# FMA IA 58 Pucara vs Westland Whirlwind F1



## Colin1 (May 6, 2009)

Following on from Matt308's thoughts in the Video Section (Westland Whirlwind), how do you think the two would stack up over a battlefield? Not to be taken too seriously

FMA IA 58 Pucara *:vs:* Westland Whirlwind
2 *:Crew:* 1
46ft 9in (14.25m) *:Length:* 32ft 3in (9.83m)
47ft 6in (14.5m) *:Wingspan:* 45ft (13.72m)
17ft 7in (5.36m) *:Height:* 11ft 7in (3.53m)
326.16sq ft (30.3sq m) *:Wing area:* 250sq ft (23sq m)
8,862lbs (4,020kg) *:Empty weight:* 8,310lbs (3,770kg)
11,684lbs (5,300Kgs) *:Loaded weight:* 10,356lbs (4,697kg)
14,991lbs (6,800kg) *:Max take-off weight:* 11,410lbs (5,175kg)
2 x Turbomeca Astazou VXIG turboprop 978hp (729KW) each *owerplant:* 2 x Rolls-Royce Peregrine V12 885hp (660KW) each

310mph (500Km/h) *:Max Speed:* 360mph (560Km/h)
2,305 miles (3,710Km) *:Range:* 900 miles (1,300Km)
31,800ft (10,000m) *:Service ceiling:* 30,315ft (9,240m)
3,543ft/min (1080m/min) *:Rate of climb: *3,000ft/min (914.4m/min)
45.92lb/sq ft (224Kg/sq m) *:Wing loading:* 41lb/sq ft (204Kg/sq m)
0.13hp/lb (0.21KW/Kg) *ower/mass:* 0.17hp/lb (0.28KW/Kg)
2 x HS.804 20mm with 270rpg; 4 x 7.62mm FM M2-20 with 900rpg; 3,300lbs of gun pods, bombs, rockets, mines or torpedoes *:Armament:* 4 x Hispano 20mm with 60rpg; 1,000lbs of bombs either 4 x 250lb (115Kg) or 2 x 500lb (230Kg)


----------



## Colin1 (May 6, 2009)

Moderators
how do I turn this thread into a poll - and then move it to the Poll section?


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 6, 2009)

Hmmm...quite even, at low altitube probably the Whirlwind, above 4000 meters probably the Pucara.


----------



## Matt308 (May 6, 2009)

Colin, I fixed it to be a poll for you. This should be interesting.

My personal take after having seen video of the Pucara is that it is extremely underpowered for a fighter role. But then again, that was the Achilles heel of the Whirlwind too. While CB notes that the Pucara might have better performance at high altitudes, I can only think that comes in handy for combat range. Surely the turboprop engines in the Pucara are MUCH more maintenance friendly and likely account for a MUCH better sortie rate.

I have to also believe that the amount of ordnance carried by the Pucara makes it much more lethal for ground attack.

But I would give low-to-mid level air-to-air to the Whirlwind with performance margins and concentrated 20mm cannon as armament.

So overall... Pucara'.


----------



## Colin1 (May 6, 2009)

The Pucara can clearly be called upon to haul a much bigger payload to the battlefield but notwithstanding this, I too think it is underpowered; the lesser payload of the Whirlwind is nonetheless a decent payload if you consider the combination of 2 x 500lb bombs and 4 x 20mm cannons.
For me, the key advantage is the Whirlwind's ability to fight its way off the battlefield; caught on its way in (with a full payload) the Pucara looks too much of a sitting duck to me.
If the two met over the battlefield, the Pucara would be unable to mix it up with the Whirlwind.

So for me, the Whirlwind but not by much


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 6, 2009)

Isn't the Whirlwind more of a fighter and the Pucara more of a ground attack?


----------



## Matt308 (May 6, 2009)

Originally yes. But the inadequacies of the Whirlwind powerplants resulted in it being much more suited for ground attack. And this is the major role it served in WWII.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 7, 2009)

Incidentally the only confirmed kill of the entire IA-58 career was a Westland.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 7, 2009)

I think I have to go with the Pucara on this one.


----------



## Matt308 (May 7, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Incidentally the only confirmed kill of the entire IA-58 career was a Westland.



...helicopter


----------



## Graeme (May 7, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Not to be taken too seriously



Good to know Colin!  



Colin1 said:


> FMA IA 58 Pucara )
> 1080ft/min (329.18m/min)




Should that be 1,080 *metres* per minute? I'm surrounded by the imperial 3,543 ft/min. figure...





The 360 mph for the Whirlwind drops to 316 mph with two 500 pounders at 27,500 ft. Worse as you get lower, 278 mph at 15,000ft.

Do you know if the Whirlibomber recieved additional armour for the ground attack role? I keep seeing that the Pucara's armoured floor plating can absorb 7.62 mm rounds from 150 metres.

Do you also happen to know the Whirlwind's single engine climb rate and ceiling?


----------



## Colin1 (May 8, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Good to know Colin!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi Graeme
you'd be surprised...  


re the facts and figures, some of them were in different formats to the figure for the other aircraft so I did some hasty conversions. The figure I found for the Pucara climb rate was 18ft/sec although I may have misread it. I'll look more carefully when I get home tonight, I'm in a bit of a hurry at the mo


----------



## Colin1 (May 10, 2009)

Ohhhhhh the Pucara's edged out in front
this is getting waaaay too tense


----------



## Graeme (May 10, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Ohhhhhh the Pucara's edged out in front
> this is getting waaaay too tense



 

Then it must be time for a sales pitch.

So, if you vote Pucara, this is what you’ll be getting…

(Actually it was originally to be called Delfin-Dolphin)

“Modern”
Martin Baker Zero/Zero ejection seats
“Sophisticated” American avionics
Exceptional ground clearance for external stores
Rugged low pressure tyres for all terrain (except very soft sand and snow)
Tough “ring spring” system, similar to Ju-88.
Tyre pressures are only 45 lb/sq/in
Self sealing fuel tanks
Gun magazines can be replaced in twenty minutes
Dual flight controls in rear seat which is 25 cm higher
Steerable nose wheel up to 33 deg in either direction 
Capable of T/O in 80 metres with RATO
Armoured wind screen and cockpit floor
Windscreen wiper!
Windscreen de-icing
Aerobatic. “Outstanding manoeuvrability” 
“Exceptional low level manoeuvrability” as seen at Farnborough and Le Bourget
Leading edge pneumatic pulsating de-icer boots
Air braking system via fine pitch propeller selection.
G limits; +6, -3
Booster fuel pumps allow inverted flight for up to 30 seconds
“Good” single engine performance including 6,000m ceiling
Low maintenance and running costs.
Only US$1.2 (1977)

Interesting to note that when the RAF captured and flight tested the Pucaras from the Falklands the performance figures they achieved matched “Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft”, *exactly*. So the boys at FMA don’t lie!


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 10, 2009)

The Pucara was the only Argentinean aircraft I'd ever heard of, but I have to admit I am pretty impressed to learn there was a lot more then just then plane to it. Anybody ever hear about the SAIA 90 with the help of Dornier?

FMA SAIA 90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Graeme (May 11, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I thought the comparison would be interesting across such a generational gap as that which exists between these two.



Hi Colin. This is from your other thread. I like your concept. The concept is interesting, “WW II vs. Modern”, as you say a sort of generational "David and Goliath", but I wouldn’t pick a 1930’s design to compete against the Pucara, especially as the Whirlwind was never intended for ground attack. If the criteria requires a dedicated WWII ground attack aircraft, then I’d be looking towards the technology available at the end of that conflict.

In the blink of an eye, I'd change camps to Beech. The Beech XA-38 Grizzly appears on paper to be a much worthier opponent to the Pucara...





Clocked at 376.5 mph. Beech acquired a P-51B to pace it, which was “left behind“ in high-speed trials. (This was at 32,000 lbs and WEP without stores).

Normal power climb, 2170 ft/min.
Max. power climb, 3,100 ft/min.
Best single engine climb, 450 ft/min

Absolute ceiling, 27,600.
Single engine ceiling 14,500 ft.

With 825 gallons of 115/145 octane, range was 1,616 miles at 31,895 lb at 4,800ft in clean configuration.

Even at 16 tons it “was very manoeuvrable …and handles well in making sideslips, skids, loops, half rolls on top of loops and slow rolls.” 

With a 75 mm cannon (20 rounds), Type N-6 reflector sight, six 0.50 in Mgs (500 rounds each) and capable of carrying 4,000 lb on four underwing pylons, little wonder it has been called “WW II’s most powerful attack plane.”

However the Russians would argue for that title… 

The Ultimate <i>Shturmovik</i>: Sukhoi's Long-Ranging Su-8


----------



## Colin1 (May 11, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Hi Colin. This is from your other thread. I like your concept. The concept is interesting, “WW II vs. Modern”, as you say a sort of generational "David and Goliath", but I wouldn’t pick a 1930’s design to compete against the Pucara, especially as the Whirlwind was never intended for ground attack. If the criteria requires a dedicated WWII ground attack aircraft, then I’d be looking towards the technology available at the end of that conflict


True enough Graeme
but the original basis of the thread was Matt's observation of some in-flight similarities between the two types, which is why I ventured the poll; given the 4 or 5 aeronautical generations that exist between the two I think it's interesting that the Pucara _does not seem _to be a decisively better aircraft than the Whirlwind.
Regarding Whirlwind roles, again true but the type turned out to be a very potent ground attack type ie hard-hitting, twin-engined (redundancy), highly manoeuverable and with the engines putting out their best at those low altitudes. 
Recall the original role for the Typhoon, after the initial disappointment with its altitude performance it too became a formidable fighter-bomber.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 12, 2009)

> True enough Graeme
> but the original basis of the thread was Matt's observation of some in-flight similarities between the two types, which is why I ventured the poll; given the 4 or 5 aeronautical generations that exist between the two I think it's interesting that the Pucara does not seem to be a decisively better aircraft than the Whirlwind.



Well, the Pucara was designed to destroy non-armored and light armored vehicle,troops armed with rifles, hand grenades and heavy machineguns, also to strafe and sunk light ships and boat in rivers ( kind of the Mekong delta attacks by the uS air Force) no more of that, so you didnt need a lot of high tech devices. Just a gyro gunsight ( late rreplaced by a HUD) guns, rocket bombs and some armor.

I think the comparative is even because with the exception of turboprops and some light materials to make the fuselage the rest is pretty much ww2 technology.


----------

