Question about Jets vs Biplanes or lightweight single wing aricrafts

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.

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

parsifal said:

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

Click to expand...

but not the cost of the damage it could do

Bedcheck Charlie

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

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

Bernhart said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

herman1rg said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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