PDA

View Full Version : Bf109 spiral climb



na85
04-09-2009, 07:41 PM
Can you get away from spits by doing the "spiral climb"?

I just tried it online now and the spit ate me for breakfast.

We started with roughly equal energy states. I might have even had a little more.

I was in a G6A/S he was in I dunno what. Whatever spits are common in 1944.

X32Wright
04-09-2009, 07:44 PM
If you climb with a Spit on your six it surely would eat you. The trick is to use VERTICAL rolling scissors where the spit is weak because it slows down every time it rolls and turns.

Spiral dives work though because the 109 can handle the dive more than the Spit plus on turns you have the delayed g-forces due to the slats.

ImMoreBetter
04-09-2009, 07:44 PM
In my experience, spiral climbs are a very difficult move to pull off at the right time. There are only a few (and very specific) times in which you have a chance to pull a spiral.

When you do, it is brilliant.

Unfortunately, I don't see those chances often enough.

na85
04-09-2009, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
If you climb with a Spit on your six it surely would eat you. The trick is to use VERTICAL rolling scissors where the spit is weak because it slows down every time it rolls and turns.

Spiral down works though because the 109 can handle the dive more than the Spit.

Got any tracks?

Lt_Letum
04-09-2009, 08:02 PM
Try a spiral climb in a mig-3 against a 109F2/4. Then you will see how useful the spiral climb can be.

Be sure to maintain your best climb speed in any spiral climb. Don't get too slow.

DKoor
04-09-2009, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Can you get away from spits by doing the "spiral climb"?

I just tried it online now and the spit ate me for breakfast.

We started with roughly equal energy states. I might have even had a little more.

I was in a G6A/S he was in I dunno what. Whatever spits are common in 1944. No you wont get away from the Spitfire. Spitfire has somewhat inferior climb rate however it isn't considerably lower for you to have an escape window by doing this tactic.

The only real tactic vs Spitfire that will work every time is just outrun him. Up to 7000m you should have considerable speed advantage over Spitfires. You will be able to outrun it if you spot the Spitfire in time.
Never fight them on equal terms because if you win believe me it isn't because you were a good pilot (you must be that if you are to fight them) but because he made a stupid mistake.

DKoor
04-09-2009, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
If you climb with a Spit on your six it surely would eat you. The trick is to use VERTICAL rolling scissors where the spit is weak because it slows down every time it rolls and turns.

Spiral down works though because the 109 can handle the dive more than the Spit.

Got any tracks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think Wright describes a situation where a Spitfire is forced to extensively use its ailerons which isn't exactly a strong point of that plane (in comparison to 109 especially 190)... in a sense that Spitfire will probably bleed more speed than 109 by rolling. Plus Spit doesn't exactly behave great on very low speed.

stalkervision
04-09-2009, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Can you get away from spits by doing the "spiral climb"?

I just tried it online now and the spit ate me for breakfast.

We started with roughly equal energy states. I might have even had a little more.

I was in a G6A/S he was in I dunno what. Whatever spits are common in 1944.

I don't believe Il-2 fm's really shows how the 109 has a superior acceleration and climb rate to a spit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I know with the 109 e and the Spit 1a, the spit couldn't climb at the extremely steep angle the 109 e could. Not whatsoever.

This really bothers me.

With BOB/WOV fm I can properly disengage from a spit at low co-energy states, speed ahead of the spit for a bit, start a shallow climb for a bit more and then steepen this climb to the 109's max climb rate and leave these spits far below me in the dust.

Il-2 seems to take away the 109's chief advantage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Observe this picture. The spit is weezing away here and will so drop to a level flight trying to match the climb of the 109e. In BOB/WOV one can properly climb high above the spit and come down and eat him for a light snack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7206/shot8459419353.jpg

BOB/SOW better have this accurately modeled or I am going to pitch one dozy of a fit!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Willie M. put the biggest motor on the lightest airframe for superior climb and dive but this doesn't seem to be accurately modeled in Il-2. Hopefully SOW will be better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

na85
04-10-2009, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
If you climb with a Spit on your six it surely would eat you. The trick is to use VERTICAL rolling scissors where the spit is weak because it slows down every time it rolls and turns.

Spiral down works though because the 109 can handle the dive more than the Spit.

Got any tracks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think Wright describes a situation where a Spitfire is forced to extensively use its ailerons which isn't exactly a strong point of that plane (in comparison to 109 especially 190)... in a sense that Spitfire will probably bleed more speed than 109 by rolling. Plus Spit doesn't exactly behave great on very low speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's what Wright is describing as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But... vertical rolling scissors seems difficult for me to picture in my head. Any tracks that show it?

PanzerAce
04-10-2009, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I don't believe Il-2 fm's really shows how the 109 has a superior acceleration and climb rate to a spit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I know with the 109 e and the Spit 1a, the spit couldn't climb at the extremely steep angle the 109 e could. Not whatsoever.

This really bothers me.

With BOB/WOV fm I can properly disengage from a spit at low co-energy states, speed ahead of the spit for a bit, start a shallow climb for a bit more and then steepen this climb to the 109's max climb rate and leave these spits far below me in the dust.

Il-2 seems to take away the 109's chief advantage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Observe this picture. The spit is weezing away here and will so drop to a level flight trying to match the climb of the 109e. In BOB/WOV one can properly climb high above the spit and come down and eat him for a light snack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


BOB/SOW better have this accurately modeled or I am going to pitch one dozy of a fit!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Willie M. put the biggest motor on the lightest airframe for superior climb and dive but this doesn't seem to be accurately modeled in Il-2. Hopefully SOW will be better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I've done exactly what you picture in IL2. Maybe not historically correct, but if you have say a 500m lead on someone at ~the same speeds, going into a 150-160kmh climb is actually a great way to get away from them. I've yet to see anything OTHER than a -109 that was able to follow me. Sure, they can outclimb me if they stay at their best speed, but that involves them flying *under* the 109 at that point, and then it's just a simple matter of stick forward + 20mm to the cockpit to get the kill.

na85
04-10-2009, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:

I've done exactly what you picture in IL2. Maybe not historically correct, but if you have say a 500m lead on someone at ~the same speeds, going into a 150-160kmh climb is actually a great way to get away from them. I've yet to see anything OTHER than a -109 that was able to follow me. Sure, they can outclimb me if they stay at their best speed, but that involves them flying *under* the 109 at that point, and then it's just a simple matter of stick forward + 20mm to the cockpit to get the kill.

I could see that working if you had some flight path separation.

But if he's behind you and you pull into a slow climb he's going to munch on you like a favorite snack.

M_Gunz
04-10-2009, 04:02 AM
109G-6 power off stall is about 155kph.
Put full power behind that, maintain speed just a bit higher and you'd have to climb at about your best angle.
Power input increases and speed isn't increasing so you should climb about the fastest you can.

But the thing is that the Spits can make the same climb but only at lower speeds. It's the low wingloading.

Xiolablu3
04-10-2009, 07:12 AM
Its best here to ask the veterans who were there at the time in 1940 :-



"The elliptical wings of the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics,
great lift. They were very maneuverable. ***We couldn't catch them in a
steep climb.*** On the other hand they could stall during inverted
maneuvers, cutting off the fuel because the force of gravity prevented
the flow of fuel. But they were still a highly respected enemy. In
contrast, our Bf 109s had shortcomings. I didn't like the slats and our
cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visability. Fighter
pilots need a good all-round field of vision and we didn't have it."


"And so there are differences. But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, even the Spitfire. ** You couldn't follow the Spitfire in a tight turn upwards. You couldn't follow it.** But we knew exactly the Spitfire also had shortcomings. In the beginning when they dived away, they had problems with the carburetor. cshhht shhht cht cht cht (shows engine cutting out) . Until they came up to speed. So every airplane has some problems in some areas, and if you know it, you can overcome it. "

Major Gunther Rall : 275 victories

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hi...therRallEnglish.html (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html)

K_Freddie
04-10-2009, 08:05 AM
In game, I hardly fly the spit but when a ME has tried to climb out, spirally or not, I use more rudder and 'oscillate' (cycling on off at ~2 second intervals) the flaps. Just before stall it's max flaps and plenty rudder to get a bead on the ME

All depends on initial conditions but, invariably the ME takes a few hits on the spiral, and is finished off, after the stall-out. If not the rest is back to usual tactics.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

stalkervision
04-10-2009, 08:17 AM
The chief thing I do is beat down the spit's energy level to nothing. Then I use the 109 wonderful acceleration to speed away and get into a extremely steep climb the spit just can't match. If SOW doesn't model this well there are going to be some mighty mad 109 pilots. One being me.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DuckyFluff
04-10-2009, 10:40 AM
The spiral climb tactic was one that worked very well indeed in Il2 (original) and FB/AOE somewhere along the way though the capability was "porked", try spiral climbing against a Rata, Spit or any other allied aircraft now and you will be dead in no time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

How I loved that edge of the stall spirtal climb tactic, looking back over my shoulder and waiting for the enemy Spit or Rata to stall out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Its a tactic that doesn't work anymore unfortunately http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

grifter2u
04-10-2009, 11:57 AM
when i flew online regularly i did use the spiral climb in the 109 successfully to get away from spitfires and even the later p51, as long as the opponents plane is of the same era of the war as your own plane, you should be able to do it with the 109. i maybe havnt tried it since the 4.09b (cant remember a specific time i last used it, would have been a bit over a year ago) so i cant be sure that this historically correct strength of the 109 hasnt been porked now. i wouldnt ever have tried it against a rata, because that plane is to maneuverable and you'd want to use the exact opposite tactics imho.

the trick was to only do it as a last resorts maneuver when the single or dual enemies fighters are right on your tail in a conga line and very close by (like 100 to 300 meters), initially i would try a few split S's to try and gain some speed and try and force the enemy to bleed speed, as you gain speed and you are fairly sure the enemy has not more momentum then you have, continue from your last S into the spiral climb. once you are sure they are latched on and trying to follow your turning climb maneuvre tighten the climb and make it as steep and tight as you dare without the risk of stalling out (ride the rudder to control your turn but dont let it bleed to much speed from you), and keep an eye on the planes on your tail while you do so to make sure you are staying on the inside of their turning circle.

it is one of the most satisfying maneuvers to get right when you do it successfully. i claim no expertise in it, but from my experience the trick is to not try and do it when both planes are at high speed, i think the 109 excels in it when the starting speed is fairly low for both planes, and if possible you start out with a slight initial speed advantage (hence the split S's i mentioned before).

sometimes if the other pilot chasing you is good you might not be able to trick him into stalling out (and then bite him by kicking your rudder and doing a hammerhead and immediately get on his tail), but by then you have gained enough altitude to be able to suddenly change your maneuver into and evasive dive and rapidly gain speed in the dive to get away from him.

M_Gunz
04-10-2009, 07:03 PM
Which plane has the lowest stall speed?
Which has most power to weight?

ImMoreBetter
04-10-2009, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Which plane has the lowest stall speed?
Which has most power to weight?

According to HardBall's Aircraft Viewer (Throwing out Bl-6, Lerche... etc.)

I-185 M71 has the highest power to weight ratio at .60.

Second is the La-7 at .57

Bf-109G10 and G14 at .55


As far as lowest stall speed goes, I'd reckon P.11 or Gladiator.

Xiolablu3
04-10-2009, 10:22 PM
I think Max meant between the Spit and the 109 mate...

I would think it would be the Bf109 by a whisker in both cases, but I am sure it would be very close.

The Spit easily wins in wing loading which I would *think* means the Spit wins in very steep climbs, but the Bf109 would win in most zoom climbs...

Of coursed the higher drag of the Spits wing also plays a part here, as well as the lift, so its very complex to work out.

The you have to to factor in the different altitudes, the big wing of the Spitfire helps it with manouvres at higher altitudes, but may also cause more drag in other manouvres like zoom climbs. So factor in a complex manouvre like a spiral climb then its going to be hard to work out between the two.

M_Gunz
04-11-2009, 03:55 AM
Ummmm, how about 109G6-A/S to a Spit LF IXe?

That one that power-off stalls at the lower speed is the one that can climb at lower speed.
Try going into a stall test and just as the plane is 2kph over stall you add in power and keep speed constant
in a climb, just above stall.
That settles who can climb at all at lower speed. That's the one who can fly at all at the lower speed.

After that you got who climbs faster at some other speed, starting at just above stall for the other plane.
At that point the slower-stalling plane will be climbing already. But rate of climb is a matter of power
and drag close to stall.
109 slats let it pull more AOA is true. But induced drag increases with the square of the AOA more or less.
They put the slats on the 109 because they wanted to use higher wingloading in flight and the slats let the
plane be able to slow enough to land under 200kph without falling out of the sky. It helped make the plane
faster than one with less wingloading but the price is at the low end. Changing wing area affects total lift
directly. Half the wing area makes (pretty much) half the lift and cuts both induced and parasitic wing drag
by the same half, pretty much. The formulas don't square wing area (it's square area already) but they do
square AOA so being able to pull more AOA means paying in an increasing way for every extra degree.

The difference in large wings to small ones at low speed is more in favor of large wings. At low speed the
part of the parasite drag due to having large wings is small simply because at low speed, parasitic is small
since drag is by the square of speed; going 1/5th as fast makes only 1/25th the total parasite drag.
Induced drag has speed squared and AOA squared and wing area not squared.
When you're at 1G stall then your AOA is at critical, you stall if you try to pull any more.

So suppose you want more lift? You could make the wings bigger or you could go faster. The thing is that once
you do go faster then you are no longer at your stall speed but -faster-. Bigger wings is the way to win the
very low-speed end.

Anyway what plane has the lower clean power-off stall? Black Six ran about 155kph, about 96mph.
Is the clean stall speed of a IXc really 142kph? And 126kph dirty? 88mph clean? 78mph ready to land.

If this is true then the Spit can fly and climb at lower speed than that 109 can. A G-2 or F-2 instead....

Of course pilot differences can make the outcome completely different, the margin is small.

zunzun
04-11-2009, 05:22 AM
In my opinion the problem with the spiral climb is that, in the game, the planes can pull more AoA than in reality (I have no proof for that, just my impresion). The plane behind and below you, maybe, it is not matching your rate of climb o not even your turning rate but if it is at less than 500m of distance it can move the nose (lot of AoA), even for a fraction of a second, and shot at you.
By what I have red, you dont need to get the best climber plane to be suscefull (in real world) in spiral climb. In the game it is real dificult doing it unless you star with a good advantage or your adversary is a real pig. In my experience I have been shot at by all kind of planes regardless of my own crate (spitvs190, 47vs109, p39vsi16 etc....)
My impresion, then, is that planes in game are too much stable in low speed and high AoA situations compared to real world (at least compared with what I have red about).
It is the same for turning contest. Many times you can turn tighter than your adversary but if he start behind you he will be able to pull the AoA needed for a gun shot (even if he is outside of your turning circle).

K_Freddie
04-11-2009, 03:29 PM
I've mentioned this before..

Even if the a/c FMs are not 100% accurately modelled, it's the a/c-vs-a/c relative modelling that is most accurate (in my opinion).

It's never going to be right, and it's up to you to make the best of what you've got.
... ERRRRR!! it's the pilot - not the plane.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Insuber
04-12-2009, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
The spiral climb tactic was one that worked very well indeed in Il2 (original) and FB/AOE somewhere along the way though the capability was "porked", try spiral climbing against a Rata, Spit or any other allied aircraft now and you will be dead in no time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

How I loved that edge of the stall spirtal climb tactic, looking back over my shoulder and waiting for the enemy Spit or Rata to stall out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Its a tactic that doesn't work anymore unfortunately http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

I agree with this one, in the original Il2 the spiraal climb worked better, and I feel that the other complaint about the unrealistic AoA's that one can get, is part of the phenomenon. But maybe the original Il2 was wrong and 1946 is right ... who knows. Anyway I remember that in the training sessions of Il2 there was a video with the spiral climb, very well done, am I right ?


One of my best online victories was done in a 109K, spiral climbing against a Tempest starting at low alt/low E. The Tempest was ridden by a server admin, who quit in rage after being fooled by the s/c technique ... too funny. The fun of deciding to apply a certain theoretical technique, and seeing it actually working ... lol.

Regards,
Insuber

X32Wright
04-12-2009, 06:12 AM
A real effective spiral climb is done when you have excess energy and only climb using your elevator trim and control your ascent speed and climb speed using elevator trim control and watch out your climb rate as yout spiral climb. Best is around 230-280kph.

If you use the stick to spiral climb, you're asking for trouble because the plane would be slower and more vulnerable.

M_Gunz
04-12-2009, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by zunzun:
It is the same for turning contest. Many times you can turn tighter than your adversary but if he start behind you he will be able to pull the AoA needed for a gun shot (even if he is outside of your turning circle).

Take more time understanding the turning contest. When the lead plane turns he is going to cover a certain distance
away from his path at perhaps a certain cost in speed. The plane behind only has to turn less angle to put his nose
on the endpoint, a bit more for lead depending on how far back he is when the lead turned. If the attacker is 200m
or farther back then he can have you after pulling half the angle if that.
Follow someone who is zigging and zagging and always fly inside the path that he does, towards where he will be
instead and always at lower G's. You should catch up pretty quick.

So that guy behind you is not pulling more AOA unless he was right on your tail and slow to follow. 100+m away,
he can turn less angle and because of distances has lead on you. Only if he follows your path does he have to
pull the same G's. Following inside someone's path allows you to pull less G's and gain on speed difference.

Insuber
04-12-2009, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zunzun:
It is the same for turning contest. Many times you can turn tighter than your adversary but if he start behind you he will be able to pull the AoA needed for a gun shot (even if he is outside of your turning circle).

Take more time understanding the turning contest. When the lead plane turns he is going to cover a certain distance
away from his path at perhaps a certain cost in speed. The plane behind only has to turn less angle to put his nose
on the endpoint, a bit more for lead depending on how far back he is when the lead turned. If the attacker is 200m
or farther back then he can have you after pulling half the angle if that.
Follow someone who is zigging and zagging and always fly inside the path that he does, towards where he will be
instead and always at lower G's. You should catch up pretty quick.

So that guy behind you is not pulling more AOA unless he was right on your tail and slow to follow. 100+m away,
he can turn less angle and because of distances has lead on you. Only if he follows your path does he have to
pull the same G's. Following inside someone's path allows you to pull less G's and gain on speed difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It is true in the horizontal plane, whereas spiral climb deals with the climb rate. In the horizontale plane "turn less angle" = turning tighter, that is true only if either the plane who follows you is a better T&B plane, or if you do uncoordinated turns. The first case was described well by Saburo Sakai, who said that he was "cutting the curves" against a P40 that he was pursuing, thus slowly gaining ground on him until the final kill.

In the spiral climb IMHO the better turn rate of a follower is neutralised by the your better climb rate. Of course this works only if your plane has a good advantage in climb rate, as in my exemple of the Kurfurst.

I have the exact experience of someone above, of a worse climber doing quick "nose-ups" below and behind me, which allowed them to take snapshots and crippling my plane.

All the above is IMVHO, of course.

Regards,
Insuber

M_Gunz
04-12-2009, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
A real effective spiral climb is done when you have excess energy and only climb using your elevator trim and control your ascent speed and climb speed using elevator trim control and watch out your climb rate as yout spiral climb. Best is around 230-280kph.

If you use the stick to spiral climb, you're asking for trouble because the plane would be slower and more vulnerable.

That is one way that piloting can cancel an advantage. In IL2:Sturmovik there was no CEM and it has some degree of auto-rudder.
Trim has always made a lot of difference. Then we got CEM and last, no more auto-rudder. More margins to manage where before
the engine and prop always ran best, etc. More places to lose the edge so read about.

Excess power could be looked at as top level speed since at top level speed the plane has no more excess power.
If one plane is faster than another, he still has excess power when the slower one has none.

M_Gunz
04-12-2009, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Insuber:
It is true in the horizontal plane, whereas spiral climb deals with the climb rate. In the horizontale plane "turn less angle" = turning tighter, that is true only if either the plane who follows you is a better T&B plane, or if you do uncoordinated turns. The first case was described well by Saburo Sakai, who said that he was "cutting the curves" against a P40 that he was pursuing, thus slowly gaining ground on him until the final kill.

I don't think you follow what I wrote. When you are well behind someone and he turns then your turn begins well back of his.
You don't have to turn as far to point at the same place when you are well behind.

Example -- pursuit is 200m behind a target when the target turns 90 degrees hard, taking him about 200m off the side of his
path and heading changed 90 degrees. To point at where he gets from 200m behind is 400m ahead and 200m to the side. The
angle is much less than 90 degrees. What the pursuit plane gets is somewhere between that and what the leader flew for
angle, but always less than the leader simply because of the separation of the two makes favorable angles available to
the pursuer except in a tail chase.

The follower does not fly the same path as the leader, that is what Saburo Sakai wrote about btw. He wasn't following the
turns that the P-40 was making. He was cutting inside on a shorter and lower-energy path than the P-40 took.

Insuber
04-12-2009, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Insuber:
It is true in the horizontal plane, whereas spiral climb deals with the climb rate. In the horizontale plane "turn less angle" = turning tighter, that is true only if either the plane who follows you is a better T&B plane, or if you do uncoordinated turns. The first case was described well by Saburo Sakai, who said that he was "cutting the curves" against a P40 that he was pursuing, thus slowly gaining ground on him until the final kill.

I don't think you follow what I wrote. When you are well behind someone and he turns then your turn begins well back of his.
You don't have to turn as far to point at the same place when you are well behind.

Example -- pursuit is 200m behind a target when the target turns 90 degrees hard, taking him about 200m off the side of his
path and heading changed 90 degrees. To point at where he gets from 200m behind is 400m ahead and 200m to the side. The
angle is much less than 90 degrees. What the pursuit plane gets is somewhere between that and what the leader flew for
angle, but always less than the leader simply because of the separation of the two makes favorable angles available to
the pursuer except in a tail chase.

The follower does not fly the same path as the leader, that is what Saburo Sakai wrote about btw. He wasn't following the
turns that the P-40 was making. He was cutting inside on a shorter and lower-energy path than the P-40 took. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gunz,

I think I got well what you were saying, that's why I reported Sakai's words. His plane was not only turning better, but the adversary made uncoordinated and purposeless turns, which resulted is wasting advantage by doing a longer path.
In the horizontal this technique is called lead pursuit, AFAIK, as opposed to the lag pursuit, and at shorter distance it gives you a window for a snap shot, that you pay with an increased angular separation afterwards.

My point was that we are here in the horizontal plane, whereas climbing spiral goes vertical and should change completely the situation. You can still "cut curves" to gain angles, but if the leading adversary climbs better you cannot get a firing solution.

Regards,
Ins

zunzun
04-12-2009, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So that guy behind you is not pulling more AOA unless he was right on your tail and slow to follow. 100+m away,
he can turn less angle and because of distances has lead on you. Only if he follows your path does he have to
pull the same G's. Following inside someone's path allows you to pull less G's and gain on speed difference.

I not talking about being able of "cutting corner". I am talking about a guy in turning contest with you. Being able of pulling more AoA allow you to move the nose of your plane where you want (to gain enough lead for the shot). My impression is that in the game this is too much (As I said at the beginning of my last post I have no proof for this so it is just that, an impression).

M_Gunz
04-14-2009, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by zunzun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So that guy behind you is not pulling more AOA unless he was right on your tail and slow to follow. 100+m away,
he can turn less angle and because of distances has lead on you. Only if he follows your path does he have to
pull the same G's. Following inside someone's path allows you to pull less G's and gain on speed difference.

I not talking about being able of "cutting corner". I am talking about a guy in turning contest with you. Being able of pulling more AoA allow you to move the nose of your plane where you want (to gain enough lead for the shot). My impression is that in the game this is too much (As I said at the beginning of my last post I have no proof for this so it is just that, an impression). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And back to that, if the follower stays back a way then he NEVER has to turn as hard to follow as long as he doesn't fly
the same path and speed as the leader.

Getting out of the close and dead six mentality of aerial combat allows a view of combat as a series of path crossings.
Turning circles don't have to be co-center much less co-radius, and that applies to vertical as well as horizontal.
You can even be faster than the target you stay behind using the right maneuvers, like the yoyo.

If turning contests were mandatory then WWII would have been fought with biplanes.

How much AOA you have to pull to make the same turn depends on your plane. Higher wingloaded plane must pull more AOA
than a lower wingloaded plane to get the same effect. Moving the nose is more than AOA, AOA just sets one limit. Same
AOA at twice the speed makes 4x **the lift that actually moves the nose**, and 4x the drag as well. If you think that
doesn't apply then try to make a 4G turn when only going at 2G stall speed.

And stall speeds.. there's so many. How many G's, power off/power on, flaps, gear, loading of the plane....
We have an FM that we can fly power-on slower than power-off 1G (reference) stall. That is a real thing. Propwash over
the wings provides more lift that is not there during power-off stall determination.

How far the FM is off, and it MUST be off in places, well just good luck in saying. I've read a Finnish report in 109G
that full power 1G stall was made at 135kph. Power-off being about 155kph.

If I fly a plane that can POWER-OFF hold level flight *at* 155kph then with power added I should be able to climb while
holding that speed. You got it, climb at stall speed, climb very well at stall speed but climb better at some higher
speed, best climb should be around 240kph in early 109's, see if the slats are out then!

Bremspropeller
04-15-2009, 09:51 AM
The Spit easily wins in wing loading which I would *think* means the Spit wins in very steep climbs, but the Bf109 would win in most zoom climbs...

Mother-fekking why?

Wing-loading only gives mass by wing-area.
THAT doesn't tell you anything about the lift produced.

Same about power/ weight.
Nobody cares abou HP-output.
What really counts is the amount of thrust that can be produced by the airscrew.
Not all the power can really be transitioned into thrust - remember that!

Prop-fighters aren't jet-fighters where this number-whizzing is a bit closer to the real deal.

na85
04-15-2009, 09:56 AM
Actually wingloading and thrust:weight ratio are good indicators of performance.

Bremspropeller
04-15-2009, 10:03 AM
No, lift/drag and thrust/weight are.

Wingloading only serves you when comparing the same type of aircraft.

na85
04-15-2009, 10:20 AM
When comparing instantaneous turn performance, you want to look at which aircraft has the greatest usable G capability at a particular speed. That G capability reflects the aircraft's lift:weight ratio, which is largely dependent on the wingloading of the aircraft.

Lift:drag ratio is helpful when comparing sustained turn performance.

Bremspropeller
04-15-2009, 10:26 AM
which is largely dependent on the wingloading of the aircraft.

It ain't.

Because lift is:

wing area X dynamic pressure X CL

You can have an entirely equal or even better turn-performance by having a better CL-Alpha curve and a higher wingloading.


Wingloading is ONE factor, not THE factor.
As most aircraft have quite some different profiles and therefoire CL-Alpha curves, wingloading is not worth a glance, because it ain't the factor behind the turn-performance.

The CL-Alpha curve is.

Kettenhunde
04-15-2009, 10:44 AM
No, lift/drag and thrust/weight are.


I would go with that too. It depends on how you define performance. If it means which airplane can make the slowest circles, it might not be the best indicator.

So we are all on the same sheet of music:

L/D ratio is very important as it is tied to design. L/D ratio is considered the measure of the aerodynamic efficiency of an aircraft design. Several key performance V speeds occur at L/Dmax. Best Range, Minimum drag, Best Rate of climb, and Best glide ratio for example are found at L/Dmax.

Consider two aircraft, both flying at best glide speed:

Aircraft 1

Weight - 10lbs

L/D ratio - 1:10

Aircraft 2

Weight - 10,000lbs

L/D ratio 1:10

If both aircraft are at 1000 feet, which one will hit the ground first?

The heavier one at 10,000lbs as its Best Glide Speed occurs at a faster velocity.

Which one will travel the farthest?

Neither one, they will both travel the same distance. If they start at 1000 feet vertical distance then they will both be able to travel 10,000 feet horizontal distance.

Wingloading is a good indicator of which aircraft can fly the same vector the slowest or fastest. I agree this is most useful when comparing the same design at different load conditions.

All propeller aircraft performance is determined by the relationship of power available to power required. Jet aircraft we use thrust available to thrust required. In both types, thrust is the force that moves the aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-15-2009, 10:47 AM
You can have an entirely equal or even better turn-performance by having a better CL-Alpha curve and a higher wingloading.

Exactly, that is why aircraft must be examined as a system.

All the best,

Crumpp

na85
04-15-2009, 11:01 AM
Since drag changes with speed, I would think that when comparing the performance of two aircraft, using something that is constant would be better, because then you don't have to provide qualifiers (such-and-such plane has better Lifthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifrag at 400kph, etc)

So if you've got 2 aircraft and you want to know which should go for angles tactics and which should go for energy tactics, would you look at L/D?

Bremspropeller
04-15-2009, 11:13 AM
No, I'd look at the CL-Alpha curve in order to see how many Gs I could pull at speed.

Generally, I'd compare flight-envelopes...gives you the best overall picture.

BTW: corner-speed and thus best turn-rate is all about speed.
An F-16 will fly circles around a MiG-29 above 350kts.
The opposite is true below 250 kts...
The F-16 will do better at medium an low alts, the MiG will do better up high...

There's lots of variables IRL.

There is no such "single hint" as some people on these boards claim to know...

TS_Sancho
04-15-2009, 01:47 PM
There is no such "single hint" as some people on these boards claim to know...

and

"Exactly, that is why aircraft must be examined as a system."

are the two best gems of knowledge thus far in this thread.

There is a huge amount of knowledge buried in this forum and I honestly respect the patience of some of the contributers who put a real effort into enlightening those of us who have a passion for historical aviation but little knowledge of the engineering theories which are required to truly understand the nature of powered flight.
The more I learn the more I appreciate what Oleg Maddox and team managed to create in their IL2 project.
OK, so as not to derail the thread yes spiral climb is a legitamate tactic in game but it depends very much on the plane doing the spiraling to have an E advantage and the other pilot underestimating your energy state and following you up. Its not something that will help shake a co E spitfire 200 meters off your 6 as as soon as your nose goes up he'll shoot you, just like previously explained.

Woke_Up_Dead
04-15-2009, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
yes spiral climb is a legitamate tactic in game but it depends very much on the plane doing the spiraling to have an E advantage and the other pilot underestimating your energy state and following you up.

So basically it's a variation of the "rope-a-dope" maneuver.

Xiolablu3
04-18-2009, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
yes spiral climb is a legitamate tactic in game but it depends very much on the plane doing the spiraling to have an E advantage and the other pilot underestimating your energy state and following you up.

So basically it's a variation of the "rope-a-dope" maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, as a Spiral climb is more an escape tactic.

Climb while turning to one side in the hope to lose a worse turning and worse climbing plane. Its a valid tactic for a Bf109, Spitfire, or other manouverable fast climbers.

It usually favours a plane with a good climb and turn rate.