What do people think the viability for a jet powered byplane would be in combat as a short range fighter possibly also bomber?

What do people think the viability for a jet powered byplane would be in combat as a short range fighter possibly also bomber?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It would be a cutie.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Biplanes existed because of the poor materials science of the era.
    Monoplanes are basically always going to be better and you can even design them with folding wings if you need a lower footprint.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Biplanes are peak kino
    From ww1 to pre-ww2, nothing will ever top plane dog fights than this era

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the entire engine spins

    Why would they do this? What possible advantage could it have?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wat

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mechanical simplicity at the cost of being otherwise totally retarded. Did you ever read William Sanders' "The Wild Blue and the Gray"? He also noted that that engine was lubricated with castor oil, which the engine enthusiastically sprayed everywhere, so pilots had NO problems with constipation, ever!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It gives you more air flow over the cylinders, so cooling is less of an issue, meaning you could shave off a lot of material and with that weight.
      This advantage was reduced to irrelevancy when they started making various parts (cylinder head I think was the important) out of aluminium.

      Well, my thought is the high manueverability of a biplane could come in handy in bomber protection, with the jet engine it could catch up to pure jet planes fast enough that are trying to run.

      Right, so different wings work well at different speeds. Slow speed you want a very long, narrow and straight wing. They give good lift even at slow speeds, but a lot of drag at higher speeds. High speeds you want shorter but wider wings, and fast enough we start wanting swept or delta wings. (They need high delta, producing lots of drag, at slow speeds but at their preferred speeds and up the drag doesn't increase as quickly as the long and thin wing.)
      Now as things get longer they start getting exponentially harder to keep string enough. And with an airplane we can't spend mass reinforcing things all too much either. So back in the biplane era they had to chop the wing into two instead of making it a long as they wanted. Now wingtips always produce extra drag, as does the struts between the wings, but they simply didn't have much choice. Today, unless you're after some very odd things, we can just make a single wing with the biplane's benefits but without the extra drawbacks.
      As for your bomber protection the problem will be to shoot the enemy down before he can launch long-range missiles at your bombers, so you need speed, radar and missiles. Manoeuvrability is a very minor concern. And trying to be fast enough to chase down the enemy after they've made their attack, well, your design has a jet engine and wings optimised for low speeds (meaning huge drag at higher speeds, assuming they're not torn off) while the enemy is almost certain to have jet engines too but wings designed for high speeds.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Right, thank you for explaining it to me.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Better answer than the Q deserved. But made me think about the U2. Had a model of this as a kid; it was really striking how different it was from other planes of the modern era.

        You're on right track with 2-wings-instead-of-1-long-one but of course the lift of the wing is much higher towards the fuselage. Having 2 30ft wings is much higher lift than have a single 60ft wing.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous
        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >but of course the lift of the wing is much higher towards the fuselage.
          That's news to me. I guess they could make it that way since the fuselage is the main load the wing needs to carry and so "transferring" lift created far away from it give us various stiffness/strength/torque issues in the wing. I see no reason for why it'd have to be like that though (if one could make a sufficiently strong wing), if anything the air flow around the fuselage would seem like it'd disturb the function of the wing if we're not careful, and so I don't see a WW1 aircraft getting extra benefit out of two or three wings due to that.
          But I haven't really studied aerodynamics, so if I'm wrong here, well, feel free to tell me how. In detail, preferably.
          (Pic not really related, since the really oddball variants will obviously tend to fall outside of the "usually applicable" rules of thumb and such.)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The reason lift looks like this:

            https://i.imgur.com/NYpDc8m.gif

            is due to wing end effects, iirc. It's naturally beneficial b/c the wings are cantilevers and you'd prefer more force at the body anyway. Result is that planes will fly with much of the wing missing... you can lose something like 1/2 - 2/3 of the wing and still stay up, as long as you can keep plane from rolling over from lift imbalance.
            Plane designers used to play with wing top profile to better distribute the loads. One result is the elliptical wing on the British Spitfire... had to do with making the load optimal for the cantilever structure, but it's been over 20 years since I looked at the design. CAD has eliminated these sorts of closed-form solution designs. Everything is finite element modelled now.
            > t. NASA trained aeronautical engineer. Graduated shortly after the cold war and ditched the field for other pursuits.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              So as I though it isn't that proximity to the fuselage gives you more lift. Instead what actually happens is that the tips produce less lift. (I'm guessing due to largely the same reason that they give more drag, high pressure air under the wing "leaking" up past the tip.) And so going back to

              https://i.imgur.com/uiPbvl8.jpg

              Better answer than the Q deserved. But made me think about the U2. Had a model of this as a kid; it was really striking how different it was from other planes of the modern era.

              You're on right track with 2-wings-instead-of-1-long-one but of course the lift of the wing is much higher towards the fuselage. Having 2 30ft wings is much higher lift than have a single 60ft wing.

              >Having 2 30ft wings is much higher lift than have a single 60ft wing.
              a completely un-tapered 60ft wing would produce more lift than two 30ft ones (less wing-tips wasting lift), but structural integrity issues meant that at least in WW1 wings had to be made with less lift further out from the fuselage and due to that the 30ft wingspan biplane would have more lift available than a 60ft monoplane.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Correct on most of this. In a CAS role, a biplane may make sense from a budget standpoint for militaries that can't afford the Apache. I do think the concept needs to be revisited. With most air search radars optimized for speed and altitude, taking advantage of the extra lift and lower altitudes with higher air density combined with ground clutter may give you a "stealth" advantage without needing to drop down $100 million. It's possible to design a cheap strike aircraft with a low IR signature that is radar evasive using this approach. Fly this thing at night, and you could evade visual detection and MANPADs and do some damage.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But why make that a biplane when we can easily make a single longer wing strong enough today to provide all the lift, but at half the amount of lift-reducing-but-drag-inducing wingtips?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Good point, but I'm thinking to take advantage of the drag and additional lift. Going really slow would be the point. You are basically trying to find a gap in the enemy's air search radars. Low and slow would be the point, even slower than a single-wing prop. You'd have to drop the jet engine OP was proposing, but going with a smaller, air cooled piston engine would reduce IR signature. Only threat it couldn't evade would be laser guided MANPADS and you could fly at night to reduce that threat. Something that would be even cheaper than unmanned drones. A cheaper and simpler option than attack helps.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              twin engine monoplane like

              https://i.imgur.com/US6RUXN.jpg

              But why make that a biplane when we can easily make a single longer wing strong enough today to provide all the lift, but at half the amount of lift-reducing-but-drag-inducing wingtips?

              is the most efficient because the two propellers counter-rotate to increase air pressure below the wings and reduce it above the wings.

              More than 20% lift increase AND a slight reduction in drag. It increases the efficiency to have the propellers spin in that configuration.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >but I'm thinking to take advantage of the drag and additional lift
              As has been pointed out biplanes don't really have more lift per se, it's just that back in WW1 they couldn't build high left wings in a single piece. Go look up some STOL competitions on youtube if you think we can't have a stall speed of fuck all with a monoplane (or note the 31 MPH figure another anon mentioned above for the Fieseler Storch).
              And if you want less net force pushing you forward just throttle back a bit, that's a lot simpler then trying to dial down the biplane's extra drag when you want to go fast/save fuel.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              first off, you'd need to have the plane manufacturers pay you to use them if you wanted to make it cost effective to send a trained pilot out when you could send a drone
              second off, even if you could manage it, not having your men killed if things go bad is enough of an advantage to make even a major price hike worth it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >What possible advantage could it have?
      cooling. these were air cooled engines which saved weight over a water cooled engine, and spinning the cylinders massively increased the amount of air passing through the cooling fins, so you could shrink the size of the fins reducing weight even further.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the entire engine spins

        Why would they do this? What possible advantage could it have?

        I'm going to assume you know that the cylinders themselves don't rotate but I'm sometimes surprised by knowledge levels on this stuff.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're thinking of radial engines. They're talking about rotary engines. (To your credit I'm pretty sure the plane in OP's pic is a radial, not a rotary.)

          ?t=174

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Rotary aero engines do spin, radial engines do not.

            That's how a typical radial engine works. But many early aircraft had an engine where the crankshaft was stationary and the entire crankcase, cylinder assembly, etc, rotated around it.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

            I'm going to assume you don't know that on a rotary engine the cylinders do in fact fucking rotate. the propeller is bolted to the engine and the crankshaft is fixed to the plane and is stationary. I'm also going to laugh at you for being absolutely fucking retarded in public, and preening about your retardation to boot.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

            I have never in my life seen this type of rotary engine design, so I learned something new today. Looking at it, I can't figure out how they managed all the sealing issues this would create.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I can't figure out how they managed all the sealing issues this would create.
              By and large they didn't, the fashion of pilots having very long scarves came about so they'd have something to wipe the engine oil from their goggles.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I can't figure out how they managed all the sealing issues this would create
              neither could they
              but the engine would typically run out of fuel faster than out of oil anyway

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Rotary aero engines do spin, radial engines do not.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's how you wave your dick like a pro.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            l-lewd!

            I'm looking at this gif again with completely different eyes now. I can't unsee it.

            No but seriously, how do you feed it fuel?

            It was fed through the crankcase and to the cylinders with intake manifolds that spun. It also ran a total-loss oiling system, as it would pretty much have to do.
            It did not work well; I don't think they'd worked out carburetion well enough for the design at the time. Read the wiki, they would either shut the engine on or off or play with ignition to try to control speed since there was no good way to change the air/fuel volume without changing the mix.
            I can't believe I'd never seen this design before, or at least didn't understand what I was looking at when I did.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >It also ran a total-loss oiling system
              This was not specific to airplanes, there were car engines of that era that also ran total loss oil systems due to the poor quality oils, poor quality machining causing lots of metal wear, and the difficulty of useful oil filtration.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's how a typical radial engine works. But many early aircraft had an engine where the crankshaft was stationary and the entire crankcase, cylinder assembly, etc, rotated around it.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm going to assume you don't know that on a rotary engine the cylinders do in fact fucking rotate. the propeller is bolted to the engine and the crankshaft is fixed to the plane and is stationary. I'm also going to laugh at you for being absolutely fucking retarded in public, and preening about your retardation to boot.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          l-lewd!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No but seriously, how do you feed it fuel?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Induced drag increases stupidly fast on biplanes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well, my thought is the high manueverability of a biplane could come in handy in bomber protection, with the jet engine it could catch up to pure jet planes fast enough that are trying to run.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you aware of concept of aerodynamics?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Are you aware of how extra lift and slower speed enables more extreme maneuvers. Aerodynamics and speed are not everything. It's a trade-off.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think what he meant was that unless you have a variable sweep wing design ala F14 you either get
            > Slow and nimble, low stall speed. Acrobat planes like OP, crop dusters.
            > Fast and not nimble, high stall speed. Fighter jets.
            Most planes though are slow and stable, high fuel economy. Pass jets, C130s, single-engine private planes, etc.
            Control technology has made huge strides in allowing both of the above options to work on same plane. If you look at 60-70's era designs before these control systems you can see the tradeoff made just from the way the plane looked on the outside.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What I meant is that you could achieve an airplane that is maneuverable and can evade radar and you don't have to pay $100M for it. Training on it would be simple. Parts would be cheap. More of a cost-effective strategy to get some bang for the buck. For the U.S. it would prevent the need for using $100M+ airframes for fighting insurgent groups and would reduce the logistical drag of providing fuel for a jet. For other countries, it would provide a way to avoid search radars on the F22 and F35 and drop munitions undetected until over the target. Drones are like $20 million. I'm guessing it would cost even less than an attack help. Can't imagine a bi-plane would cost more than $100k. Something that could fly slower than even a Cessna 150. Basically like the Iranian Navy's small boat approach but with aircraft.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Super Tucano

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Biplanes are severely restricted in terms of speed.

        The faster you go, the more the wings interact, eventually creating forces that either cause them to collapse, rip apart, or delaminate.

        To make a stacked wing configuration that works across a wide range of speeds, they have to be movable, like canards and all-moving tailplanes.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just go fast enough and the shockwaves won't meet until well behind the wings. (I'm totally sure nothing whatsoever could go wrong or be impractical about this plan.)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            One of the great paradoxes of aerodynamics is that even if the interaction forms behind the plane it can still cause drag.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It will be like A-10 with extra wings.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds great.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Uguu~

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good for Toyota plinking and nothing else

    You honestly might get more use out of a light attack helicopter

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It kinda makes sense for a carrier fighter where decks space is limited but it's usually easier to use larger wings that fold.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would you want a faster biplane? From what I remember of my WW2 history the only advantage that biplanes have over monoplanes is their lower stall speed making it incredibly difficult for fast movers to actually get trigger time on them for more than fractions of a second.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They didn't even have the lowest stall speed.

      The Storch had the lowest stall of the war at 31 mph and it was a monoplane.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Theoretically, with better materials you could get extra lift and make a more survivable aircraft that would be extremely maneuverable and survivable in a CAS role. I would love to see someone build a prototype of something like this.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Surprising application of a "Jet biplane:" tandem wing ground effect vehicle as a short ranged heavy-lifting bomber or transport.
    Rather than going fast, the jet configuration with a biplane-like tandem surface allows it to shift the mass backwards and increase load per square foot of wing dramatically. The larger the plane, the bigger the efficiency gap.
    Designed by Whitener when he was at Boeing in 1979, the design was used in part for the Quad Tiltrotor proposal in 1999 (and revealed in 2000, coincidentally right after the patent expired).

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Biplanes are inefficient lift and drag profile compared to a monoplane
    jet biplane loses the low-speed thrust of a propeller.

    most efficient is a twin-engine monoplane turboprop.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >viability for a jet powered byplane would be in combat as a short range fighter
    Supermaneuverability as a concept has pretty much been discarded in modern times, as I understand it because turnrate dogfighting doesn't actually happen these days. The current fighter meta is information integration or something

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Turn rate dogfighting was countered by boom'n'zoom back in WW2 wasn't it?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Boom and zoom often worked very well even back in WW1 too. Beware the hun in the sun, because he'll do a strafing run on you and then fuck off before you can retaliate.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        WW1 had boom 'n zoom
        also end-WW1 had massive fighter formations of dozens of aircraft.

        turn-rate dogfighting only works in 1v1 final destination. Even then, the higher-performance zoomer wins.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Would be worse in every way, but a fun, kino, type of worse.

Your email address will not be published.