RAZBAM A-29B Supertucano

Very cool piece of kit, essentially a WW2 fighter plane made with 21st century tech, like a Caterham R500 sportscar. I'd get this in a DCS module without hesitation.

I have the Blackshape Prime for X-Plane 11 and it's a similar idea, great little plane.

Very cool piece of kit, essentially a WW2 fighter plane made with 21st century tech, like a Caterham R500 sportscar. I'd get this in a DCS module without hesitation.

I have the Blackshape Prime for X-Plane 11 and it's a similar idea, great little plane.

it has worse performance than the late war ww2 fighters. in a2a without missiles id say the p51 109 and the fw190 to give it real trouble. Then again Its not a fighter, but an attacker. And in ww2 is not known for massproduced Turboprop aircraft.

Kev, you surprise me, you are usually so spot on with your responses....you sure someone didn't hack your account? :-)

I'd bet a retirement check that this thing could out turn any of the above mentioned warbirds. I understand that rate of turn is only one half of a fight in WWII, and that the US built planes that were ultra fast but didn't always have an edge in turning capabilities, so if you were to do a "Dogfights" style comparison you'd find that it'd be a good fight, about like the Zeke vs Corsair battles in WWII.

The ST has such a low stall speed that there is no way for any of the above planes to match it in that arena. When you say "it has worse performance" what exactly do you mean, because as a general statement that is just not going to be true mate.

~Rob

I doubt it would outturn 109, certainly doubt spitfire, and still somewhat doubt P-51 in certain speeds.

I'll cetainly take it up against warbirds and vice versa :D because why not? But I don't think it'll perform as good for air combat, it was not designed for that, and didn't need to be.

it has worse performance than the late war ww2 fighters. in a2a without missiles id say the p51 109 and the fw190 to give it real trouble. Then again Its not a fighter, but an attacker. And in ww2 is not known for massproduced Turboprop aircraft.

What about the early WW2 fighters?

Kev, you surprise me, you are usually so spot on with your responses....you sure someone didn't hack your account? :-)

 

 

I'd bet a retirement check that this thing could out turn any of the above mentioned warbirds. I understand that rate of turn is only one half of a fight in WWII, and that the US built planes that were ultra fast but didn't always have an edge in turning capabilities, so if you were to do a "Dogfights" style comparison you'd find that it'd be a good fight, about like the Zeke vs Corsair battles in WWII.

 

The ST has such a low stall speed that there is no way for any of the above planes to match it in that arena. When you say "it has worse performance" what exactly do you mean, because as a general statement that is just not going to be true mate.

 

~Rob

yes and corsairs came on top most of the time......

far more successfull and by mid to late war the zero was regarded as mostly outclassed by the likes of the F4U1 Corsairs and late war designs like the P51, though the Hellcat also gave zeros a tough time and were bigger zero killer.

OFC different story as early on in the war the zeros wer far bigger threats when the navy had just F4F's..... and that was a better matchup comparison.

yes and corsairs came on top most of the time......

 

far more successfull and by mid to late war the zero was regarded as mostly outclassed by the likes of the F4U1 Corsairs and late war designs like the P51, though the Hellcat also gave zeros a tough time and were bigger zero killer.

 

 

OFC different story as early on in the war the zeros wer far bigger threats when the navy had just F4F's..... and that was a better matchup comparison.

Hi Kev,

Some guys maybe still wondering about the A-29 role:

A-29A

Single-seater for attack and armed reconnaissance (on interdiction tasks), attack and cover (on close air support tasks), able to intercept and destroy low-performance aircraft, incorporates an additional fuel tank (+ 400 liters).

 

A-29B

Twin-seater for the same tasks as the single-seat version, also used in training and advanced aerial control (on monitoring tasks).

Max speed is 319kt (367mph).

If you guys want to compare banana with apple... :lol: The chart bellow is in mph.

The nice thing is the endurance of 8+hrs...

All the best,

Sydy

Guys,

A nice vide from Colombia Air Force:

Take care,

Sydy

I will just leave this here...

zjXIos8pyk0

it has worse performance than the late war ww2 fighters. in a2a without missiles id say the p51 109 and the fw190 to give it real trouble. Then again Its not a fighter, but an attacker. And in ww2 is not known for massproduced Turboprop aircraft.

Actually, performance should be on par with a P-51D. The PT-6 variant used on the Tucano puts about 1,600HP to the screw, vs 1,400-1,700 (WEP use depending) for the Packard Merlin on the 'Stang.

Also, the Tucano has an empty weight of abouts 7,000lbs, compared to 7,500 for the P-51D, with a similar wingloading between them. Both aircraft also have a similar max takeoff weight of around 12,000lbs.

The one place where the Tucano suffers compared to the Mustang is in-built weapons, sporting only a pair of .50cal guns to the Mustang's six-pack, though the Tucano can also sling additional .50's and 20mm gunpods. This all assumes a straight gunfight of course.

Actually, performance should be on par with a P-51D. The PT-6 variant used on the Tucano puts about 1,600HP to the screw, vs 1,400-1,700 (WEP use depending) for the Packard Merlin on the 'Stang.

 

Also, the Tucano has an empty weight of abouts 7,000lbs, compared to 7,500 for the P-51D, with a similar wingloading between them. Both aircraft also have a similar max takeoff weight of around 12,000lbs.

 

The one place where the Tucano suffers compared to the Mustang is in-built weapons, sporting only a pair of .50cal guns to the Mustang's six-pack, though the Tucano can also sling additional .50's and 20mm gunpods. This all assumes a straight gunfight of course.

on par? not at mid to high altitudes. top speed on the mustang is also faster. adding gunpods on the tucano for underwing mounts will make it heavier and decrease its turn radius.

Besides thats the ww2 stang. Post ww2 variations of the P51 and Corsair like the P51H, and the F4u5 are Super props if you will.

While I agree that old warbirds will most likely be better in performance anyway, Super Tucano does not necessarily need gunpods: unlike Tucano, the Super Tucano has a couple .50 cals in its wings.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00ED using Tapatalk

It has a pair .50 cal MG's in it, though I know we are talking hypothetically so why not just bring some heat seakers along with you anyway? I'm curious just to see how this plane will survive in a modern simulation environment. I can defintely see people doing crazy low attacks with this aircraft in MP

It's not an A-10.. in fact it's even slower and has one engine only. So the survivability won't be the bast. If the A-10 wasn't design to operate with threats like SAMs (radar) and air threats, imagine the ST... which was design as a counter insurgency aircraft.

Don't expect the ST to do what the A-10 does, you'll mostly be doing CAS and similar tasks.

One thing I think will be cool is the fact that we will have multicrew, therefore the mission load can be distributed, two brains are usually better than one! :D

Great Plane ! But in case of SAM, Manpads and Self propelled Air Defence its difficult to survive

As a DCS: WWII "prophead" , I am quite hyped for this aircraft! This looks like an instant-buy for me, so far!

___________________

To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone, and a funny bone.

I did not read all posts in this thread... still I dare to ask! :D

Will a civilian/trainer version available too? I'm not too much

into military stuff.

I did not read all posts in this thread... still I dare to ask! :D

 

Will a civilian/trainer version available too? I'm not too much

into military stuff.

there is no civilian variant of the EMB-314, you might be talking about the EMB-312 (T-27), which was canceled, and A-29B took its place. :)

But hell yeah, the A-29B can and will be used as a trainer, and it does that VERY well!

What are the similarities of the aircraft being developed with the Pilatus PC-9/A?

The U.S. Air Force’s OA-X Program

What are the similarities of the aircraft being developed with the Pilatus PC-9/A?

PC-9/A is a little bit smaller, a lot lighter, half the weapon payload, and half the loiter time.

Visually they're very similar and have similar in-flight performance characteristics.

Kev, I had read somewhere that the P-51H was a total dog. Know anything about this?

Kev, I had read somewhere that the P-51H was a total dog. Know anything about this?

dog?

no The P51H was a overall performance leap over the P51D. It simply did not gain as much fame simply because entered service too late to see combat in ww2, and in Korea The made the Decision to send P51D's instead simply because thicker airframemeant it would be more rugged in the ground attack role when faced with gunfire.

It had a Lighter Airframe, more powerful engine with an automatic Turbocharger. Engine offered higher boost settings in WEP at 2200 HP for 7 minutes, compared to the P51D's maximum 1720 HP with WEP. ( It could run 85- 90 HG) especially amazing performance with Higher octane fuel.

Also had Faster Top speed. 487 MPH at 25,000 FT compared to the D's 440 MPH.

I've always wondered why the H model never made it to the Reno Air Races. I had been aware of its superior performance compared to the D model but I have never heard of an H model being raced. Do you supose it is due to fewer numbers probuced?