It's readily apparent if you're being transported in one or crewing one. Arriving significantly less fatigued is valuable.
Early Jet Fighters vs Piston Engine Fighters
- Thread starter Alex Zetsu
- Start date
For modern Fighters a 100mph speed difference is not of critical importance. For a WW2 fighter 100 mph is literally around a Quarter of the top speed. So for example a Me 262 is attacking bombers and can approach from behind AND BELOW so fast that the time a gunner has to focus and lead target is insufficent along with then leaving the formation again to fast for escorts reaction and making it hard for gunners to react.
Me 262 could do 540mph but if attacking bombers would likely be slower than that because the B 17 is cruising along at 200mph, shooting an aircraft while having a 300mph overtake is not easy. The Escorts a likely cruising at 350mph or even as low as 300mph, so the escorts are way behind the interception curve and even a P 47 can not intercept them easily.
The Early jets could fly faster and performed better at alttitude than piston engined aircraft, the turning ability was overwhelmed by the straight line speed of the Jets. Even the early Gloster Meteor which was not that much different to the top piston aircraft was hard to defeat due to the way they worked etc.
The earlier you get jets into action the earlier your opponent has massive problems.
Me 262 could do 540mph but if attacking bombers would likely be slower than that because the B 17 is cruising along at 200mph, shooting an aircraft while having a 300mph overtake is not easy. The Escorts a likely cruising at 350mph or even as low as 300mph, so the escorts are way behind the interception curve and even a P 47 can not intercept them easily.
The Early jets could fly faster and performed better at alttitude than piston engined aircraft, the turning ability was overwhelmed by the straight line speed of the Jets. Even the early Gloster Meteor which was not that much different to the top piston aircraft was hard to defeat due to the way they worked etc.
The earlier you get jets into action the earlier your opponent has massive problems.
A jet engine can provide almost max power all the time - in fact it is designed to
So the Jet can pretty much go at its maximum speed as its 'Cruising Speed' - I am not referring to reheat or after burner etc
A piston engine has 3 main settings
Take off power - basically only to be used for a minute or 2 before the thing overheats
Cruising power (its economical speed and the setting it will be at for most of its time in the air)
Max combat power - pretty much 5 minutes before you kill the engine
Also by late WW2 single engine Piston powered aircraft began to get serious issues with torque which caused handling issues
The Jet engine also operates better than a piston engine at Altitude
So the Jet is better for Altitude and Speed and this would be readily apparent to any and all involved in their development
They were far from perfect and the early jets murdered their pilots in staggering numbers
But they could do the flying faster, quicker and higher than a piston plane or the same era and so if your air force was 'in the game' it had to have Jet planes and absorb those losses.
That's when you use drop tanks and/or aerial refueling. Still, range wasn't much of an issue when jets were first developed. Had they been needed in the Pacific theater, that would have mattered.
Let me add:
--fewer parts to fail, so less maintenance
--fewer parts to suffer battle damage (rads & lines, frex)
Glad someone brought up the range issue. All first-generation jet were short on range.
Riain
Banned
So too were the first generation monoplane piston engine fighters, the 1940 Spitfire and Bf109 had a 90 minute endurance. Granted that's double the Me262 endurance, but the 262 didn't waste a big chuck of that time getting to altitude.
In the first year of the Korean War both sides were heavily dependent on piston engines aircraft. F-82's ruled the skies. B-29's leveled every city in North Korea. The B-26, A1A, and F-4U-4 did a hell of a lot of interdictions, and CAS, especially when the air force was driven back to Japan. The F-86 Saber Jet couldn't get to MIG Ally until they retook the airfields near Seoul.
Even today, with long range missiles having a speed advantage is a good thing*. Back then, it was the thing. A faster aircraft could decide when to engage and when to disengage. The result of this was that it could force an engagement when it was advantageous to do so. Of course jet fighters were better.
*Even today, in Ukraine Foxhounds speed has been problematic to handle.
*Even today, in Ukraine Foxhounds speed has been problematic to handle.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
Launching AAMs at supersonic speeds gives them maximum energy and therefore range and the ability to maneuvre at longer ranges. Conversely high speed can give a fighter a chance to outrun a long range missile towards the edges of its envelope.
Apparently the mach 1.6 speed of the F35 is because no air to air engagement has ever been faster. However the NGAD fighter is expected to have a high speed, and the F22s supercruise is very handy.
Thats basically been the Russians answer to stealth, along with phased array and low frequency radars. A fast aircraft can avoid missile shots by outrunning the missiles. Conversely it can try to get into its own missiles No Escape Zone and launch,, with long range missiles, even 5G aircraft have a challenge (not at all insurmountable, burt a challenge still) in the NEZ
The F35 was designed in the 1990's and 2000's, when the biggest risk was believed to be from S400 and HQ9 type ground based missiles. Speed is less important (not unimportant) against ground fire.
The MIG-31 has stayed far behind the front and have been firing air to ground missiles from hundreds of miles away. I don't know how many UAF aircraft have been destroyed by MIG-31's. If everything had worked right the Russians should've shoot down the whole UAF in the first weeks of the war. Staying out of direct combat, and snipping isn't achieving decisive results.
The F-35 can do Mach 1.6 with internal combat loads. The fighters that are lauded for being Mach 2+ can only do that clean. When you put on ECM & Targeting pods, along with drop tanks, bombs, and missiles under the wings the resulting weight & drag will pull almost all of them down below 1.6. All of that is internal on the F-35 & F-22. Most people think fighters can do what they do at air shows, but with combat loads they can't. The Russian SU-57 is a bust, and so it seems is the SU-75, and we need to see more of the Chinese J-20. It's interesting that no one seems to want the J-31 stealth fighter the Chinese are trying to export. I guess it's not that impressive.
Riain
Banned
I recall reading that pylon drag is significant, that half the drag created by a drop tank is from the pylon the tank is on for example. RAAF Mirage IIIs had 'supersonic' drop tanks; small and thin and with pylons so small the tanks were almost scabbed to the wing itself with the absolute minimum of pylon drag compared to fat 'ferry' tanks hanging off 'long' pylons which would create huge drag. Apparently half the fuel in a ferry tank is used to push it and the pylon through the air.
This is where semi-recessed and conformally carried missiles are good as they have a much smaller impact on performance than having the same weapons on pylons.
Another trick the RAAF used on their Mirage IIIs was to scab bombs onto the supersonic tanks directly, therefore getting fuel tanks and bombs with minimal plyon drag.
Last edited:
Thanks for that. Yep, drag is a drag. That's why the F-4 Phantom II had semi recessed Sparow missiles under the fuselage, and F-15E's have conformal fuel tanks.I recall reading that pylon drag is significant, that half the drag created by a drop tank is from the pylon the tank is on for example. RAAF Mirage IIIs had 'supersonic' drop tanks; small and thin and with pylons so small the tanks were almost scabbed to the wing itself with the absolute minimum of pylon drag compared to fat 'ferry' tanks hanging off 'long' pylons which would create huge drag. Apparently half the fuel in a ferry tank is used to push it and the pylon through the air.
View attachment 833229
This is where semi-recessed and conformally carried missiles are good as they have a much smaller impact on performance than having the same weapons on pylons.
Another trick the RAAF used on their Mirage IIIs was to scab bombs onto the supersonic tanks directly, therefore getting fuel tanks and bombs with minimal plyon drag.
By the way I should add the Mirage III was a fantastic aircraft. The Phantom II, the MIG-21, and the Mirage III were the most iconic 3rd Generation fighter jets and were at the top of the food chain for much of the Cold War period. I remember an interview with an Israeli ace who flew the Mirage III. He talked about how the F-16 was superior with its fly by wire technology, but he missed the feel of flying a Mirage III. It was a totally different kind of flying and fighting.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
Since the Phantom it's easier to list the (western) planes which don't carry their BVR missiles conformally than those that do, basically the F16, Mirage 2000 and Gripen, everything else has them scabbed to the fuselage.
RAAF Mirage pilots were credited with missile kills on F16s in Cope Thunder exercises in the 80s, however in our part of the world such fancy fighters were few and far between and the Mirage was very handy against, Hunters, A4s and F5s into the 80s. When we got the Hornet we bounced right ahead of everyone else in the regain again.