A-1J Skyraider vs Super Tucano

[masterKamera]

IN a pure ground attack view point, is the Super Tucano the better plane?

[spruecutter96]

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.  

[RAF4EVER]

AH-1J is a HueyCobra, think you mean A-1J 😃

[Britman]

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 🧥

[Slater]

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?).

[masterKamera]

the super tucano was part of the warthog replacement competition, and the thought being the skyraider had decent loadout ability in the day..

[Moggy]

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, 2022 by Moggy
typo

[Slater]

Always thought the VNAF A-1 fuselage bands looked quite striking.

[Slater]

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/

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

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

[masterKamera]

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

[noelh]

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.

[Slater]

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.

[Eric Mc]

And there's the fuel question too. Skyraiders use Avgas - a Tucano uses JP4.

[Bozothenutter]

Turboprop Skyraider?

The 'big' types can carry a lot of electronics as well.

Shades of Piper Enforcer here...

[Eric Mc]

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.