Modern attack helicopters vs. WW1 fighter Who wins?

>>32220542
The one with heat seekers?

>>32220598
Heat seekers versus a small pistol engine??
I'm not sure that would be super effective. Against a cold sky background its likely modern imaging seekers would find it but I think it would be more difficult. How hot do you think canvas would get??

They flew ~100 Mph or less, just use the chain gun.

>>32220542
The pishy guns on a ww1 fighter would not really do much where as the heli large caliber guns would rip the canvas string bag to bits in a short burst.

WW1 fighter wouldn't do shit to mi-24/28.

>>32220643
>pistol engine

If the fighter stays above the rotor disk the helo dies. If the fighter goes below the rotor disk the fighter dies. That is all.

>>32220542
The problem is: most modern attack helicopters are armored and the pilot would need to strike the rotors or some other weak point to bring down the attack helicopter, and I'm fairly certain the attack helicopter could find some way to maneuver so it would engage the WW1 fighter with it's cannon. From what I imagine, it would be funnily enough a somewhat equal fight.

J-CATCH

WW1 fighter would lose every time

>>32220671
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_JN-4

Given most choppers engage at over 1km away...

File: Trump5.jpg (38KB, 634x414px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 634x414px

>>32220542
>modern death machine with locking missiles, miniguns, and kevlar plating
vs.
>a paper plane with one, maybe two machine guns.
It's like you're not even trying

>>32220643
There was an incident where a Cessna 172 flew into restricted military airspace and was accidentally shot down by a infrared missle with a dummy warhead. The missle locked on to the exhaust and just plowed it's way through the area between the engine and firewall, and out the top. Melted part of the windscreen too.

Apperently they were supposed to be shooting down drones.

>>32220773
>locking
lock to what? It would be interesting to see what a biplane looks like on black and white infrared

>>32220687
Good thing helicopters can't tilt, right Larry?

File: h2k.jpg (11KB, 249x202px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 249x202px

>>32220795

>>32220796
Heat signature of the engine.

>>32220542
The man with a longbow.

>>32220795
sauce? I wanna read this

File: P51 Taxi Vid 17 Frame 2888 Fusion.jpg (72KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1024x1024px

>>32220796

Why WOULDN'T it show up in FLIR?

>>32220860
Don't have a sauce.

The story was told to a friend of a friend by the guy that got shot down.
Apperently it's in California and that particular piece of the airspace was used quite often by civilian traffic (with permission) to cut corners and not fly all the way around it.
Most of the time military would allow transition through their airspace.

This guy forgot to call in, and the military just happened to actually be using it that day.

I should mention that this was a surface launched missle.

You can look up the NTSB crash records online, but it will take a while because I never asked what year this happened.

>>32220981
I didn't say it wouldn't, I was just wondering if such a thing existed and as you and >>32220795 have shown it does show up significantly and I am now convinced an IR missile would have no problem engaging a prop plane.

Furthermore, engine design at the time was rather crude and inefficient. I bet there is a significant amount of leakage heat from inefficiency

>>32221019

Hmm yes, that pic has some variables though:

- How long the engine has been running (did it just start? Or stop? Or has it been running for 15 minutes? Full power? Just idling? etc.).

- How much the air flow cools it during actual use (= flying at X km/h).

- Does the engine of this specific WW2 aircraft run hotter than those used in WW1.

- Is the fuselage, by luck, designed in a way that would make it harder to see its IR signature.

- How much heat is enough for a heat seeker to lock on.

Etc. etc.

helicopters can engage arial targets out to 1km with their main gun. So yeah they could blast the planes out of the sky. Not only that but they are actually faster then world war 1 planes as they can go over 210 mph while ww1 biplanes struggled to get over 175. Not to mention the helicopters have a greater rate of climb and can pivot on a dime.

Also the IR missiles are sensitive enough to lock on to the small engines of the ww1 planes.
So here is what happens ww1 plane shows up

Helicopter sees plane and either shreds it with its guns or missiles.

Also the ww1 plane cant hurt the helicopter as even its rotors are resistant to small arms and light auto cannon fire, along with the cockpit being armored against 20mm rounds.

There is a reason that most of our modern AA guns are 25mm or larger Gatling guns.

File: image.gif (253KB, 447x415px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 447x415px

>>32220981
>P 51 Taxi Vid
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>32221250

I don't even know what "taxi" means :'D

>people talking about missiles
>vs. WWI fighters
We're talking about slow ass canvas and wood planes. There is an air-to-air mode for most modern attack helicopter guns, it's not even a contest. Just slave the gun to the slow sputtering target, lock it and go.

It'd be more of a contest against later WW2 fighters, as at least many are armed with cannons or fast firing HMG's that would quickly dispose of most helicopters if they got a good gun run, and they could get one run in with some luck.

>>32221209
Additionally the engine cowling on the P-51 will be thicker, so it'll hide the engine better than the ww1 fighter

>>32221412
IT'S NOT A FUCKING P-51 ARDSSDG

god damn, you got me.

>>32220542
Looks like Opies mom just got him niggerfield 1 because he saved up enough good boy points.

What was that test where Vietnam-era helicopters raped the piss out of Vietnam-era fighters?

>>32221249
>There is a reason that most of our modern AA guns are 25mm or larger Gatling guns.
And none of those reasons are the reasons why modern US fighter cannons are rotary cannons of 25-30mm.
Modern planes are actually quite fragile, especially when they're being subjected to the massive stresses of modern flight. The reason 25-30mm rotary cannons are used by the US is that those are the smallest calibers that can mount a significant enough payload to have a good chance of causing catastrophic damage to another plane when hit by a round. The smaller caliber means the plane can carry more ammunition for a given volume and mass. This and the high rate of fire of the cannons on Amerikan fighters allows the attacking fighter to saturate the area his target is in to increase the likelihood of a hit on the target craft. This same principle is what drives the CIWS and the late THAAD.
Also the US is pretty much the only major arms manufacturing country that makes fighters with high volume of fire rotary cannons. Europe and Russia all prefer the larger bored, slower firing revolver cannon on the grounds of a single hit is almost always deadly to the target fighter.

>>32220643
first gen heat seekers tracked a lit cigarette across a large room. A 1000hp prop engine was plenty warm.

>>32221209
>>32221019
A lit cigarette will light up on thermals like a goddamned spotlight. Yes, FFS, a missile is going to find the damn thing.

>>32221171
does anyone have the screen cap of the breakdown of an M1 tank vs Pomeranian dogs?

>>32221171
noone because sun surrenders, but it turns out it's hot like a sun

>>32221171
I dont stare at he sun much anymore, but that looks like Mars

>>32221656
modern planes are actually pretty strong, not in the sense they have armor but in that their lifting body design means they can fly without half a wing and still return to base. This is also assisted by the quadruple redundancy of all critical systems.

>>32220726
>piston vs pistol

>>32221171
The marines would win if they attacked at night

>>32221209
>>32221529
Non-issue. Granted they're the latest iteration of IR seekers, but the AIM9X can supposedly lock onto the reflected heat of the sun on a piece of glass. I doubt an IR seeker from 20 years ago will have issues locking onto ANY running engine.

>>32220981
this is from a video game..

File: what now, planefag.jpg (95KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x683px

>>32220687

>>32221712
>modern planes are actually pretty strong, not in the sense they have armor but in that their lifting body design means they can fly without half a wing and still return to base.
True, but what use is a fighting plane that can no longer fight? While that single hit from a 25mm API/frag/whatever might not cause the plane to just drop out of the sky, it will almost always mission kill it. At the very least it will seriously degrade the aerodynamic performance of the plane to the point that it'd be just a sitting duck for another fighter.

>>32220992
You can typically fly through the areas as long as you get permission from the controlling agency. That's the difference between alert areas and hazardous areas. If you pay attention when you listen to ATIS, then you'd be aware that the military is popping off SAMs in the fucking air.

>source: I'm one of those brave young men in those flying machines.

>>32221209
Literally doesn't matter. Thermals will show the silhouette easily against the sky or ground. Even trees have heat signatures people.

T. A tanker who uses thermal optics less advanced than an apache.

>>32220643
>small piston engine
>10L V8s with no exhaust system to speak of
So you're saying that modern heat seeking missiles couldn't possibly target any ground vehicle smaller than an MBT?

File: file.sztuka-cia-obraz.jpg (298KB, 1000x575px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1000x575px

Cold war era transport helo > Bi plane

>>32222051
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lima_Site_85

>>32221656
>Europe and Russia prefer larger calibre guns
Name several modern fighters from Europe or Russia with guns bigger than 30mm, I'll wait.

File: Mi24d.jpg (60KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x480px

How about a Hind D VS 2 F-16?

>>32220542
Attack Helicopter has
>RADAR
>long range optics
>BVR weapons
>A2A missiles

WW1 fighter has
>? what advantage?

WW2 fighter has
>speed
>altitude

>>32222141
True they don't use calibers larger than 30mm, I misspoke there. They do still use calibers large than the US uses. The F22 has a 20mm gun and the F35 will use a 25mm. The Rafale uses a 30mm, the Typhoon a 27mm and most Russian fighters have a 30mm.
The point of the doctrinal differences still stands.

File: Mei Ling.png (115KB, 235x402px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 235x402px

>>32222185
You'd have to be crazy to fly a Hind in this kinda weather.

File: 1407794219083.jpg (29KB, 406x395px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 406x395px

>>32221684
>1000hp prop

>>32221793
>what is battleshort retreat

File: ErectCock.jpg (13KB, 225x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 225x360px

>>32222185
Colonel, What's a Russian gunship dooing hear!!!?!?!??!

>>32221728
Underrated

>>32221845
If I remember correctly, you do not even have to ask, it's just at your own risk if you don't. For VFR, at least, IFR will be flying over it, not through it.

>>32222482
>missionkill

A Longbow Apache loaded with 16 Hellfires, full fuel, and full cannon magazine can only go 90 mph.

>>32220992
did he died?