[seahawk]

With for example a P-51D being a little faster but with the PC-21 outclimbing the P-51 by a huge margin, how would a dogfight between a WW2 fighter and a PC-21 (texan II, Super Tucano) armed with 2 0.50s play out?

[Yama]

IIRC there was a thread about this once. Prop trainers have been designed to be easy, forgiving and uncomplicated to fly. This makes them safe, but also denies them the raw "edge" in performance and maneuver compared to WW2 era fighters which were designed to have as good performance as possible. Also, the trainer would need to be armed, armoured etc (do they have self-sealing fuel tanks as a default these days?).

[Meyer]

I don't think the PC-21 would outclimb a P-51D by a "huge margin". Power/weight ratio seems to be similar..., and if you add weapons/armor, as Yama said, that will change in favour of the Mustang.

[shep854]

seahawk, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 1001, said:

With for example a P-51D being a little faster but with the PC-21 outclimbing the P-51 by a huge margin, how would a dogfight between a WW2 fighter and a PC-21 (texan II, Super Tucano) armed with 2 0.50s play out?

Would you like your PC-21 toast buttered? :P

If OTOH, the fight was like most A2A combats, and the Tucano caught the P-51 unawares, the trainer might have a chance, if the pilot is a good shot.

[Olof Larsson]

shep854, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 1818, said:

Would you like your PC-21 toast buttered? :P

If OTOH, the fight was like most A2A combats, and the Tucano caught the P-51 unawares, the trainer might have a chance, if the pilot is a good shot.

We should not forget that the Super Tucano uses M3's, while the P-51D uses M2's,
so the P-51D "only" has twice the volume of fire.

Furthermore if we assume contemporary munition for the P-51D and modern for the Super Tucano,
they might end up as even in the firepower department.

What kind of gunsight would a single seat Super Tucano have?

[Tomas Hoting]

Olof Larsson, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 1930, said:

What kind of gunsight would a single seat Super Tucano have?

Usually a full-fledged HUD and air-to-air modes like Continuously Computed Impact Line (CCIL).

[seahawk]

Meyer, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 1745, said:

I don't think the PC-21 would outclimb a P-51D by a "huge margin". Power/weight ratio seems to be similar..., and if you add weapons/armor, as Yama said, that will change in favour of the Mustang.

P-51D should do about 3200 ft/min - PC-21 4200 ft/min. A 33% better climbrate should give the PC-21 an advantage. On the other hand P-51D is able to outdive the PC-21 with ease and is faster. On the other hand the PC-21 has a much easier man to machine interface.

I am also wondering if the turbopro engine should be more consistent in power output in diffrent flight levels than the old WW2 engine.

[JOE BRENNAN]

seahawk, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 1915, said:

I am also wondering if the turbopro engine should be more consistent in power output in diffrent flight levels than the old WW2 engine.

Inherently, the turboprop would fall off in power more rapidly with altitude than mechanically supercharged piston engine (assuming the right type, speed shifting capability etc for the supercharger). But, in many or most cases, including PT6A-68B type engine in PC-21, the turboprop engine may be 'flat rated', ie. governed in all cases to a limiting horsepower the engine has the thermodynamic capability to attain at high atmospheric temperature at s/l, or at higher altitude, even though the engine is thermodynamically capable of putting out more power than that at low altitude and low atmospheric temperature. The turboprop's output is of course also more senstive to how warm it is than a piston engine. Also in case of turboprop trainer the engine may also be governed to a lower output at low speed, to more closely mimic the characteristics of a jet. In case you wanted to use the trainer as air combat machine against similar a/c, you could [or maybe should say might, depending on gear box or other limitation] relatively easily change the governing of the engine to just limit it to max rotational speed of the gas generator (PT6 is a free turbine engine, compressor and turbine which drives it are not mechanically connected to the power turbine which turns the prop), and/or max high pressure turbine intlet temperature, in all cases, probably expanding the PC-21's low altitude advantage in most conditions.

Joe

This post has been edited by JOE BRENNAN: 16 January 2010 - 1536 PM

[Olof Larsson]

Tomas Hoting, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 2001, said:

Usually a full-fledged HUD and air-to-air modes like Continuously Computed Impact Line (CCIL).

How is target-range feed into the system?

A small radar a la F-86 etc. laser, twist-collar a la P-51D?

[Meyer]

seahawk, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 1415, said:

P-51D should do about 3200 ft/min - PC-21 4200 ft/min. A 33% better climbrate should give the PC-21 an advantage.

You should check your sources on that. I've seen climb figures for the Mustang much higher than that, depending on the engine boost rating. But again, looking at the power/weight ratio gives you a pretty good idea.

[Tomas Hoting]

Olof Larsson, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 2332, said:

How is target-range feed into the system?

A small radar a la F-86 etc. laser, twist-collar a la P-51D?

In case of the T-6 Texan II, I read that air-to-air ranging is accomplished by matching the wingspan circle in the HUD with the target aircraft wingspan. A picture can be seen on page 6 of this pdf:

http://www.hawkerbee...nd2%20FINAL.pdf

I suppose the Super Tucano, the PC-21 and others use something similar as well.

[shep854]

Tomas Hoting, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 1833, said:

In case of the T-6 Texan II, I read that air-to-air ranging is accomplished by matching the wingspan circle in the HUD with the target aircraft wingspan. A picture can be seen on page 6 of this pdf:

http://www.hawkerbee...nd2%20FINAL.pdf

I suppose the Super Tucano, the PC-21 and others use something similar as well.

That's how the WWII gunsights worked as well; as Olaf mentioned, the (in this case) P-51 pilot twisted the throttle grip to set his sight reticle to the target's wingspan at the desired firing range. Of course, the combining glass of the WWII sight didn't provide nearly the data of an HUD; it was simply an aiming circle.

This post has been edited by shep854: 16 January 2010 - 1954 PM

[DKTanker]

shep854, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 1850, said:

Of course, the combining glass of the WWII sight didn't provide nearly the data of an HUD; it was simply an aiming circle.

A lead computing gyroscopic aiming circle.

[shep854]

DKTanker, on Sat 16 Jan 2010 1906, said:

A lead computing gyroscopic aiming circle.

Yep, but it provided no data apart from the circle; the modern HUD is basically the same but puts far more data on the glass.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

If you wanted to convert a modern turboprop trainer to be an air-to-air fighter, you would have it carry a pair of small air-to-air missiles such as AIM-9M or AIM-9X Sidewinders. I don't know how well the seekers on those weapons would detect and track a WWII fighter but suspect they would do well. In which case the loss ratios would be well in favor of the modern aircraft, assuming competent pilots and other factors.

[Luke Y]

Given what I've seen PC9's do in manouver training, I wouldn't overlook the modern aircraft.

Overall I would be putting my money on the modern bird to be honest.

[Tuccy]

Kenneth P. Katz, on Sun 17 Jan 2010 0550, said:

If you wanted to convert a modern turboprop trainer to be an air-to-air fighter, you would have it carry a pair of small air-to-air missiles such as AIM-9M or AIM-9X Sidewinders. I don't know how well the seekers on those weapons would detect and track a WWII fighter but suspect they would do well. In which case the loss ratios would be well in favor of the modern aircraft, assuming competent pilots and other factors.

What about FIM-92's instead? You can carry more of the buggers and if all you want is short-range work (say helo-hunting or so... Or P-51D-hunting ;) )

[JamesG123]

Kenneth P. Katz, on Sun 17 Jan 2010 0850, said:

If you wanted to convert a modern turboprop trainer to be an air-to-air fighter, you would have it carry a pair of small air-to-air missiles such as AIM-9M or AIM-9X Sidewinders. I don't know how well the seekers on those weapons would detect and track a WWII fighter but suspect they would do well. In which case the loss ratios would be well in favor of the modern aircraft, assuming competent pilots and other factors.

Of course to be fair you would also have to hang and wire the Mustang for AAMs too... but then you are just down to a modern missile fight albeit at much slower speeds.

[JWB]

In terms of range and endurance both aircraft have similar fuel consumption rates but the PC-21 carries over 400 gallons of fuel and the p-51 a little more than half of that. Make of it what you will.

[JamesG123]

One will make a more spectacular fireball when hit than the other?