What would a modern prop fighter look like?
I was surprised to read the Super Tucano's specs and find out that it would get completely BTFO by any late-war piston fighter in a gunfight.
What could we do with modern aerodynamics and turboprops to build a hypothetical evolution of a WWII fighter?
who would this prop fighter fight? Modern jets? WWII era planes? What weapons are available? Land based/carrier based? Is it a multi role/CAS/strike plane?
>>28293258
If we had to come up with an actual role for it, a helicopter-killer would probably be the most practical one.
But really, it's a totally hypothetical situation that doesn't have any real-world utility. Imagine that it's some kind of world where jets and missiles didn't take off, but turboprops did, and we have all of our other modern aircraft tech.
This, with IRST and shit
>>28293291
Came to post this, was beaten to it.
>>28293208
the sad thing about the Tucano is that it doesn't benefit from the technology present in WWII era airplanes.
The engines they used were fucking enormous and used a shitload of barely-refined leaded aviation fuel, which nowadays is produced in much much smaller quantities mostly for civilian aviators.
the Tucano I'm sure fulfills a certain role that most WWII piston engine aircraft couldn't do better, which is flying low and slow and making accurate and effective damage to ground targets, but it would certainly get shot down if it went toe to toe with a WWII fighter.
I'm pretty sure the Tucanos are used for searching/patrolling/raiding compounds built to produce large amounts of cocaine.
>>28293291
The Thunderscreech is probably about as close as we've gotten, but I think there's a lot of room for improvement.
Modern composite tech and computer modelling would allow for a much neater package, and I think it'd probably have a huge scimitar-bladed prop. Modern turboprop engines are also a lot smaller and would allow for a smaller aircraft overall. I tend to wonder if FBW and the ability to make fundamentally unstable aircraft work would be relevant, and if we'd see more crazy stuff like canard designs and pushers.
Scaled Composites built this thing as a racer in the late '80s, imagine a scaled up version with a pair of Vulcans between the props.
One of those A-29 super tucano stalling in an air show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTMC3zVIkxc
>tfw I saw it falling
>>28293208
Those planes are so gorgeous, have any more pics?
>>28293208
Jesus fucking Christ, this thread again.
>>28293360
>I'm pretty sure the Tucanos are used for searching/patrolling/raiding compounds built to produce large amounts of cocaine.
This.
They're excellent for asymmetrical operations where you don't have to worry about much in the way of dedicated AA, but would still benefit from CAS.
>>28293208
what annoys me about the tucano is how lightly armed this thing is
I'm pretty sure a skyraider with modern avionic and payload would be a much more efficient cas plane
then again in today's kind of warfare the most efficient thing would be some kind of UAV airship sailing at 20 000ft onlooking action and providing direct support with 30mm fire
>>28293208
turbo props already pretty much reached max specs after ww2. the only thing that would really help them today would be the updated electronics and navigation systems, radar, etc
we used pic related in vietnam war with good success against ground targets, and early migs
>>28293776
I've been thinking that a Turboprop Skyraider with modern avionics would be an awesome CAS bird for a while. People usually shoot that idea down because they actually tried a turbo Skyraider and it was garbage, but that was largely the result of early turboprops being shit, a terrible contraprop setup, and a lack of modern materials and design techniques to help them get the thing balanced right.
Here's the aircraft in question, the A2D Skyshark.
>>28293776
>Providing direct support with 30mm fire
>from a UAV
>at 20,000 ft
Uhhhh
>>28293797
fucking forgot to attach pic
>>28293800
And here's somebody's concept for a modern Turbo Skyraider.
The Skyshark's engine had to be mid-mounted and took up most of the fuselage (as was the case in the Thunderscreech), but a modern turboprop could be mounted traditionally. A lot of the problems with early turbo fighters were the result of them trying to get jet-level performance out of them, too, but a modern CAS TurboRaider wouldn't have to do weird shit like using a contraprop because being slow is OK in its role.
>>28293797
Korea actually, whats hilarious is that atleast 1 MiG-15 was shot down by british prop planes during that war.
>>28293819
I get kind Focke Wulf vibe out of that plane, 190D/Ta-152, must be the nose section and the canopy.
>>28293828
Sea Furies, if I recall correctly. That plane was a beast at low altitude, and they used numbers and tactics to kill that MiG.
At least one MiG-17 or -19 was shot down by a Skyraider in Vietnam, too.
>>28293291
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEÈE
>>28293838
I do too, it's definitely the long cylindrical nose. The canopy does kind of look like one too, I wouldn't be all that surprised if the guy who built that model used a 190 canopy, or at least part of one.
>>28293208
>>28293776
Planes like the Super Tucano, Texan II, Archangel, etc aren't suppose to be high-performance fighters. That'll just put up the price for no reason.
They're also not conventional CAS which is why they're not built like the Skyraider.
They do ISR, border patrols, COIN CAS, etc and can utilise precision munitions. Neither of which requires high performance, rugged armouring or heavy gun power like a conventional prop back in WW2/Cold War.
Most also double as a flight trainer too.
At most they'll be slinging laser guided munitions from relative safety and strafing with impunity when necessary.
>>28293376
Crazy plane, my dick is diamond
>>28293867
Woah, with the exception of the weird prop setup, this thing is gorgeous.
There's something very late-war Germanic about the design, maybe it's the Ta 154 that it reminds me of. (Speaking of which, War Thunder WHEN?)
>>28293804
> airship uav
just imagine that thing hovering above the area with 3-4 camera giving troop on the ground direct and constant update about the situation + a single 30mm
missile can be fired from a nearby base and laser guided by the airship onto target
there's literally no flaw with this concept
>>28293937
That's interesting, because Kurt Tank (chief engineer of Focke-Wulf during the WWII) worked several years for in Argentina for Fábrica Argentina de Aviones (Pucarà manufacturer) after the war...
>>28293959
That fact had actually crossed my mind, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he had anything to do with the Pucara. I wouldn't have any trouble believing that its designers took a lot of inspiration from his designs, though.
>>28293945
>there's literally no flaw with this concept
Except AA guns which put holes in a very slow moving, large target that is susceptible to holes.
>>28293959
Not surprising he'd want to work in the whitest country on Earth
>>28293776
Might as well not screw around and just start building Skyraiders again.
>>28293976
implying Taliban and other guerrillas shit have AAA able to reach +20 000 ft accurately before being obliterated by the thing itself
the airship would see and fire before achmed and his friend even know it's there
also Helium airship are notoriously hard to bring down and with a multiple cell system inside it will easily be able to leave the area before crashing not to mention UAV currently used aren't exactly out of danger either
but above all this thing could stay on target for days maybe week providing a gas + solar panel hybrid generator to power it
>>28293937
The Argies are to re-engine 20 of them with P&W Canada PT-6A-62 engines. IAI are building the wings remodelled.
But rumour is, IAI have only delivered one set of wings because Argentina hasn't paid them for the work yet.
>>28294086
Those engines kind of spoil the lines, but still pretty cool.
Funny that they're buying engines from a Commonwealth country when they're still sore about the Falklands.
>>28293945
No flaw except the inherent problems in a lighter-than-air craft.
>>28294107
Upgrade was proposed to be along the lines of pic related.
IIRC there was a single-seat version of the Pucara developed in the past as well, with a long ugly nose
>>28294118
I kind of like it, it reminds me of the duck.
Wiki says they were working on a 6-seat transport variant as well, that would interesting to see.
>>28293208
>>28293258
>>28293287
>>28293360
>>28293473
>>28293672
>>28293707
>>28293776
>>28293804
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
>inb4 vice leddit faggit
This is actually a serious piece of journalism worthy of the Times or a similar publishing. Also, it's motherboard.
TL;DR: The SEALs wanted the Super Tucano badly, just like the commander of all forces in Afghanistan. They called it Imminent Fury, had several pilots on the project but it was cancelled by the Pentagon because
>muh 8 Minute rule
>muh F35
>muh stealth
completely ignroing the fact that planes on station in 8 minutes were gone within half an hour because they ran out of fuel. typical engagements in 'stan last hours though, so most of the time the patrols on the ground were without air support
Most of the time, super tucanos could have been on station much quicker because they could use airfields were even Neil Armstrong himself wouldn't try to land an F35 or F/A18.
>inb4 F35B
Right. No.
Brings up an interesting question though: how much did the Marines use their Harriers in the war on terror? FOD chances would have probably been high, but having air support from your own FOB would have been neat.
>>28293945
How do you plan on retaining any sort of accuracy with a 30mm weapon from a distance of 20000 ft?
>>28293208
>>28293258
>>28293287
>>28293360
>>28293473
>>28293672
>>28293707
>>28293776
>>28293804
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
>inb4 vice leddit faggit
This is actually a serious piece of journalism worthy of the Times or a similar publishing. Also, it's motherboard.
TL;DR: The SEALs wanted the Super Tucano badly, just like the commander of all forces in Afghanistan. They called it Imminent Fury, had several pilots on the project but it was cancelled by the Pentagon because
>muh 8 Minute rule
>muh F35
>muh stealth
completely ignroing the fact that planes on station in 8 minutes were gone within half an hour because they ran out of fuel. typical engagements in 'stan last hours though, so most of the time the patrols on the ground were without air support
Most of the time, super tucanos could have been on station much quicker because they could use airfields were even Neil Armstrong himself wouldn't try to land an F35 or F/A18.
>inb4 F35B
Right. No.
Brings up an interesting question though: how much did the Marines use their Harriers in the war on terror? FOD chances would have probably been high, but having air support from your own FOB would have been neat.
>>28294215
wtf? that was not planned.
>>28294001
There are WW2 designs that have nearly double the effective range, and very little footprint.
>>28294215
>typical engagements in 'stan last hours though
Are those engagements hours until they call in CAS? Ones that have no CAS at all?
From what I've heard they tend to back the hell off once air assets start working.
>>28294159
Motherboard is completely respectable journalism compared to the pile of shit that is vice
>>28294267
Motherboard = Vice
>>28294215
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
>According to former Defense Department official Pierre Sprey
Stopped reading
>>28294159
>>28294215
Was this just a simple mistake we could all understand, or your such a faggot that you can't deal with anyone not responding to you?
the real reason they stooped using the A2 is because us aircraft manufacturer needed to made more money
the plane was a success by all measurement and it was used against quite well equipped forces
an skyraider would have little to fear flying against Taliban today
>>28293672
Yeah why are we still talking about this when we could have a thread about something important, like AR vs AK, bullpup vs conventional, is the F-35 worth it, will the latest slavshit brochureware btfo America, or whether power armor and mecha will ever be feasible.
Cause we never talk about that shit.
>>28294215
>Pierre Sprey
yeah, totally serious piece of journalism
besides did you ever wonder that every info, citations and inside info in articles sprey is involved in is not ever published by any serious journalist (well at least not the cut out out of the context into)?
what ww2 fighter can carry AIM-9L Sidewinder, MAA-1A Piranha, MAA-1B Piranha, Python 3 and
Python 4?
>>28294215
>Brings up an interesting question though: how much did the Marines use their Harriers in the war on terror?
Both the Brits and the USMC had Harriers permanently based at Camp Bastion/Leatherneck in Helmand province
The Brits only replaced their with Tornados in 2010, when they retired Harrier. USMC harrier ops were curtailed when the Taliban destroyed a bunch of them during an attack on the base.
>Design a prop plane for military use in the 21st century
>Makes it shittier than prop planes designed almost 60 years earlier
For fuck sakes, what were they thinking?
>>28294409
Fuck, it's more expensive too. Accounted for inflation, a P-51D would cost about $700,000 per unit, while a Super Tucano costs 9-14 million. Unless modern avionics and radar systems make up over 90% of their total cost, the design is beyond retarded.
>>28294409
Horses for courses, and make it cheap and easy to maintain and fly. WWII fighters were high-strung thoroughbreds, this thing is a workhorse.
>>28294335
Now that'd be interesting to see, all you'd have to do is add the avionics and wiring. Sidewinders are super-easy to integrate, all of the hardware is in the missile and you only need to wire the lock tone to the pilot's headset.
Actually, I wonder if they ever tried putting them on the PA-48.
>>28294429
Economy of scale.
There was much more infrastructure in place to spread out the dev costs and other sunk costs for planes during WW2 than there is for prop planes in 2015.
>>28294374
Fuck ton, USMC Harriers had one of the higher platform sortie rates.
See attached, great read.
>>28293841
A MiG-17 went headon with 2 Skyraiders and got wrecked.
>>28293291
>flies over your house
>roof tiles shake loose and begin to cave in
>all glass shatters nearby, computer screen cracks
>you get a blood nose and are made instantly deaf
>as you salute towards the thunderscreech you shit your pants and have a seizure
Isn't turboprops a little cheating when talking about prop fighters?
Sure they have a prop, but it's still a jet-turbine engine that powers the prop.
A turbofan works the same, the most modern ones are geared too but instead of a prop with relatively few blades it uses a prop with a lot of blade ( a fan) with a nacelle around it.
If we had an age with no jets, there wouldn't be turboprops either since they're just jets with parts added to it.
Instead we would have fighters powered by the Goddess of all engines, the Wankel engine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ITy_E0JLg
Piston engines are poop for anything above 1000 hp since they become way too complicated which is why they were quickly fazed out post ww2.
For under 300 hp piston engines are still relatively simple but jet eninges are the simpler option for high powered engines.
The Corsair navy fighter had 50 individual spark plugs that had to be checked if one had malfunctioned, a jet engine only has a few moving parts and almost zero vibration resulting in less airframe fatigue.
I don't really think my post is very coherent any more.
>>28294440
PA-48 while it looks like a p-51 shares almost nothing with it.
>>28294880
>PA-48 while it looks like a p-51 shares almost nothing with it.
It's probably the closest we'll ever see to a WWII fighter with modern materials and avionics, though, aside from flying replicas that aren't meant to be actual combat aircraft. (Not that I wouldn't love to own the recent-build FW190A replica my local air museum has on display right now.)
>>28293208
>What would a modern prop fighter look like?
Like on your picture.... assuming anyone would have interest over having a prop fighter for sake of having one. Just add sidewinders on hardpoints. Fighter like turboprops have their uses... as cheap to operate trainers, as forward deployed CAS platforms against opponents without proper air defense or as doing previous to support special operations in carefully planned missions.
>I was surprised to read the Super Tucano's specs and find out that it would get completely BTFO by any late-war piston fighter in a gunfight.
Super Tucano has way superior avionics, potential to mount modern weaponry like missiles and datalink to feed pilot with superior situational awareness. It is also easier to fly. Almost all of last generation piston engine fighters were fucking nightmares to fly for pilot. They would have to focus on just flying the plane, modern avionics makes that whole lot easier.
>>28294429
You are comparing flyaway cost to lifecycle cost with probably 30 year or so support contract, all associated ground equipment, training for pilots and mechanics. Not to mention development and weapons integration costs being sunk into two to three hundred airframes instead of WWII era thousands of airframes.
>>28294440
>Sidewinders are super-easy to integrate, all of the hardware is in the missile and you only need to wire the lock tone to the pilot's headset.
With AIM-9X and other modern imaging infrared seeker AAM's with off boresight firing capability it's not that simple.
>>28293208
First things first: there is no such thing as a modern turbo-prop fighter. You could make a plane that could fill the same role as the A-10, though.
>>28294293
sorry, tripfag, board reported failure to post. tried again, suddenly there were two.
>>28294267
mostly. its harder to be a faggot when you actually have to bring facts to the table instead of
>muh feels
>muh taste
>>28294317
facts speak for themselves in this case. There will always be shitheads, but in this case, the info that they did source is actually pretty impressive.
>>28294374
i was thinking along the lines of actually using the STOL/VTOL capability in a heli base or with an ultrashort runway. to be able to station them at bases closer to the action, leading to longer loiter times and shorter rearmament phases.
>>28294317
>yeah, totally serious piece of journalism
Pierre Sprey is quoted couple times. That is fraction of whole article.
>>28294409
You can't blame the South America for not trying; they don't really have the tech needed to properly design something as precise as the endgame stuff of WWII; not that they can't afford it mind you, it's just they're not really willing to shell that amount of money for something with as niche a role as the Tucan, not until it proves successful enough to warrent an upgrade.
>>28295066
The point of the thread wasn't to come up with something practical for the real world, it was more to talk about the best possible propeller-driven fighter that could be built with today's technology.
>>28294622
>top kek
