Re: Modern day propeller fighter - hypothetical

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Bailey) wrote:

> On 2 Dec 2003 20:05:13 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nev) wrote:
> 
> >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.
> >
> >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.
> 
> Take one Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprop giving 14,795 shp as used in the
> Tupolev 95 Bear. With four engines the Bear gave: 575 mph (925 km/h)
> Ceiling: 39,370 ft (12000 m) For a single engine fighter, it should be
> able to cruise climbing straight up.  An even more mind boggling
> configuration would be two NK-12MV's in a twin boom design, a la the
> P-38.
> 
> The real value of this design would be using the TU-95's transonic
> counter-rotating propellers, which probably provide an upper limit on
> speed.  

A better config for a "modern" prop fighter could be a very beefy 
version of the Japanese Shinden interceptor.  Pusher prop, swept wing, 
canard.  A larger version of this, with a 20mm gatling in the belly and 
a radar in the nose?

<http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/shinden/>

Scale that sucker up by 50% or so in each direction, put a big engine 
and some weapons in it, and there ya go...

If you're in love with a twin boom aircraft, dig out the plans for the 
P-61 Black Widow.  Lots of room for guns (it already has a radome and a 
seat for an operator), extremely good handling for a plane that size, 
and you could even keep the turret with a minigun or two.

Stick a couple of 20 mm gatlings in the belly, crank up some advanced 
engines (modern turboprops would give it about *five* times as much 
power), and have fun.

-- 
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.