masterKamera Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 IN a pure ground attack view point, is the Super Tucano the better plane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spruecutter96 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 IIRC, the "Spad" could carry a greater weight of weapons than the four-engined B-17. Admittedly, the Skyraider didn't have to carry them up to high altitudes and not nearly as far, as a rule. I have a feeling the Supey Tucey can't do that. Also, the Spad was famous for taking a real beating and still getting the pilot to safety. AH-1J wins, hands down...? Cheers. Chris. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAF4EVER Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 AH-1J is a HueyCobra, think you mean A-1J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britman Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 How about a Skyraider with a de rated T56 engine. Tandem two seater as well with a stretched bubble hood. Sounds like a WIF! Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 The Skyraider was built for carrier operations, which probably dictated a stronger overall airframe. From a strafing perspective, the A-1's four 20mm cannon would be a bit more effective than the Super Tucano's armament (.50 caliber?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterKamera Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 the super tucano was part of the warthog replacement competition, and the thought being the skyraider had decent loadout ability in the day.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moggy Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) A great weight of (dumb) bombs was required in order to ensure hitting any target at the time; The Tucc carries "smart" bombs thus the new paradigm is "one bomb one target". Furthermore the Spad was a WW II design for a carrier-based torpedo/day bomber. The Tucc flies from land; this makes for a lighter aircraft rather than one constructed to enduring continuous controlled crash-landings on a carrier deck. In other words - the aircraft in question were made for completely different environments. There's an abyss between them technologically speaking. Edited June 8 by Moggy typo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Always thought the VNAF A-1 fuselage bands looked quite striking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 A-1's had the somewhat unusual distinction of using aerial torpedoes against a dam in Korea: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/skyraiders-torpedo-the-hwachon-dam/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 If I had to choose Id go for the A-1. For the following reasons. more load, more mechanically dependable in a combat environment. Now if it could have been modernized with designator pods I believe it could/would be fully capable I think of carrying smart ordnance. The Radial and fuselage could take more damage than a Turbo-prop and its loiter time would be greater with its internal and external fuel load. Now Im off to start laying out plans for a modernized A-1 whif build thank you. Dennis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterKamera Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 I like OLD planes, i really due. They have STYLE. Tucano is nto a bad plane, but when i think of "warbird" im thinking stout planes like the BF-109 or FW 190, or Hurricane. NOt a turbocharged sport trainer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noelh Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Both are of their time. But we've all seen that video of that helicopter being swatted out the sky by a manpad. That's the likely fate of both types should they become involved in the type of war we're witnessing now. But I think a modernised Spad with a turbine engine would win every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Well, the Skyraider did pretty well in Vietnam until the SA-7 Grail appeared on the scene. With no real countermeasures available at the time, it's goose was pretty well cooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 And there's the fuel question too. Skyraiders use Avgas - a Tucano uses JP4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozothenutter Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 Turboprop Skyraider? The 'big' types can carry a lot of electronics as well. Shades of Piper Enforcer here... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 1 hour ago, Bozothenutter said: Turboprop Skyraider? The 'big' types can carry a lot of electronics as well. Shades of Piper Enforcer here... Douglas did have a go at that concept, the Douglas A2D Skyshark. It was dropped in favour of developing the A4D Skyhawk - probably a wise move. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now