PDA

View Full Version : turning speed into advantage V's better climbing plane



thefruitbat
09-05-2006, 04:46 PM
Ok, this is something thats been bothering me for a while. I dont think that i am particuarly good at translating speed into as an effective advantage as i could be.

I've been messing around in a P51d for a bit and was flying against 2 veteran g6 lates for practise. Basically my normal method is to shallow climb away from the 109, as a steep climb is obviously suicide, This is fine, i gain seperation and height, but obviously heading away from my pursuing enemies. Now, the ai tends to try and match your altitude so the 109s climb, the differnce being that my airpeed is much higher.

When i feel that i have enough seperation i split s and reverse on them, knowing i carry more speed, at same height. I then go guns defense past them, and reverse in the vertical hoping to use my E advantage to gain a favourable position.

To be fair, this works quite well, but it does give the enemy a chance to hit me, as i go guns defence. I'm sure there must be a better way to do this without having to take this risk. Yes i know risk happens, but i can use the climb advantage in the 109 to enable me to not let the 51's get a shot on me in the reverse matchup.

I find it much easier to translate a climb advantage into a tactical advantage than i do speed, and for along time rated climb to be better than speed, although not now. Speed gives you the option to fight when you want to, and to leave when you want to, not to be sniffed at!

Basically, i'm just looking for pointers and advice on how to learn to use speed better, any advice welcome.

cheers fruitbat

thefruitbat
09-05-2006, 04:46 PM
Ok, this is something thats been bothering me for a while. I dont think that i am particuarly good at translating speed into as an effective advantage as i could be.

I've been messing around in a P51d for a bit and was flying against 2 veteran g6 lates for practise. Basically my normal method is to shallow climb away from the 109, as a steep climb is obviously suicide, This is fine, i gain seperation and height, but obviously heading away from my pursuing enemies. Now, the ai tends to try and match your altitude so the 109s climb, the differnce being that my airpeed is much higher.

When i feel that i have enough seperation i split s and reverse on them, knowing i carry more speed, at same height. I then go guns defense past them, and reverse in the vertical hoping to use my E advantage to gain a favourable position.

To be fair, this works quite well, but it does give the enemy a chance to hit me, as i go guns defence. I'm sure there must be a better way to do this without having to take this risk. Yes i know risk happens, but i can use the climb advantage in the 109 to enable me to not let the 51's get a shot on me in the reverse matchup.

I find it much easier to translate a climb advantage into a tactical advantage than i do speed, and for along time rated climb to be better than speed, although not now. Speed gives you the option to fight when you want to, and to leave when you want to, not to be sniffed at!

Basically, i'm just looking for pointers and advice on how to learn to use speed better, any advice welcome.

cheers fruitbat

tigertalon
09-05-2006, 04:59 PM
Zoom climbing is wrong IMO (the 'energy retention' thread may help) that's why BnZ planes don't have the historical advantages over the TnB ones. It can still be just me...

JG14_Josf
09-05-2006, 05:22 PM
In my opinion:

What is being described is:

The Sustained Turn Technique

A detailed description of the Sustained Turn Technique can be found in:

Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw

The idea is to extend and return after the first merge.

Then:

Lure the opponent into turning hard to get a shot on you as you pass by during the second merge.

Then:

Use your extra speed (because he turned hard and burned his speed) to zoom much higher than the target.

Then:

Use your advantage of altitude separate to hammerhead (turn by gravity = very fast turn rate and very small turn radius = hammer head or wing over) and drop onto the enemy who by now is trying to climb to your altitude and is now stalling.

A few pointers if you are interested:

Make your turn around after the first pass and after the extension (run away in a shallow climb, level, or dive) at no more than vertical maneuvering speed (500 km/h minimum in the game for some planes). Keep that speed in the turn by turning nose low (turning in a dive burns too much energy).

After the turn (or during the turn depending on how far back the target is) make sure that the next merge is forcing the target into a tight, nose low, lead turn. To do this it is required that the target is led. In other words: you lead the target by flying toward and then away from the target slightly. This part is hard to understand (by me) but it works. It takes practice. Go head-on at first and then move off by 10 degrees and watch the target turn into your path. Keep turning more and more away from the target if needed or more and more into the target if needed: it takes practice. Turn more or less away from the merge to keep the target turning harder (it is a function of geometry).

Then:

Try to keep speed at 500 km/h or lower well before the merge and then drop the nose to get the zoom speed (vertical maneuvering speed) and at the same time force the target to split S for the shot on you. Only give enough angles to the target to lure the target into thinking he can get the shot but no more. This takes practice too.

Then:

Zoom

When it is done right (and the plane match-up allows) the target will be turning hard in a nose low turn and burning lots of energy trying to shoot you while you are zooming up with energy to spare.

Next:

Spiral almost straight up and watch the target. Keep just ahead of the targets nose by barrel rolling straight up. Turn behind the target if that makes sense; like trying to aim your lift vector behind the target.

As soon as the Target stops following the roll around then:

Kick the rudder and roll the lift vector onto the target for a diving pass. When it works just right the target is almost motionless as your plane descends right down into his cockpit.

I think you already have the basics.

The key is in accurately knowing relative energy states so try this out on targets that are known to be lower and slower at the start.

Make a pass and then try the Sustained Turn Technique on known slower and lower targets first.

If you can get good at forcing the target to burn energy then you can move onto targets with equal energy states on the first merge.

If the target hangs back and does not go in for the kill on the second merge (the one where you lead the target into turning hard), then, get out of dodge with a nose low extension. That target is not a target. The A.I. are all targets.

That is my opinion.

Kuna_
09-05-2006, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
I've been messing around in a P51d for a bit and was flying against 2 veteran g6 lates for practise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Energy tactic does not work against Ai in most cases.

I can show you few tracks where I've ridled enemy Ai with bullets (more precise FW-190D '45, me in P-47D27 and so on) and he has not only separated (shallow dive), but also climbed away from me! And I absolutely couldn't catch up with the plane with ridled wings, fuel leak etc.
Now if that FW-190D was human manned, he couldn't outrun/outclimb ANYTHING late war, he would be barely flying.

Only extremes do work well in game vs. Ai. By extremes I mean take P-47D on 7500m vs. A6M5 and you will do whatever you are pleased with him. But only such extreme set ups do work well (where your plane is significantly faster than Ai).


Energy and "6th sense" (when bullets are fired on him) are two biggest Ai flaws of the game.

Versus humans things are quite different.

Also when you make a pass on enemy a/c, try not to climb sharply immediatelly after you buzzed by him. If you've missed sometimes he will have an opportunity to put you in his crosshairs. That has happened to me, and if the guy is a good shot he can completely turn the tables! The best way is to separate ASAP then climb away. That way he will have 2-3 seconds chance of hitting you, and TBH one must be really good player to spot you and to hit that chance.

staticline1
09-05-2006, 08:30 PM
[/QUOTE]
Energy tactic does not work against Ai in most cases.

I can show you few tracks where I've ridled enemy Ai with bullets (more precise FW-190D '45, me in P-47D27 and so on) and he has not only separated (shallow dive), but also climbed away from me! And I absolutely couldn't catch up with the plane with ridled wings, fuel leak etc.
Now if that FW-190D was human manned, he couldn't outrun/outclimb ANYTHING late war, he would be barely flying.

Only extremes do work well in game vs. Ai. By extremes I mean take P-47D on 7500m vs. A6M5 and you will do whatever you are pleased with him. But only such extreme set ups do work well (where your plane is significantly faster than Ai).


Energy and "6th sense" (when bullets are fired on him) are two biggest Ai flaws of the game.

Versus humans things are quite different.

Also when you make a pass on enemy a/c, try not to climb sharply immediatelly after you buzzed by him. If you've missed sometimes he will have an opportunity to put you in his crosshairs. That has happened to me, and if the guy is a good shot he can completely turn the tables! The best way is to separate ASAP then climb away. That way he will have 2-3 seconds chance of hitting you, and TBH one must be really good player to spot you and to hit that chance.[/QUOTE]


Yep, fricken AI cheats like hell. That for me is probably the biggest immursion killer in this sim, hope it get fixed in BoB.

Kurfurst__
09-06-2006, 07:28 AM
One tactic with faster planes is to climb away at high speed as you do.

A simple example, if the G-6 is doing 530 kph at SL, and the P-51 some 580 or so, climbing away at 530 means the G-6 has zero excess thrust, ie. can't climb at all, climb rate = 0. The otherwise worser climbing P-51 can outclimb it.

Classic example is the Me 262, which's peak climb rate is quite good, but not better than the best. HOWEVER, the 262 climbs best at around 450 kph/IAS, which is faster than the top speed of some, and is about twice the airspeed than most piston engined figters, typically around 270 IAS.

Typically, Climb speed (vertical) vs. Airspeed (horizontal axis) relates as below. There's an optimum speed, and it falls down apart from that, and reaches zero at a, Stall speed b, Max level speed. This can be exploited by simple flying above the enemy's limits, if he's slower than you, for example.

m/sec
__
I / \
I / \
I / \
I / \
0--I---I---I---I---I---I-- IAS

Kuna_
09-06-2006, 07:54 AM
That is usefull info. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

whiteladder
09-06-2006, 09:01 AM
What would be the best climb speed for a fw 190 A4 for example when faced with a Spitfire Mk.Vc (4 cannons)?

The a4 has higher speed than this spit, but lower climb rate, what climb speed would the optimum to gain seperation?

Kurfurst__
09-06-2006, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:
What would be the best climb speed for a fw 190 A4 for example when faced with a Spitfire Mk.Vc (4 cannons)?

The a4 has higher speed than this spit, but lower climb rate, what climb speed would the optimum to gain seperation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, what's the Spit's top speed at alt in IAS? I believe the SL speed is really lowish, sub-500? Maybe 460 kph?

Well, you can experiment, but as the rule of thumb, if he's top speed is say 460, and yours is 560 at Sea Level, climb at 460. He can't climb AT ALL at that speed - all of his engine power is used up for to achieve that level flight speed.. while in your case, you probably have hundreds and hundreds of excess HPs to be put to good use in a climb at the same speed.

mynameisroland
09-06-2006, 09:16 AM
What if you are in a Fw 190 A5 and your opponent is the Spitfire IX then effectively the speed diffeence in marginal to non existant at most heights on the deck its 570 km/h vs 540 km/h

tigertalon
09-06-2006, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
A simple example, if the G-6 is doing 530 kph at SL, and the P-51 some 580 or so, climbing away at 530 means the G-6 has zero excess thrust, ie. can't climb at all, climb rate = 0. The otherwise worser climbing P-51 can outclimb it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if G6 is n00b enough not to slow down and climb faster at a steeper angle, and then dare the P51 come back.

There is no way you can outclimb a well flown G6 with P-51.

whiteladder
09-06-2006, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, you can experiment, but as the rule of thumb, if he's top speed is say 460, and yours is 560 at Sea Level, climb at 460. He can't climb AT ALL at that speed - all of his engine power is used up for to achieve that level flight speed.. while in your case, you probably have hundreds and hundreds of excess HPs to be put to good use in a climb at the same speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Duh I must be simple!!!

Thanks Kurfurst that does make perfect sense!
I think at low alt that model spit does around 470 against the a4 with 548 so plenty to play with, up to 6000M where it is 602/640(thats not IAS but ground) they are the ball park figure from Hardballs viewer.

I had this situation last night on a server, I and a spit spent about 15-20 minutes trying to get an advantage against each other. After each merge he couldn`t close the seperation and I couldn`t get enough of a alt advantage to work the angles. Might go looking for him tonight!

Viper2005_
09-06-2006, 09:33 AM
You have a huge advantage over the G6 late.

In the P-51D you maximise that advantage at about 3500 m in MS gear, and about 7500 m in FS gear.

You should always fly fast. Try a full power climb at about 450 km/h IAS. That way you'll gain either horizontal or vertical separation.

Try to climb up to 8 km or so. That way his climb rate advantage is minimised, and if he uses it, he only reduces his overall performance. At high altitude the P-51 is almost unbeatable.

faustnik
09-06-2006, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:
What would be the best climb speed for a fw 190 A4 for example when faced with a Spitfire Mk.Vc (4 cannons)?

The a4 has higher speed than this spit, but lower climb rate, what climb speed would the optimum to gain seperation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In PF, the rule of thumb is to remain above 400kph in the climb. You can go as low as 350 kph, but, at that point the Spit will start gaining on you. Remember in PF to use the horizontal not the vertical to extend. Use a very shallow climb angle, not a steep one. This only works with the A4 vs. Vb. Against the Spit IX you must be over 500kph to have a climb advantage.

Same thing with the F4U against the zero.

whiteladder
09-06-2006, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PF to use the horizontal not the vertical to extend </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I normally do, but like I said last night I got into a stalemate, the guy in the spit was good and refused to go head to head on each pass. He had just enough angle each merge to to stop me making a snap shot. I think he was hoping I would go into his world and try to get a tracking shot. I tended to extend nose low to gain seperation, must admit I was afraid to climb believing he would have the advantage.

thefruitbat
09-06-2006, 10:48 AM
thanks for all the replies.

I know the ai cheats, but i just accept that at the moment, although i'm hoping it will change to a mix somewhere in between 4.02ai and the present ai. I do like the fact that they will B&Z you rlentlessly if they are in a sutible plane to do so, which they never used to, but energy fighting does highlight some of the more 'unfair' ai traits, such as no overheat, climbing at near stall speed with there nose pointing nigh on vertical, just to flop down gently and recover.

The method i described is the only way that i can defeat the ai using my speed advantage over them, although it is not the only way i can fight them of course.

What i should of added to the discription in the first post, is when i pass them first time, and i go 'guns defense', i dont try to shoot them at all, i make the pass slightly off from one side, tuning slightly into them, and diving under there nose, so to hit they have to manuver in the vertical and horrozontal to get me. Also if its a human player, they will have to push down much more than me to make an effective delflection shot, as i dissapear under the cockpit, again burning more e, and while there pointing down i'm already reversing in the vertical.

Now most of the time i can perform this quite effectivley, and 9 times out of 10 the ai and humans to a certain extent will keep turning as they have already iniaitated the turn, while i am now manuvering to attack where they are going to be. But it is still a risky affair and i dont always get it right, with generally bad results http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif, although v 2 veteran ai i'll normally alwasys win.

Its irritating that i can do it v 4 ace ai if i fly cockpit off, icons on, because i can always keep them just out of reach, and can fly much more 'on the limit', in the sense that every move that i make is minimal to reduce e drain, as i dont have to waste energy looking around all the time.

I can also fly to a certain extent against 4 ace ai, on realistic settings, if i'm not actually that worried about shooting them down, I can mix it up with them, and can normally keep a slight e advantage, but to get a shot i have to more often than not blow this, so endless sparing begins... (i've done this till i've run out of fuel before). This is the problem, i cant translate this slight advantage into a killing advantage.

If i'm flying a 190 instead, i use the same tactics, but it is much easier because you dont have to be anywhere near on target as long as you do with the 50's in the 51, nor do i have to particuarly bother about the range i shoot at (within reason).

I do think that from reading some of the replies that maybe i'm still not carrying quite as much speed as maybe i could, but this stems from the fact that by the time the ememy planes are more than a klick away they are just a tiny dot, so i dont think i seperate as much as i should. I also think this is why i generally prefer early war flying as both the vertical and horrozontal seperations in a dog fight are much closer.

Quote JG14_Josf:

"Spiral almost straight up and watch the target. Keep just ahead of the targets nose by barrel rolling straight up. Turn behind the target if that makes sense; like trying to aim your lift vector behind the target.

As soon as the Target stops following the roll around then:

Kick the rudder and roll the lift vector onto the target for a diving pass. When it works just right the target is almost motionless as your plane descends right down into his cockpit."

I'm not quite sure i'm following this properly, I feel quite ignorant here now, but when you say roll the lift vector, what excatly do you mean? Also by spiraling straight up, cant the persuing plane 'cut the corners' and use less e in following? Thinking as i type, i guess that dosent matter so much if you enter the manuver with a big e advantage to start with??

On a different note, i've been thinking about trying to get hold of a copy of Robert Shaws book for a while now, its sounds like it could be a very usefull read.

Cheers fruitbat

JG14_Josf
09-06-2006, 01:10 PM
Eastern Skies IL2 Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/%7Echapman/il2guide/tracks.htm)

On the above web page are a few track files hosted by Michapma.

I've tried to explain Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique (which is much like what you describe in your words) in a training track file called Energy Game.

The file can be played on current versions of the game (last time I checked) as a regular track file. The file can also be loaded up as a training file however it is required that the viewer places the text file in the appropriate place - etc. (instructions are on Michapma's page).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not quite sure i'm following this properly, I feel quite ignorant here now, but when you say roll the lift vector, what excatly do you mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may be better to think in terms of velocity vector. Simply: Think in terms of where you intend to get your plane some time in the future.

Back up some:

You do not allow the opponent to get a head-on shot. You do that already. You also force the opponent to change his vector down if the opponent wants to try for a shot that you won't let him have. Since you are already good at this, then, the idea is to get better at it; of course. The more you make your plane look like a good target the more the opponent will burn energy trying to get the shot he can't have; of course the danger is that you get shot.

So...

The opponent (who is now a target) goes nose low to get you as you are going nose high (when the set-up is done right, then, you have a lot of extra energy on this the second pass - after the sustained turn).

The target has to turn from nose low to nose high to begin the process of hanging on his prop as the target tries to shoot at you. In other words you have forced him to burn the most energy he can possible have to burn and you have done so while you are busy trading all your excess energy into almost all altitude at the very time (when you and the target pass each other) the target has yet to burn his energy down and up.

You are going up and looking back to see if the target takes the bait while the target has yet to turn around and start zooming at you.

Where do you point your plane in relation to his plane?

The idea is to give the target something similar to a shot by getting your plane right in front of his plane. To do this easily and keep track of the target it is vital that you choose a straight up vector right over the predicted place where the target will be zooming up after his turn.

This is where practice really helps. When it works right it goes something like this:

The target passes.

His shoots at you and the tracers go harmlessly behind your plane.

The target is nose low and showing vapor.

You pitch up quickly and aim your nose quickly straight up, as straight up as possible, and guess where the target will be when the target is going to be pointing up.

Now unload the elevator = gain the most altitude.

Important: Make sure you lag your guess. In other words predict behind the target rather than directly on front of the target.

In other words:

As the target passed (the second merge) left to right slightly and mostly straight down - you change vector as fast as possible to a straight up vector and then unload the elevator once going straight up.

Where is the target?

While zooming straight up you look back and start rolling around. Let's say you roll around 90 degrees and find the target.

What just happened?

You went straight up over the beginning of his turn or, in other words, behind his turn, in other words, off the center of his turn radius.

That is why you rolled 90 degrees to find him.

He has to turn all the way around to get back to your upward trajectory.

Now you see the target move his nose closer and closer to your plane.

By this time the target and your plane are dumping velocity fast. It is now vital to pick a new trajectory that is going to place your plane behind the target, or in other words, to set up your hammerhead out of the reach of his guns and, at the same time, make it seem to the target as if he can make the shot.

If you did your Sustained Turn well enough and you know for sure that the target will run out of energy first, then, and if you guessed at the right unloaded trajectory straight up, and if you change your next trajectory just right, then, the target will go for the shot and shoot harmlessly behind your plane right as your plane is hammering around.

The target will be stalled out and hanging hopelessly, without any control, while you drop down right into his cockpit.

Again: it is vital to think in terms of pointing your plane directly above the target and this takes practice. It does help to do this in two stages. The first stage is an unloaded zoom (relatively unloaded as you roll and add minor elevator corrections) straight up and behind the target (over the place where the target tried to shoot at you in the last merge = behind the center of his radius).

Second stage:

Redirect your unloaded zoom as the target begins to aim at your plane. If it is done right in the first stage, then, you have made the target zoom less than straight up to get aimed at you and now you go over the top of his flight path (behind the targets flight path) and force him to try to pull lead straight up.

That places your plane directly over the targets plane. The target plane can't pull straight up (when it is done right). Your plane doesn't have to change vector much as gravity takes you straight down onto the target.

If you check out the training track file you will see how important it is to keep track of your airspeed. Going too fast is bad because that extra speed could be used to gain altitude. Too slow is bad because the target will gain angles too fast.

If you read Shaw, then, everything may become a clear as a bell.

I'm just a gamer.

thefruitbat
09-06-2006, 01:51 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Thank you JG14_Josf, thats a great explination, off to have a look at the track now, as well as look around the site, can't believe i've not stumbled on this one before. Once again thank you.

cheers fruitbat.

faustnik
09-06-2006, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PF to use the horizontal not the vertical to extend </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I normally do, but like I said last night I got into a stalemate, the guy in the spit was good and refused to go head to head on each pass. He had just enough angle each merge to to stop me making a snap shot. I think he was hoping I would go into his world and try to get a tracking shot. I tended to extend nose low to gain seperation, must admit I was afraid to climb believing he would have the advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, what I said was confusing. When I said horizontal, I meant a shallow climb. A lot of people try to apply the steep vertical climbs described in some historical accounts in PF, this gets you killed. So, think shallow, high-speed climb.

If you start equal E, as long as you keep your speed above 400kph you will outclimb the Spit Vb. If you have gained substantial seperation, you can quickly perform a split-S and make a pass. He will try to evade, but, because you have bled off his speed, he has less ability to get out of your way. You make your pass without turning hard. If he pulls hard away just let him go, while you repeat the shallow climb. So, what you are doing is forcing him further and further below you and giving yourself a greater advantage.

Or you could get a wing man to shoot the cr*p out him when he tried to evade you. That's the best tactic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
09-06-2006, 10:20 PM
looking at il2c, a4 is faster than vb by 80kph-30kph depending on height.

sudoku1941
09-06-2006, 10:35 PM
I just have to add here...

the problems with Energy in this sim make B&Z much more dicey a proposition than it should be.

Sure, Shaw's climbing vector roll will work, as will some variations of shallow and not-so-shallow zoom climbs...under certain conditions...

but, and this is with human opponents (no sense in even discussing AI, since we know they are not subject to the same physics laws as the human pilots), because E-retention/bleed/whatever-you-wanna-refer-to-it-as is well OFF, you will find you "miscalculate" your energy advantage much more often in IL-2 than in any other sim I've flown. Actually, you don't really "miscalculate" it, it's just that your opponent doesn't pay the proper energy penalty for his evasives and gets more chances to raise his nose and squirt at you as you try to "work" your advantage and wear his e down to a nubbin.

I have been able to successfully work energy advantages many times in IL-2. But I've failed many more times, too, in situations where I'm pretty sure I had more of a cushion than the events bore out.

I've been at this long enough to know when I simply make a big mistake at estimating initial energy and pay the price for it. Makes me mad, and all that, but later, when I cool down, I can soberly admit "I sure screwed that one up". At the same time, I'm also honest enough to know when an energy advantage I couldn't convert into a kill was more the sim's fault than mine.

HellToupee
09-07-2006, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What if you are in a Fw 190 A5 and your opponent is the Spitfire IX then effectively the speed diffeence in marginal to non existant at most heights on the deck its 570 km/h vs 540 km/h </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the a5 holds that speed advantage from the deck to about 3000meters, from about 3000-4000 spit is faster but then at 5000 190s about 40kph faster and holds that till about 6000-7000 where speeds close. Its not marginal at all.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2006, 09:12 PM
I think the best thing to do once you have seperation and height, is to slowly pull yourself up/around (in the direction of the enemy, trying to get him directly below you) in a slight turn, so that you are losing airspeed, but forcing the enemy to do the same if he wants to keep his guns on you. As you start to stall and your nose falls below level, throttle back so that you slow yourself from falling too fast.

At this point the enemy should be appraoching some point straight below or near and have his nose almost straight up if he wants a shot.

Now you will stall and fall, but the enemy hsould be also out of speed and be stalling too.

You will both drop and you should have a easyish shot as he is flopping about or diving slowly hoping to regain speed. As you have a better energy fighter with a better dive you should catch him in the dive anyway.

You MUST have enough seperation to do this tho, if you dont then the enemy plane will hammer you in the stall.

Also remember that a veteran pilot will see this coming as soon as you start you climbing turn, and will try to ensure he doesnt stall first. Or maybe dive before he stalls if he thinks he wont be able to get the shot, (I often bug out when I see an enmy pulling this manouvre) and escape. But at least you have the height advantage now.

If there is a better way, I would like to know.

EDIT: I think Josef described the manouvre better than me, I should have read the whole thread before replying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff
09-08-2006, 12:05 AM
While all the tactics listed are all admirable and demonstrate a real grasp of E-fighting, I must say I'm surprised. I'm surprised that no one in all of this has mentioned the two most important aspects of a speed advantage:

1. With a speed advantage you can engage when you want, rather than when the bandit wants. i.e. unless you want to fight or the bandit catches you unawares you can pretty much disengage at will. What it translates to is, whenever you don't like the odds (too many opponents, opponent higher than you, too much E, too aware of your intentions) you can just go away and come back later. This works in the sim too so long as you don't subscribe to the furball 1v1 mentality. i.e. get airborne with a full tank of gas, and be patient. Sooner or later the kill will present itself on a platter as you swoop out of the clear blue sky from 8000m doing 750kph and blast him to smitherenes!

2. Wingman defence. There is nothing quite like dragging that hotshot pilot in his shiny new spit across the path of your equally fast wingman knowing full well the bandit hasn't a chance in hell of catching you. Sometimes I catch myself almost wagging my tail at prospective prey just to get them to bite. It's a satisfying and relatively easy kill, regardless of who's doing the shooting and who's the bait.

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What if you are in a Fw 190 A5 and your opponent is the Spitfire IX then effectively the speed diffeence in marginal to non existant at most heights on the deck its 570 km/h vs 540 km/h </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the a5 holds that speed advantage from the deck to about 3000meters, from about 3000-4000 spit is faster but then at 5000 190s about 40kph faster and holds that till about 6000-7000 where speeds close. Its not marginal at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was marginal in real life depending on if you believe RAF test reports or not. Taking your figures from IL2; when a Spitfire is even 500m higher than you he will be able to get in to guns range because he can build speed in a shallow dive until withing guns range. I think this is reasonable and probably accurate. If you think that the speed difference between these two planes is not marginal then you are either not a very good Spit IX pilot or you are flying in Fw 190 against not very good Spit pilots.

As for comparing the Fw 190s speed up at 7000m to the Spitfires, if the Fw 190 needs to turn even 30deg to get an angle the Spitfire instantly gains an advantage. The Fw 190 is fast in a straight line/dive if it deviates from this course and manuvers against a co energy Spitfire IX it will get shot down. I think that this is inaccurate because acceleration, climb and Energy retention are areas where the Fw 190 perform badly in relation to the Sitfire IX in this sim.

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 03:49 AM
FW190A's turn needs improving by 2 secs. Its undermodelled right now, if what I have read is correct.

Still an awesome fighter tho.

HellToupee
09-08-2006, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What if you are in a Fw 190 A5 and your opponent is the Spitfire IX then effectively the speed diffeence in marginal to non existant at most heights on the deck its 570 km/h vs 540 km/h </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the a5 holds that speed advantage from the deck to about 3000meters, from about 3000-4000 spit is faster but then at 5000 190s about 40kph faster and holds that till about 6000-7000 where speeds close. Its not marginal at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was marginal in real life depending on if you believe RAF test reports or not. Taking your figures from IL2; when a Spitfire is even 500m higher than you he will be able to get in to guns range because he can build speed in a shallow dive until withing guns range. I think this is reasonable and probably accurate. If you think that the speed difference between these two planes is not marginal then you are either not a very good Spit IX pilot or you are flying in Fw 190 against not very good Spit pilots.

As for comparing the Fw 190s speed up at 7000m to the Spitfires, if the Fw 190 needs to turn even 30deg to get an angle the Spitfire instantly gains an advantage. The Fw 190 is fast in a straight line/dive if it deviates from this course and manuvers against a co energy Spitfire IX it will get shot down. I think that this is inaccurate because acceleration, climb and Energy retention are areas where the Fw 190 perform badly in relation to the Sitfire IX in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

speed is speed, you dont have to be a super pilot to put it into practice. In game it poccesses more than marginal advantage at many heights.

If you think 190 that deviates more than 30deg loses then u must not be a very good 190 pilot.

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

If you think 190 that deviates more than 30deg loses then u must not be a very good 190 pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear a challenge!

Hellstoupee in a Spitfire IX vs Boemher in a FW190A http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Its ONNN

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 04:23 AM
Nah, its the other way round. Helltoupee in the 190 and Roland in the Spitfire.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What if you are in a Fw 190 A5 and your opponent is the Spitfire IX then effectively the speed diffeence in marginal to non existant at most heights on the deck its 570 km/h vs 540 km/h </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the a5 holds that speed advantage from the deck to about 3000meters, from about 3000-4000 spit is faster but then at 5000 190s about 40kph faster and holds that till about 6000-7000 where speeds close. Its not marginal at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was marginal in real life depending on if you believe RAF test reports or not. Taking your figures from IL2; when a Spitfire is even 500m higher than you he will be able to get in to guns range because he can build speed in a shallow dive until withing guns range. I think this is reasonable and probably accurate. If you think that the speed difference between these two planes is not marginal then you are either not a very good Spit IX pilot or you are flying in Fw 190 against not very good Spit pilots.

As for comparing the Fw 190s speed up at 7000m to the Spitfires, if the Fw 190 needs to turn even 30deg to get an angle the Spitfire instantly gains an advantage. The Fw 190 is fast in a straight line/dive if it deviates from this course and manuvers against a co energy Spitfire IX it will get shot down. I think that this is inaccurate because acceleration, climb and Energy retention are areas where the Fw 190 perform badly in relation to the Sitfire IX in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

speed is speed, you dont have to be a super pilot to put it into practice. In game it poccesses more than marginal advantage at many heights.

If you think 190 that deviates more than 30deg loses then u must not be a very good 190 pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At 7000m he's completely right. If your co energy, co height with the Spitfire and you make a poor choice of manouver your at an immediate disadvantage. The ability for the Spitfire to simply yank back and go up at that height is a massive problem for a 190 pilot. Simple speed advantage is a poor trade off to a good climb rate at that altitude.

OldMan____
09-08-2006, 04:40 AM
A 190 A5 can outclimb any spit IX (but the mighty 25lbs) if you climb at 480+ km/h tested and tested till exaustion.


Wanna escape? Go down untill both are at speed above max sea level speed of spit. Go level.. wait a few moments so it cannot cut the path on you. Start climbing shallowly until your speed drops slightly under 500 kph (IAS) You may start a veeery smooth turn to not get to away from battlefield. Do never go above 5 km this way... your pursuer will probably leave you as soon as it realises he won't catch you. Otherwise simply fly into friendly territory.

If you start climbing at 1km when you reach 3km altitude you will have created lots of distance. This way I am able to evade spits ALWAYS, as long as I detect their aproach before they get into gun range.

The older spits are even easier to avoid.

No need to say that this is much easier to do with alcoholic 109.

JG14_Josf
09-08-2006, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A 190 A5 can outclimb any spit IX (but the mighty 25lbs) if you climb at 480+ km/h tested and tested till exaustion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please link one test.

A. What is the rate of climb advantage?

B. How much time will it take to gain enough advantage in altitude and speed to reverse head-on if the Fw begins extending with 300 meters horizontal separation (just out of range) and, of course, does not pass the Spitfire IX at speeds under 500 - 550 where the Spitfire holds the acceleration advantage?

In other words:

Please point to the tests that prove the FW climb advantage and quantify that advantage for greater accuracy.

Possible example:

The Fw 190 has a climb advantage of 450 ft/min better climb at 480 km/h.

Give us something we can use as a measure of advantage. Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climb are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The required separation distance will be greater than 450 ft if it takes a long time to turn around - of course - so it would take more than 60 seconds to gain the advantage with a climb in the Real Fw 190A-3 vs Spitifre VB (June 1942).

The real pilots had something to work with - at least.

The game pilots could use a quantity too.

450 ft/min?

1000 ft/min?

10 ft/min?

See my point?

If it takes a separation distance of 1000 ft to have enough room to get back around into something similar to co - angles (head-on), the opposite of which (turning around too soon) is giving up angles to the better turning plane. If it takes 1 minute to gain that 1000 ft, or if it takes a half an hour, then, it is a good thing to know the actual advantage rather than some vague statement of how one plane is better than another plane like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the guy asking the question really wants to know how to fight Spitfires with FWs (rather than fighting 109s with Mustangs), then, it may be a good idea to quantify the actual advantage that matters in combat i.e. acceleration or Ps.

Here is an example:

Flight Performance Testing (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html)

Note: The tests on that site are for patch 4.04m and therefore the numbers may not work in a different patch.

Acceleration:
____________0 to 200__300 to 350__350 to 400__400 to 450__450 to 500__500 to 550
FWA6________20.1______ 7 __________ 8_________11_________18________37
Spit IXc ______12.3______ 6___________ 7_________11_________18

I took the Fw 190A-6 numbers instead of the 190 A5 1.65 (no straight A-5 tests) because the boosted A5 in the game (as far as my in game experience goes) is a poor performer compared to the A-5. The comparison in the above link does indicate that there is an advantage to the boosted A-5 on the deck. My personal tests are not extensive.

Anyway: What the acceleration chart (above) should show the reader is something similar to Specific Excess Power or the Energy Advantage (not the same thing as the Turn Performance Advantage €" but similar).

Add up the seconds (the seconds it takes to accelerate between 200 and 300 is missing but it can be assumed that both planes will accelerate similarly in that range) €" add up the seconds from 0 to 500 km/h (The Energy Fighting speed range, up, down, hammerheads, corner velocity, vertical maneuvering speed, and a little cushion €" excess speed is a waste of altitude and used in hit and run tactics).

Fw190A-6
20.1 + 7 + 8 + 11 + 18 = 64.1

Spitfire IXc
12.3 + 6 + 7 + 11 + 18 = 54.3

That is the speed range from 0 to 500 km/h and the Spitfire accelerates to 500 km/h in 10 seconds less time than the Fw190A-6.

Since that is a rough measure of Ps (Specific Excess Power) then it can be known that the Spitfire is the better energy fighter in that speed range. What that means, in tactical terms, is that the Fw 190 vs Spitfire match-up is a double inferior situation for the Fw190 (The Spitfire definitely has the turn performance advantage).

What that means for tactics is (in the words of Robert Shaw):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climbing extension/pitch-back tactics cannot be expected to work for the inferior fighter in this scenario, since the opponent has a Ps advantage. The other energy tactics discussed, which are intended to bleed the bogey's energy with a nose-to-tail turn...can still be effective against an inexperienced or careless opponent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was a reference to the Sustained Turn Technique.

And, of course, as the original poster and others state: A top speed advantage (so long as no enemies are above or so long as top speed is always maintained) is an advantage that can be used to hit and run or team tactics. Shaw says the same thing about double inferior planes.

The idea is: Lure the enemy into making a mistake €" like, I suppose, a Spitfire IX pilot flying at max level speed in a chase rather than climbing at a better climb speed. How long would it take to gain a usable advantage if a Spitfire IX pilot did make that mistake?

I have yet to read such a test. It would be even more instructive to have a track file showing how that high speed climb advantage is actually used in practice for the Fw over the Spitfire. Since that advantage has been tested and tested till exhaustion, then, one example must be easy to find no?

I'm asking.

OldMan____
09-08-2006, 09:57 AM
Not that way I made the test. I made this tests online in LAN, other pilot trying to follow in spitfire. Spitfire cannot catch the FW. That is a speed that in ALL range from 0 meters to 5 km the spitfire won't gain ground on you. That is enough for me.

Simple plain data are not enough to translate into real combat scenario. They lack the psicological factor. The biggest effect is when your pursuer notices it won't catch you and it aborts the chase. Than You can go home.. OR.. if you feel lucky.. turn on it. But you probably should not do it. If you decided to go away first time, why would it be different the second time?

People must stop thinking that they should always at some point reverse and shot down the enemy... for god sake. If you can go away unharmed you are victorious.

OldMan____
09-08-2006, 10:02 AM
BTW.. the 1.65 ata A5 is not poor performer qhen comapred to plain A5. Just different gear setting. Better very low, worse slightly low, then better again, then worse again.

FatBoyHK
09-08-2006, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
In my opinion:

What is being described is:

The Sustained Turn Technique

A detailed description of the Sustained Turn Technique can be found in:

Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw

The idea is to extend and return after the first merge.

Then:

Lure the opponent into turning hard to get a shot on you as you pass by during the second merge.

Then:

Use your extra speed (because he turned hard and burned his speed) to zoom much higher than the target.

Then:

Use your advantage of altitude separate to hammerhead (turn by gravity = very fast turn rate and very small turn radius = hammer head or wing over) and drop onto the enemy who by now is trying to climb to your altitude and is now stalling.

A few pointers if you are interested:

Make your turn around after the first pass and after the extension (run away in a shallow climb, level, or dive) at no more than vertical maneuvering speed (500 km/h minimum in the game for some planes). Keep that speed in the turn by turning nose low (turning in a dive burns too much energy).

After the turn (or during the turn depending on how far back the target is) make sure that the next merge is forcing the target into a tight, nose low, lead turn. To do this it is required that the target is led. In other words: you lead the target by flying toward and then away from the target slightly. This part is hard to understand (by me) but it works. It takes practice. Go head-on at first and then move off by 10 degrees and watch the target turn into your path. Keep turning more and more away from the target if needed or more and more into the target if needed: it takes practice. Turn more or less away from the merge to keep the target turning harder (it is a function of geometry).

Then:

Try to keep speed at 500 km/h or lower well before the merge and then drop the nose to get the zoom speed (vertical maneuvering speed) and at the same time force the target to split S for the shot on you. Only give enough angles to the target to lure the target into thinking he can get the shot but no more. This takes practice too.

Then:

Zoom

When it is done right (and the plane match-up allows) the target will be turning hard in a nose low turn and burning lots of energy trying to shoot you while you are zooming up with energy to spare.

Next:

Spiral almost straight up and watch the target. Keep just ahead of the targets nose by barrel rolling straight up. Turn behind the target if that makes sense; like trying to aim your lift vector behind the target.

As soon as the Target stops following the roll around then:

Kick the rudder and roll the lift vector onto the target for a diving pass. When it works just right the target is almost motionless as your plane descends right down into his cockpit.

I think you already have the basics.

The key is in accurately knowing relative energy states so try this out on targets that are known to be lower and slower at the start.

Make a pass and then try the Sustained Turn Technique on known slower and lower targets first.

If you can get good at forcing the target to burn energy then you can move onto targets with equal energy states on the first merge.

If the target hangs back and does not go in for the kill on the second merge (the one where you lead the target into turning hard), then, get out of dodge with a nose low extension. That target is not a target. The A.I. are all targets.

That is my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is first thing Mantis taught me, before I join AFJ... still using it now to make breakfast for myself, mostly in "109" favor.

However, since you will be completely standstill at the top of the zoom and hence vulunerable to another unseen bandit, nowadays I don't use it tactics in dogfight server very often.

Jetbuff strike the bulleyes: with a faster plane you have the privliege to choose. If I don't have an immediate advantage I just leave the scene. If bandit is on my six I just extend and try to setup a trap using comms. Of course winning all by yourself is good, but not everyone is n00b, they proably know what you are thinking and already working on a counter. Once you are slow and low on a mustang, even a noob can kill you with ease...

Tactics is important, but on a plane like mustang, your overall game plan is more important toward your success.

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 01:51 PM
Hi Fatboy, where do you fly these days?

I have heard great things about your flying, and would like to watch/wing with you sometime if you wouldnt mind.

I fly all sides (whichever has the least players) and am getting better at energy fighting these days.

Do you only fly the P51?

FatBoyHK
09-08-2006, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hi Fatboy, where do you fly these days?

I have heard great things about your flying, and would like to watch/wing with you sometime if you wouldnt mind.

I fly all sides (whichever has the least players) and am getting better at energy fighting these days.

Do you only fly the P51? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly Mustang usually, D model to be specific. But I fly FW also. I fly on Warclouds mostly but if I need a break I go to AFJ server.

I like anyone to wing with me, if you don't mind my approach to this game. Since I am still a big n00b in dogfighting, I stay high and won't mix up with 'em very often....which is boring according to many.

But it is the right way to fly a Mustang. I may have impressive stats but indeed I am quite weak as a fighter pilot, I just do my flying by the book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
09-09-2006, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:

But it is the right way to fly a Mustang. I may have impressive stats but indeed I am quite weak as a fighter pilot, I just do my flying by the book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is how you should do it mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
09-09-2006, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hi Fatboy, where do you fly these days?

I have heard great things about your flying, and would like to watch/wing with you sometime if you wouldnt mind.

I fly all sides (whichever has the least players) and am getting better at energy fighting these days.

Do you only fly the P51? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly Mustang usually, D model to be specific. But I fly FW also. I fly on Warclouds mostly but if I need a break I go to AFJ server.

I like anyone to wing with me, if you don't mind my approach to this game. Since I am still a big n00b in dogfighting, I stay high and won't mix up with 'em very often....which is boring according to many.

But it is the right way to fly a Mustang. I may have impressive stats but indeed I am quite weak as a fighter pilot, I just do my flying by the book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks mate.

I agree, whats the point in dogfighting unless you have to? Its too dangerous. Although I do like to attack the targets and cover the bombers sometimes.

OldMan____
09-09-2006, 02:34 PM
about the maneuver just described. Too dangerous. Simply too much dangerous. When youy go vertical close to end your enemy know waht will come next and will almost for sure spray . Specially if it has .50s (no ammo problem). And you will likeli get hit. If its a spitfire following you, then you are asking for a double hispano on the back of your head (it keeps very stable until almost zero speed so it can shoot precisely).

Keep in mind in game people shoot much better than piltos did in real life. We have far more hours and bullets shot. Giving a chance to an enemy try shoot you on second merge is more fatal in game than in RL (would you give this chance to an Anton cae spit 4 cannons in your path?)

Much safer to make a turn climb at high speed. A situation that although far less fancy and awesome, makes you a far harder target (you ar changing 2 planes at same time against him). Obviously climbing turn does not help when a K4 is following you.at best give you a few secodns to think.

JG14_Josf
09-09-2006, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">about the maneuver just described. Too dangerous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan__,

In case your comment is directed at the Sustained Turn Technique described by Shaw and utilized by me, and apparently others, in the game; it strikes me (your comment) as being somewhat true depending upon many variables not the least of which is the person or person€s playing the game.

The initial poster may find the maneuver to be routine.

Having that maneuver in your back pocket, so to speak, can really pay dividends when flying with a wingman. I can look up some tack files to show this fact.

Rather than pushing the margin too close (where the targets is lured in very close so as not to let him get away) the target is simply hung out for the wingman. It is really a blast to look back at the guy and think about how he is biting on the bit, you know the feeling, €œjust a little more and I€ve got this guy€, he must be thinking, the target that is, well, the wing man too, and both are doing so right when your wingman turns his plane into confetti.

Of course it€s a gamble. I€ve been looking back watching my wingman mess up a perfectly good Spitfire like that when some SOB in a P-47 blasts my plane up.

There is a reason why Shaw calls it €œBetting the Farm€. The wingman is like a cheap insurance policy. A third wingman can cover the whole thing from even higher.

It€s a game. Find what works for you or ask for help.

As to the second merge being fatal:

It€s geometry. With some practice (and the original poster appears to already have this part down) the avoidance of head-on attacks is routine. It matters not what the target shots since the target will miss. The safe thing to do, I guess, is to play checkers.

As to the turn climb at high speed:

What is that? If you can€t get your guns around then you give the opponent angles with every angle of turn. If your plane has a climbing turn or turn climb advantage, then, your plane can dictate the fight. A climb advantage is just as good as a speed advantage if not better. I think the original poster got that right already.

Xiolablu3
09-09-2006, 10:17 PM
You simply need enough seperation first, thats all.

Then whether he sprays or not, he is too far to hit.

Or maybe I am thinking of a different manouvre in my post.

OldMan____
09-10-2006, 04:43 AM
Point is, in game we will face much more dessesperated moves, soraying etc than in rl. For example, a FW can sink with a very hard pull up in middle of turn enough to put its nose 30 degrees or more ahead. I never had any problems putting a spray in the path of the other guy trying to lure me this way (usually forcing him to break). I can say that 1 in 3 times i usually hit him (but I never follow up in a fw).

Also in game people will shoot from 800 meters when in vertical (vertical is easiet to hit, since there is no angular drop).

Also if a spit is your opponent. It will loose seom E during second merge. But will recover it very very fast. When you are starting next move it will be already with recovered speed. Also it will be able to follow you up far more than you if you are in a heavier plane.

The hammerhead is a suicidal move in game unless your wingman is faster in the trigger than the enemy. A maneuver where you have 30% of death chance is not good enough for me. I prefer to conclude such move with a more subtle movment. I don't cre if I dont point guns on it so easily, as long as he does not shoot me.

Lots of tatics good in real life are much more dangerous in game. Due to plane inbalance (compared to RL) and other factor.

JG14_Josf
09-10-2006, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lots of tatics good in real life are much more dangerous in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan,

Your experiences in the game do not agree with mine and I save my flights on track files so it is a simple matter to prove my experiences concering hammerheads. They are effective and a lot of fun.

As to the real pilot experience with danger I think we also have a different perspective on that and Bud Anderson's account of energy fighting with a 109 is one of many examples of just how dangerous it was in reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was looking back, almost straight down, and I could see that twenty-millimeter cannon in the middle of the propeller hub-an elephant gun!" They were going straight up; Anderson looked down and, to his relief, saw the 109 shudder, stall and fall off before he could fire that 20mm cannon. Now Anderson's Mustang stalled and fell off, and he was again chasing the 109. He thought, "Good ol' Mustang!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Findarticles.com (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200112/ai_n9011635)

FatBoyHK
09-10-2006, 02:24 PM
if you do a hammer head without enough seperation, well you are asking for death. But no one force you to do it until you indeed have enough seperation. If it is done right at the right time bandit behind you won't be a threat. However, risk do exist: another unseen bandit above you.

OldMan____
09-10-2006, 02:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lots of tatics good in real life are much more dangerous in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan,

Your experiences in the game do not agree with mine and I save my flights on track files so it is a simple matter to prove my experiences concering hammerheads. They are effective and a lot of fun.

As to the real pilot experience with danger I think we also have a different perspective on that and Bud Anderson's account of energy fighting with a 109 is one of many examples of just how dangerous it was in reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was looking back, almost straight down, and I could see that twenty-millimeter cannon in the middle of the propeller hub-an elephant gun!" They were going straight up; Anderson looked down and, to his relief, saw the 109 shudder, stall and fall off before he could fire that 20mm cannon. Now Anderson's Mustang stalled and fell off, and he was again chasing the 109. He thought, "Good ol' Mustang!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Findarticles.com (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200112/ai_n9011635) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Well, since I removed the hammerhead form my maneuvers book (specially againt spitwonders). My survivability jumped in stratosphere. My accounts were than more than 2/3 of my deaths were on vertical moves like this.

In real life the pursuing plane will not be able to continue going vertical nos firmly up until 50 km/h like any spitfire (or late 109 ) can do in game. The needed separation is much larger than in real life (enough so that the description from Mr.Anderson is not adequated anymore).

But if I have already 1 km horizontal separation, I have a lot of other moves to do... less risky on a bounce by an above enemy.

Xiolablu3
09-11-2006, 11:20 AM
If the tctic I described in my earlier post , is the same oner that you guys are talking about, I did this very manouvre in a 109F4 vs Seafire III last night.

We meet head on, I dived below him as he tried to go head on with me, then zoomed up in a shallow climb as he turned to chase.

I knew I could not outurn him, so I used my superior climb and speed to seperate and get above him.

I was not even that far away when I started a slow climbing turn. He carried on following as I pulled it over the top until I was fluttering a little at 190kph straight above him, balancing the plane just on the edge of a stall.

By now he is pointing straight up, and as I had enough seperation before i pulled hte move, he started to stall. He never got in range for the shot.

I flipped upside down with throttle to 0% and watched as his nose dropped int he stall. Now I put throttle to 100% and dive on him from directly above. As I have a better acceleration and dive speed I soon catch him. A short burst takes off his wing.

Is this the 'hammerhead' manouvre that you mean Oldman? And if not, what is different about it pls?

thefruitbat
09-11-2006, 01:01 PM
To JG14_Josf.

After watching your track and reading your excelent explanation, it became aparant to me that i wasn't 'fully unloading' the elevator, and whilst i still had good energy, i hadnt fully unloaded the enemies, this is what was causing me issues. Thank you for giving me something to cut my teeth on, I've been practising, but of course, knowing the theory and executing it flawlessly, are two very different things http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


To Oldman

I understand where you are coming from, when you say that the hammerhead leaves you very vunerable. It does. That doesn't mean that it dosen't have its use's in the proper context though. There are many situations ranging from when you are flying with wingman, to if you've just dragged someone halfway across amap etc...

But what i am more interested in, is where you say:

"But if I have already 1 km horizontal separation, I have a lot of other moves to do... less risky on a bounce by an above enemy."

Bare in mind i'm only interested in examples of a faster plane v better climbing plane, such as 190 v spit, mustang v 109 or Corsair v zero etc...

What over moves do you have, because the before desribed method, is the only method i have found that gets me a postion to go for a killing shot, rather than just parry. But i am still very much learning.


To FatBoyHQ

Just something i found interseting in what you said here,

"I like anyone to wing with me, if you don't mind my approach to this game. Since I am still a big n00b in dogfighting, I stay high and won't mix up with 'em very often....which is boring according to many.

But it is the right way to fly a Mustang. I may have impressive stats but indeed I am quite weak as a fighter pilot, I just do my flying by the book"

I completly agree with what you've said, but it occurred to me that these circumstances were much less common in the actual war, when the mustangs were often tasked with escort or other specific tasks rather than a 'free hunt' situation.


To Xiolablu

I think what you just described is a 'rope a dope'. I think it probally goes by a more official name, but that what i know it as, rather than a pure hammerhead.

In my understanding, a hammerhead is where you are both going vertical, your enemy chasing but with less energy, and where you reverse by using your rudder to kick you over the top, coming straight down on his stalling plane. Even if he trys to avoid early, it will still allow you to be chasing his tail.

Cheers fruitbat

Xiolablu3
09-11-2006, 01:06 PM
Thanks for the explanation Fruitbat, sounds a bit risky to me and I can see why Oldman has reservations about it.

HellToupee
09-11-2006, 01:33 PM
Only reason hammerhead leaves u so venerable is not some plane modeling but peoples gunnery ability. It dosnt matter if you go higher stall later the fact u are so slow means you are an incredibly easy target diflection is next to none so i can hit from huge ranges.

This is not some spit or 109 ufoism, these planes are not controlable at 50kph in the verticle, 190s tempests every plane will kill u if you just do a standard hammerhead with a guy behind you. It is best done when you are fast and he is slow, or eg after a head on merge when you are at greater speed.

faustnik
09-11-2006, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
This is not some spit or 109 ufoism, these planes are not controlable at 50kph in the verticle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All planes in PF are easy to control down to very low speeds with full power settings in PF. The Bf109 and Spit combine this with very low stall speed which gives the impression of ufoism. IRL it seems torque was a big issue under these conditions.

OldMan___
09-11-2006, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Only reason hammerhead leaves u so venerable is not some plane modeling but peoples gunnery ability. It dosnt matter if you go higher stall later the fact u are so slow means you are an incredibly easy target diflection is next to none so i can hit from huge ranges.

This is not some spit or 109 ufoism, these planes are not controlable at 50kph in the verticle, 190s tempests every plane will kill u if you just do a standard hammerhead with a guy behind you. It is best done when you are fast and he is slow, or eg after a head on merge when you are at greater speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>´

I disagree. All planes can kill you, yes. But some planes will have far longer time to do it. At very low speeds the afore mentioned palnes are quite controlable, while in a FW or P47 for example your nose is almost impossible to aim.


Try it.. get in a FW and try to do it againt a P47 or a Spit 25 lbs. There is a huge difference (in general the game has this issues with low speed), both on how long the enemy has to take the shot as well with the range (hispanos can kill you from huge distance).


My critics are just that I don't consider that maneuver safe enough to be in my first choice list, and I would only use it as a last resource (or with a BIG E advantage).


I just prefer to never dogfight alone against a better climbing plane (unless star with big E advantage), or play psicologic games with it (make it think you are bugging out etc..).

A better climb plane can build up E faster than you, so you must start the game with more E.. otherwise just use your superior speed o find a more suitable target.

JG14_Josf
09-11-2006, 05:38 PM
Thefruitbat,

You are most welcome. I can go on and on about maneuvers and tactics if someone listens. Usually, when flying, the wingman let€s me set things up and I let them attack. That is when I do the talking that counts. It is much easier to demonstrate these things than it is to try communicating with words; unless a receptive ear is listening. Much depends upon the desire to learn on the part of the teacher and the student. I think the student is the teacher and visa versa.

Once you get better at it (and the patch stays the same for awhile) you can recognize the opponents that can be led into this trap right away and you can realize soon enough if there is no good reason to even bother trying since the opponent is wise to the set-up.

Also: practice enables you to narrow the margins and set-up the perfect shot right into the stalled out targets cockpit. If the margin is too great, then, the target is out of range after the hammer head and the target is €˜getting away€ somehow. If the margin is too narrow, then, the situation may turn out like the Bud Anderson example €" too close for comfort. Ideally the target should be at just the right range and the target stalls out well before you do thus giving you time to reverse and get right into the targets cockpit. As you saw on my track file that particular effort was too close for comfort since I lost sight of the target behind the canopy bars otherwise I think it would have been just right.

If you did set-up the track file as a training file then you may have picked up on the words describing the geometry €" two circle as opposed to one circle, or, nose to tail as opposed to nose to nose (sometimes nose to nose is needed, other times nose to tail is). That is very important stuff to learn and it is required for the Sustained Turn Technique.

Reading Shaw helps illuminate how the geometry works to judge relative energy states after the first merge (going nose to tail) so as to check to see how eager the enemy tries to reverse. The eager one€s are the one€s that turn into good targets. The cautious ones are the one€s that must be respected. That sounds backwards and for some people I suppose it is but my experience is as I state it.

Example:

If after the first merge the target is making up angles rapidly before you can get past 90 degrees of turn at 450 km/h and by the time you scrub down to 400 the target is already head-on, then, you have a target or a plane with a very high energy state. If you are uncertain, then, do the whole Sustained turn thing again (don€t bet the farm on the zoom just yet). If the target makes up even more ground before you get past 90 degrees of turn again (after the second merge), then, that plane has a much higher energy state. Eager pilot or not that target must be let go if it is not too late. Chances are, in that situation, you have not set the first merge up well.

Some planes match-ups in some patches don€t work at all €" the energy maneuverability margin is too great (some planes are much too inferior in acceleration/deceleration) compared to a particular plane with a very high energy maneuverability capability €" in the game of course.

You can test this out in the off-line quick mission builder. The last time I practice this out was a few patches ago and the Fw190s were good enough to bag any plane in the sim and it didn€t matter which setting the A.I. was at. I€ll check it now.

Game Report:

190A-8 vs. Spitfire IX 25 (ACE)

I tried this match-up about 10 times and found my skills lacking with the A-8 (not often my choice when flying on servers that offer the late model 109, the TA, or the Dora). I also noticed how the A.I. ACE can pull his nose inside my turn while I€m in the grey out (and do so without blacking out and close distance €" actually overshoot in one case) so I change the match-up until I get more practice against the ACE with 25 pounds boost.

190A-8 vs. Spitfire IXe (Veteran)

I can see no problem with this set-up after two tries.

On the second try I nailed the Spit in the cockpit while it was stalled out.

The A.I. does things differently in this patch so I didn€t set things up perfect. The first merge turned into a vertical Sustained Turn right away (nose to tail) and that Spit makes up angles before I can get abeam on it (90 degrees off my nose) so I have to roll and go under the Spit as it closes in for the shot. The Spit then has to roll under my FW after the second merge. It is also very difficult to jink around the bullets flying out of that Spit.

Anyway; after the second merge I€m going straight up and looking for the Spitfire. I didn€t get the pitch €" up and zoom exactly right so the target wasn€t right under me. Since I€m not used to the FW yet and in past tries I€ve lost control on the hammerhead €" this time - I pitch over sooner after the unloaded zoom. I get straightened out and angle over to the Spit that is **** pretty much the same thing I just did i.e. rolling over the top of a zoom with nowhere to go but down. I get to that floundering target at its 11 o€clock high and I€m about 30 degrees of its nose. It begins to pitch down sharply trying to get away. With a little lead the 190A-8 sends a wall of explosive rounds that tear the Spitfire up.

There is no need to avoid using vertical maneuvers in this game. They have to be done right and they only work when done right. When done wrong, then, a vertical maneuver simply gives the opponent an easy target.

Which do you want to be an easy target or the guy who shoots down easy targets?

I don€t know about anyone else but I do not like being an easy target. Being an easy target never seems to become fun for some reason.

If the player is flying the Spitfire and you are flying the FW, then, it is important to figure out if that player knows what is going on sooner rather than later. Figuring out if that player and that plane is at a higher energy state isn€t difficult to figure out or set-up for the majority of the players on-line. Practice with the A.I. helps €" they are eager to help.

HellToupee
09-11-2006, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan___:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Only reason hammerhead leaves u so venerable is not some plane modeling but peoples gunnery ability. It dosnt matter if you go higher stall later the fact u are so slow means you are an incredibly easy target diflection is next to none so i can hit from huge ranges.

This is not some spit or 109 ufoism, these planes are not controlable at 50kph in the verticle, 190s tempests every plane will kill u if you just do a standard hammerhead with a guy behind you. It is best done when you are fast and he is slow, or eg after a head on merge when you are at greater speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>´

I disagree. All planes can kill you, yes. But some planes will have far longer time to do it. At very low speeds the afore mentioned palnes are quite controlable, while in a FW or P47 for example your nose is almost impossible to aim.


Try it.. get in a FW and try to do it againt a P47 or a Spit 25 lbs. There is a huge difference (in general the game has this issues with low speed), both on how long the enemy has to take the shot as well with the range (hispanos can kill you from huge distance).


My critics are just that I don't consider that maneuver safe enough to be in my first choice list, and I would only use it as a last resource (or with a BIG E advantage).


I just prefer to never dogfight alone against a better climbing plane (unless star with big E advantage), or play psicologic games with it (make it think you are bugging out etc..).

A better climb plane can build up E faster than you, so you must start the game with more E.. otherwise just use your superior speed o find a more suitable target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the planes dont have a far longer time, probly a second at the most i find very small difference in 190 spit tempest in this respect. Hispanos can kill from long distance so can mg151s. If spit tries to hammer head with 190 on his six and no big e advantage he dies and vise versa.

OldMan____
09-12-2006, 04:30 AM
2 second is an eternity more than what I like to spend in enemy's reticle.

When I talked about hispanos I was just comparing to .50. To state that you need more separation from a spit or 109 than to a Mustang for example (at 500 meters a p51 must be lucky to kill you).


I don't liek hammerheads (specially when flying FW, since they nose get very very heavy when slow, much heavier than 109 or spit.. much. So you take far more time to complete it). The separation that you need to do it safely if too big. I prefer if some of such maneuver is needed to go almost vertical (not completely... taregt much easier when completely vertical and no balistic drop in flight path) and make a slow dorsal reversal up there. Effect is almost the same but you don't stop. Of course your enemy on this maneuver might also not stall, but it will be with a very heavy nose to pull it up and shoot you. That because since you were not vertical .. his nose was not staringt up, then when you make the dorsal reversal it will need to pull its nose even higher to shoot you. He will be unable to press such angular movment.

Little bit less effective since its also harder for you to aquire him as a good target, but quite safer.

Anyway I always prefer psicological maneuvers, the most boring amneuver is the one that usualy makes the pursuer look for a more fun target. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It works REALY well online.

JG14_Josf
09-12-2006, 12:26 PM
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Vertical%20Zoom.jpg

AAR:

No on-line war yesterday 9-11 so...

Enter Warclouds

Find Spitfire after watching wingman blow up during a pass on a B-25 (both planes go down in flames).

Make one pass on low Spitfire.

Zoom in the vertical and arc over Spitfire's flight path (aiming behind the Spitfire and forcing the Spitfire to lead into a stall for the shot).

The pre-departure vector change (this time into the mush envelope at 160 km/h) follows the unloaded zoom.

Spitfire fires and misses.

Spitfire closes and fires again while stalling €" misses again.

I roll inverted and the timing is almost exactly right - no need to pull the power and no need to add flaps for closure and vector control.

The target wallows but manages to evade against a cockpit shot. My bullets pass through the targets wing. I think: Damn missed a perfect opportunity and I think that guy is good €" very good evasive maneuvering in a tough spot.

Then€¦WHAAAAMOOOO the target disintegrates

I don€t know about anyone else but my experience with the new patch is such that those huge explosions damage my plane about half the time when previous patches the ratio was one in ten or less.

There is no way I would have tried that against a Spitfire (one who evaded my first pass very skillfully by profiling €" showing me a wing tip €" and then pitching over and spoiling my shot) while flying a 190A (anything). My experience is such that the FWAs compared to the 109s are inferior in Energy Maneuverability. That is backwards in my opinion. The Dora is another matter €" in the game.

Knowing when the relative energy state is sufficient to use a vertical zoom (set-up and executed correctly) is easy once the patch change is known. Above is almost a perfect example of how it is done. If you have a better one then please post the track file. I think the new players can make up their own minds as to what does or does not work in the game.

HellToupee
09-12-2006, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
2 second is an eternity more than what I like to spend in enemy's reticle.

When I talked about hispanos I was just comparing to .50. To state that you need more separation from a spit or 109 than to a Mustang for example (at 500 meters a p51 must be lucky to kill you).


I don't liek hammerheads (specially when flying FW, since they nose get very very heavy when slow, much heavier than 109 or spit.. much. So you take far more time to complete it). The separation that you need to do it safely if too big. I prefer if some of such maneuver is needed to go almost vertical (not completely... taregt much easier when completely vertical and no balistic drop in flight path) and make a slow dorsal reversal up there. Effect is almost the same but you don't stop. Of course your enemy on this maneuver might also not stall, but it will be with a very heavy nose to pull it up and shoot you. That because since you were not vertical .. his nose was not staringt up, then when you make the dorsal reversal it will need to pull its nose even higher to shoot you. He will be unable to press such angular movment.

Little bit less effective since its also harder for you to aquire him as a good target, but quite safer.

Anyway I always prefer psicological maneuvers, the most boring amneuver is the one that usualy makes the pursuer look for a more fun target. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It works REALY well online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

most of the time its not so much the nose being heavy its the rudder being ineffective, u can hold planes verticle till they are practically falling backwards just trying it before i held a 190 verticle going backwards at 30kph theres more than enough elevator control. A heavy nose is also a good thing, 190 i find is one of the easyest to wip around at the top to come back down, some planes tend to wallow around like the p38 which is horrible at the manover it takes full foward elevator to stop it back flipping its rudder is also unable to wip it around.

.50s can hit you from same ranges as hispano its just most people are forced to set their convergance short range to have them effective.

OldMan___
09-12-2006, 05:19 PM
Nose heavy hurts a lot when after the hammer you are not exactly pointing to enemy, and you need to pull your nose a little bit. Much easier to do with some planes than others.


I personaly find head ons (while in my Anton) much safer than hammer heads :P At least I am alsways fast so i can use the very fast twist axis and sink capability of FW to go under him and point up firing onto his path.

HellToupee
09-12-2006, 11:53 PM
nothing a little flap use cant fix, i generally if hammer heading try to bring her around before all the speed is gone, even planes like spit have hard time lifting their noses at the very low speeds.

JG14_Josf
09-13-2006, 02:03 PM
Thefruitbat,

I€ve been working on a maneuver for years now and just by chance that tactic is now in my bones (so to speak) enough to actually have a working example on a track file.

I can send the file to you directly. It is small. I can also describe the maneuver with words however I€ll use John Boyd€s words (when I find them again) for what he calls €œThe Barrel Roll Attack€.

Consider this to be a bump for your topic.

thefruitbat
09-14-2006, 07:48 AM
Hi Josf,

Been a bit busy with work, hence the slow reply, But yeah, that sounds good, i'd appreciate that alot thanks. If you check your PM's you will find my email address http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

cheers fruitbat