Turboprop Fighters

[Mossie]

An idea popped into my head while reading the 'Piston Perfection GB' thread.  What about turboprop perfection?  Okay, development of the turboprop went hand in hand with the jet, but lets suspend reality for a moment & say that for some reason jet warplanes were never feasible, but turboprops were.  Yeah, I know it's unlikely, but lets forget the 'why' for now.

So, how would turboprop fighters & strike aircraft have developed?  Maybe starting with re-engined immediate-postwar war piston aircraft, then moving onto aircraft designed around the powerplant.  What would the performance be like, probably not supersonic?  Because of smaller, lighter powerplants would we have small, nimble aerobatic style aircraft, or larger ones able to carry more ordanance than their piston cousins?  Mostly twin engine designs for radar considerations?  What about the development of air launched  weapons?

Just a thought!!!

[Iranian F-14A]

Well,you'd probbley have EMB-314 ALXs fighting Tu-95 Bears.The ALX carry Sidewinder type AAMs,now to get radar and radar guided AAMs to work,I'd say go for something like a turboprop model of the Blackwidow.Good lifting power,and a second crewmen to operate the radar(like in the F-4,F-14,F-15E,etc).  

[AeroplaneDriver]

Wont be supersonic, that's for sure, but there is a lot of room for development.  

Immediately postwar there might be more development of types such as the Wyvern.  Also with no jet's around for the airframe designers to focus on, there might be turbine developments of contemporary fighters like the Mustang, Spitfire (a Spit 24 with a RR Dart??), Bearcat, Sea Fury, etc.

Any of the those fighters would make good whifs with a turbine up front (or not so-whif in the case of the Piper Enforcer).

I wonder how airframe development would have gone with no jets?  Maybe a larger version of the Pond Racer ?   If we assume weapons development progresses with missile technology as in our timeline then I think eventually everything will go to a pusher design (sleeker fighter version of the Avanti anyone?) so that the props dont interfere with weapons delivery.

Even though turboprop development without tubojets is a pretty far-fetched idea, this is an interesting topic.  It may be a lot easier to imagine early turbojets being so troublesome that the prop is seen as a better way of harnessing turbine power well into the 50s.

[dy031101]

Perhaps then we'd really have been seeing a pusher-prop fighter aircraft?  Or even engine mounts in unconventional locations (like those on an A-10)?  Sooner or later the nose space would have had to be freed up for a radar of adequate capability......

[Sisko]

Swept wing delta pushers and other very sleak designs if you have seen the anime "wings of honneamise" they had some very cool designs.

Unlike a lot of Anime these were based in reality and had a very real world feel about them.

Some of the late war prop designs being worked on by the US also gives a good indication of what may have been possible.

[kitnut617]

I'd given this some thought for quite a while Simon,  I came up with these two, which could be either turboprop or piston powered:





Robert

[elmayerle]

Well,you'd probbley have EMB-314 ALXs fighting Tu-95 Bears.The ALX carry Sidewinder type AAMs,now to get radar and radar guided AAMs to work,I'd say go for something like a turboprop model of the Blackwidow.Good lifting power,and a second crewmen to operate the radar(like in the F-4,F-14,F-15E,etc).

Not necessarily, to add radar to a single-engined fighter, you could do what Beech did when they added radar to the A36 and sync the radar with the prop to prevent problems.  Mind you, I'm not sure but that at the time a wing-mounted radar, like the F4U-5N and F6F-5N carried, would make more sense.

[AeroplaneDriver]

Well,you'd probbley have EMB-314 ALXs fighting Tu-95 Bears.The ALX carry Sidewinder type AAMs,now to get radar and radar guided AAMs to work,I'd say go for something like a turboprop model of the Blackwidow.Good lifting power,and a second crewmen to operate the radar(like in the F-4,F-14,F-15E,etc).

Not necessarily, to add radar to a single-engined fighter, you could do what Beech did when they added radar to the A36 and sync the radar with the prop to prevent problems.  Mind you, I'm not sure but that at the time a wing-mounted radar, like the F4U-5N and F6F-5N carried, would make more sense.

I've flown a couple of radar-equipped A/B-36s, and all had the wing mount (in fact I only ever remember B-36s with radar).  Is there some other radar installation in the Bonanza?

[elmayerle]

Well,you'd probbley have EMB-314 ALXs fighting Tu-95 Bears.The ALX carry Sidewinder type AAMs,now to get radar and radar guided AAMs to work,I'd say go for something like a turboprop model of the Blackwidow.Good lifting power,and a second crewmen to operate the radar(like in the F-4,F-14,F-15E,etc).

Not necessarily, to add radar to a single-engined fighter, you could do what Beech did when they added radar to the A36 and sync the radar with the prop to prevent problems.  Mind you, I'm not sure but that at the time a wing-mounted radar, like the F4U-5N and F6F-5N carried, would make more sense.

I've flown a couple of radar-equipped A/B-36s, and all had the wing mount (in fact I only ever remember B-36s with radar).  Is there some other radar installation in the Bonanza?

It may be something farther up their lineup that the Bonanza, I don't remember the precise aircraft, but the replaced a large balance weight in the lower engine cowling with a nose-mounted weather radar that was synchronized with the prop to prevent interferences.  It's been ages since I remember seeing the write-up, but I thought it was a simple, yet sophisticated, solution to the whole problem, and it neither increased the aircraft's dry weight nor impacted the weight and balance.

[kitnut617]

I'd say go for something like a turboprop model of the Blackwidow.Good lifting power,and a second crewmen to operate the radar(like in the F-4,F-14,F-15E,etc).

I could see a turbo-prop version of the P-61E, that's a good idea.

[famvburg]

Well,you'd probbley have EMB-314 ALXs fighting Tu-95 Bears.The ALX carry Sidewinder type AAMs,now to get radar and radar guided AAMs to work,I'd say go for something like a turboprop model of the Blackwidow.Good lifting power,and a second crewmen to operate the radar(like in the F-4,F-14,F-15E,etc).

Not necessarily, to add radar to a single-engined fighter, you could do what Beech did when they added radar to the A36 and sync the radar with the prop to prevent problems.  Mind you, I'm not sure but that at the time a wing-mounted radar, like the F4U-5N and F6F-5N carried, would make more sense.

I've flown a couple of radar-equipped A/B-36s, and all had the wing mount (in fact I only ever remember B-36s with radar).  Is there some other radar installation in the Bonanza?

It may be something farther up their lineup that the Bonanza, I don't remember the precise aircraft, but the replaced a large balance weight in the lower engine cowling with a nose-mounted weather radar that was synchronized with the prop to prevent interferences.  It's been ages since I remember seeing the write-up, but I thought it was a simple, yet sophisticated, solution to the whole problem, and it neither increased the aircraft's dry weight nor impacted the weight and balance.

   I think I remember seeing a few of those over the years. Most I've seen have the radar wing-mounted. Also, Cessna 210s & 337s have a pod mounted underwing radar & there's a Pilatus PC-12 that flies to my place with the radar mounted in the leading edge, like Hellcats & Corsairs did.

[famvburg]

   I remember about 25 - 30 years ago an article in some flying magazine comparing the 600 or so HP P & W PT-6 with a Lycoming O-320, back at the time that turbine ag-planes were just getting popular, along with converting recips to turbines in general. Ironically, as I recall, the reason they were comparing the PT-6 to the O-320 was because of their weights. The typical O-320 weighs in around  300 - 350 lbs, as does a PT-6. The O-320 puts out 150 HP, where the PT-6 mentioned is rated at 4 times that. I remember another article, probably in an ag aviation related magazine, comparing the 600 horse PT-6 to a P & W R-1340 of the same rating. The -1340 weighs in around 1100 - 1200 lbs, IIRC, so you go from a big heavy round engine to a much smaller lighter engine of the same power. In addition to the longer time between overhauls, & even some maintenance, as well as much improved reliability, it's a cleaner, sleeker installation, so there's less drag & one thing we've noticed, due to the less, near zero vibration, is much more comfort for the pilot & is much easier on airframe structures, skins  & panels. Even the operating costs over comparable times to the radial was about the same. Initial cost, OTOH, was a different story. Don't get me wrong, I love recips, espcially radials, but a turbine's hard to beat.

[Daryl J.]

When hearing the Piston Perfection GB was on, a Macchi 202 got ordered but I made the mistake of thinking "turbine'' GB.   Extending the nose a tad and centering the thrustline would produce one beautiful aircraft.   The only optical dislike I've had of that machine is the front cowling/spinner below the aircraft's midline due to the DB engine.     Hooking up a turbine with contraprops to a Spitfire Mk.1 would also make, IMHO, a beautiful aircraft.     One presumption, which in many ways simply isn't a turbine engine, is that the powerplants are relatively heavy resulting in nose extensions that were not overlarge.    A MiG-3 and Yak-3 are other candidates too.

In multi engine, I'd still like to do a B-29 stretch-fuselage with turbines that look much different than the Chinese variant's lumpy bumpy mini Buccaneer like pods.

Perhaps even the Naboo fighter could get  a turboprop variant and be limited to oxygen based missions!      They are, after all, very very old.  ^_^

How about the XF-88 keeping it's turbine?     Or, making a cruise missle variant of the Hound Dog spinning a prop?

What if WW-1 had turbines as well.   Albatros D.V on 'roids coming up, eh?


I could, however, never put turboprops on two aircraft:  The Comet/Nimrod and the Boeing 707/KC-135.    That would be bad enough to cause every tatoo in America to turn into flames of anguish.........



Neat thread!
Daryl J.

[edit]:  Hayao Miyzaki liked the turbine idea enough that the final frames of the film 'Porco Rosso' in the original cut were of Marco's Savoia in it's third iteration featuring a turboprop engine outflying a Caravelle.   It never made the final movie but is included in the book 'The Art of Porco Rosso'.    It would be a great modification to Fine Molds already cool kit.      

[Mossie]

Sorry, posted this then kind of lost my train of thought.  I always thought that the some of the BAe SABA design series seemed to be the ultimate turboprop combat aircraft.  Small, lightweight, ultra-agile & capable of pack a fairly hefty wallop for it's size, the P.1233 maybe shows us what could have been here.



Rutan's ARES, although a turbojet has the right kind of layout & it shouldn't be too difficult to convert it to a pusher prop.

[lenny100]

been their done it

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...ST&f=40&t=15178