The problem is that those engine improvements, coupled with the long, slow turns for 500+mph combat make a lot of classic tactics almost unusable. Bleeding the E out of a F-86 or MiG-15 while flying one of them is very difficult due to the increased power to weight ratios and the decreased ability to apply pressure.
This is incorrect. First, even with the improved engines none of the Korean War vintage fighters came even close to a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio and bleeding is exactly what they did. Yes, all of the jets were faster than their contemporary prop-driven counterparts which is why I suggested that limiting the arena to jets would limit the hit and run tactics but, since all the jets performed in the same speed range, two opposing jets would have no greater ability to shoot and scoot than we see now with the props.
Second, jets are governed by the same aerodynamic properties as props. Turning above corner velocity results in reduced turn performance (called "arcing") and you still get max instantaneous turn at corner, not at 500+mph. Combine that with the fact that older jets bled like stuck pigs, nose low turns were required to sustain corner velocity and high speed fights rapidly degenerated into slow ones. Sound familiar? It should as it's not really any different than what we see now. That's not to say that there are no differences of course.
Props are more efficient as airspeed is reduced while jets are more efficient as airspeed increases. This changes the dynamics of the fight but the fundamentals remain the same. From a dynamics perspective sustained turn speeds (P
s=0) are much closer to corner velocity because the jet engines (especially non-afterburning ones like in Korea) require ram air to generate the thrust required to sustain best level turn performance while props tend to have best sustained turn performance near stall. That said, corner velocity remains defined by the intersection of the lift limit with load limit. Jets therefore have a smaller optimum performance range but the maneuvers and goals remain exactly the same. Barrel rolls, lag rolls, lead/lag/pure pursuit, high and low yo-yos, one-circle/two-circle fights, etc., etc., are the same whether you're in a jet or prop. Actually, the concepts of energy and angles fights came out of jet combat in Korea, not WWII. That hasn't stopped us from applying those concepts to WWII fighters.
There really ends up being only a few noticeable differences. Forward quarter closure is much higher meaning you have to "think" farther out. There can be a smaller window for high angle snapshots. The biggest difference would be the "size" of the fight. Even though the same principles apply, jets are still generally faster than props. This means larger turn radius equating to a "larger" fight. But, since the same occurs for both jets and the speeds are still similar to the WWII arenas (i.e., subsonic) this won't have a major effect.
The major differences in ACM occurred after the invention of air-to-air missiles and radar. This had a major effect on ACM because you couldn't just extend away because you'd receive a heater enema. Beyond Visual Range missiles meant the ACM environment expanded and sudden death from a BVR bandit became a concern. Of course, none of that applies in Korea.
Korea would not be a good arena for ACM leading to a kill. Almost all kills would be ambush kills where the victim never saw his killer.
This is no different than either WWII or WWI. Most kills have always been from the unobserved Bandit.
