If we made a piston engine fighter but with modern materials and modern designs what would it behave like...

Your mom can climb vertically on my cock.

Your mom can climb vertically on my cock.

bump

>Mershit = Toojizzy
How high are you?

>Man LS swaps GOD

Seriously, either fuck off to /o/ or Jow Forums, we're here to discuss making a modern-day Messer
I'd vote for a compound flat engine with variable geometry turbos and a dump turbine downdraft of the turbos to harvest surplus power independently from the turbo. The dump turbine could dump its power on the output shaft via a generator-DC-motor couple. Since we're talking military applications, price in $$$ doesn't really matter, the e-motor dumping the surplus power back on the output could be a rare metal synchronous AC design, which could allow it to serve equally efficiently as a starter motor

>what would it behave like?
youtube.com/watch?v=A68_835U_KY

Right, lets do some bad math., with only BMW engines since they've been in business the whole time.

A BMW 801a was a 41.8 litre engine making 1539 horsepower, in 1939. It made 36.82 horsepower per litre.

BMWs M335 engine,was a 3.5 litre engine making 90 horsepower, also made in 1939. it made 25.71 horsepower per litre.

In the modern era, a BMW S55 engine is a 3 litre engine, that at its most powerful, produces 493 horsepower. It therefore makes 164.3 horsepower per litre.

In the time between 1939 and now, the Horsepower per litre has gone from 25.71 to 164.3. A 639% increase.

Therefore, a modern 41.8 litre engine, assuming the rate of increase was the same, would produce 9834 horsepower, making 235.26 horsepower per litre.

Attached: 'old on now.png (500x500, 112K)

Air race planes are not built like older warbirds
They are built light weighy and nimble, and they have small power (generally a power 6 cylinder

I think what OP has in mind is a combat aircraft with a modern 12 cylinder turbo prop thats capable of carrying payloads and dog fightibg like minded aircraft

Its like comparing a rally car to a humvee

Spitfire looks aesthetic in that single tone green. They shouldn't have bothered with the ocean grey camo stripes

However, piston power rate growth ended with the Napier Nomad, which threw cranks out the block at ~3500 hp, so we can assume that, for the same crankshaft weight (and strength being correlated to mass, since we're still using the same density steel), the engine cannot be more powerful. We're not going to be putting boat cranks in airplane engines, so I think the peaks achieved without turbo-compounding in the early 50s are what we've got to work with today. However, turbo-compounding and exhaust reheat could yield an engine with better specific fuel consumption than a turboprop of equivalent power, though specific power is guaranteed to be lower

The problem is not about the engine, but about the speed of the rotor blades. Once the tips of propeller break the sound barrier you get all sorts of problems, that's why there is no significant top speed difference between turboprop and piston engine airplanes.

But to answer your question, I'd go full retard and put a smaller turbocharged 2 stroke engine to keep the weight low, since there is no inherent benefit of more power once blades go supersonic

Great, now all I can think about is an XF-84H/Spitfire hybrid

>and strength being correlated to mass, since we're still using the same density steel
Strength does not correlate to mass, and density doesn't really have anything to do with it. You can change the strength of a specific steel grade around a lot without any change to density. And we do have stronger steels today than half a century ago, while the densities are indeed much the same.

Your mom can climb vertically on my cock.

Lol spotted the ford driver