Physics major here.
I've been learning everything possible about propeller planes lately.
Ducted fans, axial fans, supersonic tipped fans, subsonic compression ratios, blade element theory, etc.
I have found my passion, and I want to share knowledge with you guys and talk about prop fighters. My goal one day is to make these things relevant again with a new engine patent. Maybe not for fighting modern jets, but at least for viable ground support.
Do you guys like them? Any ex-military guys here ever flown a Super Tucano?
>>29226387
Engineering technologist, here.
There are a lot of recent advances in manufacturing that could allow for much more efficient geometries, but I don't believe propeller planes will have much use on the modern battlefield minus perhaps drones.
>>29226387
P51>all else
>>29226409
I believe you'd need to have assisted power since compression has a limit, that or use a regulated closed system but that would be extremely expensive.
>>29226413
No, I posted the FR because it is better for both land and sea operations, has a better climb rate, better roll rate, better turn rate, better everything desu and is more interesting in design. Contra-rotating props are inherently what you want for stability to recover from slipstream dampening
Prop FIGHTERS will never exist again
Prop COIN/CAS aircraft exist and are in use.
>>29226441
forgot pic
>>29226447
no one cares about Cessnas with hellfire missles
>>29226441
>Contra-rotating props are inherently what you want for stability to recover from slipstream dampening
Aren't they also fuckoff loud?
I've heard stories of some planes being tracked by fucking submarine sonar from high altitude because of how fucking cacophonous they were.
>>29226464
Who cares about comfort. Efficiency is what matters
>>29226457
I'm sure the launch platform not costing $95m makes a hellfire less deadly, anon
>>29226470
Well, I'd rather we not have pilots in the damn things to begin with. Engineering shit around our biology is a fucking chore.
Still, silence isn't exactly a bad thing for military equipment.
Hey, OP.
What do you think of ground effect vehicles?
High speed, high efficiency.
>>29226464
They are loud Because the blades are spinning extremely fast. The Tu-95s blades spin faster than the speed of sound. It's 4x louder than one blade going that fast.
>>29226536
Probably not good for any combat roles. On their own I find them interesting as far as their geometries go.
>>29226544
Two propellers going the same direction are going to be quieter than two contra-rotating propellers going at the same RPM.
>>29226587
>Swarm of unmanned GEV's strafing the battlefield below the radar at 350 mph, dropping bombs as they go.
>>29226619
Production costs are high
Usually multiple redesigns of the hullforms is required before they can accelerate to flight speed, which increases engineering costs
Itt
Faggots with pipe dreams
>>29226666
die
>>29226666
Satan confirms
Big diameter props produce thrust more efficiently at lower speeds than small diameter fans/turbines.
Example the engines of the V-22 Osprey produce way more thrust than the engines of an F-15, way more. They're also lighter.
But because of the diameter they cause a lot more friction than smaller diameter fans/turbines at higher speeds so speed is limited.
Props will always have a place for low speed, but for fighters you need to go fast.
