Ridiculous musing, but...
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
Tango13 said:
As for Tucano Vs Spitfire, my money would be on the best pilot, not the best aircraft. See my post earlier about the SeaFury Vs Mig 15
So pretty close then, interesting. We have to remember that by the time you add equivalant armament (I presume the Tucano is unarmed?) it will reduce performance.ninja-lewis said:
Great film from my youth - might have to download it and watch it again 
Simpo Two said:
Not bad - what about power/rate of climb/rate of roll?
It would be an interesting match.
Power's very similar (1,600hp for the Super Tucano, 1720hp for the Spitfire) rate of climb 4470ft/min vs. 4350ish for the Spitfire depending on which sub model. But endurance is the killer - the Super Tucano can loiter for 8 hours and 40 minutes. So I guess the tactic is to wait until the Spitfire runs out of fuel and then bounce it on landing approach.It would be an interesting match.
Looking at this from the other side, if you were flying a good WW2 fighter plane and found yourself in combat with a modern fighter, what would your best tactic be (assuming you weren't shot down before you even knew the other guy was there)?
I would have thought getting as low as possible until the distance between you was very small, then trying to use your superior manouevrability.
I would have thought getting as low as possible until the distance between you was very small, then trying to use your superior manouevrability.
davepoth said:
Power's very similar (1,600hp for the Super Tucano, 1720hp for the Spitfire) rate of climb 4470ft/min vs. 4350ish for the Spitfire depending on which sub model. But endurance is the killer - the Super Tucano can loiter for 8 hours and 40 minutes. So I guess the tactic is to wait until the Spitfire runs out of fuel and then bounce it on landing approach.
I hadn't thought of range as an advantage in this situation... if we're talking dogfight then when one party was getting low on fuel or ammo it would have to break off and dive for home - assuming top speeds are roughly equal, it's not worth trying to catch. Many pilots were lost chasing after strays, especially over water. But it all depends where the relative bases are.Shooting down enemy aircraft as they landed was a common tactic - both sides did it in WW2 - but you need either darkness for cover (Luftwaffe v returning heavies) or something approaching air superiority in daylight (RAF/USAAF v Me262s).
It all shows that comparing two aircraft on paper is fairly easy, and had to be done, but in reality things were infinitely more complex and good tactics (ie using your strength aginst the enemy weakness) were crucial.
Eric Mc said:
The Bucc was a bomber rather than a fighter and I don't think it ever carried any sort of air to air weaponry.
RAF Buccs carried AIM9 for self defence.They also had a tactic called 'Knickers' (what the Spams called 'BIYF' - Bomb In Your Face) - basically pickle off a retard 1000lb in the face of a pursuing fighter.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Eric Mc said:
The Bucc was a bomber rather than a fighter and I don't think it ever carried any sort of air to air weaponry.
RAF Buccs carried AIM9 for self defence.They also had a tactic called 'Knickers' (what the Spams called 'BIYF' - Bomb In Your Face) - basically pickle off a retard 1000lb in the face of a pursuing fighter.
Smiler. said:
What about arming modern piston engined aircraft, say a trainer or stunt plane?
A bit OT but, I remember a documentary years ago about a chap who'd "invented" a revolutionary new anti-tank plane.
I expected to see some fantastic super-fast sleek looking jet, but it was a lumbering piston engined thing, not very fast due to the frontal amour.
I can't remember the armament, cannon, bomb, missile or combination (or possible just rude signs from the pilot).
Bob Diemert and his "Defender", maybe? Same bloke who dug out a Mitsubishi Zero from a jungle and restored it.A bit OT but, I remember a documentary years ago about a chap who'd "invented" a revolutionary new anti-tank plane.
I expected to see some fantastic super-fast sleek looking jet, but it was a lumbering piston engined thing, not very fast due to the frontal amour.
I can't remember the armament, cannon, bomb, missile or combination (or possible just rude signs from the pilot).
Dr Jekyll said:
During the late 70's it looked as though Royal Navy Phantoms and Buccaneers might well be fighting Guatamalan P51s. I think someone looked at using air to ground rockets against the Mustangs.
I've heard that it was the Indonesian Konfrontasi in the mid 60s. They actually dug out a Spitfire (PR. Mk. 19) to have mock dogfights with a Lightning in order to develop tactics to use against the Indonesian Mustangs.AlexiusG55 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
During the late 70's it looked as though Royal Navy Phantoms and Buccaneers might well be fighting Guatamalan P51s. I think someone looked at using air to ground rockets against the Mustangs.
I've heard that it was the Indonesian Konfrontasi in the mid 60s. They actually dug out a Spitfire (PR. Mk. 19) to have mock dogfights with a Lightning in order to develop tactics to use against the Indonesian Mustangs.
Probably about time we had a discussion of the Javelin vs. Indonesian C130 engagement? - obviously, the Javelin had a huge speed advantage, but the Hercules was arguably better in a turning fight, not to mention having considerably better aerobatic performance.......
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff