Dreaming of a future sim...

[IceFire]

The current "state of the art" propeller based combat aircraft are either things like the Super Tucano: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tucano

Or... the Predator drone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator_Drone

Neither are really at the level of the World War II fighters that we know and love but they do have some unique uses and capabilities - the Predator would be sort of a boring sim tho I know what you mean about a more what-if scenario... And you should probably watch The Sky Crawlers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llqoqei-k1Y

[JG27_PapaFly]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I know what you mean about a more what-if scenario... And you should probably watch The Sky Crawlers:

You've got it Ice, I mean a purely what-if scenario, with prop planes of the highest performance that are developed from scratch, using state-of-the art technology. I could imagine this as a proof-of concept addon to SOW, with one or 2 planes. Since ww2, aviation has gone a very long way. Aerodynamics, structure, composite materials, fly-by-wire systems, avionics, engines...
With today's technology, an engine with a cylinder capacity of around 40 liters could easily produce 3000+ horse-power, and be much more fuel efficient.
The warbids of WW2 were very limited in many aspects: view from the cockpits was bad, poor aerodynamics (especially in the high subsonic speed range), very high stick forces at high speeds and poor controllability, poor weapon designs....

Compare that to, say, and F16: that plane represents the peak of development, incorporating lessons learned from 2 world wars, several smaller scale conflicts and more than 30 years of a cold-war arms race.

I like the what-if approach of skycrawlers, but their planes are still low-tech and too much inspired by WWII. Just look at all the ww2-style gauges and the view-obstructing bars in the windwhields.

The existence of the predator-drones and the sucess of helicopters and the A10 tunderbolt2 in nowaday's conflicts clearly show that the usaf are looking for scaled-down, cheap solutions. Military prop-planes will probably gain more importance during the coming decades.

S!

[Blackdog_kt]

Since you guys mentioned the Tucano, most of today's high peformance prop planes are not piston engined.

In fact, these planes are "almost-jets", using a turbine engine to drive the propeller.

The disadvantages of these engines are expensive maintenance, fuel consumption and slower response to power changes than a piston engine because of the turbine's spool up/down time (however, this is also found on piston engined planes if they are equipped with a turbocharger, like the P47 for example).
The advantage is that you don't need superchargers and turbochargers if you want to operate at higher altitudes, because a turbine engine is inherently designed to compress the air before burning the fuel-air mixture. This saves space and weight for other stuff (turbo-prop engines are very straightforward compared to a high performance piston engine equipped with superchargers and turbos).

Part of the reason for the WWII piston fighters reaching their peak was just that, the materials used at the time couldn't be pushed further to guarantee adequate performance without some kind of drawback to cancel out the gains (eg, increased weight or complexity/servicing requirements) at the altitudes a turbine could operate. Since altitude controls the fight, jets took the lead.

Even today, most of the piston engined general aviation aircraft use horizontally opposed engines (the boxer-type engines you see in a porsche car) of much lower horsepower than a WWII piston engine and only a minuscule percentage of these planes is fitted with superchargers/turbochargers. If people want to build an aircraft capable of flying at high altitudes or with a lot of spare power, they use turboprops.

This has even gone as far as re-engining old but tough and proven workhorse planes with turboprops, like the DeHavilland Canada Beaver and the Grumman Goose. The engine used in these two, the ubiquitous Pratt and Whitney Canada PT6A series of engines, can be found on dozens of different aircraft (the Tucano as well) and it generates so much power compared to its size that it can easily be fitted in smaller airframes or designs that were never meant to go that fast.

The end result is having an aircraft with a Vne (never exceed airspeed limit=plane breaks up if you go faster) of, let's say, 150 knots that can suddenly go faster than that in level flight. It might seem dangerous but it's not, first of all because pilots don't usually try to exceed their Vne and second, the added power is used in a way that doesn't add speed, but versatility in the form of improved climb rates.
For example, when operating from an improvised landing strip at a high altitude, a piston engine will have trouble at higher altitudes but a small, light plane with STOL characteristics and turboprop power reserves can be loaded and still achieve 1000ft/min climbs. The reversible propellers also add a lot to this kind of operations, making it possible to touch down at 50 knots (80km/h), apply brakes and reverse thrust to stop at no time, making even a small unpaved field in the mountains into a suitable landing strip. And when it's time to depart, you can go full power for the take-off and literally hang the plane on the prop without fear of stalling, making it all that easier to to clear that row of trees or the ditch at the end of the improvised runway.
Since these engines also run at way reduced power during cruise (in order to stay below Vne), this translates into less engine stress and increased service life/time between faults.

If i ever had the money to buy a plane for personal fun i'd probably buy an amphibian or bush plane, something like one of the improved and reengined Piper Cub variants, or something a bit more vintage with a supercharged wasp junior piston engine (you can't beat the sound of an air cooled radial). However, if i wanted to do business with a plane i'd buy a turboprop one.

Damn, i got totally sidetracked on this one

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Since you guys mentioned the Tucano, most of today's high peformance prop planes are not piston engined.

In fact, these planes are "almost-jets", using a turbine engine to drive the propeller.

The disadvantages of these engines are expensive maintenance, fuel consumption and slower response to power changes than a piston engine because of the turbine's spool up/down time (however, this is also found on piston engined planes if they are equipped with a turbocharger, like the P47 for example).
The advantage is that you don't need superchargers and turbochargers if you want to operate at higher altitudes, because a turbine engine is inherently designed to compress the air before burning the fuel-air mixture. This saves space and weight for other stuff (turbo-prop engines are very straightforward compared to a high performance piston engine equipped with superchargers and turbos).

Part of the reason for the WWII piston fighters reaching their peak was just that, the materials used at the time couldn't be pushed further to guarantee adequate performance without some kind of drawback to cancel out the gains (eg, increased weight or complexity/servicing requirements) at the altitudes a turbine could operate. Since altitude controls the fight, jets took the lead.

Even today, most of the piston engined general aviation aircraft use horizontally opposed engines (the boxer-type engines you see in a porsche car) of much lower horsepower than a WWII piston engine and only a minuscule percentage of these planes is fitted with superchargers/turbochargers. If people want to build an aircraft capable of flying at high altitudes or with a lot of spare power, they use turboprops.

This has even gone as far as re-engining old but tough and proven workhorse planes with turboprops, like the DeHavilland Canada Beaver and the Grumman Goose. The engine used in these two, the ubiquitous Pratt and Whitney Canada PT6A series of engines, can be found on dozens of different aircraft (the Tucano as well) and it generates so much power compared to its size that it can easily be fitted in smaller airframes or designs that were never meant to go that fast.

The end result is having an aircraft with a Vne (never exceed airspeed limit=plane breaks up if you go faster) of, let's say, 150 knots that can suddenly go faster than that in level flight. It might seem dangerous but it's not, first of all because pilots don't usually try to exceed their Vne and second, the added power is used in a way that doesn't add speed, but versatility in the form of improved climb rates.
For example, when operating from an improvised landistrip at a high altitude, a piston engine will have trouble at higher altitudes but a small, light plane with STOL characteristics and turboprop power reserves can be loaded and still achieve 1000ft/min climbs. The reversible propellers also add a lot to this kind of operations, making it possible to touch down at 50 knots (80km/h), apply brakes and reverse thrust to stop at no time, making even a small unpaved field in the mountains into a suitable landing strip. And when it's time to depart, you can go full power for the take-off and literally hang the plane on the prop without fear of stalling, making it all that easier to to clear that row of trees or the ditch at the end of the improvised runway.
Since these engines also run at way reduced power during cruise (in order to stay below Vne), this translates into less engine stress and increased service life/time between faults.

If i ever had the money to buy a plane for personal fun i'd probably buy an amphibian or bush plane, something like one of the improved and reengined Piper Cub variants, or something a bit more vintage with a supercharged wasp junior piston engine (you can't beat the sound of an air cooled radial). However, if i wanted to do business with a plane i'd buy a turboprop one.

Damn, i got totally sidetracked on this one

All of that is very well said.

We don't see more turboprops because of fuel economy concerns. But there is nothing like having a powerful turbo prop on a small plane (sim or real life) for short take offs or setting it down on a tennis court .

But those planes are for flight sims, not combat sims. I would have zero interest in playing a combat sim with more advanced prop planes. I'm not an arcade guy and want my combat sims to have at least a bit of historical accuracy.

So saying, I LOVE bush flying in flight sims. I couldn't care less about multi-engine passenger jets. Trying to find your little grass air strip while dodging rocks in clouds and setting it down slow enough to not run off the cliff at the end? Heaven.

Splitter

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy

the 1946 stuff of IL2 was a waste of time/resources already IMHO.

I kind of agree, but only because it contained Luftwaffe aircraft like the Ta-183 and Lerche that wouldn't even have flying prototypes in a 1946 scenario, but no trace of the P-51H, P-47N, Meteor, La-9, F4U-5, Tempest II/Fury/Sea Fury, Hornet, Spitfire XIV, J7W, A7M, F7F, F8F, Lincoln, Vampire, etc., etc.