Question about Jets vs Biplanes or lightweight single wing aricrafts

[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.

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.

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.

Please let me know as much as you can. I would love to get to the bottom of this issue. The man who started it called me a girl who didn't understand anything about planes and I would like to prove that I can get the information from the experts. Thanks again!

 

[Colin1]

Now I'm confused
where'd my answer go?

 

[ekirk]

I placed the topic on two locations so I could get a wide range of opinions. Thanks for the reply though! =)

 

[Colin1]

Ahh, I see
you've put the same question in two areas of the forum

You don't need to do that, you'll still get a wide range of opinions, alot less confusion and no duplication of effort

 

[pbfoot]

just flying by close and fast should cause the light aircraft enough distress

 

[SoD Stitch]

just flying by close and fast should cause the light aircraft enough distress

You ever see "The Final Countdown", where the F-14's blew by the Zeros and almost made them crash?

 

[pbfoot]

You ever see "The Final Countdown", where the F-14's blew by the Zeros and almost made them crash?

Yep a great movie , can you imagine what that turbulance would do to a Spad or Cub

 

[fly boy]

if the AIM-9 malfunctions it could hit the plane then not go off but on the off chance it does i don't think the plane could shoot it down

depends on where it is hit

 

[simoncoombs]

I seem to recall reading that the Argentine Air Force's obsolete SkyRaiders were somewhat difficult for British jets to deal with during the Falklands conflict.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I seem to recall reading that the Argentine Air Force's obsolete SkyRaiders were somewhat difficult for British jets to deal with during the Falklands conflict.

Skyraiders? Do some homework!

 

[Sweb]

Skyraiders? Do some homework!

Skyraiders, skylarks, skypoodles...hey it flew. It was the missiles that messed up a few folk's day.

Let's see, light plane vs jet. No contest. The light plane would be the first to land every time.

 

[simoncoombs]

Skyraiders? Do some homework!

Pardon me for breathing.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Pardon me for breathing.

Only if you don't expel hot air! 8)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Skyraiders, skylarks, skypoodles...hey it flew. It was the missiles that messed up a few folk's day.

And who are we talking about?????

Let's see, light plane vs jet. No contest. The light plane would be the first to land every time.

In several pieces?

 

[mkloby]

In several pieces?

This is really kind of silly. Does this argument include the outfitting of the vintage aircraft w/ modern weapons, radar, mws, expendables, etc?

 

[Sweb]

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]

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]

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