Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site inuxc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!ralph
From: ralph@inuxc.UUCP (Ralph Keyser)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Sidewinder vs. 172
Message-ID: <1061@inuxc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 19:50:14 EST
Article-I.D.: inuxc.1061
Posted: Tue Nov  6 19:50:14 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 01:25:35 EST
References: <182@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Consumer Products Div., Indianapolis
Lines: 20

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on heat seeking missiles
(whoosh! there goes another one!), but my guess would be that
Sidewinders would be just about worthless against a 172 or P-51 in
the "out of the box" configuration. The only thing that's going to
get hot enough to present a good target is the exhaust stack (or
stacks if you're a Mustang), and heat seeking missiles (especially
the newer ones) are trained to target *only* on things that look
like jet exhausts. The designers work really hard to get them to
ignore flares, the sun, 5 alarm chili, etc. They would probably tend
to ignore piston engine exhausts as well.
     Older heat seekers, however, were not nearly as smart, and one
of them just might present a problem as you are cruising over Kamchatka
in your Mustang. I don't think the Cessna puts out enough of a signature
for even older Atolls. 
     Not to worry, they'll just drop their gear and flaps so they can
go slow enough and take pot shots at you with the cannon instead.

	Pleasant Flying!

		Ralph Keyser