rodded for air racing. Production, as in out of the box.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif The P-47M and N were both faster, and saw combat in WWII. Prototype XP-47J and XP-72 were 490-500mph class fighters that could have seen action. 100 P-72's were ordered, but since jets were showing promise of even higher speeds, the contract was cancelled. The prototype P-72's were flying by mid '44, and I think they could have seen action, but they weren't needed. Regular P-47D's and N's were sufficient for the threats they faced and were successful in their assigned roles, groundpounding and bomber escort, mostly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Seafury and Tempest both were doing over 430mph+ at heights where any P47 couldn't break 400mphhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

There planes that have there best performance at completely different heights.

Gibbage1
04-19-2005, 01:39 PM
J7W Shinden.

This, I think would of been the best single engine piston powered prop aircraft. The brute force of a Radial in the clean lines of an inline (or even better lines!). Then to top it off you have all the room in the nose without a nasty prop or engine getting in the way. You also have the agility of a cannard and its very stall friendly. This design with a little refinement would be the ultimate.

I bow to the designer of the Shinden for thinking outside the box. Its everything the P-55 should of been! P-55 died because of its engine, not its design. It they only put a good engine in it.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W/J7W-2s.jpg

p1ngu666
04-19-2005, 02:57 PM
reminds me of a whippet, the skinny dogs ppl race

EnGaurde
04-19-2005, 05:44 PM
HA yeah the crotch sniffing baarstards.

i hate those dogs.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Badsight.
04-19-2005, 11:21 PM
their expectation was for 500 Mph / 750 Kmh top speed out of the Shinden

considering its 2130 Hp Radial & its aerodynamic shape its entirely believeable

but it wasnt designed as a DFer , it was meant to be a interceptor

fast climb , high top speed , & Heavy gunpower

what would be interesting to know is how twitchy those canards would have made it , they are theoretically more efficient than elevators on the tail of a A/C

JR_Greenhorn
04-19-2005, 11:37 PM
The J7W1 was designed with a canard layout in anticipation for turbojet power. It certainly wasn't chosen for any merits of the canard layout that were known at the time. Canards help with "mach tuck" (fly the BI-1), which is a big reason they are used a lot these days. However, no prop plane should need them for that reason, except maybe for dive recovery. The Shinden suffered from overheating during ground handling already during its short life--small wonder why. It may have the smooth lines of a inline-powered fighter, but it still has the frontal area intrinsic to a radial-powered fighter. The stalky landing gear would have been a problem, and there is no way to convert the plane into a carrier bourne fighter. I like the J7W1 very much, don't get me wrong. I'm just looking at it objectively in that it was a design excercise to prepare for the anticipated turbojet-powered J7W2.


The Wyvern isn't the best example of a forward-thinking fighter because of its wishy-washy engine choices. The Wyvern was designed with a large engine compartment to allow different engine installations with ease. The plane was first built with a piston engine, then with two different turboprops--the better of which didn't see production. In any of those cases, the same plane could have been better if the airframe had been taliored to the engine choice.

Which brings me to another point. Without turbojets, there would not be turboprops; it made sense to develop turboprops as an offshoot from turbojet technology. Turboprops never really made it to "front line" aircraft at the time anyway, only to some unique types where such a powerplant was desirable for a time versus a pure jet. The Wyvern would be an example of this, as pure jet carrier aircraft weren't yet the status quo.

In the same manner, without jets, there wouldn't have been the US and Soviet developments in mixed power fighters like the Ryan FR-1 Fireball and its follow-on the Dark Shark. The reason for existance of mixed power fighters was for them to be transitional aircraft as pure jets were coming online. Without jets, and assuming further piston aircraft development, we wouldn't have seen the mixed power fighters either.


The F2G was a stopgap and never would have seen further development without the Kamikaze threat (which it didn't). The F2G is one of my favourite planes, but that engine could do better in an airframe designed for it. The US had no suitable airframes designed for a 7-cylinder radial profile by 1944.


All of those Curtiss projects were doomed long before the war was winding down.


Similar to the Wyvern, the Sea Fury could use a bit more cutting down as far as frontal area and streamling to a radial powerplant are concerned, but production realities obviously precluded that. The Sea Fury is pretty darn good despite the fact that the engine the plane was designed for was totally different.


Now the Kangaroo and MB.5, those are some forward thinking, next generation piston fighters.

================================================== ===================

Moving forward with piston fighters, there would have been decreasing use of the successful Merlin and R-2800 powerplants on the allied side. Both of these powerplants were developed to their logical limit over the course of the war. Basic design characteristics would have started to hold them back. Dispalcement in the case of the Merlin and frontal area/drag in the case of the R-2800. Likely the Griffon would have been further developed with its displacement boost over the Merlin (one version of the Griffon was tested with a three-speed supercharger). The Sabre is another engine that definately would have seen more use in any new large fighters, as its power potential had room to grow, and it was quite relaible by war's end.

As far as radials go, the R-4360 and Centaurus were the forward thinkers on the allied side. The Centaurus offers a displacement boost in a similar size as the R-2800. The R-4360 makes huge power with a reduction in frontal area over 18-cylinder designs. The big Wasp Major also really had radial cooling issues worked out (look at the B-36 installations), and moving forward, fan cooling would have finally caught on in the west (XP-72). If the R-4360 would have been used in new fighter designs, the designers would have taken advantage of reduced frontal area (look at an F2G to see the difference it makes, and in a forward-thinking move, the Corsair was designed around minimal frontal area with a radial). Also, fan-cooled radials in streamlined, close-cowled installations would have finally caught on in the West (XP-72).


Regrettably, I can't comment on where Russain piston fighters were headed, because I don't know enough about late-war Russian engine development. However, if anyone was adept at building highly specialized fighters, it was the Russians, so their next-generation piston fighters would have followed the perception of battles to come. Or, on the other hand, they may have filled in gaps (high-alt, long range, etc.) in their inventory in preparation for a piston-powered cold war.



I don't think there would have been as much emphasis on twin-engined fighters on the allied side. The next generation engines that were already available had so much power potential, the complexity was just uneccessary. One large engine is easier to package than two smaller ones (obviously the P-38 is an exception). The push-me pull-you layout of the Do 335 would have to prove very successful before other aircraft designs would try it. Besides, the allies had available engines that could more than double the 1750hp of the Dornier's powerplants.



In airframes, there would have been work on increasing critical mach. The effects of compressibility were begining to be understood at that point, but the lessons learned were chiefly applied to first and second generation jet fighters. There might have been experimentation with swept wings based on the Me 262's success.



Without jets, all countries with the means would have tried turbocharged designs for high alt, although the plumbing is always a challenge (P-47, BV 155). GE's turbocharger production should have caught up at some point allowing more widespread usage.



In the armament department, there would have been more and more use of 4-cannon setup for fighters. The US would have resisted this because of the logistical advantages of sticking with the M2. The Navy didn't benefit quite as much from that standpoint, so you began to see more 4x20mm in their planes by war's end already.

Badsight.
04-19-2005, 11:43 PM
total size doesnt matter , its shape that gives slipperyness or drag , & the Shinden started with a point

as for the overheating while taxiing , well duh no brainer there

the Jet Shinden would have been no better , the motor they had planned for it wasnt going to give any better performance than the Radial , except for possibly better accelleration from 400 to 500 mph

the Radial would have been the better pick

JR_Greenhorn
04-19-2005, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
total size doesnt matter , its shape that gives slipperyness or drag , & the Shinden started with a point <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to call BS on that one. Frontal area is a much larger contributor to total drag than any streamlining efficiencies.

Starting with a point isn't an advantage on subsonic aircraft.

The long nose is more likely to be that way to position the aircraft's aerodynamic centre of pressure in a particular position, or for longitudinal stability, or both.


I agree that the plane has pleasingly smooth lines. They just aren't necessarily as aerodynamic as they appear. Notice that the engine cooling air scoops draw in the boudary layer of air on the fuselage. The radiator scoop on the P-51 and the intakes on German V-12s go to considerable lengths to avoid it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
the Jet Shinden would have been no better , the motor they had planned for it wasnt going to give any better performance than the Radial , except for possibly better accelleration from 400 to 500 mph

the Radial would have been the better pick <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm aware of the problems the J7W2 would have faced, but the fact is that was still the initial intent of the design. I wasn't making a judgment as to which engine type would make the plane better; I was simply evaluating the project in the context described by the original poster.

Badsight.
04-19-2005, 11:54 PM
as for pistons over turbojets , yes its true that pure jet motors would have resulted from turbo-prop development , thats a natural conclusion

but the thread topic was the direction of prop fighters

Turbo-jets are a much better solution that piston engines , for a given Hp (& im meaning a high HP here) the Turbo-jet gives smoother running , better fuel economy & more reliability than its equal Hp piston counterpart

im meaning high , high Hp here (3000 +)

to me , fighters staying with props would have moved to turbojets

anyone know of the Mustang Turbojet conversion that was used in the 70s/80s ?

i cant remember its name

JR_Greenhorn
04-20-2005, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
as for pistons over turbojets , yes its true that pure jet motors would have resulted from turbo-prop development , thats a natural conclusion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My point was the other way around. I've corrected and clarified my first post.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
but the thread topic was the direction of prop fighters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why I tried to dispell the effects of an anticipated jet age in my post.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
Turbo-jets are a much better solution that piston engines , for a given Hp (& im meaning a high HP here) the Turbo-jet gives smoother running , better fuel economy & more reliability than its equal Hp piston counterpart <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, obviously turbojets were the best solution, and for most of the reasons you stated. However, turbojets have appallingly worse fuel economy than piston engines do. This is overcome by the sheer speed that jets are capable of. They cover more miles per gallon of fuel used, instead of trying to reduce fuel usage.

Turbojet relaibility isn't as inherent as it seems. It was hard-won in those days. Also, the speeds those engines operate at demand advanced alloys for reliability. Those materials were just becoming available after the war.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
anyone know of the Mustang Turbojet conversion that was used in the 70s/80s ?

i cant remember its name <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, you're thinking of the Piper PA-48 Enforcer. It was for the COunter-INsurgency program, which meant to provide military assistance nations with cheap ground attack aircraft. Congress demanded an evaluation because it was cheap, but the USAF didn't like it. It was meant to be a ground pounder, and its performance was less than that of F-51s used in Korea, although it may have had a higher payload (can't remember that for sure).

Badsight.
04-20-2005, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:
I have to call BS on that one. Frontal area is a much larger contributor to total drag than any streamlining efficiencies.

Starting with a point isn't an advantage on subsonic aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>the most aerodynamic shape of all is the teardrop

a teardrop , no matter the size , has the CoD

more important than size is how you manage airflow , the shinden started with a point , its not a blunt front end . that right there gives it a better starting point than the same sized engine stuck on the front

EDIT : wasnt the Turbojet Skyraider (SkyShark ?)faster & more economical than the piston version ? , it was capable of more ordinance than the impressive Skyraider because of its greater power & had even more range

JR_Greenhorn
04-20-2005, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
This thread is exactly why UBI won't publish Oleg's Russian CD for the west market. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because there's hardly a mention of late or post war Russian aircraft. Only Luft '46 and allied stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
O is that the fire ball? doesnt seem like to good of an idea haveing both types prop and jet. seems like it would almost dubble the cost ect. plus once you switched to jet wouldnt the props just be dead drag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cost savings weren't the point. It was a transitional aircraft to get naval aviators used to jet power until pure jet carrier fighters were available. Either engine or both could be operated; the prop could be feathered while running on the jet. There is some pictures of FR-1s flying like this on the interweb if you search a bit.

The Russians had similar mixed power fighters, and at least one of those is in the Russia-only add on, as far as I know.

JR_Greenhorn
04-20-2005, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
the most aerodynamic shape of all is the teardrop

a teardrop , no matter the size , has the CoD

more important than size is how you manage airflow , the shinden started with a point , its not a blunt front end . that right there gives it a better starting point than the same sized engine stuck on the front <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A teardrop is most aerodynamic with the rounded end leading, not the opposite, as you suggest.

And size matters! It still boils down to the area of air that must be displaced, no matter how efficiently you slide through it. I guess I'll have to dig out my fluid dynamics text book for you...
(perhaps after I get some sleep)

Badsight.
04-20-2005, 12:50 AM
no with the point at the front no , but the point is , its not the size that matters , its how you controll & join the airflow back together

simply being big is no reason for drag

the Shinden had more going for it aerodynamically than a same enginged front end loaded fighter

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-20-2005, 01:21 AM
Lets name some russian projects:

Mig-13:
http://www.aviation.ru/MiG/13/MiG-13.jpg
http://www.tayyareci.com/rus-ucaklari/images/rus-images/mig13.jpg


I-224 (there was a successor I-225, but I didn't find a picture):
http://www.afwing.com/intro/mig/i224.jpg
http://modely.comp.cz/photos/PS_migi224_big.jpg

Does anybody know more such russian planes?

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-20-2005, 01:28 AM
Su-5:
http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/ModelGallery/Baldwin/Su5_1.jpg
http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/ModelGallery/Baldwin/Su5_2.jpg

WOLFMondo
04-20-2005, 02:47 AM
What an odd little plane.

ElAurens
04-20-2005, 05:18 AM
Badsight, I'm afraind size does matter.

The coeffieient of drag (Cd) is just one part of the equation, the others are frontal area and wetted surface. Taken together they make up the total drag of the object in question, and the total drag is the final determiner of how efficient the object will be moving through a fluid (air in our case).

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 05:57 AM
"Turboprops never really made it to "front line" aircraft at the time anyway, only to some unique types where such a powerplant was desirable for a time versus a pure jet."

The Hungarians were at the forefront of turboprop development initially, having had the first one working at the end of the 1930s or start of the 1940s. They planned fitting them in fighter aircraft during WW2 but development issues delayed them, and then the Soviet Union was advancing so instead the projected aircraft went ahead with (I think - from memory) BMW engines.

92SqnGCJimbo
04-20-2005, 09:34 AM
Badsight i have tro agree with elaurens on this..

all u have to do is look at modern jets.. concorde was as streamlined as they come. and look at her thrust output as apposed to say a tornado.. or f4u or even a f104 (which only produced 15800lb thrust in reheat) concorde needed 40000 lb in full reheat

i must say though badsight that frontal area doesnt make as much difference as some would let u believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
04-20-2005, 09:35 AM
Salute

Not sure why people are coming up with all these obscure fighters as the best, when in fact the answer is right in front of their noses.

The P-51H had all these aircraft beat, and it was a production aircraft which was built in large numbers, unlike most of the alternatives.

Speed was the name of the game, and the 487 mph of the P-51H beats the heck out of most of the opposition, with the exception of the experimental XP-72. (modified P-47)

Plus the plane could outmaneuver all the great big lumps like the Do-335.

They are still flying too:

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/pages/44-64415.shtml

Here's some info about the XP-72 by the way:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/xp72.html

WOLFMondo
04-20-2005, 10:07 AM
This thread was about development of fighters had the jet engine not been advanced enough to use. Where would it have gone from there. The P51 was at the end of its development cycle, the next place to go was putting a turboprop in it which happened later on and there was talk of a P51 with a mid mounted Griffon but what would the new designs looked like after the last great piston powered fighters of the mid 1940's, after the Bearcats, Seafury's and La9's which were regarded as the ultimate in piston powered fighters.

quiet_man
04-20-2005, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Not sure why people are coming up with all these obscure fighters as the best, when in fact the answer is right in front of their noses.

The P-51H had all these aircraft beat, and it was a production aircraft which was built in large numbers, unlike most of the alternatives.

Speed was the name of the game, and the 487 mph of the P-51H beats the heck out of most of the opposition, with the exception of the experimental XP-72. (modified P-47)

Plus the plane could outmaneuver all the great big lumps like the Do-335.

They are still flying too:

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/pages/44-64415.shtml

Here's some info about the XP-72 by the way:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/xp72.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


With stronger engines figther would have become larger with heavy armor and weapons, the P47 would have had more potential than the P51

but I'm not thinking about development of existing models

how would the fighter have looked like designed around 5000 to 10000hp piston engines???

and I have nothing against russian designs, bring up wathever they had in mind or build.

quiet_man

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 12:37 PM
"Speed was the name of the game, and the 487 mph of the P-51H beats the heck out of most of the opposition,"

The Fury (as opposed to the navalised Sea Fury) reached 485 at 18,500 feet, which would most likely beat the P51H at that altitude but be slower than the P51H at the latter's best altitude.

The P51H flew a few recon missions in WW2 but otherwise missed it. A few hundred were built but not used in Korea either as the P51's mission there was ground attack and the D was more suitable.

The Fury wasn't continued with as the Meteor and Vampire were both in production by mid 1945 so it wasn't seen that there would be much need for it (ditto MB5). The Sea Fury was developed as jets weren't ready for large scale naval use in 1945 and the Sea Fury was envisaged as a stop gap until they were. So the Fury itself became a victim of this and other cuts, much as the Miles M.52 transonic fighter programme was.

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 12:39 PM
"how would the fighter have looked like designed around 5000 to 10000hp piston engines???"

For a 10,000 hp engine you'd either need immense complexity (lots of cylinders) or huge capacity per cylinder with lots of issues regarding even detonation. And how would you dissapate heat from deep in the engine? I think you'd have to go for linked engines driving a single shaft (still pretty complex!)

jarink
04-20-2005, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
anyone know of the Mustang Turbojet conversion that was used in the 70s/80s ?

i cant remember its name <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Piper PA-48 Enforcer, known earlier as the "Turbo-Mustang III"

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p51-25.jpg

There were also other earlier projects that explored a mixed powerplant on the Stang...

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/NorthAmericanP51/p51-21.jpg

Badsight.
04-20-2005, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Not sure why people are coming up with all these obscure fighters as the best, when in fact the answer is right in front of their noses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>while the H Mustang was cool & all , the question was the direction of Prop fighter design sans jets

not what was the best late WW2 , - 50s Prop fighter

faustnik
04-21-2005, 12:00 AM
Sorry Badsight, voting with Buzzsaw on this one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Only competition for the P-51H might be the Fw190D-13, maybe...

Badsight.
04-21-2005, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Badsight, I'm afraind size _does_ matter.

The coeffieient of drag (Cd) is just one part of the equation, the others are frontal area and wetted surface. Taken together they make up the _total drag_ of the object in question, and the total drag is the final determiner of how efficient the object will be moving through a fluid (air in our case). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>yes yes , totally correct

i know bringing up the teardrop isnt really related to RL conditions , its a wind-tunnel truism only

EnGaurde
04-21-2005, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Not sure why people are coming up with all these obscure fighters as the best, when in fact the answer is right in front of their noses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, funny that.

i still think its a milder form of Conspiracism (tm) that, to a suprising number of people, all the production fighters were somehow lame donkeys compared to some shadowy Black Op top secret singular handbuilt prototype that was only ever flown by one or two pilots in stripped down testbed fashion, and then only at night most likely near Area 51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

its just downright surprising that many people seem to have a "favourite aircraft" that has one or two grainy end war photos and next to no solid info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I still reckon the thunderbolt was probably the all round best aircraft. It could do almost everything the mustang could, as well as taking a pasting the delicate little 'stangette could not ie punch it out with ground forces after providing escort to the heavies and still make it home after being half eviscerated.

I think Chuck Yeager said somewhere that the best aircraft was the one that allowed him to rack up kills with the least risk to himself. Viewing that, the jug would have to score the average highest in all areas, surely, despite perhaps not the absolute highest in all. I dont recall stories of the mustang being nailed by mg fire till ammo ran out, ze jarman experten flying alongside, saluting and flying off etc etc.

i even read something on a site like this about a race between a jug flyer and mustangs.... late model jug, outpaced them easily. Or so it read. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

but, it seems all the roooolly famous aircraft, aint nobody ever heard of.

the obscurer, the legendary-er or so it seems.

EnGaurde
04-21-2005, 03:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 10000hp engines <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

er... i think material science would probably whack that on the head.

i think ship engines come into that category, as far as pistons are concerned. The thing is, theyre 2 stroke, two storey high diesels and turn at no more than a few hundred rpm?

even if you did get an engine NEAR that hp, can you imagine the balancing act of performance vs endurance, not to mention outright size.

perhaps everyone with the bazillion hp engine idea is forgetting about the limits of the otto cycle design, not that im a mechanic, engineer etc. I read that the b29s engines were at the limit for useable piston engine design, and many failed because of the high state of tune.

I think qantas ran those radial engines or something similar on their fleet post war, and had to stock spares something stupid like one for one due to their high failure rate and low hour schedule.

i reckon the very nature of the trade off of complexity vs peformance vs cost would have spelt the end of the piston engine in war aircraft anyway.

after all, someone thought of the jet. If they didnt, someone else would have. You just cant ignore evolution / development and try to conjure up an alternate reality. Your answer would be, literally, what you were looking at flying around when the natural progression of technology ceased.

DIRTY-MAC
04-21-2005, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Sorry Badsight, voting with Buzzsaw on this one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Only competition for the P-51H might be the Fw190D-13, maybe... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys know alot more about fighters, to know that this isnt really true. its just your wishes, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
you both know its more complikated than that.


lets talk about what the fighters purposes were,
and at what hight it was most effective etc.
there is not just one plane here that is the king, its several on different areas.

this is not meant as an offence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
04-21-2005, 05:42 AM
I think that if the P51H had been designed by Supermarine instead of North American we would not be seeing so many put it down.

Also there was plenty of development room left in the P51's basic design. With the advent of the P/F82 "Twin Mustang" and it's 482mph speed and 2200 mile range, the P51 could have further been sent down the road of being a pure interceptor, and hence even higher performance.

Aaron_GT
04-21-2005, 05:56 AM
Calm down with the conspiracy theories, ElAurens. It'll be that we can't suggest that a US plane was less than totally stellar without being called anti American next :-)

Whilst there was room to continue to develop the likes of the P51 (or Fury) line, jets were coming and there wasn't much point in continuing development for most of the USAAF's requirements after 1945. For example the P51-H, the pinnacle of single hull P51 development could manage 487mph, but the Vampire Mk. I, essentially a contemporary, could already beat it by 30mph at the beginning of its development life. Ditto the P80. So there wasn't much life left in the P51 in terms of combating fighters which would have left it just the bomber interception role. In terms of close air support it continued in USAF and other services it continued on into the 1970s.

"I still reckon the thunderbolt was probably the all round best aircraft. "

It's main failing after the bugs were worked out of the B version and it entered the -C designation was the cost relative to the P51. That's basically why it was phased out and the P51 was the ground pounder in Korea, even if the P47 was probably better suited to the role in terms of pure performance and damage resistance.

EnGaurde
04-21-2005, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> US plane was less than totally stellar without being called anti American next :-)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

quiet_man
04-21-2005, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
I think that if the P51H had been designed by Supermarine instead of North American we would not be seeing so many put it down.

Also there was plenty of development room left in the P51's basic design. With the advent of the P/F82 "Twin Mustang" and it's 482mph speed and 2200 mile range, the P51 could have further been sent down the road of being a pure interceptor, and hence even higher performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, ok, the P51 was great and had also some reserves, BUT we are talking about the NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER (if there would have been no jets), the development would not have stoped after P51

engines with &gt;5000hp not possible? Ok, take the RS2800 (the P47 engine if I'm not wrong) redesign it with modern material, cooling & turbo charger
maybe use diesel concept to reduce heat?

how far could we increase rpm and cylinder pressure?

were are all the experts of this forum to do some calculation?

quiet_man

Buzzsaw-
04-21-2005, 08:44 AM
Salute

Here are the facts about the P-51H and its production:

(material courtesy of Joe Baugher's aircraft page)

---------

Along with the Republic P-47N Thunderbolt, the P-51H was intended to be the leading USAAF fighter used during the upcoming invasion of Japan. 2000 P-51Hs were ordered, made up of 555 NA-126s and 1445 NA-129s with minor differences. All of these planes were to be built at the Inglewood factory. 1629 more examples were ordered from NAAs Dallas plant under the charging number of NA-124, these being designated P-51M by the USAAF. The P-51M differed primarily in having the V-1650-9A engine, which had a lower war emergency rating by virtue of having the water injection deleted.

By the late summer of 1945, some P-51Hs had been issued to a few operational units. These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender. None had the opportunity to see any combat. At the time of V-J Day, 555 P-51Hs had rolled off the Inglewood production lines. With the coming of peace, orders for 1445 more P-51Hs were cancelled, along with the entirety of the order for the Dallas-built P-51Ms after only one example (45-11743) had been completed.

Also cancelled was an order for 1700 P-51Ls (company designation NA-129). They were to have been similar to the P-51H but were to be equipped with the more powerful V-1650-11 engine with a Stromberg speed/density injection-type carburetor, rated at a peak power of 2270 hp with water injection. None were built.

(this aircraft would have had a higher speed than the 487mph attained by the standard P-51H)

-----------

There is no question that the P-51H was a complete design, not in need of modifications or further testing, unlike most of the aircraft suggested in this thread. And as shown by the fact that the P-51L was in the pipeline, equipped with an engine with another 270hp, it is also clear that it was not the end of the development cycle. In fact it is likely we would have seen 500 mph Mustangs flying if the war went to 1946.

Combine that speed, with the well known maneuverability of this aircraft at speed, along with the strengthened frame and other mods, and it is clear it was to be the best piston engined Fighter in the world.

By the way, I'm not a Yank, so I'm not promoting this plane out of nationalism.

horseback
04-21-2005, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"I still reckon the thunderbolt was probably the all round best aircraft. "

It's main failing after the bugs were worked out of the B version and it entered the -C designation was the cost relative to the P51. That's basically why it was phased out and the P51 was the ground pounder in Korea, even if the P47 was probably better suited to the role in terms of pure performance and damage resistance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, it was the late D version of the P-47 which had sufficient range to reach Berlin that was phased down in the 8th AF in favor of the Mustang, which was still a better high altitude fighter (speed & firepower are not everything) besides being less expensive.

Second, there were still plenty of Thunderbolts in active service in Europe, where they were stationed in case Stalin decided to get frisky. There were thousands more still in the States in National Guard service, but moving them to Korea would have taken months that UN forces did not have.

The reason that the Mustang was used as a ground pounder in Korea was that it was the only Air Force piston fighter in Japan in numbers (a significant number of late-model P-38Ls having recently been 'retired' in a rather ill-timed bonfire just a few months prior to the outbreak of hostilities) that had greater range and payload than the jets available at the time.

Almost everyone involved in-theater was on record as preferring P-47s for the job, but high Air Force command made it clear that the P-47s were staying where they were, just in case Korea was intended as a diversion for a Soviet invasion of a still very shaky Western Europe.

Read Boots Blesse and Francis Gabreski's autobiographies, among others, for confirmation.

cheers

horseback

Aaron_GT
04-21-2005, 09:17 AM
The Fury wasn't far off 500 mph. Given that more powerful Sabre engines were in the pipeline there is no particular reason why the Fury couldn't have been developed to 500mph by 1946 as well. It just wasn't worth the effort as the 1st generation jets were outperforming it already, except in the realm of carrier aircraft where the slower response time of jet engines was an issue. The P51H was an excellent plane, but the time for prop planes as frontline ground-based fighter aircraft in leading nations was already passing.

jarink
04-21-2005, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
lets talk about what the fighters purposes were,
and at what hight it was most effective etc.
there is not just one plane here that is the king, its several on different areas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a pretty valid point, I think. Prop fighters did have several distinct advantages over jets, especially through the '50s. Some of the more significant being range/endurance, lesser maintenance requirements and a far better ability to operate from unimproved airstrips.

In ground attack or close air support missions, the prop planes lack of speed was an advantage, since it made it easier to identify and accurately attack ground targets. Additional loiter time was a significant advantage in this role, too. Bombload was usually heavier compared to jets, but this discrepancy has largely been resolved. The Piper Enforcer and the Argentine Pucara (of Falklands fame) shows how props remained a valid choice for support roles. Would anyone argue that the Douglas Skyraider was possibly the best ever ground support aircraft? In my mind, the only planes to come close are the A-10 and Su-25.

quiet_man
04-21-2005, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
...

There is no question that the P-51H was a complete design, not in need of modifications or further testing, unlike most of the aircraft suggested in this thread. And as shown by the fact that the P-51L was in the pipeline, equipped with an engine with another 270hp, it is also clear that it was not the end of the development cycle. In fact it is likely we would have seen 500 mph Mustangs flying if the war went to 1946.

Combine that speed, with the well known maneuverability of this aircraft at speed, along with the strengthened frame and other mods, and it is clear it was to be the best piston engined Fighter in the world.

By the way, I'm not a Yank, so I'm not promoting this plane out of nationalism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I belive everything you say, just ... until today? No chance for something better using newer technology? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'm talking about NEXT GENERATION
for a reason I named no date, ok the P51 was the ultimate piston engined fighter at 1945, maybe up to 195x, but NOT UP TO 2000

who would attack with a 500mph .50cal Mustang this:

http://www.ww2guide.com/usab.shtml
or this:
http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/b36.html

by the way, all push concepts:
R-4360-21, 3000 hp
R-4360-53, 3800 hp

1200 more and we have 5000hp


how would the piston/prop interceptor look?
How would the escord fighter look like?

quiet_man

Buzzsaw-
04-21-2005, 09:44 AM
Salute

Couple more comments:

The late model German piston engined aircraft were generally 10-15 mph slower than the late model USAAF aircraft. For example, the TA-152 did 463 mph, and the Do-335 474 mph compared to the 487 mph of the P-51H or the 490 mph of the XP-72.

This was not nessesarily a result of poor aircraft design, or inferior engineering, but rather a function of FUEL.

The allies had such a lead in the development of high octane fuel during the war, that it had an enormous effect on the air war.

Higher octane fuel allows an aircraft engine to be boosted to higher pressure levels, ie. higher compression, without fear of detonation or pre-ignition. (which can quickly cause overheating, and terminal damage to pistons, rods and bearings)

From the earliest days of the Battle of Britain, when the Spitfire I's were able to run higher boost due to the availability 100 octane fuel, as compared to the 87 octane fuel they adn the Hurricanes were running at the time of the Battle of France or earlier, to the last days, when 150 octane fuel allowed +25 boost on the Merlins and +72 on the Pratt and Whitney's, the fuel technology advantage of the Allies made quite a difference.

If the German engineers had good supplies of 150 octane fuel available, their ability to build higher boost into aircraft such as the FW-190D and TA-152 would have resulted in much higher performance.

As it was, throughout the war, the German aircraft engines operated at lower boost levels than the comparable Allied aircraft.

People sometimes do not realize how important fuel quality was to the outcome of the war in the air.

quiet_man
04-21-2005, 10:05 AM
Hello Buzzsaw-:
I think you missed the first post of the thread

we are talking about what would have been designed after the war without jets

whatever it would have looked like, it would have clearly outperformed any allied or german plane build during the war

I changed the thread title to make this clear.

quiet_man

Buzzsaw-
04-21-2005, 11:27 AM
Salute Quiet Man

Sorry to say, but your question can have no answer.

Because every National Power realized in 1944, that Jets were the future, and altered their design schemes to face this reality.

There were no serious Fighter designs undertaken after the war concluded.

All of the later piston engined designs which appeared after the war had their genesis in designs created during the war.

stathem
04-21-2005, 12:23 PM
Ok, to make some sort of answer to your question. 20-30 years down the line?

Two conditions, nukes or no nukes?

You know there's an ultimate limit on altitude and speed of piston powered, prop driven planes, I'm sure. Pretty soon all the planes would be there, including the bombers. Some form of rocket assist would be neccessary for the interceptor climb rate, which was very big in the fifties.

IMO, if you consider that progress in avionics and missile guidance systems would have continued at the same rate, I think you'd be looking at a mid sized twin, in order to just fit in (spatially) all the 50's and 60's electronics and all-weather equipment and crew neccessary.

Something like a Mosquito with Griffons or Sabres and contra props (Sea Hornet?) or a Tigercat,a developed Pe-2, or a He-219. Remember the main threat through the decades after the war were high flying Super-fort type things carrying Nukes. and a Mossie with an AIM-9 would beat a P-51H.

I'll leave the condition without nukes to someone else, but remember that stand-off Air-to-Ground guided weapons would also have improved.

quiet_man
04-21-2005, 12:29 PM
@Buzzsaw-:

of course you are right there will never be a definitive answer. I read about a trial in the USA the Bearcat against P80 and the Bearcat lost by a wide margin. When with many "IF" the break down of german forces at all fronts would have had happend some years later (bad news for many people), the final airwar would have been fought by jets.

But with the latest "version XX of plane Z" rush in the forum, I found it interesting to give the people some room to discuss super fighters

have I overestimated the imagination abilities people in this forum have?

I can imagine all kind of plane for an R-4360-53, 3800 hp, I would prefer either an exotic design like Shinden or D335, or an simply an bigger P38 (I like the look), that would be one hell off an plane. The after war soviet planes look are a bit conventional (no critics on their performance)

quiet_man

EAF19_PeeGee
04-21-2005, 01:22 PM
If you can listen to this without a shudder down the spine you better check you still have a pulse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.aviationtrivia.homestead.com/SeaFury.html

faustnik
04-21-2005, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:

there is not just one plane here that is the king <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dirty-Mac,

I hear what you are saying and agree to an extent but, take a further look at the P-51H

- It has superior performance. Very fast top end speed, ecxellent climb, superior dive and zoom ability.

- It has superior high speed maneuverability.

- It has superior range.

- It can carry a wide range of weapon types and can carry a large payload.

- It has superior cruising speed.

- It was complimented by a superior gunsight and a G-suit for the pilot.

I can't think of another prop plane that is superior in such a broad range of roles.

BigKahuna_GS
04-21-2005, 03:18 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Buzzsaw- posted Thu April 21 2005 08:44
This was not nessesarily a result of poor aircraft design, or inferior engineering, but rather a function of FUEL.
The allies had such a lead in the development of high octane fuel during the war, that it had an enormous effect on the air war.
Higher octane fuel allows an aircraft engine to be boosted to higher pressure levels, ie. higher compression, without fear of detonation or pre-ignition. (which can quickly cause overheating, and terminal damage to pistons, rods and bearings)
If the German engineers had good supplies of 150 octane fuel available, their ability to build higher boost into aircraft such as the FW-190D and TA-152 would have resulted in much higher performance.
As it was, throughout the war, the German aircraft engines operated at lower boost levels than the comparable Allied aircraft.

People sometimes do not realize how important fuel quality was to the outcome of the war in the air.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Excellent Point Buzz !

There are many here that think 150octane fuel had no bearing with the Ki84 performing better during US aircraft evaluations. Fuel quality can make a huge difference in performance. High performance engines need high performance fuel to operate at optimum levels.


____

Buzzsaw-
04-21-2005, 04:04 PM
Salute Quiet Man

You mention new designs incorporating the Pratt and Whitney R4360. That is exactly what the XP-72 was. A P-47 with the larger 28 cylinder radial.

http://skunkworks.free.fr/p47head.jpg


The following is an excerpt from Joe Baugher's aircraft page description of the XP-72:

----------

The Republic XP-72 was Alexander Kartveli's proposal for a replacement for his fabulously successful P-47 Thunderbolt. It was evolved in parallel with the XP-69 escort fighter project.

The XP-69 was a completely new design, whereas the XP-72 was a more-or-less straightforward progressive development of the P-47 Thunderbolt. The XP-72 was the first fighter to be designed around the huge 28-cylinger Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major, the most powerful piston engine produced during World War 2. The engine was close-cowled and was fan-cooled. The Wasp Major was to have driven a pair of three-bladed Aeroproducts contrarotating propellers. The wing and tail of the P-47D were to be retained, but the airframe was enlarged and strengthened. The turbosupercharger was still located aft of the cockpit as it was in the P-47, but the turbosupercharger intake was moved to a position just underneath the cockpit rather than in the extreme nose. The lower fuselage was modified to allow for the larger air intake for the turbosupercharger. The XP-72 was to have been fitted with a bubble-type canopy, similar to that used by the late production blocks of the P-47D. Compressibility recovery flaps were fitted. Armament was to consist of six wing-mounted 0.50-inch machine guns, and two 1000-pound bombs were to be carried on underwing shackles.

The greater promise displayed by the XP-72 caused the USAAF to cancel the XP-69 project in favor of the XP-72. Two XP-72 prototypes were ordered on June 18, 1943. Serial numbers were 43-36598 and 43-36599. Some sources have these serials as being 43-6598 and 43-6599, but these appear to be in error since they conflict with a batch of P-51 Mustang serials.

XP-72 Ser No 43-36598 flew for the first time on February 2, 1944. Power was provided by a 3450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major air-cooled radial engine. Since delivery of the planned Aeroproducts contrarotating six-bladed propeller had been delayed, the first XP-72 was equipped with a single four-bladed propeller as a temporary stop-gap measure. Nevertheless, the performance was excellent, a maximum speed of 490 mph being reached in flight tests. The second XP-72 (43-36599) flew for the first time on June 26, 1944. It was fitted with the Aeroproducts contrarotating propellers, which had finally been delivered. Unfortunately, the second XP-72 was written off in a takeoff crash early in its test flight program.

In spite of the loss of the second prototype, the USAAF was so impressed with the performance of the XP-72 that they ordered one hundred P-72 production variants. These P-72s were to have the R-4360-19 engine and were to be provided with an optional choice of four 37-mm cannon as an alternative for the six 0.50-in machine guns. It was anticipated that speeds in excess of 500 mph would be attained.

However, the changing character of the war created a greater need for long-range escort fighters than for high-speed interceptors, and the USAAF rapidly lost interest in the XP-72 project. The order for the one hundred P-72s was cancelled. The advent of jet-powered fighters which promised even more spectacular performance was undoubtedly also a factor. The surviving XP-72 (43-36598) is thought to have been scrapped at Wright Field at about the time of V-J Day.

Specification of Republic XP-72:

Powerplant: One 3450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major air-cooled radial engine. Performance: Maximum speed was 490 mph at 25,000 feet. Normal range was 1200 miles at 300 mph and maximum range was 2520 miles at 315 mph with two 125 Imp. gall. drop tanks. Initial climb rate was 5280 feet per minute, and climb rate at 25,000 feet was 3550 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 3.5 minutes, 20,000 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. Weights were 11,476 pounds empty, 14,433 pounds normal loaded, 17,490 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 40 feet 11 inches, length 36 feet 7 inches, height 16 feet 0 inches, and wing area 300 square feet.

-----------

Joe Baugher's U.S. Military aircraft page is here:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/uscombataircraft.html

This plane would have eaten a Do-335 alive. It was much faster, had a HUGE rate of climb and lower wingloading. It weighed much the same as a standard P-47D. At superhigh altitudes, with the turbosupercharger setup, it would have dominated any other aircraft... Except of course, JETS. Which was why it was cancelled... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Model with different perspective:

http://hsfeatures.com/images/xp72je_title.jpg

EnGaurde
04-21-2005, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> engines with &gt;5000hp not possible? Ok, take the RS2800 (the P47 engine if I'm not wrong) redesign it with modern material, cooling & turbo charger
maybe use diesel concept to reduce heat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i understand high performance engines use lower compression. My old 2 stroke race bike could be pushed around in first gear, with a dull bobobobob coming from the exhaust. While this is certainly not a high performance aero engine, i wouldnt think things were too different. I think i read somewhere that the hayate engine compressed at around 7 to 1?

diesel... i do know that would be out of the question. Compression requirements rise to 25:1 in a diesel, and the outright power available from any diesel is quite low while the engine weight to beef everything up goes thru the roof. Torque, is the answer, sourced from wildly undersquare engines throwing a very long stroke to take advantage of the slow burning fuel oil diesel is. Hence this keeps revs relatively low.

they are an engine design that needs to be worked, hard. Otherwise you get a glazed engine, usually from too high a rev with too little a load. Result: poor performance. Dont know how this would fit with aero applications.

Diesels dont take rev changes real well, the bigger engines are not really designed to rev up and down and all over the place hence theyre set to a best torgue range and left, switching gears instead. I guess this does sound more of an engine application for aircraft. I used to get most out of all our diesels when id leave it practically idling and just slug it out, revving was utterly useless for the intended application.

i think with all the merlins, wasps etc you had big power, and big torque. With a diesel, you'd get even more torque but your power would vanish.

92SqnGCJimbo
04-21-2005, 06:31 PM
they fitted some ruskie pe-8's with diesals so they could bomb berlin (better fuel economy if they used low revs for the torque) needed special props etc...

had a bit of trouble with em.. but it was just about workable

p1ngu666
04-21-2005, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> engines with &gt;5000hp not possible? Ok, take the RS2800 (the P47 engine if I'm not wrong) redesign it with modern material, cooling & turbo charger
maybe use diesel concept to reduce heat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i understand high performance engines use lower compression. My old 2 stroke race bike could be pushed around in first gear, with a dull bobobobob coming from the exhaust. While this is certainly not a high performance aero engine, i wouldnt think things were too different. I think i read somewhere that the hayate engine compressed at around 7 to 1?

diesel... i do know that would be out of the question. Compression requirements rise to 25:1 in a diesel, and the outright power available from any diesel is quite low while the engine weight to beef everything up goes thru the roof. Torque, is the answer, sourced from wildly undersquare engines throwing a very long stroke to take advantage of the slow burning fuel oil diesel is. Hence this keeps revs relatively low.

they are an engine design that needs to be worked, hard. Otherwise you get a glazed engine, usually from too high a rev with too little a load. Result: poor performance. Dont know how this would fit with aero applications.

Diesels dont take rev changes real well, the bigger engines are not really designed to rev up and down and all over the place hence theyre set to a best torgue range and left, switching gears instead. I guess this does sound more of an engine application for aircraft. I used to get most out of all our diesels when id leave it practically idling and just slug it out, revving was utterly useless for the intended application.

i think with all the merlins, wasps etc you had big power, and big torque. With a diesel, you'd get even more torque but your power would vanish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed, deisels are useless

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8009edit.jpg

unless, ofcourse u speak to those made guys at napier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

EnGaurde
04-21-2005, 11:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> indeed, deisels are useless

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8009edit.jpg

unless, ofcourse u speak to those made guys at napier <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dear god its FRANKENENGINE ! !

*scream*

JR_Greenhorn
04-21-2005, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 10000hp engines <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
er... i think material science would probably whack that on the head.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not at all. Power levels like that are entirely possible, they just require concessions to be made in other areas. More and more cylinders, very large cylinders, different fuels (like nitromethane instead of gasoline), alternative cycles (like Diesel), etc. It all depends on what the design goals are and how far the concept can be taken.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
even if you did get an engine NEAR that hp, can you imagine the balancing act of performance vs endurance, not to mention outright size. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See, you've got it here. By setting a power requirement, that leaves you with a high-output engine running on the ragged edge, or else a verly large, lighter stressed engine.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
I read that the b29s engines were at the limit for useable piston engine design, and many failed because of the high state of tune.

I think qantas ran those radial engines or something similar on their fleet post war, and had to stock spares something stupid like one for one due to their high failure rate and low hour schedule. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's just not the case. The R-3350s weren't pushed any harder than any other aero engine at the time. The difference is that the R-3350 (as well as the entire B-29) was put into production before development was complete. They set up modification centres to do ECOs as they came so they didn't have to disturb the production lines. The R-3350 just wasn't fully refined when it was rushed to large-scale production, so its reliability record was low. The R-2800 was fully developed and quite refined during the war, and those engines have a good reputation for reliability in airline use.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
i reckon the very nature of the trade off of complexity vs peformance vs cost would have spelt the end of the piston engine in war aircraft anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so. Development and innovation would have marched on. Just think of how much more advanced today's auto engines could be if the cold war would have been with piston-powered planes instead of jets. To assume that the state of the art for piston engines is their limit discredits engineers around the world trying to improve the status quo.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
after all, someone thought of the jet. If they didnt, someone else would have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true at all, and again, this discredits the breakthroughs that were made in jet propusion.
Quit taking these things for granted, would ya! Many folks worked very hard for these things; they weren't just bound to happen eventually!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
You just cant ignore evolution / development and try to conjure up an alternate reality. Your answer would be, literally, what you were looking at flying around when the natural progression of technology ceased. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just because the discussion may be a bit acedemic in nature doesn't mean it isn't valid. You ceratinly can ignore evolution and imagine what could have been possible. It is a good exercise when looking for future innovations. The answer to the question then, is not what was there when things changed, but where the trends were headed. You don't have much of an imagination, do you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
i understand high performance engines use lower compression. My old 2 stroke race bike could be pushed around in first gear, with a dull bobobobob coming from the exhaust. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First, high performance engines have high compression. Supercharged engines have lowered compression in order to increase boost levels.

Second, shame on you for even attempting to compare 2-stroke and 4-stroke compression ratios! Unless your racebike was either really old or really unusual, its [dynamic] compression was achieved through three different methods. First, the air/fuel charge is compressed beneath the piston. Usually the comression ratio here is around 2:1. Next, the partially compressed charge enters the cylinder via the transfer ports. In the cylinder, the charge is futher compressed by the pulse generated by the exhaust gasses in the expansion chamber. Finally, once the piston is far enough up the cylinder to seal off all of the ports (roughly 1/3 of piston travel), the engine's static compression ratio acts on the charge.
In a 4-stroke, all you have is that final compression once the intake valve closes (close to BDC).
When you push around your 2-stroke bike in low gear, you aren't spinning the engine very fast, because high-strung 2-strokes usually run low gearing. In a slow turning 2-stroke, you don't have any pulsing from the expansion chamber, and most of the compression you do achieve below the piston gets too much time to bleed off while the ports are open. Conversely, while running under load, a 2-stroke racebike will be making cylinder pressures equivalent to any 4-stroke high performance engine.

Of course, there's always the fact that 2-strokes by definition put out double the power pulses at any revolution compared to 4-strokes.

What kind of bike did you have, anyway?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
While this is certainly not a high performance aero engine, i wouldnt think things were too different. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Any 2-stroke racebike engine is tuned to a level of performance comparable to a wartime aero engine. Both do not tolerate carelessness in fuels, tuning, or state of tune, and both have low Time Between Overhauls.

Still, 2-stroke racebike engines and 4-stroke aero engines are very, very different.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
i think with all the merlins, wasps etc you had big power, and big torque. With a diesel, you'd get even more torque but your power would vanish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not all Diesel engines are the heavy truck Diesels we have today. I've witnessed Diesel engines in competition at rpm approaching 4000 rpm. This is in the top end of the range that WWII aero engine were revved to.

The problem with Diesels is weight and vibration. Diesels operate at much, much higher cylinder pressures than Otto engines do. Due to the high cylinder pressures, the shock on the various engine parts each time a cylinder fires is increased significantly compared to Otto engines. As a result, these parts are beefed up and made heavier. The added weight and increased vibration over a similar Otto engine become problems in aero applications. As stated above, there have been some attempts at Diesel powered aircraft (with varying degress of success), but almost never is the powerplant very well suited to a fighter-type aircraft.

Badsight.
04-22-2005, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
of course you are right there will never be a definitive answer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>oh i think there is

the Super Wasp showed the nearing limits for piston technology

over 4000 Hp is not feasible , too highly boosted , too much fuel consumption , and a lack of combat reliability

the future for prop design was in turbojets

& contra rotating props

like i first stated , the Westland Wyrven is the best example of where fighter design was headed if they were to keep props

you realise tho , over 500 Mph is not that easy to get with a propeller

EnGaurde
04-22-2005, 12:55 AM
hmmm

very large cylinders.... now everything ive read about that spells trouble.

ducati has increased its twin cylinder 2V sportsbike to 1000cc. To overcome problems with uneven combustion due to the large combustion chamber, they have introduced two spark plugs though even this doesnt entirely solve the problem.

i just cant bring myself to think that 5000+ hp engines are feasible. Sure, they could be made, but at what cost and just how much use would they be for how long?

If the point is for non jet futures, whether i have an imagination or not, or how prone i am to flights of fantasy doesnt come into it. Real world, useable, reliable piston 4 cycle engines just cant return those kinds of numbers and be economically viable.

Instead of bigger, larger etc, i think you would actually see smaller capacity, less stressed engines with forced induction giving the power. Eventually, the limit would have been reached for workable aircraft employing an already highly developed technology. If it was truly feasible, then why arent those big radials in use today?

surely everyone can see why... planes just cant keep growing. There has to be a limit to the size and weight that effective piston aircraft fly at.

more power, to me means more revs, not just more capacity. Has anyone noticed how engine revs reduce as capacity climbs? So these new age engines dont fall into this category and are somehow immune?

my reasoning is big engines, to get big power, would need piston speeds that would be unacceptable. F1 technology proves the piston speed theory. So, short stroke is the key to big revs delivering big power. But then, torque is murdered on the altar of inherit design for a high revving engine.

add a turbo to that, and you get a shocking fire risk from white hot components, huge internal pressures and temperatures just waiting to blow things to bits, i just dont see how you could increase everything and keep reliability.

what this vicious circle leads to, is an engine that is entirely too big and too heavy for aircraft use. Like certain dinosaurs, strangely enough, they too sized themselves out of existance.

EnGaurde
04-22-2005, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> you realise tho , over 500 Mph is not that easy to get with a propeller <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes yes yes i forgot.

what happens when the prop tips go supersonic?

twice the speed of sound even?

a bigger prop, longer blades i hear you say.

Aah ok fine then we'll need more power, more capacity to turn the big barsttard.

hmmm hang on we're already fitting engines the size of houses to our block-out-the-sky aeroplanes, is this just an exercise in the law of diminishing returns?

p1ngu666
04-22-2005, 10:22 AM
hm ppl didnt click the link i gave, oh well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Platypus_1.JaVA
04-22-2005, 11:26 AM
I hope this has been brought up before in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A turbo prop is essentially a jet engine with a propellor in front of it. (and of course a big gearbox in between) So, if you are discussing the best prop fighter, the Wyvern, how beautifull it may be, is not allowed in the discussion I think...

Cluelesss1
05-13-2005, 06:40 AM
The Australian Built CA-15 "Kangaroo".. and yes, one was built http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://home.wanadoo.nl/r.j.o/skyraider/gallery/ca-15_2.jpg

http://image12.webshots.com/12/9/49/68/168694968bdNdPa_ph.jpg

http://www.donsmodelworks.com/wmprods/images/wm72079.jpg

http://www.cardmodelers.org/archive/nov03/liketosee.html

http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/fot/fot236.jpg

LuckyBoy1
05-13-2005, 06:54 AM
Actually, I think I'd say the plane would look like this...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Luckyboy1/38-7.jpg

SeaNorris
05-13-2005, 06:55 AM
http://home.wanadoo.nl/r.j.o/skyraider/gallery/ca-15_2.jpg

Looks something like a P-51 to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Cluelesss1
05-13-2005, 06:58 AM
its not a p51, it was based on the p51's design tho... but it was bigger, meaner, faster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaNorris
05-13-2005, 07:10 AM
Won't a P-51 look nice painted like one:

http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/rys/rys003.jpg
http://digilander.libero.it/lealidellaregia/CA15_file/image002.jpg
http://www.skyraider3d.eclipse.co.uk/gallery/ca-15_1_1024.jpg
http://home.wanadoo.nl/r.j.o/skyraider/gallery/ca-15_3.jpg

quiet_man
05-13-2005, 08:33 AM
did some thinking about the &gt;5000hp engine issue

maybe at some point fighter would have become SMALLER?

Something like a F1 car with guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

quiet_man

LuckyBoy1
05-13-2005, 09:35 AM
Actually, the biggest thing limiting prop planes today is simply the MAC barrier so to speak and the limitations props have in dealing with speeds as you get close to MAC 1.0

92SqnGCJimbo
05-13-2005, 10:52 AM
lucky its mach... just so u know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ICDP
05-13-2005, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Buzzsaw- posted Thu April 21 2005 08:44
This was not nessesarily a result of poor aircraft design, or inferior engineering, but rather a function of FUEL.
The allies had such a lead in the development of high octane fuel during the war, that it had an enormous effect on the air war.
Higher octane fuel allows an aircraft engine to be boosted to higher pressure levels, ie. higher compression, without fear of detonation or pre-ignition. (which can quickly cause overheating, and terminal damage to pistons, rods and bearings)
If the German engineers had good supplies of 150 octane fuel available, their ability to build higher boost into aircraft such as the FW-190D and TA-152 would have resulted in much higher performance.
As it was, throughout the war, the German aircraft engines operated at lower boost levels than the comparable Allied aircraft.

People sometimes do not realize how important fuel quality was to the outcome of the war in the air.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Excellent Point Buzz !

There are many here that think 150octane fuel had no bearing with the Ki84 performing better during US aircraft evaluations. Fuel quality can make a huge difference in performance. High performance engines need high performance fuel to operate at optimum levels.


____ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna, you seem to know a lot about WWII fighters so I am surprised at this response. Please re-read Buzzsaws post and note the following part

"Higher octane fuel allows an aircraft engine to be boosted to higher pressure levels, ie. higher compression, without fear of detonation or pre-ignition. (which can quickly cause overheating, and terminal damage to pistons, rods and bearings)"

In short Buzzsaw is stating that higher octane fuel allows engines run at higher boost settings (compression ratios) safely.

The higher octane fuel ONLY makes a difference IF THE ENGINE IS DESIGNED FOR USE WITH HIGHER OCTANE FUEL. Simply using higher octane fuel in an engine designed for lower octane fuel HAS NO APPRECIABLE effect without EXTENSIVELY MODIFYING THE ENGINE FIRST. The Ki84 tested did not have its engine modified to benefit from the higher octane fuel. The Ki84 engine was designed for the lower octane fuel available to the Japanese, putting 150 grade fuel into it would have no noticable performance increase.

Buzzsaw is correct in that higher octane fuel in allied engines were a big advantage BUT only because they were designed to use it. Simply pouring some 150 octane fuel into a Fw190D or Ki84 will not give any benefits WITHOUT increasing the compression ratio first (not an easy process).

I thought this was common knowledge for most people on this forum.

If you think higher octane fuel will give a performance boost I suggest you go and fill your car up with higher octane fuel and report back with the results. This is a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.

P.S. I am only using caps to emphasise important points, I am not SHOUTING http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LuckyBoy1
05-13-2005, 12:37 PM
Hey, I've been up for 36 hours straight with my daughter's sick cat... see, I told my wife we should've just beat my daughter's head against a rock at birth but no!, the wife's goota get all huffy and unreasonable... and this is the result!...

and I'm a little slap happy from lack of sleep and I'm one of those characters who used to know how to add...

Then they came out with calculators.

The I also be a Dude who could spell all fine and fair...

Then they came out with spell check... except for UBI forums that is! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif Gee, you'd think after all the money I've paid to use these forums that sooner or later they'd fix that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

fordfan25
05-13-2005, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
the Westland Wyvern ---- its the best example of where Prop-Fighter technology was headed if Jets didnt get developed

http://img131.echo.cx/img131/5605/ca4910fg.jpg

http://img131.echo.cx/img131/430/gwyvern22ho.jpg

Prop Fighters after WW2 were headed for counter-rotating props . Gas turbine motors out-perform Piston engines , both for Hp & fuel economy

& heres a unpainted model of the Beast

http://img131.echo.cx/img131/4669/cawyvernbuilduppreviewtitl8iy.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


that thing looks like a very happy dog if you know what i mean lol.

BossHogg_1
05-18-2005, 01:52 AM
This is probably as close to the "future" of piston powered props as has ever been attempted. Burt Rutan's Pond Racer
http://www.aerofiles.com/pond.jpg

Unfortunately the program was not a great success, mostly due to engine problems. Sadly this one-off racer crashed, killing the pilot before its potential could be realised.

JR_Greenhorn
05-18-2005, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
The higher octane fuel ONLY makes a difference IF THE ENGINE IS DESIGNED FOR USE WITH HIGHER OCTANE FUEL. Simply using higher octane fuel in an engine designed for lower octane fuel HAS NO APPRECIABLE effect without EXTENSIVELY MODIFYING THE ENGINE FIRST.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I've heard this one so many times, but it only really holds true in production vehicles intended for consumers. An engine tuned to run on the ragged edge of detonation can benefit from higher octane gasoline.

By the time the Ki-84 was used, the Japanese desperately needed every bit of performance they could muster. It is very likely that the engine was tuned to a point that detonation could occur when pushing the engine hard, such as WEP or a high power setting only used at takeoff. Such at state of tune would contribute to the poor reliability of that engine. If higher octane fuel was used in such an engine, higher levels of power would be available with a reduced risk of engine damage.

As a real world example, my roommate recently made some modifications to his dirt bike. A new cylinder, piston, and head conspired to raise compression significantly. While testing the new combo, he noticed a decrease in power at the top end of the powerband. A switch from 92 octane pump gas to 110 octane race gas remedied the top end power loss. He suspects the jetting to be slightly lean, which would create more heat and make the engine more sensitive to detonation. While dialing in the mixture better is the solution here, the high octane fuel certainly helps.



Modifying an engine to take advantage of higher octane fuel doesn't have to be that difficult, either. For example, a radial engine that happened to use a cylinder base gasket could have its compression raised simply by omitting that gasket. Even with rudimentary tools, heads, decks or cylinder bases could be milled; a crude but effective job could be performed in the field.

More realistically, aero engines took advantage of higher octane fuel by increasing boost pressure. This modification can be as simple as removing a gear set from the blower drive and replacing it with one of a different ratio.

WTE_Chunder
05-19-2005, 04:48 AM
As mentioned about 2 or 3 times already - a Turbo prop is a jet engine.

Compressors in a jet engine are run by a shaft, linking the Turbines with the compressor.

In a turboprop, the turbine drives both the compressor, and the Turbo Prop.
Derivitives exist in both axial and centrifugal flow jet configuration.

The Jet had therefor to be developed (and was) before the turboprop.

Therefor anything containing a turbo prop is simply non applicable.

Although my thinking is a little abstract, Prop Fighters could only go so fast.

So I think you would be looking at a way to go the following without the use of Jets

FASTER HIGHER FARTHER

- Just as jet development did.

For faster, you would be looking at perhaps swept wing piston fighters operating off larger strips. And perhaps more research put into dynamic propeller construction (Remember when jet age arrived, most R&D went to development of jets (and turboprops) and not so much into props.

They would have to be bigger to carry more fuel, to go farther, and they probably would have larger wing area for higher flying.

Perhaps to accomodate this outlook, twin engines would be more used as requirements to wage war further from home & longer patrols (especially with the advent of nuclear powered war ships) for purposes of being able to take battle damage to an engine and return a priority. The Second guy might be a Navigator come pilot, as with the Twin Mustang and other examples, or a pilot - my suspicions are a Navigator/Guy in back with the approaching ground wars in Korea and Vietnam.

(Note many 2 seat skyraiders were used in vietnam)

Conversely you would have a harder time with slower props over enemy territory, being exposed to ack ack, for a longer time than jets, with radar aids...

So I would pitch my bets at a swept wing, larger wing area, twin seaters.

major_setback
05-19-2005, 07:01 AM
.... and what about all those German projects that never came to fruition.

The sites: Luft '46 and Luft '46 Art have some great info, art, and photos of late war aircraft development. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Well worth a visit if you havn't seen these before! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.luft46.com/luftart.html



http://www.luft46.com/


Edit: sorry JG52Karaya-X, I didn't see that you'd already sent a link to this site! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/gm187-3.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/mrdbj-2.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/jh204-1.jpg