You got me curious. I found this: What is the heat signature of a piston engine, relative to a jet engine?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You got me curious. I found this: What is the heat signature of a piston engine, relative to a jet engine?How effective would heat seekers be against internal combustion powered aircraft? Seems like the heat signature would be significantly lower than that of a gas turbine.
I wish that posters who insert articles would actually read them themselvesLots of pervasive myths about the V-2, it's inaccuracy being one of them.
To learn more about what the V-2 was actually capable of, read here:
Also, I'm going to think that if the V-2 were used today, there is a good chance that it's guidance system may be modern.
This thread is about WWII weapons being used in a current war setting. If we want to talk about accuracy and discounting a particular aircraft (or weapon system) on that basis, then the B-17, B-29, etc. must be ruled out, too.
My point exactly.I wish that posters who insert articles would actually read them themselves
Now I've thinking assault gliders. Mostly wood without any engines, it's a close to undetectable as we can get. Of course there is the matter of the the tow plane….How effective would heat seekers be against internal combustion powered aircraft? Seems like the heat signature would be significantly lower than that of a gas turbine.
Wooden Mossies! and their advantage in regards to radar evasion.Now I've thinking assault gliders. Mostly wood without any engines, it's a close to undetectable as we can get. Of course there is the matter of the the tow plane….
Wooden Mossies! and their advantage in regards to radar evasion.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Wood is horrible to repair, let alone in the field with questionable maintenance facilities. The Mossie will still emit a radar signature as mentioned by TomoWooden Mossies! and their advantage in regards to radar evasion.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Not enough to make a difference unless you're using WW2 technology radarAgreed but would the cross section be smaller?
Thank you, it's something I wondered about.Not enough to make a difference unless you're using WW2 technology radar
I did say advantage - not 100% radar evasion.Unless the Mossies were powered by wooden Merlins, and were carrying wooden-shell bombs, there was no radar evasion...
As long as the Mosquito's props weren't turning...I did say advantage - not 100% radar evasion.
And of all WW II aircraft's the Mossie would most likely have the lowest radar cross section.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Way back in 1960 I spent a week aboard the USS Hancock. A Chief gave us the info on the Sidewinder and when opened. he showed us the filters used ahead of the sensor. Without filters installed, the seeker would follow his cigarette lighter heat source. The normal filter combo installed tracked jet exhaust. The filters could be changed to track recip engines. He showed us a combination which would track a diesel engine at night, presumably a truck although no one asked why a Sidewinder would be fired at truck at night. Without the proper filter combination, the missile would track the hottest source, the sun, which they often did if the target flew between the missile and the sun as an evasion. The filters reminded me of large format camera filters. During a similar visit to Strategic Air Command, we learned a Sidewinder would track the hottest engine on a B-52 although no one asked how they knew.You got me curious. I found this: What is the heat signature of a piston engine, relative to a jet engine?
Maybe if you're considering a dedicated combat aircraft. These aircraft, used in WW2 in a combat zone would probably have a lower RCSI did say advantage - not 100% radar evasion.
And of all WW II aircraft's the Mossie would most likely have the lowest radar cross section.
Regards
Jagdflieger
The Fa330 might be a candidate, except that it's rotor area was about 450 square feet.Maybe if you're considering a dedicated combat aircraft. These aircraft, used in WW2 in a combat zone would probably have a lower RCS
Fi-156
L-4
L-5
PO-2
Ki-76
Off course I am considering a combat aircraft - I don't think that a Fi-156 is going to help a lotMaybe if you're considering a dedicated combat aircraft. These aircraft, used in WW2 in a combat zone would probably have a lower RCS
Fi-156
L-4
L-5
PO-2
Ki-76
Sure it will - great STOL aircraft, can carry small bombs which a person in the gunners position can hurl out of the aircraft, and can be easily hidden, but then again, all the other aircraft can probably fulfil the same role.Off course I am considering a combat aircraft - I don't think that a Fi-156 is going to help a lot
Regards
Jagdflieger