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

[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.