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

[SEE]

Not Props but the last Jet 'dogfights' were apparently during the Korean War between Sabre and MIG. This period was the undeclared war between USSR and USA as Russian Pilots (not Korean) flew the MIG in combat against the Sabre. The USSR were not prepared to lose MIGs or let one be captured hence the Russian piloting. Unfortunately, they didn't bank on one of their pilots defecting with a MIG.

During the dogfight period the Sabre was outclassed by the MIG IIRC apart from one well documented fight between a single Sabre and a number of MIGs. The Sabre Pilot engaged the MIGs until he ran out of Ammo and still managed to get the Sabre back in one piece.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by SEE

Not Props but the last Jet 'dogfights' were apparently during the Korean War between Sabre and MIG. This period was the undeclared war between USSR and USA as Russian Pilots (not Korean) flew the MIG in combat against the Sabre. The USSR were not prepared to lose MIGs or let one be captured hence the Russian piloting. Unfortunately, they didn't bank on one of their pilots defecting with a MIG.

During the dogfight period the Sabre was outclassed by the MIG IIRC apart from one well documented fight between a single Sabre and a number of MIGs. The Sabre Pilot engaged the MIGs until he ran out of Ammo and still managed to get the Sabre back in one piece.

That's also why historians and others, call the Korean War. The 'Last of the Gunfighters'. Because that's all they used. Machine-guns and Cannons. No missiles of anything like they had in the late 50s and through Vietnam. And actually, there were only a number of Russian pilots flying for the Koreans. The USSR mostly had what the Americans had in Vietnam: Military Advisors.

[SEE]

Look up the recorded Pilot Kills for the MIG agianst the Sabre during the Korean war and you will see that the vast majority of the pilots were Russian. They were supposed to be 'advisors' but the USA knew full well that they were flying in combat and, for obvious reasons, this information at the time was kept from the public domain.

[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--

[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?