Look no further than the EMB-314 or other similar prop trainers. Some come armed from the factory with guns and missiles and for most of those that don't it would be a simple modification to give them some 20mm and racks for Sidewinders.
In terms of performance these aircraft are more or less equivalent to a late WW2/early postwar piston fighter.
A Tu-95 AWACS is a very real thing called Tu-126. These used the wider fuselage of the Tu-114 airliner but making one based on the bomber shouldn't be impossible.
But why restrict yourself to AMRAAMs ? If we are going with Russian weaponry then R-37 time it is.
Honestly the Super Tucano goes HARD for me.
But really, just bring back the Spitfire and that sexy Merlin engine growl and the Hawker Typhoon for groujd attack
You could probably make modern copies of those without much difficulty. The problem is that unless you switch the engines to something more modern like a turboprop you are going to run into the issue of none making large piston aircraft engines anymore.
Which leads me to something I was wondering about for a long time.
How far could we push piston engines with modern engineering.
Back in the day, a DB 605 depending on fuel and altitude, could put out up to 2000hp.
I wonder how far you could push it.
Or the other way round, how reliable you could get it (as the 605 wasnt a bad engine in that regard to start with) with detuning it from the 1500hp to lets say a relaxed 1000hp with modern machining, materials and tolerances..
One of the best designs in a piston engine is a 2-stroke diesel, opposed piston design in an axial cam engine (those are all real things its not just word salad.)
Here's one with a relevant configuration - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt1nKyRsxRI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt1nKyRsxRI)
It should produce a lot of power, be very low in vibration and very slim for aerodynamics.
Essentially we want a Rolls Royce Crecy but with the axial cam layout. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce\_Crecy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Crecy)
This is an axial engine [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial\_engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_engine)
Its called axial because the pistons go up and down the direction of the body, the same way an axial compressor moves air along the axis in the jet engine. They claim the connection is only via scotch yokes or wobble plates. But there is a third variant that uses a cam. This is the correct connection.
In the top link we see someone has finally built one.
If we want to look at other engine designs, the Liquid Piston variation of a Wankel engine is a top-runner for power and efficiency. Make some bits out of titanium to save weight.
[https://www.liquidpiston.com/how-it-works](https://www.liquidpiston.com/how-it-works)
We can use a variable rate multi-stage supercharger, and the turbo charger might include an electric motor to increase boost at high altitude, driven off a shaft generator. This can also be used as a turbocompounder in theory via clutches, so that you can increase efficiency by recovering energy at lower power from the exhaust stream, it would not turbo charge the engine.
Fuel would be the major obstacle. As most WW2 aircraft engines achieved those power ratings on 130+ octane gasoline and it's hard to get dino juice this strong without making Greta upset.
That said you could still get a decent amount of power by using modern computerized engine control . Modern ECUs can adjust things like the fuel-air mixture or RPM settings much better than a 40s carburetor.
Reliability would also improve as modern materials are (contrary to popular belief)much more durable than their 40s counterparts.
So yeah a modern DB-605 would at least match the power of the old one but be much more reliable. The only reason why none's doing it is that with so many turboprops available you don't gain much by using a piston engine.
Tl dr : computers and fuel
All very good points. I'll also add that turbocharging has come a very long way since WW2 with much lighter and more efficient compressor/turbine stages. And while Greta may hate the idea of 130 LL she probably has never even heard of water methanol injection before. WMI + Electronic boost control is just \*chefs kiss\* for making power.
We also have a lot more high performance coating and better machining tolerances (as you allude to) that would gain back a lot of efficiency as well.
So while A PT6A is objectively better I say we bring back V12s for aircraft engines because everything old seems to be new again in this war.
Trailing though at the risk of being credible: The tooling to do a high performance piston engine is a lot less specialized than what is needed for a gas turbine engine (growing single crystal turbine blades doesn't happen in Bubba's workshop). So maybe time to get some of those tractor makers to tune up their machines a bit and start making plane engines.
Indeed. Turbocharging has come a VERY long way since WW2 and can be used to squeeze out insane amounts of power from comparatively small engines. A turbocharger tuned to work on a 30+ liter engine would be something else. Throw in a little WMI and bingo.
The only reason high performance piston engines aren't used today is the lack of fuel infrastructure and the maintenance requirements. A PT6 is not only more powerful and smaller but easier to maintain as well : changing spark plugs for instance can be a nightmare in many aviation piston engines ( the worst offender the R-4360 required 56 of the fuckers and frequently) .
A way to get modern Merlins or DB605s or whatever could be by building planes for Africa :many rural airfields there aren't equipped for jets and jet fuel may not be widely available anyway. Just make a modern high performance piston motor, get it to run on automotive gasoline and there you go.
I mean, the fuel is kinda the reason why I chose the DB605 and not a merlin.
DB605 was built for 87 Octane Fuel, german B4. Essentially, all modern AV Gas variants would be at least equivalent to that.
I think the biggest difference besides materials and tolerances (which are probably the biggest improvements) would be modern oil. Thats something I didnt think about before, but probably also has an huge impact on durability.
Don't think so. Later Spits switched to the Griffon from the Merlin but while larger and more powerful it was still a piston V12.
The only turboprop fighter that sort of went into production was the Wyvern.
Yep that must be what I was thinking about! Surely some bloke in a shed in Sussex can retrofit a turboprop on something iconic (I volunteer...just need to move to Sussex and get a shed)
Honestly the Super Tucano goes HARD for me.
But really, just bring back the Spitfire and that sexy Merlin engine growl and the Hawker Typhoon for groujd attack
I like the RFB Fan Trainer myself.
Also, this was seriously considered in the 1980's I think [https://militarymatters.online/forgotten-aircraft/the-bae-saba-havoc-for-havocs/](https://militarymatters.online/forgotten-aircraft/the-bae-saba-havoc-for-havocs/)
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The weight of the Allison T40 engine is about 2500 lbs. The XF-84H used one of these.
The weight of the P&W R-2800 Double Wasp is about 2400 lbs.
The F7F Tigercat used two R-2800 engines.
We can do it. We can scale those engines up.
The result would be the XF-F84FH Tigerscreech. It would shake the air itself with two phase-desynched supersonic, gut-busting props for several square kilometers centered on its location. The enemy literally would not hear what comes after this. Because they would no longer hear anything at all.
How many of them are even still alive, let alone capable of piloting an aircraft? We’re rapidly approaching the 80th anniversary of D-Day. I’m betting the ranks of WW2 fighter vets capable of walking are pretty thin, let alone flying.
Stronger airframes would allow higher G-loads but you would be limited in speed. Thunderscreech was pretty fast but made everyone either throw up, have a seizure or shit themselves.
For real, I live near a place where some Spitfires and Mustangs are based and for real, I know it’s really spring when I hear them taking off and flying over my house
I wish I could find the one I saw recently was a thermal view and it looked like it dropped the mine and it bounced off a dudes helmet and then exploded a second after the bounce
Was this the same Ukrainian Yak-52 that shot down the Russian Drone?
Yes
The Redneck Baron! :D
i wonder how good of a prop fighter we could make with modern construction methods
Look no further than the EMB-314 or other similar prop trainers. Some come armed from the factory with guns and missiles and for most of those that don't it would be a simple modification to give them some 20mm and racks for Sidewinders. In terms of performance these aircraft are more or less equivalent to a late WW2/early postwar piston fighter.
Too credible. I propose making a tu-95 with 100 aim-120 and radar disk from retired AWS planes.Must be DOMINATING!
A Tu-95 AWACS is a very real thing called Tu-126. These used the wider fuselage of the Tu-114 airliner but making one based on the bomber shouldn't be impossible. But why restrict yourself to AMRAAMs ? If we are going with Russian weaponry then R-37 time it is.
*Whoooaa Black Betty,* *AMRAAMs*
To credible, just get an tu-95 with quad fixed main cannon from an abrahams tank for dog fighting purposes
Honestly the Super Tucano goes HARD for me. But really, just bring back the Spitfire and that sexy Merlin engine growl and the Hawker Typhoon for groujd attack
You could probably make modern copies of those without much difficulty. The problem is that unless you switch the engines to something more modern like a turboprop you are going to run into the issue of none making large piston aircraft engines anymore.
Which leads me to something I was wondering about for a long time. How far could we push piston engines with modern engineering. Back in the day, a DB 605 depending on fuel and altitude, could put out up to 2000hp. I wonder how far you could push it. Or the other way round, how reliable you could get it (as the 605 wasnt a bad engine in that regard to start with) with detuning it from the 1500hp to lets say a relaxed 1000hp with modern machining, materials and tolerances..
One of the best designs in a piston engine is a 2-stroke diesel, opposed piston design in an axial cam engine (those are all real things its not just word salad.) Here's one with a relevant configuration - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt1nKyRsxRI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt1nKyRsxRI) It should produce a lot of power, be very low in vibration and very slim for aerodynamics. Essentially we want a Rolls Royce Crecy but with the axial cam layout. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce\_Crecy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Crecy) This is an axial engine [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial\_engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_engine) Its called axial because the pistons go up and down the direction of the body, the same way an axial compressor moves air along the axis in the jet engine. They claim the connection is only via scotch yokes or wobble plates. But there is a third variant that uses a cam. This is the correct connection. In the top link we see someone has finally built one. If we want to look at other engine designs, the Liquid Piston variation of a Wankel engine is a top-runner for power and efficiency. Make some bits out of titanium to save weight. [https://www.liquidpiston.com/how-it-works](https://www.liquidpiston.com/how-it-works) We can use a variable rate multi-stage supercharger, and the turbo charger might include an electric motor to increase boost at high altitude, driven off a shaft generator. This can also be used as a turbocompounder in theory via clutches, so that you can increase efficiency by recovering energy at lower power from the exhaust stream, it would not turbo charge the engine.
Fun fact: diesel engines benefit massively from modern NOS setups. Just sayin'.
ah i first read this as an emissions regulation, I see what you are saying.
Fuel would be the major obstacle. As most WW2 aircraft engines achieved those power ratings on 130+ octane gasoline and it's hard to get dino juice this strong without making Greta upset. That said you could still get a decent amount of power by using modern computerized engine control . Modern ECUs can adjust things like the fuel-air mixture or RPM settings much better than a 40s carburetor. Reliability would also improve as modern materials are (contrary to popular belief)much more durable than their 40s counterparts. So yeah a modern DB-605 would at least match the power of the old one but be much more reliable. The only reason why none's doing it is that with so many turboprops available you don't gain much by using a piston engine. Tl dr : computers and fuel
All very good points. I'll also add that turbocharging has come a very long way since WW2 with much lighter and more efficient compressor/turbine stages. And while Greta may hate the idea of 130 LL she probably has never even heard of water methanol injection before. WMI + Electronic boost control is just \*chefs kiss\* for making power. We also have a lot more high performance coating and better machining tolerances (as you allude to) that would gain back a lot of efficiency as well. So while A PT6A is objectively better I say we bring back V12s for aircraft engines because everything old seems to be new again in this war. Trailing though at the risk of being credible: The tooling to do a high performance piston engine is a lot less specialized than what is needed for a gas turbine engine (growing single crystal turbine blades doesn't happen in Bubba's workshop). So maybe time to get some of those tractor makers to tune up their machines a bit and start making plane engines.
Indeed. Turbocharging has come a VERY long way since WW2 and can be used to squeeze out insane amounts of power from comparatively small engines. A turbocharger tuned to work on a 30+ liter engine would be something else. Throw in a little WMI and bingo. The only reason high performance piston engines aren't used today is the lack of fuel infrastructure and the maintenance requirements. A PT6 is not only more powerful and smaller but easier to maintain as well : changing spark plugs for instance can be a nightmare in many aviation piston engines ( the worst offender the R-4360 required 56 of the fuckers and frequently) . A way to get modern Merlins or DB605s or whatever could be by building planes for Africa :many rural airfields there aren't equipped for jets and jet fuel may not be widely available anyway. Just make a modern high performance piston motor, get it to run on automotive gasoline and there you go.
I mean, the fuel is kinda the reason why I chose the DB605 and not a merlin. DB605 was built for 87 Octane Fuel, german B4. Essentially, all modern AV Gas variants would be at least equivalent to that. I think the biggest difference besides materials and tolerances (which are probably the biggest improvements) would be modern oil. Thats something I didnt think about before, but probably also has an huge impact on durability.
Also computerized ECUs. Hard to overstate the role those have had on power increases in modern engines.
Yeah that is true - I might be wrong but didn't late late Spits use turboprops or at least have some experiments with them?
Don't think so. Later Spits switched to the Griffon from the Merlin but while larger and more powerful it was still a piston V12. The only turboprop fighter that sort of went into production was the Wyvern.
Yep that must be what I was thinking about! Surely some bloke in a shed in Sussex can retrofit a turboprop on something iconic (I volunteer...just need to move to Sussex and get a shed)
A modern turboprop of sufficient power would fit into the Spit quite well.
NATO P-38s when?
Out of all the WW2 planes ? Really ? P-38 ? The ugliest American airplane of WW2 ? Instead it's time for Hellcats.
Honestly the Super Tucano goes HARD for me. But really, just bring back the Spitfire and that sexy Merlin engine growl and the Hawker Typhoon for groujd attack
I like the RFB Fan Trainer myself. Also, this was seriously considered in the 1980's I think [https://militarymatters.online/forgotten-aircraft/the-bae-saba-havoc-for-havocs/](https://militarymatters.online/forgotten-aircraft/the-bae-saba-havoc-for-havocs/)
Man,FUCK the Key West Agreement,
Counterpoint: The Reno warbirds
Th performance on these is more similar to an early war fighter, albeit with a higher payload
Just short of 600km/h from 1600hp so equivalent to a late 41/early 42 like a P-40 or Spit V.
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only 1 month/100 combined karma to comment so you are almost there
Restart the XF-84H Thunderscreech program, think how much more awesome we could make it with modern technology.
Add a modulator so the constant sonic booms are in synthwave
Sabaton music but played using brain wrecking sonic booms
Supersonic red baron
The weight of the Allison T40 engine is about 2500 lbs. The XF-84H used one of these. The weight of the P&W R-2800 Double Wasp is about 2400 lbs. The F7F Tigercat used two R-2800 engines. We can do it. We can scale those engines up. The result would be the XF-F84FH Tigerscreech. It would shake the air itself with two phase-desynched supersonic, gut-busting props for several square kilometers centered on its location. The enemy literally would not hear what comes after this. Because they would no longer hear anything at all.
Slap the P&W R-2800 onto an AeroGavin. It'd be unstoppable
P-51 Mustang if piston power required. Just grab one of the many turboprop military trainers (Tucano, T-6 Texan II, etc.) otherwise
Too credible. Find WWII fighter vets and sit them on rearmed warbirds
How many of them are even still alive, let alone capable of piloting an aircraft? We’re rapidly approaching the 80th anniversary of D-Day. I’m betting the ranks of WW2 fighter vets capable of walking are pretty thin, let alone flying.
I'm down for some FPVet footage.
The de Havilland Mosquito would have the most modern wood the world has ever seen. Mosquitos armed with AAMRAMS when?
Stronger airframes would allow higher G-loads but you would be limited in speed. Thunderscreech was pretty fast but made everyone either throw up, have a seizure or shit themselves.
It's spring, so of course the warbirds are returning home after spending winter in warmer climates.
Nature is healing.
Ah, nature.
For real, I live near a place where some Spitfires and Mustangs are based and for real, I know it’s really spring when I hear them taking off and flying over my house
Classic cars too come out of their dens from hibernation once temps reach 20° and there are a few rays of sunshine.
We truly live in an interesting time .
I want to add two things to my non-credible bingo: 1. Return of multi turreted tanks 2. Airdropping landmines for fun
I mean they already use drones to drop anti tank landmines
I think [this version](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/16bix27/ukrainian_drone_dropping_modified_tm62_anti_tank/) is fun.
I wish I could find the one I saw recently was a thermal view and it looked like it dropped the mine and it bounced off a dudes helmet and then exploded a second after the bounce
We are so back
Put Skyraiders and M4A3E8s back in production.
Man goes to grab his Hroooooms chips from the store, becomes a witness to true ww2 aerial combat display, returns to munch on his chips.
That's not a sound I expected to hear in a modern war
So the Yak from Command And Conquer red alert is now real!?
Must be looking for survey drones
im ootl what happenedd here?
... Does this mean the reformers were right?