Can the Super Tucano do anything better than some of the single engine airplane of the WWII era or later?

A P40 for example has some similar size and performance characteristics.  Yes this a rough comparison.

Could these old airplanes do the mission?  Would it cost more or less?  What if avionics and engines were upgraded to more modern standards in these old airplanes, then how might they compare?

Part of me is sickened by that mutant, and part of me is strangely aroused

Than some, certainly.  It depends on what missions we are comparing.
Can it compete with P51 Mustangs, Focke-Wulf Fw 190's, P38 Lightnings and Supermarine Spitfires?  No, it's not an air superiority fighter.

Can it compete with ground attack aircraft such as the North American A-36 Apache, Douglas Dauntless and Helldiver, Junkers JU 87?  Probably, and easily.

P40
6 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns with 235 rounds per gun in the wings
Bombs: 250 to 1,000 lb (110 to 450 kg) bombs to a total of 2,000 lb (907 kg) on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage and two underwing)

A26 Apache (ground attack Mustang)
   6 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
   Up to 1,000 lb (454 kg) of bombs on two underwing hardpoints

Junkers JU87
2× 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine gun forward, 1× 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 15 machine gun to rear
Bombs: Normal load = 1× 250 kg (550 lb) bomb beneath the fuselage and 4× 50 kg (110 lb), two bombs underneath each wing.

Douglas Dauntless
       2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) forward-firing synchronized Browning M2 machine guns in engine cowling
       2 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) flexible-mounted Browning machine gun in rear
   Bombs: 2,250 lb (1,020 kg) of bombs

Curtiss Helldiver
       2 × 20 mm (.79 in) Mk.2 cannon in the wings
       2 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the rear cockpit
   Bombs: in internal bay: 2,000 lb (900 kg) of bombs or 1 × Mark 13-2 torpedo[45]
   on underwing hardpoints: 500 lb (225 kg) of bombs each

P47 Thunderbolt
8 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3400 rounds)
Up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs or 10 × 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets

Douglas A-20 ((Twin engined bomber))
4× fixed 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in the nose, (defensive guns redacted)
Bombs: 2,000 lb (910 kg)



Guns:
Internal: 1 12.7 mm (0.50 in) 950 rounds per minute FN Herstal M3P machine gun in each wing.
pod: 1 20 mm (0.79 in) 650 rounds per minute GIAT M20A1 cannon below the fuselage.
pod: 1 12.7 mm (0.50 in) FN Herstal HMP for M3P machine gun under each wing
pod: up to 4 7.62 mm (0.30 in) 3,000 rounds per minute Dillon Aero M134 Minigun (under development) under wings
.
Hardpoints:
5 (two under each wing and one under fuselage centreline) with a capacity of 1,550 kg (3,300 lb) total.
Rockets:
(4x) pods 70 mm (2.75 in) LM-70/19 (SBAT-70)
(4x) pods 70 mm (2.75 in) LAU-68A/G

Missiles:
Air-to-air:

Bombs:
General-purpose bombs: (2,500 lb payload)
       (10x) Mk 81 (250lbs ea.)
       (5x) Mk 82 (500lbs ea.)
       M-117 (750lbs ea.)
   Incendiary bombs:
       BINC-300
   Cluster bombs:
       BLG-252
   Precision-guided bombs:
       FPG-82 (under development) Friuli Aeroespacial INS/GPS guidance kit for Mk 82.
       SMKB-82 – INS/GPS guidance kit for Mk 82.
       GBU-54 (under development)
       GBU-38 (under development)
       GBU-39 (under development)
       Paveway II
       Lizard – Elbit laser guidance kit.
       Griffin – IAI laser guidance kit.


Of the WWII vets, only the P47 would give the Tucano a run for its money, and that's with an airframe that weighs 10,000lbs v the Tucano's 7,000, and a max weight of  17,500 v 11,900.

((All figures courtesy of Wikipedia for the sake of comparison))

The battleship Yamato was cool and all but these days it wouldn't actually be a good starting place for a spacecraft.

The engine in the Super Tucano would be more economical to operate and maintain than those in the WWII era aircraft.

My inner-child of the 80's would argue this point with you until a vein popped in your head.

Range, for starters.
One of the great things about the P-51 Mustang was its extreme long-range of 1.600 miles (w/ externals).
The Super Tucano has a 3,000 mile range.

You have no idea just how much that hard truth hurt to write.

I'm gonna stand here in my parachute pants and Members Only jacket while staring at my Nagel and MC Escher prints until this painful realization passes.

I like the lineage of that aircraft but it is but ugly.

Vince

If the WWII fighters could do the job today, we would have kept the Skyraider in service.

The Super Tucano outclasses WWII ground attack fighters in that role in pretty much every way possible, IMO.  We should buy two squadrons worth, pronto!  

I see the regular version of this flying all day long at Randolf AFB in San Antonio. From below the wing and body look exactly like a p51. I always thought that was the benchmark aircraft they used in designing the tuco and added the turboprop to it for better performance.

And the ground attack proposal T6/PC-9 is not near as capable as the Tucano.  Won't carry near the load or perform nearly as well.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I've never flown a T-6B but I know lots of people who have. They love the new car smell, glass cockpit and they way it flies. That said based on the conversations I've heard I can't imagine any of them choosing a T-6 over a Tucano for anything other than a trainer. Aside from being not as capable and having no combat exposure it has had all kinds of growing pains in the training commands. Issues with having no Beta, flimsy gear/tires, balky landing gear doors and panels coming open and in some cases coming off in flight, potential ejection seat timing/sequencing issues (high occurrence of bad ejection seat cads), bent wing ribs, software/electronic switching "errors" that occasionally causes a Ctrl-Alt-Del type issue dumping all but the emergency avionics, prop sleeve touchdown issues causing a loss of rpm and thrust and high pressure oil lines that are chaffing and leaking because they were factory installed backwards.

It's a beautiful airplane but once you get close to it it really doesn't look very rugged. No where near as rugged looking as the T-34 it replaced.  

The really interesting thing about the PC-9 (to me) is that is it derived from the PC-7, which was derived from the P-3, which was derived from the P-2, which used a lot of assemblies (landing gear and wing structures) from the German BF-109.  

In other words, our primary trainer is sort of the great, great grandson of a WWII German fighter.  

Which is cool I guess if you just want to look at stripped down planes loaded with all the fuel.
But the combat ranges are a lot less, the Taco has a 300 mile combat range.



 

Hispano HA-100

Madcap72 has impeccable taste.