Re: Modern day propeller fighter - hypothetical

"Nev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Some of the latest developments in propeller aircraft has fascinated
> me. It also brought up an interesting hypothetical question; mostly
> when reading about modern day warbird replicas.
>
> With relatively easily available technology off the shelf (no rail
> guns or laser cannon please). Lets say a reasonable development budget
> of oh say $300 million. The question is are we capable of producing
> superior prop aircraft than the great fighters of WWII and what
> configuration would it take?

Sure: we have nearly sixty years of additional power, aerodynamic,
explosive, fusing, gun, electronics and materials research to draw upon.

> To keep the discussion relatively focused we'll put in a couple of
> rules:
>
> 1. Mission: Air superiority/dominance during WWII. Land based. It
> should be able to clear the skies of any and all opposition at all
> ranges and altitudes.
>
> 2. Must be a propeller aircraft.

I assume you mean to allow turboprops. If you stick to piston
engined planes you'll blow your budget trying to recreate the
engine base.

> 3. Only armanent allowed are guns/cannons. No guided missiles. I guess
> dumb firing rockets will be ok since they were used during WWII.
>
>
> With the above two exceptions all of modern technology is allowed to
> be used for example composite materials, radars, titanium armour,
> fly-by-wire (will dynamic instability benefit the agility of a prop
> plane?) advanced aerodynamic configurations (rear mounted engines).

Gun sights tied to radars and computers would be "death dot" types.
Gatling gun or high speed revolver would shred any WWII fighter in
a second.

> To make matters really intesting helicopters are fine. Just as long as
> the driving force isn't a jet.

Helicopters are not suitable for the mission: less than half the
needed speed.

> If we were to design a new prop, gun armed aircrafy would it
> essentially look pretty similar to a carbon fibre, turbo-prop P-51
> Mustang or would it be some bizzare split wing, dual rear engined
> travesty?

Depends on who does the designing: Rutan would make something
bizarre.

I'ld guess you'd end up with an all weather plane between a P-38
and P-61 in size. Likely twin turbo prop to free up the center
line for radar and the gun. Slightly sweep wing and aerodynamics
to give a top speed something better than 550mph. Engines and pilot
virtually proofed against any air fighter guns of the period and
the rest pretty robust.
Boom & zoom tactics, blast one and blow through, reposition and
repeat. Superior speed and targeting makes it mighty attractive.

Or heck, something bigger but with a CIWS or two mounted, then
you would even have to point the nose at'em.