For all those faggots that were screaming for the Tucano and its shoddy record to be some sort of light close air support aircraft (instead of something like an F-5 but with more loiter time) here you go.
Br build quality. Not even once.
it might work better if they used the Short built version by the brits
Other urls found in this thread:
thediplomat.com
noticias.terra.com.br
ultimosegundo.ig.com.br
en.wikipedia.org
news24.com
aviation-safety.net
aviation-safety.net
aeroinside.com
twitter.com
The Short Tucano is laughably underpowered, it can barely carry half a ton and is almost 100km/h slower than the Super.
Hopefully now the USAF will do the sane thing for once and adopt the AT-6.
Doesn't this happen every time all but the most blatant cases of pilot error occur? People come rushing out to claim this incident proves that their favorite solution to a problem is the correct one?
I guess you could say, it bombed!
thediplomat.com
ultimosegundo.ig.com.br
There are more brazilian articles but they're lost to time.
The Columbian one is rather interesting since it was just shot down by ground fire, something insurgents do have the ability to pull off.
You can upengine it, the argument is against Brazilian build quality, not the concept of the aircraft itself.
The Colombians claim that their plane never actually got hit, instead they're claiming that the airframe broke up during evasive maneuvers.
That's even worse
So maneuver kill? :^)
OP is a faggot, once again.
Would up-engined P-47s with modern avionics be suitable COIN/light CAS aircraft in this day and age?
Some user suggested a turbo-prop P-38 built with modern day materials being a good alternative to other turboprops due to the carry load and speed tbh, I would love to see it.
P-38 is heavy and costly to fly, exact opposite of what the program is aiming for. With design like that it will not be any cheaper to fly than A-10.
This meme needs to fucking stop.
You can't just take a piece of wood and replace it with aluminium. Aluminium is soft as fuck and can't bear repetitive loads. Wood is a directed material, meaning that it can only withstand forces in a specific direction. Aluminium is only slighly directional, depending on the way it was hardened.
Replacing a piece of wood with aluminium would require you to rework the structure around those facts. Your new support structure can suddenly take forces in all directions somewhat equally, but it requires more vibration reduction.
Replacing aluminium with fiber reinforced plastics works the exact opposite way around. Carbon fiber is SUPER directional, meaning that even a few degrees off fiber direction it can only take a tiny fraction of the maximum force along fiber direction. It's even worse than wood in that respect. However most fiber reinforced plastics are very resistant to repetitive forces.
You can easily drive a screw into wood, you can't do that with fiber reinforced plastics, you can easily use bolts to connect aluminium, you can't do that with either wood or reinforced plastics.
Some shapes are completely impossible to produce with reinforced plastics.
All of these different properties have to be taken into account when (re)designing any machine. Picking the material you want to use comes far earlier than deciding on the shape of the part, and far far earlier than deciding which attachment methods you want to use with the other components.
Don't you understand, Germany? "Modern materials" is a get out of gaol free card, when played it allows you to get away with saying any dumb shit and makes anyone who disagrees a lockmart shill!
What if you genetically engineer your own modern wood that is both lighter and stronger?
You don't need to bio-engineer anything. There are already plenty of types of trees in the world for you to pick from.
Wood isn't by any means "outdated", it's simply difficult to use with modern safety and longevity standards. It also depends a lot more on production quality than on the engineering.
You can design the safest and most amazing bridge out of wood and wood alone, but if the guy who actually has to build it fucks up the measurements, or doesn't properly join the pieces, then it will collapse.
Constructions out of ferro-concrete or aluminium don't require nearly as much personal skill on the level of the manufacturers, to the point where most welding jobs are being automated nowadays.
OP is a faggot, once again.
Don't wanna sound like a monkey apologist or nothin' but wow_it's_fucking_nothing.jpg.
If we're rebuilding twin engine ww2 aircraft for modern CAS then why would you pick the P38 over the infinitely sexier Mosquito? The lower stall speed and greater payload would make it far more flexible (as shown by the original production run) and with modern engines its relatively modest top speed of 200 Mph would be increased as well. If we're going to stick to reality then modern factories would be able to produce the wooden airframe at a fraction of the cost of comparable size metal aircraft.
Replace wood with composites instead of aluminium. Most carbon based shit have predictably more similar properties to wood than metal without being anisotropic clusterfuck puzzles.
That's because fags don't know shit about aircraft and don't even know about planes like the Whirlwind
The Whirlwind is a beautiful piece of flying FUCKYOU! but it's probably better to stick with the larger payload of the Mosquito, it could work very well as a 2nd line utility aircraft too (one of the original 1940s productions was fitted with 1st gen radar equipment, so it can carry bulky + heavy shit).
No Bronco love?
Even if you did have materials with the right strength, lower weight, and reasonable cost, it doesn't change the fact that you'd still have to redesign the entire aircraft from scratch, down to the dimensions of the airframe.
Any attempt to create a fully modernized P-38 would get you nothing more than a modern plane that looks somewhat like a P-38.
If we're going with 40s meme designs, I'd suggest pic related.
If you could resume production of any WW2 aircraft upgraded with modern tech and materials:^) for military use doesn't have to be CAS in CY+3 which would you pick Zig Forums?
Would it even be worth the effort?
Why do you have to be so boring Germany?
Lippisch or nothing!
There's a lippisch design which used two pulsejets to bring it up to speed, and then it switches to a central ramjet.
It just had a blunt metal nose which was supposed to ram into an enemy.
Between shit like this and Hitler's hard-on for massive tanks I'm beginning to wonder if the 3rd Reich wasn't just Mekboyz covered in purple paint.
aviation-safety.net
14 incidents for just the Super Tucano (a variant of the Tucano)
aviation-safety.net
57 incidents for the base Tucano (which is close to TEN FUCKING PERCENT OF THEM MADE) with alot of them being it ripping itself apart in the air.
aeroinside.com
227 for on of their fucking airliners alone.
I'd stay away from Embraer as an aircraft company.
They should go for the AT-6 since it's based on a swiss design with a clean record and lengthy service history.
