Aviation Pictures: The Fourth Generation

[ANS Kamas P81]

And other light aircraft, the grown-up love affair of an F-5 and F-86 - the G.91Y from Italy.  With 4000 pounds of bombs, two DEFA cannons, and a loaded weight of only 17,000 pounds...that is one little airplane.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Idle thoughts.  So we know the obvious benefits of jet power - much faster speeds, even supersonic capability, plus the ability to use much less refined fuels compared to piston engines.  How long, believably, could an air force rely on piston power (air- and water- cooled) into the 1950s and 1960s for most situations?  Weapons would be similar enough, and especially in the subsonic era the only real benefit I can think of for the jets are straight line speed and climbing ability.

So in the realm of the F-86, Hunter, MiG-17, or Mystere, how long could the F4U, Sea Fury, FW-190s and late Spitfires function as fighting aircraft?  It feels like you'd be in a similar situation as the Japanese were in the Pacific - the American birds had speed and climb rate while the Japanese planes could outmaneuver and seriously outturn their opponents.  Gunwise, everyone's slinging 20mm and 30mm cannon, and I imagine things like modern revolver cannon (the M39 for example) could be fitted* to those planes.  Missiles, of course, even the odds a bit, but I'm more focused on the dogfight and close air engagements.

Obviously piston engine aircraft did fine in the ground attack role, and technically still do even in the US military - remember the use of OV-10 Broncos in Iraq a year or two ago?  And some of those piston planes could haul enormous bombloads, such as the AM-1's record 10,648 pound load.  So we know they're fine against ground targets and in the CAS/strike role. 

But what about the air war?  Only you pretty much anyone with a gun and an engine can prevent bombers, but how well would those piston planes do against 1st and 2nd generation jets?  It's not impossible, apparently, even the A-1 Skyraider was known to have a few MiG-17s in its logbook and the Sea Fury has MiG-15s in its kill records.

Anyone got thoughts on this?  Just how far can you push piston planes, and just how long could you hold on to them before finally modernizing?

*Pods, or even direct replacement.  The typical paired Hispano-Suizas ran 220 pounds for the guns plus a hundred pounds or more for ammunition; the M39 20mm is well lighter than that, and even the DEFA and ADEN guns fit the mass budget.  What this means for the idea of a Corsair slinging twin ADEN guns and its typical bombload in the 1950s BRRRRRRRRRRRRRTing the hell out of ground targets before dropping napalm all over them... 
 :drool:

By the way have an AM-1 Mauler, one big damn prop plane.  Woo, spirals!

[chanman]

Idle thoughts.  So we know the obvious benefits of jet power - much faster speeds, even supersonic capability, plus the ability to use much less refined fuels compared to piston engines.  How long, believably, could an air force rely on piston power (air- and water- cooled) into the 1950s and 1960s for most situations?  Weapons would be similar enough, and especially in the subsonic era the only real benefit I can think of for the jets are straight line speed and climbing ability.

Completely depends on what the potential opposition is flying, really.

So in the realm of the F-86, Hunter, MiG-17, or Mystere, how long could the F4U, Sea Fury, FW-190s and late Spitfires function as fighting aircraft?  It feels like you'd be in a similar situation as the Japanese were in the Pacific - the American birds had speed and climb rate while the Japanese planes could outmaneuver and seriously outturn their opponents.  Gunwise, everyone's slinging 20mm and 30mm cannon, and I imagine things like modern revolver cannon (the M39 for example) could be fitted* to those planes.  Missiles, of course, even the odds a bit, but I'm more focused on the dogfight and close air engagements.

Probably not very long since turning fights were replaced with energy management tactics. The performance differential is just too great. Greater turning ability didn't save the Mk. V Spitfires against FW190s, nor the Zero or Ki-84 against Hellcats, Corsairs, Lightnings, etc. In fact, I don't think many late/post-war fighters emphasized turn performance - maybe the F8F Bearcat? Maneuverability was important, of course but in applications other than sustained horizontal turn rate.**

**I think this was a lesson that wasn't properly learned after WW1 - planes like the SPAD and S.E.5a relied on acceleration and top speed over turn performance against their rivals

Obviously piston engine aircraft did fine in the ground attack role, and technically still do even in the US military - remember the use of OV-10 Broncos in Iraq a year or two ago?  And some of those piston planes could haul enormous bombloads, such as the AM-1's record 10,648 pound load.  So we know they're fine against ground targets and in the CAS/strike role.

OV-10s are turboprops. I think the last case of piston aircraft seeing a lot of combat might be the AC-47s and B-26 Invaders in the Vietnam War

But what about the air war?  Only you pretty much anyone with a gun and an engine can prevent bombers, but how well would those piston planes do against 1st and 2nd generation jets?  It's not impossible, apparently, even the A-1 Skyraider was known to have a few MiG-17s in its logbook and the Sea Fury has MiG-15s in its kill records.

Anyone got thoughts on this?  Just how far can you push piston planes, and just how long could you hold on to them before finally modernizing?

*Pods, or even direct replacement.  The typical paired Hispano-Suizas ran 220 pounds for the guns plus a hundred pounds or more for ammunition; the M39 20mm is well lighter than that, and even the DEFA and ADEN guns fit the mass budget.  What this means for the idea of a Corsair slinging twin ADEN guns and its typical bombload in the 1950s BRRRRRRRRRRRRRTing the hell out of ground targets before dropping napalm all over them... 
 :drool:

By the way have an AM-1 Mauler, one big damn prop plane.  Woo, spirals!

The props would have to rely on the jets deciding to slow down and engage. Even an F-86 cruises well above the top speed of any piston fighter, and then there's the question of if the top speed is top sustained speed or temporary, 'Emergency War Power'/ water-menthol injection speed.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I stand corrected on the OV-10, and as for the rest...yeah, that about does it.  Energy management and the speed & acceleration focus that wraps around it really does make things too weighted for the jets.  It's been a recurring thing like you said, I suppose, starting with the SPAD and S.E.5.  Speed is victory.

Was fun to think about at least.

[beachhead1985]

And other light aircraft, the grown-up love affair of an F-5 and F-86 - the G.91Y from Italy.  With 4000 pounds of bombs, two DEFA cannons, and a loaded weight of only 17,000 pounds...that is one little airplane.

Anyone else pronounce that company "Air-Italia"?


And looking into it; it seems the AM-1 Had the edge on the Skyraider for payload and range, but the Skyraider was much for reliable and easier to fly.

[I am Belch II]

Raptor, Thunderbird and the Big Mac Bridge.
For the Airshow and Cherryfest this year in Traverse City, MI
Just a great pic.

[Daryk]

That really puts the size of the Raptor into perspective...  :o

[Kidd]

On a related note to previous question... What is the maximum speeds at which air combat with guns is possible? Assuming the fastest and most capable aircraft gun is used.

[Daryk]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "possible"... even "slow" guns can hit with a sufficient lead.

[Luciora]

So long as the firing plane doesn't overtake the bullets.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "possible"... even "slow" guns can hit with a sufficient lead.

[Daryk]

Good point, but I think that realm is at least in the hypersonic range...

[Luciora]

We actually had a partial discussion on that earlier on this thread.

Good point, but I think that realm is at least in the hypersonic range...

[Daryk]

My memory is failing me... around what post was that?

[Sabelkatten]

Bullets slow down pretty quickly (compared to aircraft).

Thought, technically, as long as you turn away before you overtake the bullets you can fire at ridiculous speeds. Of course at sufficient speeds you can pull tricks like shooting someone chasing you by getting him to fly into you bullets... ;D

[Daryk]

No argument there... I just don't recall the earlier conversation...

[Luciora]

Couldn't find the start, but this link was my contribution to it.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27967/the-fighter-plane-that-shot-itself-down/

[Daryk]

The trick there was that the plane accelerated after firing... in a dog fight, you're presumably going to be turning like crazy, and that shouldn't be a problem.

[Kidd]

I was thinking more about limitations in the pilot's/system's ability to track the target

I mean, imagine if we had hypersonic 20mm aircraft cannon, could it suddenly make a resurgence in WVR combat?

[ANS Kamas P81]

There's got to be ballistic studies of typical cannon rounds used; it's really only a two factor problem - the air resistance slowing the round down, and the fixed g value pulling the round downward.  I can imagine going supersonic and using guns will screw up your accuracy, simply because you've got the supersonic shell making its own shockwave and then attempting to pass through a second one as it goes forward.  Something like shooting a bullet through angled glass and getting a deflection, since that ridge of high pressure would have some effect on the bullet as it passes through.

Maybe it won't matter much, since the transition through the shockwave will be exceedingly fast with a muzzle velocity of 3500fps or so off the 20mm M61, but it's a thing.  A bullet going transsonic downrange and passing through its OWN shockwave destabilizes badly, which is why the .408 Chey-Tac became popular over the .50 BMG for extreme-range shooting.  It stays supersonic for about another thousand yards past the .50, and doesn't destabilize until further down.

Purely speculative, but I can see it being a potential problem.  As far as historical records?  Well, there's this.
http://www.nickelonthegrass.net/MiG_Kill.htm
CAUTION: NSFW AUDIO AND TEXT
Brenda 01, F-4E Phantom, made a gun engagement at somewhere above 800+ knots on a target with extreme deflection on a MiG-19 at approx 500kts and made a visually confirmed kill.  So I suppose, for the Phantom at least with that gun right at the nose, the supersonic deflection wasn't an issue.  Then again at only a few hundred feet, extreme accuracy with 300 rounds of 20mm cannon fire isn't quite so much a worry...

[Elmoth]

Related:

Karnov FTW

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

How much air-to-air combat still occurs at this point, anyway?

[ANS Kamas P81]

India and Pakistan had themselves a decent air battle in February, a MiG-21 bagged an F-16 before getting taken down itself.  A group of 24 Pakistani aircraft tried to make a deep strike on a brigade HQ, with an unspecified number of Indian jets and ground SAMs engaged.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-pakistan-f16-mig21-dogfight-minute-by-minute-1472548-2019-03-07

[Fat Guy]

  How long, believably, could an air force rely on piston power (air- and water- cooled) into the 1950s and 1960s for most situations? 

Fun fact: 1969's Soccer War between El Salvador and Honduras was fought by both sides with American WWII aircraft types. The war was the last conflict in which piston-engined fighters fought each other. Honduran Air Force Captain Fernando Soto in an F4U-5NL Corsair downed a Salvadoran TF-51D Cavalier Mustang II and two FG-1D Goodyear Corsairs.


Here's his plane:


El Salvador continued to fly its surviving Corsairs into 1975; Honduras didn't retire its fleet until 1979.

[Kidd]

@ANS Kamas - how the hell did that guy's missiles bat 0/4, geez. I bet he had a lot to say to the weapons folks on the ground.

[ANS Kamas P81]

@ANS Kamas - how the hell did that guy's missiles bat 0/4, geez. I bet he had a lot to say to the weapons folks on the ground.

There's a reason for the memetically loud screaming for the Phantom to have a gun in "the days of missile supremacy."  Early AIM-9s were horrible, in all honesty; they couldn't see anything cooler than a jet exhaust, they had an 11-degree-per-second turn rate at most with the seeker head, and it was only intended to engage slow-and-straight jet bombers and not fighters.  You had a terrible engagement cone with them and needed to be nearly straight behind your target or else the weapon wouldn't see the target - and that only if the target's rear end was in clear view and not going crazy maneuvering.

And yet they only had a 2.6 mile range, which meant you couldn't just snipe at a distance with them, while the vacuum-tube-based electronics were...notoriously unreliable.  So if you COULD manage to line up a shot with a Sidewinder odds are it would break and just go ballistic, or else it would lose its target and go ballistic because said target turned, or it never got a proper heat lock and went ballistic, or it got scared and decided it wasn't going to let go of papa's wing in the first place.

I've read launch-kill ratios of that thing, early on especially, were something like 10%...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I remember hearing that they would also occasionally lock onto the sun.

[Feenix74]

If my memory serves me correctly, the AIM-9L was the first all-aspects Sidewinder but even then the recommended tactic was to get shot from the 6 o'clock position to give it the best chance of getting/holding a good lock and being able to hit the target.

[glitterboy2098]

There's a reason for the memetically loud screaming for the Phantom to have a gun in "the days of missile supremacy."  Early AIM-9s were horrible, in all honesty; they couldn't see anything cooler than a jet exhaust, they had an 11-degree-per-second turn rate at most with the seeker head, and it was only intended to engage slow-and-straight jet bombers and not fighters.  You had a terrible engagement cone with them and needed to be nearly straight behind your target or else the weapon wouldn't see the target - and that only if the target's rear end was in clear view and not going crazy maneuvering.

And yet they only had a 2.6 mile range, which meant you couldn't just snipe at a distance with them, while the vacuum-tube-based electronics were...notoriously unreliable.  So if you COULD manage to line up a shot with a Sidewinder odds are it would break and just go ballistic, or else it would lose its target and go ballistic because said target turned, or it never got a proper heat lock and went ballistic, or it got scared and decided it wasn't going to let go of papa's wing in the first place.

I've read launch-kill ratios of that thing, early on especially, were something like 10%...

and the AIM-7 Sparrows weren't much better.. the early ones were beam riders so you had to carefully steer the radar to follow the target.. usually meant you couldn't do much more than fly straight and level yourself. (good vs bombers, not much else.) the later models were semi-active guidance, locking onto the reflected radar signal. you still had to track the target with your radar, but not quite as precisely and at that point you had radars designed to be able to do at least some of the tracking themselves, letting the firing plane manuever a bit more.

sadly all of the Sparrows in the vietnam war had a pretty bad malfunction rate. they'd often either fail to lock on or fail to detonate. plus the rules of engagement rarely allowed them to be used at BVR ranges where they actually worked best, instead forcing visual confirmation of targets, at ranges where keeping the radar on target was trickier and the missiles limited turn rate made it easier to evade.

combined with the issues with the sidewinders, it made missiles very unreliable. unfortunately many of the pilots had not been trained in dogfighting (as missiles were supposed to make that obsolete), and the newer aircraft like the F-4 didn't carry internal guns (which were also supposed to have been rendered obsolete)
while the Russian designed aircraft often had similar issues with their missiles, they had internal guns and generally had received at least basic training in dogfight techniques for their fighters.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Read "Every Man A Tiger."  It goes into a lot of what happened to the USAF after Korea, through Vietnam, and how the first Gulf War was handled after seeing all the mistakes made.  But the biggest core reason for the lack of serious fighter training, the focus on the bombers, and all of that was SAC.  The Air Force was laser-focused on nuclear warfare, to the point that even F-100 pilots spent a lot of time training in how to deliver nuclear weapons.  You know, our first supersonic fighter jets for air supremacy, not dropping canned sunlight on cities.  Guns were obsolete, missiles were only good against waves of incoming bombers, and everyone was more interested in dropping nukes than air combat.  The Air Force just got too blind to any other mission BUT nuclear delivery, and the service suffered horribly for it.

I'm not arguing anything rule 4, just bringing up history - 'these were the decisions that were made'  And the book's an excellent read, really, on what happens in an Air Force in good times and bad.

while the Russian designed aircraft often had similar issues with their missiles, they had internal guns and generally had received at least basic training in dogfight techniques for their fighters.

We did have SOME basic dogfight training but it was primarily against same-airframe stuff.  DACT didn't come in until much later; people who drove F-105s practiced against F-105s almost entirely, and...learned how to dogfight against the F-105.  The problem here is obvious, when you look at the MiG-15, 17, 19, and 21 compared to the Thunderchief...

I'm guessing the Russians never bothered with forcing their tactical air units into the nuclear delivery role.  I've never read anything suggesting the above birds (and their Sukhoi companions) were ever fitted or trained with nukes, so they got to be actual fighter pilots more than anything else.

Granted, once later AIM-9s came online, and Sparrow got its head out of its rear and SARH and look-down shoot-down became things, then the Air Force did a lot better.  Certainly that was demonstrated in 1991...but by then they'd also had the Fighter Mafia revolution and had stopped trying to make everyone deliver hugs with nuclear arms.

I read way too much, LOL.  Still, strong recommendation of the book, it's totally worth it.

[Luciora]

Found something interesting.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/ercoupe-was-airplane-anyone-can-fly-until-it-wasnt-180956769/