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

[Araqiel]

Originally Posted by guiltyspark

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

So, heat-seekers or radar-guided? >__>

[SgtPappy]

True, Kryptonite, dogfighting is technically about more than just turning, but the guys are talking mainly about the prop plane's ability to supposedly 'turn better', and I was trying to despell that myth.

Araqiel, I personally have no idea how high a heat signature has to be for an IR missile to find a prop plane, but with today's technology, I'm sure someone could build an IR missile that could lock on to a piston engine's heat sig.

Also, from the little I know, I have come to believe that a little prop plane still has large enough of an RCS to detected by a radar-guided missile. The older WWII fighters have no 'stealth'/low-observable tech, as they are, for one thing, full of 90 degree angles in their panels, and were easily detectable by the comparatively primitive WWII radar systems, so I highly doubt today's radar-guided tech would have any trouble following a prop plane.