what would dogfights be like now if jets and missiles had not been invented

[olife]

the dogfights of the korean war are very interresting
a little history;the novenber 18th 1952 a migs 15 of russian air force engage the dogfight vs f9f panthers of the aircraft carrier uss oriskany
at 50 kms from vladivostock
us navy's pilots destroyed 3 russians migs for 0 looses
in fact russians and americans didn't speak of it ,it was a secret...happy because of this dogfight the world war 3 was near to detonate...

[Panzergranate]

The British were still flying piston and turbo prop fighters...... A Royal Navy pilot managed to shoot down a Mig-15 in a dogfight with a Hawker Fury, the Mig-15 being, like all jets, not as agile or maneuverable as a prop job.

The Fury was one of the pinacle of the evolution of propellor fighter aircraft and able to pull 650 MPH in a dive safely, just like its Hawker Tempest forebearer.

It was pointed out, on TV, that a modern jet fighter would find it impossible to win a dogfight with a WW2 fighter as air-to-air missiles wouldn't recognise it as a valid target and the tighter turning circles of WW2 fighters would factor against jets. Also the modern jet's stalling speeds just happen to be in the optimum dogfighting speeds of WW2 fighters. Also jet are unarmoured and so are more vulnerable to terminal damage from machine guns and cannon fire than something like a well armoured P-47, etc. A machine gun bullet or cannon shell entering a jet engine will see it tear apart.

As for pusher props, read the book "The World's 50 Worst Aircraft" to see why these were always found to be a seriously bad concept. The Curtis P-55, like all pusher prop "Ass Ender" could seize its engine after just 4 minutes of taxiing..... all pusher props, whether the Japanese "Shinden", through the "Saab" to the B-36 "Peacemaker" bomber all notoriously suffered from engine overheating problems even in flight. "Tractor" prop engines have a air blast constanly played on them, with the exception of the P-39, which strangely enough, also had cooling problems. Probally why the US were happy to give the whole lot to the Russians.

As for mini-guns, possible but the consumption versus ammo carried would make for a heavy aircraft, unless only a couple of seconds worth of fire were carried.

Maybe computer controlled turrets, rather like a modern version of the WW2 British turret fighters like the Boulton-Paul Defiant, Hawler Hotspur and Blackburn Roc would be interesting concepts. Imaging flying over an ebemy fighter and a automatic belly chain gun blasting away. The Germans successfully used ventral "Diagonal Music" automatic RADAR activated guns against bombers during WW2, so if homing missiles weren't invented, why not have this concept developed further.

If anyone remembers the late 1980's Sci-Fi series "Space Above And Beyond", Human space fighters had computer controlled top and bottom swivelling twin chain gun turrets which continually fired on a target despite dogfight maneuvers.

[InfiniteStates]

Originally Posted by Panzergranate

It was pointed out, on TV, that a modern jet fighter would find it impossible to win a dogfight with a WW2 fighter as air-to-air missiles wouldn't recognise it as a valid target...

I can see why heat seeking missiles would struggle, but surely it would still give a return to radar guided missiles?

But that is off-topic. Sorry

[olife]

f86 shoot down a lot of mig15 during korea war but all the migs were not shoot down by the f86
for example the gunners of the b29 called "command decision"shoot down 5 migs 15
capt jesse folmar vma-312 (f4u4 corsair)destroted 1 mig 15 the september 10th 1952
the f3d skyknight destroyed 6 migs15
the australian pilot sgt george hale of the raaf 77 squadron(meteor f.mkdestroyed 1 mig 15 the march 27th 1953
and ltd peter "hoagy" carmickael (sea fury fb.mk11) destroyed 1 mig 15 the august 9th 1952

[Robotic Pope]

I just read this in a book the other day.

During 1963 Indonesia launched its claim to parts of Malayan territory, threatening to use force to secure it. The RAF sent Lightning fighters to the area. The Indonesian Air force operated WWII Mustang's and there was uncertainty on the best tactics for the Mach 2 jets to engage these. To discover the answer, the Central Fighter Establishment ran a combat trial using the Spitfire XIX as a stand in for the Mustang, which revealed that the older fighter stood little chance in a war time encounter. The Lightning was almost invulnerable while at high speed. The best tactic for the Lightning was to position itself a few thousand feet below the piston engined fighter, and make a steep climbing attack from there. This gave a good chance of getting into a missile firing position on the Spitfire (or Mustang) without being seen.

--Dr Alfred Price--

[Mr Greezy]

I know for me when I mess around with the Komet in BoP, no one can touch me. It's the ultimate BnZ'er. Even if they can out turn me (which they can't -- for some reason I'm able to out turn even an La-7 in that thing) I can blast literally straight up in the air and away from anyone. Not so much with the 262 but I'm sure I could do the same in an F-16. So the argument of prop planes winning against modern fighters seems a little improbable.

I've also thought about how prop planes would've developed if jet and rocket engines never came to light.

Did anyone play the game Crimson Skies? It was actually kind of fun. But it took place in some fictional 1930s alternate reality where "air pirates" ruled the skies. Total science fiction, but there was some creative aircraft, for sure.

Some of the modern era prop planes are capable of some crazy acrobatics. It would be quite a sight to see in a dogfight.

[guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by Panzergranate

It was pointed out, on TV, that a modern jet fighter would find it impossible to win a dogfight with a WW2 fighter as air-to-air missiles wouldn't recognise it as a valid target and the tighter turning circles of WW2 fighters would factor against jets. Also the modern jet's stalling speeds just happen to be in the optimum dogfighting speeds of WW2 fighters. Also jet are unarmoured and so are more vulnerable to terminal damage from machine guns and cannon fire than something like a well armoured P-47, etc. A machine gun bullet or cannon shell entering a jet engine will see it tear apart.

lulwhat?

Okay , first even if what you said was true about air to air missles not being able to shoot down prop planes (which it most definately is NOT), lets look at the reality.

A p51 (the benchmark of gunfighting propeller driven aircraft) would have a near impossible chance of even leading on a modern jet aircraft. This is for 2 reasons.

1. At sea level the f16 will travel at a speed of mach 1.6 (915mph compared to the p51's 437mph) This is DOUBLE the speed of the p51 without its afterburners. At altitude , the f16 will hit a whopping 1500 mph. This is nearly 4x the speed of the p51. A p51 would not ever hit a f16.

and

2. This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan

[InfiniteStates]

lulwhat?

WTF has the armament on the target plane got to do with the aggressor's chance of leading it?

[SgtPappy]

All Panzer really said was that a modern jet could never really win a dogfight with a prop plane. He didn't say that the prop plane would win that said dogfight.

Simply, the turn rates of modern jets are far better than that of prop planes, but prop planes physically turn in such a tiny radius that it would be nigh impossible for a jet to touch a say a P-51 in a turning dogfight.

Of course though, air-air battles aren't won by just turning (which really is the definition of a digfight - a turning and spiralling battle). It's won by energy states. The pilot with more energy - potential (altitude) or kinetic (speed) or a combo of both - is the one to dictate the fight. And, if anything, the pilot who dictates when to engage/disengage is the likliest to win the fight.

Hence, there should be no insinuation that a Spitfire will destroy an F-22. The F-22 will destroy a Spitfire with a 20mm, IF and only if the Raptor can hit the the Spitfire. Of course, the lead necessary for a Spitfire to hit a Raptor flying even the smallest deviation from the Spitfire's flight path vector is so huge because of the Rap's speed.

[Raw Kryptonite]

Since when is a dogfight just about turning? It's about close engagement, but that includes anything, not just turning.
Jets took over long before missiles. To say just any prop plane would win the dogfight it to remain oblivious to history. I can't believe anyone here would say such a thing. LOL

All of this is as if modern dogfights would be very relevant anyway, regardless of propulsion. Knocking dedicated fighters planes out of the sky with other dedicated fighter planes, just for the sake of doing it, doesn't accomplish that much. That's why bombers rule the day and that's pretty much what it's all about. Fighters are and would be support aircraft for other vessels (sea, air, land), not the main weapon.


Space Above and Beyond was mid 90's. Makes a good addition to any sci fi lover's dvd collection. Nice tie in! That's exactly what I picture.