Tucano vs. Hurricane

[dr_gn]

Went for a nice walk this morning, which led along Derwent Edge and gave a great view of the dams below, where the Dambusters practiced. At one point, a pair of Tucanos (black, yellow trim - 1FTS I think) wended their way down the valley quite a height below us. Watching them manouvering around the contours of the valley reminded me of watching the 'tail chase' Hurricane/Spitfire/Fw190/Bouchon displays at Duxford. It got me wondering:

Hypothetically, if you fitted a few guns to a Tucano, and pitted it against, say, a Hurricane or Spitfire, and both had pilots of equal ability...which would win?

[badgers_back]

Spit

Performance
Maximum speed: 378 mph, (330 kn, 605 km/h)
Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi, 760 km)
Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,140 mi, 1,840 km)
Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (11,300 m)
Rate of climb: 2,665 ft/min (13.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 24.56 lb/ft² (119.91 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (0.36 kW/kg)

Tucano

Performance
Never exceed speed: 300 kts (322 mph, 518 km/h)
Maximum speed: 274 kn (315 mph, 507 km/h) (at 10,000-15,000 ft)
Cruise speed: 180/240(low level) knots (253 mph, 407 km/h) (economy cruise)
Stall speed: 69 kn (80 mph, 128 km/h) (flaps and gear down)
Range: 900 nmi (1,035 miles, 1,665 km)
Service ceiling: 34,000 ft (10,365 m)
Rate of climb: 3,510 ft/min (17.8 m/s)
Wing loading: 28.6 lb/ft² (140 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.152 hp/lb (0.250 kW/kg)

Spit is faster can fly higher but the Tucano can climb faster

[dr_gn]

badgers_back said:

Spit

Performance
Maximum speed: 378 mph, (330 kn, 605 km/h)
Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi, 760 km)
Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,140 mi, 1,840 km)
Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (11,300 m)
Rate of climb: 2,665 ft/min (13.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 24.56 lb/ft² (119.91 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (0.36 kW/kg)

Tucano

Performance
Never exceed speed: 300 kts (322 mph, 518 km/h)
Maximum speed: 274 kn (315 mph, 507 km/h) (at 10,000-15,000 ft)
Cruise speed: 180/240(low level) knots (253 mph, 407 km/h) (economy cruise)
Stall speed: 69 kn (80 mph, 128 km/h) (flaps and gear down)
Range: 900 nmi (1,035 miles, 1,665 km)
Service ceiling: 34,000 ft (10,365 m)
Rate of climb: 3,510 ft/min (17.8 m/s)
Wing loading: 28.6 lb/ft² (140 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.152 hp/lb (0.250 kW/kg)

Spit is faster can fly higher but the Tucano can climb faster

Tucano vs Hurricane is more equal overall:

Max. Speed: Hurricane 340mph Tucano 315mph
Rate of climb: Hurricane 2,780 ft/min (14.1 m/s), Tucano 3,510 ft/min
Wing loading: Hurricane 29.8 lb/ft² (121.9 kg/m²) Tucano 28.6 lb/ft²
Power/mass: Hurricane 0.15 hp/lb (0.25 kW/kg) Tucano 0.152 hp/lb

[spitfire-ian]

Funnily enough, the display Tucano this year is painted with Hurricane markings.

[shouldbworking]

Never realised it was so close. Hard to imagine a Spitfire or Hurricane performing the same sort of display the Tucano presently does but evidently its capable of it! Curse those airframe fatigue markers eh..

[badgers_back]

shouldbworking said:

Never realised it was so close. Hard to imagine a Spitfire or Hurricane performing the same sort of display the Tucano presently does but evidently its capable of it! Curse those airframe fatigue markers eh..

Tucano can climb a lot quicker than both which I guess comes in handy for displays making it look better

[rhinochopig]

I guess two key factors are the PTW and the turning ability. I would imagine in these the Tucano is probably better.

Tucano has 1150bhp and Huricane 1030bhp - can't find weights

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tucano.cfm

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/hurricane.html

The tucano also has much much better visibility from the cockpit.

[Dr Jekyll]

shouldbworking said:

Never realised it was so close.

Quite a thought that pilots went onto the Hurricane or Spitfire after basic and advanced training, and the Tucano is a basic trainer.

[rhinochopig]

Dr Jekyll said:

shouldbworking said:

Never realised it was so close.

Quite a thought that pilots went onto the Hurricane or Spitfire after basic and advanced training, and the Tucano is a basic trainer.

What's the stall speed for both though? Spits are supposed to be evil things to land due to their high approach speed - especially for a novice. I would imagine the Tucano is a much more benign beast.

[aeropilot]

rhinochopig said:

Dr Jekyll said:

shouldbworking said:

Never realised it was so close.

Quite a thought that pilots went onto the Hurricane or Spitfire after basic and advanced training, and the Tucano is a basic trainer.

What's the stall speed for both though? Spits are supposed to be evil things to land due to their high approach speed - especially for a novice. I would imagine the Tucano is a much more benign beast.

Spit has stalling speed of around 65mph and is quite docile right up to that point.
Spit's problem with landing was visibility more than anything, hence the curved landing approaches, and of course the narrow undercarriage compared with other type then in service, incl the Hurricane.

[dr_gn]

rhinochopig said:

I guess two key factors are the PTW and the turning ability. I would imagine in these the Tucano is probably better.

Tucano has 1150bhp and Huricane 1030bhp - can't find weights

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tucano.cfm

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/hurricane.html

The tucano also has much much better visibility from the cockpit.

All the PWR figures are in the first few posts. It's virtually identical for the Tucano and Hurricane, the Spit is a bit higher.

Same with wing loading: the Tucano splits the Hurricane and Spitfire.

Not bothered about landing gear and all the rest of the mundane boring stuff, it was just the relative ACM performance I was wondering about.

[Shedofdread]

Another factor you should have considered (shame on you G.!) is the Clmax of the relative airfoils and the drag generated when in that flight regime. That with the, already mentioned wing loading will affect ACM. Also, throttle response may be better with the Merlin powered platforms than the turbine powered one.

Enjoying further muddying the water,

S

[The real Apache]

Shedofdread said:

Another factor you should have considered (shame on you G.!) is the Clmax of the relative airfoils and the drag generated when in that flight regime. That with the, already mentioned wing loading will affect ACM. Also, throttle response may be better with the Merlin powered platforms than the turbine powered one.

Enjoying further muddying the water,

S

I'd say not. having worked on and flown in a Tucano I can say throttle response is immediate, the Tucano throttle controls torque and you can really feel it accelerate/decelerate

[Shedofdread]

The real Apache said:

Shedofdread said:

Another factor you should have considered (shame on you G.!) is the Clmax of the relative airfoils and the drag generated when in that flight regime. That with the, already mentioned wing loading will affect ACM. Also, throttle response may be better with the Merlin powered platforms than the turbine powered one.

Enjoying further muddying the water,

S

I'd say not. having worked on and flown in a Tucano I can say throttle response is immediate, the Tucano throttle controls torque and you can really feel it accelerate/decelerate

I bow to your superior knowledge in that area and withdraw my second point. Equally, I did use the word 'may' for a reason.

S

[dr_gn]

Shedofdread said:

Another factor you should have considered (shame on you G.!) is the Clmax of the relative airfoils and the drag generated when in that flight regime. That with the, already mentioned wing loading will affect ACM. Also, throttle response may be better with the Merlin powered platforms than the turbine powered one.

Enjoying further muddying the water,

S

Weeeel, given that the power:weight *and* max. speeds are fairly similar for the three aircraft (as are the overall dimensions of the airframes) doesn't this imply that the performance of the airfolis are pretty similar too, and therefore might not be such a relevant factor?

BTW bumped in to our friends BH and MJ on aforementioned walk. Small world eh?

Edited by dr_gn on Friday 27th August 21:08

[Shedofdread]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeel, not neccessarily.....
Has anyone measured min turn radius? If they have, that would be the thing. Also some airfoils are better at momentary high Cl. Though, those who know more than I tell me that that phenomenon is not well understood. Equally, to fully exploit that, one needs to get rid of the organic FCS.

[dr_gn]

Shedofdread said:

Weeeeeeeeeeeeel, not neccessarily.....
Has anyone measured min turn radius?

I can only find details of relatave min. turn radii on the ground.

Is that any good?

[Shedofdread]

dr_gn said:

Shedofdread said:

Weeeeeeeeeeeeel, not neccessarily.....
Has anyone measured min turn radius?

I can only find details of relatave min. turn radii on the ground.

Is that any good?

What, as in taxiing?

[mybrainhurts]

Go too fast in a Hurricane and the cloth starts to peel off the fuselage...

Go too fast in a Tucano and this does not happen...

[dr_gn]

Shedofdread said:

dr_gn said:

Shedofdread said:

Weeeeeeeeeeeeel, not neccessarily.....
Has anyone measured min turn radius?

I can only find details of relatave min. turn radii on the ground.

Is that any good?

What, as in taxiing?

Yup.