Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Incidentally the only confirmed kill of the entire IA-58 career was a Westland.
Not to be taken too seriously
FMA IA 58 Pucara )
1080ft/min (329.18m/min)
Hi GraemeGood to know Colin!
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?
Ohhhhhh the Pucara's edged out in front
this is getting waaaay too tense
I thought the comparison would be interesting across such a generational gap as that which exists between these two.
True enough GraemeHi 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.