Question about Jets vs Biplanes or lightweight single wing aricrafts

[Sweb]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

And who are we talking about?????
In several pieces?

Easy there, my friend. Facts are always good to know but fiction is where the fun is.

"In several pieces", of course. Oh, BTW, I'm not sticking pins into this thread. I just found it to be light entertainment from an obviously uninformed but harmless person. And, it reminded me of the day my Pop and I were buzzed by 2 Mississippi Air Guard F-102s while we puttered around in a J3. They passed overhead from our 6 at a respectable distance but it definitely put a pucker in my drawstring.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Sweb

Easy there, my friend. Facts are always good to know but fiction is where the fun is.

"In several pieces", of course. Oh, BTW, I'm not sticking pins into this thread. I just found it to be light entertainment from an obviously uninformed but harmless person. And, it reminded me of the day my Pop and I were buzzed by 2 Mississippi Air Guard F-102s while we puttered around in a J3. They passed overhead from our 6 at a respectable distance but it definitely put a pucker in my drawstring.

No worries Sweb, its all fun.....

[GrauGeist]

Hmmm...would be an interesting situation...

But by light aircraft, are we talking about antiques like a Fokker D.VII, Sopwith Camel, or ??

Each decade produced it's own class of technology, so if we reach "way back" to the days of cloth and wood aircraft, I think a modern day jet fighter might have a little difficulty in aquisition. The rate of closure, the tactical systems ability to register and so forth.

On the otherhand, I think the pilot of the biplane would have thier hands full, because of the speed of the closing jet would require a huge effort to bring the crate around fast enough to get lined up for a shot. The window of opportunity for the biplane's pilot to get in hits would be just fractions of a second, so near perfect lead-shooting would have to be used. Quite honestly, I think that the violent manouvering needed by the biplane to get in a hit and/or evading the jet would lead to catastrophic failure of the biplane's airframe.

With a WW2 aircraft (prop or jet), I'm thinking they'd be in trouble...they are fast enough that the modern jet would be able to adjust for the rate of closure and take 'em out before the WW2 crate had a chance to get thier weapons into play...also the majority of the WW2 birds would be easy for the modern jet's tactical systems to register...

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by ekirk

Hello. I have a quick question for you airplane buffs. I am seeking expert aid and knew that this was the place to come. A few friends and I were having a debate as to whether a biplane or lightweight aircraft could defeat a modern jet. Their argument stated that the lightweight aircraft would have the advantage due to it's weight and maneuverability. Now while I am willing to concede that these two elements are helpful, the jet would still be more than able to blow the light aircraft out of the sky without sustaining any damage.

You win. The 'lightweight' a/c would not even see a modern jet fighter. The first clue that the 'lightweight' would have is the disintegration of his ship in mid air if he survived the missle explosion. If the attack mode was guns, the lightweight stiil has to see the attacker and be skillful enough to evade a radar/computer solution at 300-400 yards - possible but not something to bet your life on.

Also this man claimed that if say a sidewinder were to penetrate the wing of the lightweight aircraft without detonation that the plane would still be able to fly and continue with high chance of defeating the jet. I though that this idea was ridiculous considering the small size of the wing and the damage that such a weapon would do. How much damage can a wing sustain before the plane would need to land.

Most of the missles are proximity fused, but most have impact fuses just in case. Hitting even a fabric wing should cause detonation. Question is whether that particular reciprocating engine on the lightweight has enough of a heat signature for an infra red seeker to capture the image and home in. Radar active/passive sytems would not labor under this potential handicap.

A small, light powerful and agile 'lightweight' may survive one on one if it is able to see an incoming missile and perform high G evasive manuevers at exactly the right moment to cause the missile to miss due to its inability to match the turn.

Would this damage cripple the plane to the point of creating a sitting duck. I believe that the damage on the wing would be enough to cripple the plane. It would no longer be able to do such complex maneuvers due to the stress it would put on the wing.

Any hit or close miss is fatal. as to guns - most USAF fighters have the 20mm M-61 which is putting ~ 100 20mm HEI every second.. Only a couple of hits in that stream should be fatal.

The key is that the lightweight is always on the defensive. As Mkloby also questioned - what is the offensive capability of this 'lightweight' - how much radar and fire control capability would it have to even carry minimal defensive capability?

[parsifal]

It should be obvious. At the ewnd of wwii there were a few isolated incidents where pilots of the very best prop jobs just managed to get lucky and shoot down a fairly inferior jet powered a/c like a 262. That was in the gun radarless, missil-less 600 knot era versus 450 knot piston aircraft.

Now wea re talking 1500 knot, radar equipped high tech missile armed crates, versus....whatever piston aircraft you want to select. Even a hot air balloon if thats what takes your fancy.....the result is going to be the same in every case.

There were a few cases where piston engined aircraft soldiered on because of the exceptional qulaities of the aircraft....such as the DC-3, but as fron linre combat machines, prop jobs had had their day by 1945.

There is only one rider that I would put on this.......the cost of a missile would actually outweigh the cost of the target it was aiming for

[siznaudin]

Isn't this thread, although "fun", so far into the hypothetical as to be almost pointless?
Less hypothetically, I've just acquired "The Spitfire Story", by Afred Price: highly recommended.
In it, he tells of a 1963 exercise between the English Electric Lightning and a Spitfire PR19. This was at the time of the Indonesian "confrontation". Indonesia at the time was using P51's.
The pretty much obvious outcome (for the Lightning) was .. stand off and fire away - don't get lured into a turning fight. Most effective approach was from beneath and behind.
QED, really.

[unix_nerd]

Hallo all;

Actually I a witness of a (mock) dogfight biplane against jetfighter(s) – here is the story:
I remember very well the week or two after Mathias Rust has landed on the Red Square in Moscow. I was on the way to school here in than East Germany. There was a single AN-2 cruising around. This was nothing unusual because nearby parachuters received there education and over summer there were quit often parachutes in the sky. But this time it was different.
The AN-2 was far to low for dropping parachutes – let’s say only 100m / 300ft or so.
Suddenly two Mig-23 appeared and starting mock attacks against the single AN-2. Well at least I would say it where mock attacks as the passed by the AN-2 in less than 5 wing spans - pulled up turned around and dived for the AN-2 and passed by close again. The AN-2 in the meantime has changed the direction but the fighter where always faster so it could not get away. This went on for a couple of times and the AN-2 and the fighters disappeared out of my view in the process. Both parties where from the NVA (East German Airforce).
So with the background of the news that a simple Cessna has tricked the whole integrated air defence network around Moscow – it was for me obvious that this was a training mock dogfight of an equivalent situation…..
This all has taken place around May/ early June in 1987 over the island of Ruegen in the Baltic Sea. Maybe some can confirm the story or got more information.

In a book about dogfights I’ve read that a helicopter should always turn to his jet driven opponent and open up with his guns before the jet fires. This should in theory drive the jet away. With heatseekers the story will surely end different.

Just to remember. In the story above the pilots of the jets might not have the order to shut down the slower AN-2 but impress the pilot in that way that it follows them to the next airbase – I guess….

Best regards

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by parsifal

There is only one rider that I would put on this.......the cost of a missile would actually outweigh the cost of the target it was aiming for

but not the cost of the damage it could do

Bedcheck Charlie

[Bernhart]

wasn't it in Korea they had trouble shooting down old biplanes doing night nuisance raids.?

[herman1rg]

Surely a Harrier could use it's thrust vectoring to help in a dogfight with a biplane?

[unix_nerd]

Originally Posted by Bernhart

wasn't it in Korea they had trouble shooting down old biplanes doing night nuisance raids.?

I 've read so too. I guess the point was that the old polikarpow Po-2 biplanes are made mostly of rag and wood.

This gives you a dramatic low radar cross section compared to metal planes. Only the (metallic) parts like engine or wires / guns / gold theeths would reflect radio energy.
Kind of stealth bomber....

regards

[potnoodle]

Herman - The Harrier is not cleared to use its thrust vectoing capabilities for manouverability in a dogfight, I believe it can only be unlocked when the pilot chooses a S/VTOL mode on the autopilot.... Have no idea where, but I remember reading that somewhere.... I think!

I think that the older 'plane would win in a turning dogfight where the modern aircraft is limited to the top speed of the biplane, presuming the older aircraft is carrying enough ammunition of a high enough calibre to penetrate the armour of the modern 'plane.

An infa-red missile would probably be able to lock on (just), but obviously heat seakers would struggle even more because the small piston engine would generate a very small amount of heat....

But a modern jet has the option of lighting the burners and getting the hell out of there... a privilege 1910's technology cannot provide... Modern jets can also climb at an exceptional rate, which is handy.

[beaupower32]

Originally Posted by herman1rg

Surely a Harrier could use it's thrust vectoring to help in a dogfight with a biplane?

You must be talking about VIFFing maneuvers. As for VIFFing, I have only ever heard about it`s use as being very rare in combat. Harrier pilots do use the nozzles in air combat but I don`t think to the extent Viffing requires.

Here is a Quote from a Viper (F-16) pilot who has had many dogfights with the Harrier.

I've fought the Harrier numerous times. In any A-A, BVR or WVR, it takes an enormous mistake by the Viper driver to lose. The idea that a Harrier can use its thrust vectoring to any measure of success vs a competent 3+ generation fighter is a myth. He will either be out of control or a sitting duck. To be fair, A-A is not their core competency. In the air to mud role the harrier is in some way far superior to the Viper (avionics and radar modes). The Marines take enormous pride in their abilities and knowledge in the CAS realm. From what I've seen their reputation in that regard is well earned.

VIFFing stands for Vector In Forward Flight. It is a technique whereby pilots of VTOLaircraft, most notably the Harrier Jumpjet, vector their thrust nozzles vertically resulting in rapid deceleration. This enables them to do some incredibly tight meneuvering in a dogfight situation. However there are no recorded incedents of a Harrier pilot actually VIFFing in combat