How much better is the Super Tucano compared to the best comparable

>>35018012
it has advanced combat avionics and a extensive suite of weapons. it's unfairly better than anything anyone had in wwII

File: Radial_engine_timing-small.gif (3MB, 270x270px)

3MB, 270x270px

It uses a turboprop engine instead of a piston engine. This engine has a power to weight ratio more than double a typical WW2 plane engine. The modern avionics and materials mean that the overall shape are all it really has in common with a WW2 plane.

>>35018034
I'm glad there are much smarter men than I to come up with something like a radial engine

>>35018012
There's no comparison to any WW2 airframe

File: Westland_Wyvern_S_Mk.4.jpg (55KB, 600x332px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x332px

>>35018012
How would a Super Tweet compare to a modernized Westland Wyvern with a similar avionics package?

>>35018012

It's basically a Ju-87 with a better engine and modern avionics and weapon systems.

>>35020882
that thing was utter shit, it would flame out on take off(it looks good though)

>>35018034
>no
EMB 314 - 1,196 kW - 3,200 kg
Spitfire XIV - 1,530 kW - 2,984 kg
F4F - 1,715 kW - 3,207 kg

>>35021036
*F8F

>>35018012
It's a joke. Aside from MUH TURBOPROP and the avionics, it's a dumbed down Avenger. Admittedly PGM capability helps it a lot, if the people who it was built for could reliably afford PGMs.

>>35021036

Those are fucking fighters you retard. Compare it to an attack plane.

>>35021036

>plane weight is engine weight

File: Air-to-air_with_Afghan_Air_Force_Embraer_A-29_Super_Tucano.jpg (591KB, 1920x1275px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1920x1275px

>>35018012

>>35021062
P-47 1,938 kW - 4,535 kg

Slower, worse climbing, worse armed and only marginally longer legged than a Tempest from '44 (Assuming no drop tanks anyway).

Carries better bombs I suppose?

>>35021164

>>35021078

>>35021036
>>35021164

All shit-tier and retarded comparisons made by people who know nothing about planes or engineering.

All of those planes dedicate a shitload more of their mass and volume to their engines than the Super Tucano.

Comparing the engines directly clearly demonstrates the superiority of the turboprop:

PT6A-68C:

>6.08 kW/kg

R-2800:

>1.46 kW/kg

Griffon 65

>1.69 kW/kg

Compared to turboprops even the most advanced piston engines are utter trash.

>>35021308
Is that really relevant when the turboprop plane is so much fucking slower than the pistons?

>>35021335

Those planes don't reach those speeds at the same altitude the Super Tucano reaches its.

At low altitudes the Super Tucano's speed is competitive with the most advanced Spitfire and P-47 variants.

Keep in mind it isn't even a fighter, but the modern equivalent of a Piper Cub with bazookas strapped to the wings.

>>35021335

Why are you comparing a ground attack aircraft with WW2 fighters and interceptors? The Super Tucano is more like a Sturmovik than a Spitfire.

>>35021335

The Super Tucano can mount AIM-9s which no piston engined fighter has any defense against.

>>35021665
I was actually comparing it with a hawker tempest, 412mph is faster than 367 you know.

>>35021701

The Tempest would eat an AIM-9 from the more maneuverable and only slightly slower turboprop

>>35021736
Well yeah, the turboprop would eat shit in a gunfight but of course it's going to win if it's packing fucking modern missiles against a ground attack plane from the early 1940s.

Put the missiles and accompanying avionics and electronic wizardry on the WW2 plane, and you'll probably see the opposite.

>>35021701

That's not the point, you're comparing an aircraft designed for ground attack and air policing against smugglers light aircraft with a purpose-built high speed fighter. The Super Tucano can carry more bombs & rockets further for longer and use them more accurately.

>>35021792
different guy, what's the Tucanos payload?

>>35021701
>>35021763

Well first of all, the Tempest wasn't a ground attack plane. It was designed as an interceptor and forced into the ground attack role (which it was absolute garbage at).

Secondly, tell me, at what altitude does the Tempest achieve its maximum speed? What is it's power to weight ratio? What is it's wing loading?

If you knew the answer to any of these questions you probably wouldn't have posted though.

>>35021792
>>35021810

My bad, I actually meant the typhoon. the tempest is faster still (432 mph).

The typhoon bieng a fighter bomber.

>>35021810
1 5,600 m
2 0.31 kW/kg
3 184.86 kg/m2

>>35021802

>http://www.embraerds.com/super_tucano.html
>Five hard points under the wing and fuselage allow up to 1,500 kg of weapons for most configurations. The aircraft's inboard stations, as well as its ventral one, are "wet" for external fuel tanks.

Consider as well as the modern avionics, it has a two seat cockpit, both with zero-zero ejection seats, which compared to a WW2 single seater which just has a parachute, offsets a fair bit of the weight savings of modern technology.

>>35021870
1,500kg you say?
the typhoon can almost match that with two 1000lbs bombs and 8 60 lbs rockets

The only thing they have in common is the shape.

Super Tucano is pretty modern for it's category and carries and huge variety of missiles and bombs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano#Specifications_.28EMB_314_Super_Tucano.29

>>35020882
>A number of aircraft were lost off Albion's bows and Lt. B. D. Macfarlane made history on 13 October 1954[7] when he successfully ejected from under water after his aircraft had ditched on launch and been cut in two by the carrier

fucking hell

File: feature-book-review-alien-vault-03.jpg (2MB, 3000x2007px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2007px

Am I the only one who sometimes fantasized about sending blueprints and diagrams back in time to tease the engineers of decades ago?

File: Embraer-Super-Tucano detalhado.jpg (928KB, 2500x1451px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 2500x1451px

>>35022258

Would they manage to make it tho?

>>35022365
very unlikely, but it would probably inspire them

not just engineers, anyone reading something that is from the future might feel a bit more optimistic, knowing that we survive whatever war they are living through

>>35018012
Technology makes all the advantage. AGM-65's and AIM-9's are better than anything that you could concievably see on a WWII fighter. Combine that with all the modern avionics and fun stuff and it horrifically outclasses anything that saw service in WWII.

On pure performance numbers it's fairly mediocre. The Super Tucano's top speed isn't great, its payload is good but not unheard of and its gun argument, even with gun pods, is merely okay. Its climb rate is good but not the best and wing loading is merely okay, but what lets it down is its service ceiling which is pretty anemic. Of course, again, those numbers don't matter so much when it can just toss a pair of AIM-9L's at whatever you're deciding to compare it to.

>>35022435

I know Germans already had some turbofan prototypes. If they managed to get some turboprops the war would be a bit different.

File: 1443917259153.gif (1MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x250px

>>35018034
>>35018039

>>35022458
>If they managed to get some turboprops the war would be a bit different.
Yeah, it would have ended slightly sooner as they wasted yet more materiel on shit they could neither afford nor produce in numbers.

>>35022458
>One Ak-47 diagram, complete with measurements and assembly instructions sent to the appropriate address could have changed the war

>>35022477
That's sexy.

>>35021699

Nor sufficient heat output to be targeted by.

>>35021699

Also, the AIM-9 is a lead-to-kill missile. It gets in front of the target, and explodes. The intention being to get shrapnel into the intakes of a turbojet engine.

Against an armored piston prop with sealing tanks, it would be no more effective than a well placed fused AA round.

>>35018034
>>35022477
>>35018039
I work on airplanes and I respect the oldfags who worked on radials with power recovery turbines. Hydromatic props are something else too.

>>35022488
>>35022501

I meant like giving them the blueprint around 1935.

File: 220px-AIM-9B_hits_F6F-5K_over_China_Lake_1957.jpg (11KB, 220x271px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 220x271px

>>35022533
You wot m8?

>>35022563
AIM-9's switched over to annular blast continuous rod warheads in the 60's.

>>35022458
..With spotty at best metallurgy and no fuel. Blueprints for an engine don't mean shit if you can't actually build said engine and have it not explode, or put it in a plane that can actually take off.

Why would a 30s or 40s turboprop do something the 262 failed to achieve?

File: 1437273585728.jpg (1022KB, 2126x1721px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 2126x1721px

>>35022477
oddly sexual

>>35022458
>>35022501
Depending on how early they got them. Coworkers are always picking up arguments and snark remaks when I bring up how the Nazis accomplished, technological wise, huge leaps forward. " so you like nazis now" it's like wtf man, can't you recognize technological advancement without making it taboo.

>>35022662
Name One.

File: 1438059114104.gif (2MB, 275x154px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 275x154px

>>35022563
>It gets in front of the target, and explodes. The intention being to get shrapnel into the intakes of a turbojet engine.

Please do not. They've been rod warheads for basically ever, only the first couple prototypes tried something that stupid.

>>35022667
Rocketry. In most other ways, however, nazi super-science is very overrated and propped up more by taboo mystery than any real trailblazing.

What are the odds for the plane getting cucked by congress lobbysts in favor of AT-6?

>>35022692
Based off of Goddard's work, wasn't it?

There's basically fuck all the nazis did that someone else hadn't done first.

>>35022700
>in favor of AT-6?
not high considering the A-29 is operating in Afghanistan and Navy special warfare wants them for reasons

>>35022737

B-but muh Made-In-USA?

>>35022258
N O I C E
O
I
C
E

>>35022692
They were all inspired by the American Dr. Robert Goddard. All they did was throw money and scale up the basic design. And it did jack shit for them in the war, so they didn't use it too well, did they?

>>35022662
Maybe you could communicate more effectively by saying "Germans" instead of "Nazis".

>>35018026
How much better at dropping bombs does that make it?

>>35022819
Pretty sure you can put a GPS guided bomb through someone's window from a tucano. Not so much a dumb bomb from a WW2 plane.

>>35022840
I thought we are comparing aircraft, not bombs.

>>35022874
...Please read the question about bombs I was responding to.

Doesn't matter if you're dropping your bomb off of an F22 or a tucano if they both have the hardware to aim the fucking things. Which a WW2 plane doesn't.

>>35022840
Not an argument

>>35022792
>They were all inspired by the American Dr. Robert Goddard. All they did was throw money and scale up the basic design.

The Germans threw a lot of money at rockets, yes, but they did significantly more than just upscale goddard's designs. And though not of tremendous use to the war effort the question here is scientific advancement not wehraboo "shoulda won the war"ism.

The turbopump alone was a massive leap, let alone the abandonment of fucking gasoline as a propellant.

>>35022901
>How much better at dropping bombs does that make it?
>It's more accurate
>not an argument.

You dumb, son?

>>35018034
Some of that is offset by Jet-A being heavier than Avgas and turboprops being thirstier.

>>35022808
Good point, I don't use nazis per say but when I'm talking about Germany in the 1940's people immediately say nazis. I guess my point is that people are unable to look past the nazifaggotry

File: Pilatus_PC-21__Pilatus_AN1852215.jpg (203KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1024x683px

>Super Tucano
>Not Pilatus PC-21

>>35023161

>purpose built plane vs adapted trainer

>>35023181
The PC-21 is purpose built as a [fighter] jet trainer.

It's more apt to compare it to fighters of WWII.

>>35023240
Not an argument

Why does the Super Tucano even exists?

>>35023382

COIN and intercept drug planes in amazon.

>>35023382
cost effectiveness

File: gg.jpg (58KB, 940x627px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 940x627px

>>35023161
>PC-21
>Not Dart-450

>>35022763
The A-29 is built in Nevada

>>35023382
to hurt your feelings. just like your stepdad!

>>35023577
>Climb rate is over 1,000 ft/min less
Did you have paint chips for breakfast.

>>35023631
Poor Brazilians. They clearly just want the Americans to buy the Super Tucano so they can brag about the fact that even the most powerful air force on earth uses Brazilian aircraft, but in the end it's not only manufactured in the USA, but it's engine is also American.