Refurbished Fighter Weapons

[scooter]

This is not just for paint jobs, it is also operators and weapons. Everywhere has a shot!

Like in my story, the Argentinians using what ever planes they have and using a few bought WW2 bombers to get a loitering missile platform/recon bird to support the Super E's.

Yeah, turbo-prop Tiffies with Brimstone under the wings - those 20mm would be handy in Afghanistan I'd imagine. Mossies with a designater in the bomb bay and a few 500lb Paveway IIs under the wings. 

And turboprop'd Skyraiders to harass the bad guys all the way back to their caves.  20's in the wings, 30mm pods on the main wing hardpoints, lots of FFARs or Hellfires, and oodles of gas to loiter.

[MilitaryAircraft101]

You know, WW2 designs are still very very sound, and are the pinnacle of prop aircraft evolution. We have OV-10s etc driven by turboprop, and for that reason, turboprop P-38, P-47 could be built as very low cost ground attack aircraft, and would reach very high speed, ie P-47 at 700km/h already could probably be bumped up to 800km/h + We'd also need to have upgraded avionics and strengthened design features. My only problem with this is that they would be really susceptible to flak and the like. This would have to be addressed if you were to refurbish, or even build new aircraft for modern use. Also would the landing gear become tricycle or what? On P-38 it's ok, but if you were to take a P-47 or a Tiffie  Anyway 

[jcf]

Also would the landing gear become tricycle or what? On P-38 it's ok, but if you were to take a P-47 or a Tiffie  Anyway 

Tri gear works on the T-28, so why not?

[Zombolt]

Maybe we should have a Second hand TB/GB?

[Zombolt]

Sorry for the Doulble.

But if WW2 and early jetswere still popular, then WW2 sized carriers would be too? A new age of mass Carrier Navies and Naval Aviation?

[kerick]

If we put our heads together we may think up a replacement for the A-10.  Air Force was ready to dump it until '91 when the A-10s torn Sadam's tanks apart.  Now the Air Force won't let go of them until someone designs a replacement.  I think the best possible replacement is a new one but we can have some fun with it.

[scooter]

If we put our heads together we may think up a replacement for the A-10.  Air Force was ready to dump it until '91 when the A-10s torn Sadam's tanks apart.  Now the Air Force won't let go of them until someone designs a replacement.  I think the best possible replacement is a new one but we can have some fun with it.

The blueprints are there...just in the archives.

Or how 'bout E-85 compatible radial engine equipped P-47s? 

[kerick]

When the Air Force considered the idea of getting rid of the A-10 the South Korean government said they would take them all yesterday. 
How about a P-47 with a big honk'n turbo engine and conta rotating props?  Or maybe C-130J style six scimitar bladed props.  25mm guns in the wings and Hellfire missles.  The avionics shouldn't be too bad the sights and "black boxes" are mounted on helicopters and Predator drones.  Fuel capacity may be an issue.  A "conformal" tank?

[Daryl J.]

I still think the Minnesota Air National Guard needs current issue Fokker D.VII's on floats, full glass cockpit (with what....6, maybe 7 functions?), carbon fibre prop, etc. to properly defend their 10,000 lakes from illicit drug transit, border security, and even more importantly, poor lefse making.   

[NARSES2]

I still think the Minnesota Air National Guard needs current issue Fokker D.VII's on floats, full glass cockpit (with what....6, maybe 7 functions?), carbon fibre prop, etc. to properly defend their 10,000 lakes from illicit drug transit, border security, and even more importantly, poor lefse making.   

Started on the Crimbo Vino a bit early ? 

[PR19_Kit]

And skis too? Landing on those lakes at any time between mid-October and early March could get a bit crucial using floats.

[Daryl J.]

Per-Ola Sverdruud makes wooden skiis in Bemiji so that should not be too much problem I think though.   

[Hobbes]

You know, WW2 designs are still very very sound, and are the pinnacle of prop aircraft evolution. We have OV-10s etc driven by turboprop, and for that reason, turboprop P-38, P-47 could be built as very low cost ground attack aircraft, and would reach very high speed, ie P-47 at 700km/h already could probably be bumped up to 800km/h

The problem with increasing the top speed of those aircraft is that you'll run into compressibility effects. You'd need to change the wing shape, the tailplanes and the control system (swapping the cable operation for power-assisted hydraulics to increase the force you can exert on the control surfaces).

[kerick]

For the A-10 according to Wikipedia:
Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level.  Any attempt at higher speed with a straight wing is wasted energy.  Plus the problems encountered by WW2 aircraft in high speed dives during the war including loss of control and airframes coming apart put the top speed of such aircraft at aroung 450 mph.  So with too much engine you get bad things happening.  Realisticly the WW2 style straight wing aircraft is about maxed out.  Of course this is "what if" so carry on with what ever moves you. 
It has been suggested that the A-10 with a slightly swept wing would have a higher speed to cut transit time from airbase to target area. 
For the fun of it, what size bomber would it take to carry and fire a GAU-8 30mm cannon?  Mitchell, mossie, B-26?  A very effective anti-ship weapon, by the way.

[MilitaryAircraft101]

loss of control

When a P-38 dived and reached high speeds, it would experience "mach tuck" this diagram will explain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_tuck