quote:

Josf, I didn't get the impression that JtD was trying to belittle you, just like someone doing a code review or proof reading, just making sure nothing has been forgotten.

You are making a good contribution, so let's not lose it in bickering!

Aaron_GT,

I have no desire to argue, no wish for it. If someone claims that I wrote something inaccurate I intend to find out if I wrote something inaccurate. When the claim of my inaccurate statement fails to provide where my statement is inaccurate my effort to get that data does employ words that can be misinterpreted as ‘bickering’.

That is how I see it.

Perhaps I can offer another angle of view concerning your quoted words that single me out as someone needed to be warned or told about ‘bickering’.

If you can write my words for me so as to make sure that I don’t write things that inspire you to warn me about bickering, then write my response to JtD as JtD comments on my contributions to this topic.

Example:

quote:

Actually, no.

That is an example situation. I wrote something. JtD response with “Actually, no.” as a response to what I wrote.

Now, suppose I were to take my own advise to you, and suppose I offer JtD a warning concerning his word choices followed by my version of what he could write instead of what he did write.

I could moderate in this manner, then, by suggesting to JtD that he can avoid claiming that someone else wrote something in error and replace that claim with a response of disagreement.

Like this:

Instead of this:

quote:

Actually, no.

The word choice is this:

quote:

I disagree.

See?

If you want me to respond differently to those words choices, then write me a response and I can sign on the bottom.

Here is another example:

quote:

I have no clue what you are trying to sell me, Josf, but I still disagree with the statement that a Spit V can BnZ a Fw all day long.

That is both an improvement on the previous example since factual error (Actually, no.) is replaced with confessed opinion (I still disagree), however the word choice in that example includes an attack upon my motives (trying to sell me).

How should I respond to that attack upon my motives, according to your moderating sensibilities whereby you single me out as the one needed a public, personal, warning (as kind and accurate as it may be)?

I do want to be a good boy and the topic is interesting to me.

So you don't understand. A simple no would have been enough.

It gets more complex because to the simple drag/weight relation of the unpowered zoom we get power/weight and power/drag factors, which, unlike drag/weight, are very inconsistent with the altitude.

As for the vertical zoom climbs, the reason they were rarely used are:
- rarely useful in combat
- quite dangerous in combat
- technical problems

quote:

What is the problem?

The problem is that the results of these power on zoom climb tests fail to make a clear statement "this plane is better than that". Because for every setup the Spitfire wins there is a setup the Fw wins. And probably one where they are the same.

So I am asking you which result you want to see, I will produce the setup and you will be happy. So hard to answer?

quote:

Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Instead of this:

quote:

Actually, no.

The word choice is this:

quote:

I disagree.

It is a fact that the Spit cannot BnZ the Fw until the cows come home. It's not my opinion. You can take this personal or not, I don't care, you posted something wrong. If the Fw does not want to get BnZ'ed anymore, it's over for the Spit.

Dogfight channel video. Bud Anderson/Mustang in a zoom climb vertical contest with a 109..

Half way into the video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

quote:

So you don't understand. A simple no would have been enough.

Arron_GT,

Can I respond to that statement with words that intend to convey my preference for accuracy and discussion rather than a preference for inaccuracy and censorship?

I can edit this response as needed.

quote:

It gets more complex because to the simple drag/weight relation of the unpowered zoom we get power/weight and power/drag factors, which, unlike drag/weight, are very inconsistent with the altitude.

I would like to respond to that with more than a yes or no response. I would like to say that the outcome is my concern because that is less complex for this particular topic, however I am more than happy to discuss the complexity here and now or somewhere else and later (depending upon moderation limits).

quote:

As for the vertical zoom climbs, the reason they were rarely used are:
- rarely useful in combat
- quite dangerous in combat
- technical problems

That appears to be an explanation for something. If I am included in this part of the discussion, rather than that explanation being meant for the general audience, my preference is for data supporting the relative popularity of vertical maneuvering rather than an explanation for the relative popularity of vertical maneuvering.

I can offer, again, one more (of many more) reference to vertical maneuvering and please note that this quote falls under the heading of data in support of the relative frequency of vertical maneuvering in real combat.

quote:

It also happened at this time that my friend “Leo” got himself a broomstick and, sitting on a stool, simulated evasive maneuvers. Half roll and dive, increase speed, fighter turn, vertical climb to more than 2,000 m and try hard to get on the enemy’s tail. When I laughed at this he said: “If you continue to take your life so philosophically you won’t be doing it in this outfit much longer!”

At this time, I suppose, the general feeling may be a fashionable conviction that I am “being a smart a-s-s” to which I can deny for Christ’s sake because it won’t do me any good. Such is the nature of on-line data transfer.

quote:

The problem is that the results of these power on zoom climb tests fail to make a clear statement "this plane is better than that".

That is why my original offer was my personal experience with the 109F-2 versus the many Hurricanes. I can describe that track file with words.

About 7 of us (4./JG53 and JG_14) were warming up in Spits and 109s before the Forgotten Skies event and I happened to be all alone (we try harder to stick together during the on-line war event) over three Hurricanes near their base.

The other members of our combined squad were listening to my report of the lower and slower Hurricanes and they expressed an eagerness to join in on the fun. I was not as eager to have them join in at that initial moment because my experience is such that I knew that I was holding enough cards to make at least three passes on these guys. By the time the first squad mate made it to the scene I had two Hurricanes smoking and even then there was no need for us to employ dragging maneuvers. It was still a case of ducks in a pond.

To suggest, as one might, that I could do that same type of track file recording while flying an Fw190A-4 against any Spitfire is missing the point.

I was offering, in my experience, a clear example of a plane that holds a zoom climbing advantage over another plane.

To go about testing the relative zoom climbing performance differences between the Fw190A-4 versus the Spitfire VB (the best or even not the best one of those Spitfires), to me, is bound to be a close measure simply because they are close in that type of performance unless, of course, the zoom climb of the Fw190 begins at a speed above the speed of the Spitfire VB, even so, the Spitfire VB, according to my experience with that mach-up, is libel to get in an effective shot. The Hurricane is not as likely able to get the shot and not as likely against the 109F-2. The 109F-2 does not have the “Bleed energy like a stuck pig” effect.

quote:

It is a fact that the Spit cannot BnZ the Fw until the cows come home.

JtD, respectfully, you are attaching a literal meaning to a figure of speech. Why? What is the point? Will you stop if I confess to something?

I am wrong!

Of course I am wrong.

The cows never come home.

I’m not sure as to what I am supposed to confess here; should my confession be that the cows do come home?

quote:

If the Fw does not want to get BnZ'ed anymore, it's over for the Spit.

That is half of the relationship. The other half is: If the Spitfire does not want to get BnZ’ed anymore, it’s over for the Fw. The Spitfire merely climbs away.

I’ve already confessed to not knowing about the ceiling advantage of the Fw190A-4. Thanks for that data. I would like to see, someday, if that advantage is a usable one. I am not able to see that it is a usable advantage. I am not able to see that it is not a usable advantage. The two fighters, as far as I know, are equally capable of BnZing each other.

I can confess to knowing that much. Proving it is possible.

I take your point, Josf. It isn't the Oxford Union, though and "Actually, no" is at least much less than we had previously on the thread!

Please everyone try to be relatively polite, and relax a little! It's been a fraught thread, but there's some useful information coming out, so let's keep it going.

quote:

I would like to respond to that with more than a yes or no response.

Which is entirely reasonable.

quote:

As for the vertical zoom climbs, the reason they were rarely used are:
- rarely useful in combat
- quite dangerous in combat
- technical problems

Not sure about this. Vertical manauvers with a E-fighter can be very useful. A plane can turn much quicker in the vertical plane then the horizontal.

This is how I fight spits with the 109 btw. All vertical diving and climbing zoom climbs manauvers..

Vertical zoom climbs are useful only if the intended target does not move a lot in the horizontal.

It is dangerous because on the top of the zoom climb you are going very slow.

Technical problems for instance related to gravity dependent lubrication, which was not uncommon.

You wouldn't do that often in combat.

Eventually, there is a reason zoom climb tests were done at angles of around 30°. It reflected common combat situations far better than a vertical zoom.

Getting to stall speed in combat at the top of the zoom would be very dangerous unless you knew that there were no higher opponents around.

Climbing straight, and then returning to the battle might leave you a long way out of the combat zone and not enough help to comrades.

For this reason I can see how a good zoom (to get the initial separation which allows you to choose what to do next), plus the ability to do a spiral climb at a relatively high climb speed would be good. It's a harder target to hit than just a straight climbing plane, but keeps in the general combat zone.

quote:

Eventually, there is a reason zoom climb tests were done at angles of around 30°. It reflected common combat situations far better than a vertical zoom.

As politely as possible: Can the above statement be supported with supporting data?

Example:

quote:

With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and when pulling up into a climb the superior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive the Fw.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Is there any data available that can identify the angle of climb used in that test and is there any data available that can explain the reasoning behind the angle used in that test.

quote:

Not sure about this. Vertical manauvers with a E-fighter can be very useful. A plane can turn much quicker in the vertical plane then the horizontal.

This is how I fight spits with the 109 btw. All vertical diving and climbing zoom climbs manauvers..

That is also my experience. The ability to increase turn rate and decrease turn radius with a hammerhead (gravity assisted) turn can be both useful and satisfying.

I remember a fight with a Yak a while ago when the Fw190A models had their happy time (for some reason that patch allowed the Fw180As to retain energy better than the previous and better than the next patch). I was curious about the relative zoom ability since the patch just then updated. I’m not sure which dog fight server it was and I do remember that the opponent was familiar to me (perhaps icons were on but probably not).

The fight turned out to be about 5 successive zoom climb tests where we both merged cold and pitched straight up. This turned out to be more like a vertical scissors fight and therefore it was not a true (unloaded) effort to reach the highest possible altitude. The series of zoom contests were followed by my effort to extend, turn around after leaving the Yak behind, and repeat the effort.

During those types of fights the Yak’s ability to out-turn the Fw190 is negated since both planes are nearly equal at rotating around the center of gravity in a stalling turn. Those are some fun fights for sure and reading or watching similar vertical fights on YouTube is neat.

Listening to Bud Anderson is priceless (not necessarily cost-less).

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Understand I am not very familiar with how things work in IL2. My comments are IAW the actual aircraft designs.

I have noticed that IL2 is somewhat different to what was going on IRL (especially pointing to this Spitfire V vs FW-190A4 case) so actual in-game experience may be more or less different than RL.

I have Osprey Spitfire V Aces of WW2 and there is full page of comparison between FW-190A4 and Spitfire V... in short the only advantage Spitfire had according to this comparison is turn .

quote:

Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor:
My experience online is that in most cases when FW driver wants to be smart vs Spitfire, he ends up in the dirt.
Focke Wulf on even terms simply can not combat maneuver vs Spitfire that has smart pilot in cockpit.
That's why most simply fly away and get back when they have an advantage.

DKoor,

That is also my experience, however I have yet to notice a ceiling advantage with the Fw190A-4 against all Spitfire V models in the game as reported by JtD in which case the fight would then be different from a fight where the Spitfire and the Fw190 are under both of their ceilings.

Track files showing a fight between an Fw190A-4 using the ceiling advantage over any Spitfire VB would be neat to watch.

What you say is probably right since... well check out the noted service ceiling; Spitfire actually has higher ceiling;

...and so far I have no reason not to believe this.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirlin_Merlin:

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor:
Focke Wulf on even terms simply can not combat maneuver vs Spitfire that has smart pilot in cockpit.
That's why most simply fly away and get back when they have an advantage.

What happens if the Spitfire V tries to fly away and come back when it has an advantage?

Not possible in most cases after the merge... Focke will reverse his escape path and therefore pursue the Spitfire V which is now in extremely bad position; Focke Wulf can follow (unlike Bf-109) most maneuvers performed by a Spitfire V in this cases - they are usually high speed maneuvers.

However, if Spitfire tries his luck in low speed hard turn smart FW pilot will just climb away and do the hammerhead.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirlin_Merlin:
My experience from being on both ends is that FW rips the Spit to bits.

Of course this isn't unusual due to Focke having excessive speed advantage and heck of a firepower... but still, I can say that (in my experience) any FW pilot that underestimates Spitfire usually ends up in the dirt. I saw that zillion of times...

quote:

Originally posted by Whirlin_Merlin:
However artifically constrict the fight so the FW has to play it on the Spit's terms and yep the Spit will kill the FW.

From my PoV it's a simple matter, really...
If Spitfire notices FW-190 at lower altitude firewalls the throttle and dives onto him... well no need for any artificial moves: FW can only shallow dive and the math is clear.

If that isn't enough to pull away from Spit the only thing left to do is a quick grace.

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor: I can say that (in my experience) any FW pilot that underestimates Spitfire usually ends up in the dirt. I saw that zillion of times...

Too true, mind you it also happens to 109s that underestimate the Hurricane. Okay well maybe not a zillion time .

DKoor, in game ceiling of the A-4 is around 12 km.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor: I can say that (in my experience) any FW pilot that underestimates Spitfire usually ends up in the dirt. I saw that zillion of times...

Too true, mind you it also happens to 109s that underestimate the Hurricane.

That has something to do with the subject we were discussing...?
109 vs Hurricane?

quote:

Okay well maybe not a zillion time .

So you have witnessed that many times online...or...?
What is it that you're trying to say lol?

quote:

Originally posted by JtD:
DKoor, in game ceiling of the A-4 is around 12 km.

Thanks for the info.
TBH I never climbed with either Spitfire or FW-190 to the top of their service ceilings.

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor:

quote:

Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor: I can say that (in my experience) any FW pilot that underestimates Spitfire usually ends up in the dirt. I saw that zillion of times...

Too true, mind you it also happens to 109s that underestimate the Hurricane.

That has something to do with the subject we were discussing...?
109 vs Hurricane?

quote:

Okay well maybe not a zillion time .

So you have witnessed that many times online...or...?
What is it that you're trying to say lol?

.

Yes I have seen that many times online, if you want to know.

Is there any relevence not really of course I supose the 109 out zooms the hurricane (see thread title no mention of only FW and Spits there).

Anyway I have no interest in a silly Ubi argument right now, heck I think was even agreeing with you and then just having a wee jolly, the smiley thingie was the clue.

Nighty night night.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor:

quote:

Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor: I can say that (in my experience) any FW pilot that underestimates Spitfire usually ends up in the dirt. I saw that zillion of times...

Too true, mind you it also happens to 109s that underestimate the Hurricane.

That has something to do with the subject we were discussing...?
109 vs Hurricane?

quote:

Okay well maybe not a zillion time .

So you have witnessed that many times online...or...?
What is it that you're trying to say lol?

.

Yes I have seen that many times online, if you want to know.

Is there any relevence not really of course I supose the 109 out zooms the hurricane (see thread title no mention of only FW and Spits there).

Anyway I have no interest in a silly Ubi argument right now, heck I think was even agreeing with you and then just having a wee jolly, the smiley thingie was the clue.

Nighty night night.

I think that deserves ... +1.

I've seen quite a few test reports where the angle of the zoom climb was specified or could be determined/estimated and the highest I have found so far were 45°.

I have not read a zoom climb test where the angle of the zoom climb was specified 90° or it could be derived that it must have been that much.

quote:

I've seen quite a few test reports where the angle of the zoom climb was specified or could be determined/estimated and the highest I have found so far were 45°.

I have not read a zoom climb test where the angle of the zoom climb was specified 90° or it could be derived that it must have been that much.

TtD,

If there is an argument, which I detest, concerning the employment of zoom climbs in combat, then my suggestion is to argue with people who have communicated their version of using zoom climbs in combat.

I can offer versions where I’ve noticed words written by combat pilots who describe how vertical zoom climbs are used in combat.

I have versions from the following authors:

John Boyd (written in his work titled “Arial Attack Study”)
Robert Shaw (described in detail in his work titled “Fighter Combat”)
Robert S. Johnson (quoted in “Fighter Combat” by Robert Shaw)
Leo Klatt (quoted in this thread from the book linked)
Bud Anderson (video record in this thread)
Norbert Hannig (in his auto-biography)

I can recheck other works to find similar examples of the use of vertical zoom climbs in combat.

If the argument intends to prove a specific angle of zoom climb in any combat situation then there is a specific indicator of climb angle in the fact that the combat situation describes a gravity assisted turn during or just before a stall at the top of the zoom climb. If the angle of zoom climb is insufficient (too shallow) to cause a stall, then the situation, in that specific situation, is not a zoom climb of sufficient angle to cause a stall.

If the combat situation describes one plane stalling and than falling straight down onto another plane, then the climb angle indicated by that description is a purely vertical zoom climb.

If the word “vertical” is use in the description of the zoom climb, then the zoom climb could be a vertical angle of zoom climb rather than a shallower, less vertical, zoom climb angle.

If the argument is such that the official tests for zoom climb are determined by some specific reason, then the argument could gain support with specific quotes of specific officials specifically stating their reasons for determining a specific climb angle for official zoom climb tests.


If the idea is to find out the true reasoning behind the employment of zoom climbs in fighter combat at various angles of zoom climb, then I can offer the following description:

quote:

RSJ: I would pull the nose straight up into a vertical rolling spiral, usually to the left. You would stall out, but so would the guy behind you. That killed his advantage.

CCJ: So, what you are describing sounds like a rolling hammerhead stall, right?

RSJ: That's a pretty good description.

CCJ: So what happens next?

RSJ: Well, the enemy would stall first because the Jug's mass allowed to retain its,

CCJ: Energy?

RSJ: Yes, energy. The P-47's mass allowed it to retain its energy better and it stalled a few seconds after the enemy plane. The German would snap over and head down. Except, now I was right behind him and there was no getting away.

CCJ: Wouldn't he still be directly behind you?

RSJ: No. Pulling up so suddenly always caught them by surprise. The second or two that it took for them to react took care of that.

CCJ: Why did you roll?

RSJ: Because that killed my speed faster than the enemy if he didn't, which gained me the advantage of being to his rear as he zoomed up. If he rolled too, that also worked to my advantage because it killed his speed faster than mine.

CCJ: So, you would get the advantage no matter what, if the German also pulled up into a vertical climb. What if he didn't follow?

RSJ: Then he would just fly by. If he still wanted to fight, he could extend out and turn around, but I would be waiting for him. If he turned either left or right, I would be on him in a few seconds.

CCJ: The smart Germans just kept on going when you pulled up.

RSJ: I never ran across one smart enough to keep going. They all tried to follow.

I do not have the original source.

I can offer my own interpretation of those words and I can offer, again, my observation that the angle of zoom was not shallow. What would be the point?

quote:

If the argument intends to prove a specific angle of zoom climb in any combat situation

I don't think anyone is suggesting this. To me the issue is what manoeuver was most commonly used in combat, and what was tested.

I would guess that iven the important thing was to provide guidance to combat pilotd the typical tests would fall into two camps: tests of the typical combat experience directly; tests from which such information could be derived.