Ridiculous musing, but...
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Just the number of exposed rivet heads would be enough to "light up the screen" from a massive distance away, let alone all the exposed control surface ends / undercarriage and even the prop!
Well they did have flush rivets and retractable u/c's, but I'll buy the other bits 
So the jets would take out a few on the first pass by surprise. Although if the WW2 vets were under ground radar control they would at least be alerted to bogies bearing xxx degrees at xxx mph!
Simpo Two said:
Max_Torque said:
Just the number of exposed rivet heads would be enough to "light up the screen" from a massive distance away, let alone all the exposed control surface ends / undercarriage and even the prop!
Well they did have flush rivets and retractable u/c's, but I'll buy the other bits So the jets would take out a few on the first pass by surprise. Although if the WW2 vets were under ground radar control they would at least be alerted to bogies bearing xxx degrees at xxx mph!
Mind you the under wing radiators and tailplane would stand out on radar like a bulldogs b
ks so a few rivet heads would be the least of their problems.Early British AI (airborne interception) radar could certainly pick up German nightfighters well enough to engage them, so a missle seeker developed nearly 70 years later won't have a problem.
Early IR missiles would probably have issues unless they were almost directly behind the enemy exhausts, modern all aspect seekers will pick up on anything warmer than background so again won't have a problem.
As for avoiding them...well, I wouldn't care to be in a Spitfire doing 300mph and try to doge an AIM-120 coming in at Mach 4. He might be able to pull heavy G's and avoid a direct hit, but modern missiles are proximity fused so even a near miss would be good enough to take out a target.
Early IR missiles would probably have issues unless they were almost directly behind the enemy exhausts, modern all aspect seekers will pick up on anything warmer than background so again won't have a problem.
As for avoiding them...well, I wouldn't care to be in a Spitfire doing 300mph and try to doge an AIM-120 coming in at Mach 4. He might be able to pull heavy G's and avoid a direct hit, but modern missiles are proximity fused so even a near miss would be good enough to take out a target.
John_S4x4 said:
How many 'squirts of the trigger' and for how long would each type of plane have ? eg - would the modern plane run out of bullets faster, or do they carry around alot of bullets these days ?
F-16 carries 511 rounds, rof is 6,000-6,600.Typhoon carries 150 rounds, rof is 1000-1700.
Spitfire carried about 14 seconds worth; 350 rpg.
jimmyjimjim said:
F-16 carries 511 rounds, rof is 6,000-6,600.
Typhoon carries 150 rounds, rof is 1000-1700.
Spitfire carried about 14 seconds worth; 350 rpg.
Though there's much more to it than simply rounds. Weight of fire per second is important, also whether the rounds are explosive (cannon) or not (machine gun).Typhoon carries 150 rounds, rof is 1000-1700.
Spitfire carried about 14 seconds worth; 350 rpg.
I suspect a modern jet, packed full of gubbins, might be more vulnerable to a light hosing of MG fire than a WW2 fighter where the back half is mostly air, but not sure.
What about arming modern piston engined aircraft, say a trainer or stunt plane?
A bit OT but, I remember a documentary years ago about a chap who'd "invented" a revolutionary new anti-tank plane.
I expected to see some fantastic super-fast sleek looking jet, but it was a lumbering piston engined thing, not very fast due to the frontal amour.
I can't remember the armament, cannon, bomb, missile or combination (or possible just rude signs from the pilot).
A bit OT but, I remember a documentary years ago about a chap who'd "invented" a revolutionary new anti-tank plane.
I expected to see some fantastic super-fast sleek looking jet, but it was a lumbering piston engined thing, not very fast due to the frontal amour.
I can't remember the armament, cannon, bomb, missile or combination (or possible just rude signs from the pilot).
mph1977 said:
as would Harrier or other vectored thrust aircraft vs ww2 fighter ( how much 'viffing' ability does the f35 have ? )
F35-B can't viff like the Harrier as it takes quite some time to convert to jet-borne flight and all the doors limit the airspeed at which it can be done.Horses/courses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...
http://youtu.be/lu7ZUVXs6Ec
Mm well if you head towards a tank at Mach 2 you don't get much time to aim and fire! Ground attack and dogfighting are totally diffreent roles.
I have no idea how a Tucano with 8x.303s would fare against a Spitfire. There will be people here who've flown Tucanos - what do they think?
I have no idea how a Tucano with 8x.303s would fare against a Spitfire. There will be people here who've flown Tucanos - what do they think?
Simpo Two said:
Well they did have flush rivets and retractable u/c's, but I'll buy the other bits
So the jets would take out a few on the first pass by surprise. Although if the WW2 vets were under ground radar control they would at least be alerted to bogies bearing xxx degrees at xxx mph!
I'm not sure that the ground radar would last too longSo the jets would take out a few on the first pass by surprise. Although if the WW2 vets were under ground radar control they would at least be alerted to bogies bearing xxx degrees at xxx mph!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
The RAF actually experimented with this during the 50's (I think) - there was a potential conflict building with a country (Malaya?)that was still flying p-51s, so to see how a lightning would fair it was pitched against one of the last in service Spit's.
I'll have dig out the story but I think they concluded that the lightning would be successful but it need to alter the normal tactics somewhat.
ETA - Memory was a little rusty - it was 1963 and the country in question was Indonesia. the spit was withdrawn in '57 and was a resurrected gate guard later to go to the BOBMF.
I'll have dig out the story but I think they concluded that the lightning would be successful but it need to alter the normal tactics somewhat.
ETA - Memory was a little rusty - it was 1963 and the country in question was Indonesia. the spit was withdrawn in '57 and was a resurrected gate guard later to go to the BOBMF.
Edited by DieselGriff on Sunday 3rd June 17:16
Smiler. said:
What about arming modern piston engined aircraft, say a trainer or stunt plane?
A bit OT but, I remember a documentary years ago about a chap who'd "invented" a revolutionary new anti-tank plane.
I expected to see some fantastic super-fast sleek looking jet, but it was a lumbering piston engined thing, not very fast due to the frontal amour.
I can't remember the armament, cannon, bomb, missile or combination (or possible just rude signs from the pilot).
Bob Diemert and the 'Defender'.A bit OT but, I remember a documentary years ago about a chap who'd "invented" a revolutionary new anti-tank plane.
I expected to see some fantastic super-fast sleek looking jet, but it was a lumbering piston engined thing, not very fast due to the frontal amour.
I can't remember the armament, cannon, bomb, missile or combination (or possible just rude signs from the pilot).
Arnament - none, at the time of the documentary(at least I think it was - I'm still not convinced it wasn't a comedy; I certainly wet myself laughing several times).
Hell, the damn thing could barely take off unladen.
As for the frontal armour, they had room in the front - "let's put an airbag in there in case it flies into a mountain".
Judging from what little of I recall of it, I'd buy a Spitfire in preference to that pos. The Canadians agreed with my sentiment, and bought the F-18.
Diemert, for some reason, was shocked at this.
If this had made it into service, it might have caused a few surprises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrstahl_X-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrstahl_X-4
DieselGriff said:
The RAF actually experimented with this during the 50's (I think) - there was a potential conflict building with a country (Malaya?)that was still flying p-51s, so to see how a lightning would fair it was pitched against one of the last in service Spit's.
I'll have dig out the story but I think they concluded that the lightning would be successful but it need to alter the normal tactics somewhat.
ETA - Memory was a little rusty - it was 1963 and the country in question was Indonesia. the spit was withdrawn in '57 and was a resurrected gate guard later to go to the BOBMF.
The period you are thinking about is the mid 1960s. After Suharto took over in Indonesia, there was concern that he might launch an attack on Malaysia - which by then was an independent, but still Commonwealth country. It was thought that the RAF might have to engage in dogfights with Indonesian Air Force P-51 Mustangs.I'll have dig out the story but I think they concluded that the lightning would be successful but it need to alter the normal tactics somewhat.
ETA - Memory was a little rusty - it was 1963 and the country in question was Indonesia. the spit was withdrawn in '57 and was a resurrected gate guard later to go to the BOBMF.
Edited by DieselGriff on Sunday 3rd June 17:16
Simpo Two said:
Mm well if you head towards a tank at Mach 2 you don't get much time to aim and fire! Ground attack and dogfighting are totally diffreent roles.
I have no idea how a Tucano with 8x.303s would fare against a Spitfire. There will be people here who've flown Tucanos - what do they think?
Mach 2 at low level is virtually impossible due to air density, it's why the A-10 was designed to fly combat missions at 300knots. Easier for the pilot to navigate while flying and a lot easier to aim the gun at the target.I have no idea how a Tucano with 8x.303s would fare against a Spitfire. There will be people here who've flown Tucanos - what do they think?
As for Tucano Vs Spitfire, my money would be on the best pilot, not the best aircraft. See my post earlier about the SeaFury Vs Mig 15
Tango13 said:
As for Tucano Vs Spitfire, my money would be on the best pilot, not the best aircraft. See my post earlier about the SeaFury Vs Mig 15
So pretty close then, interesting. We have to remember that by the time you add equivalant armament (I presume the Tucano is unarmed?) it will reduce performance.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff