PDA

View Full Version : Best tactic against TnB fighters?



Rammjaeger
06-18-2007, 03:55 AM
A question for online dogfighters:

Let's suppose one is up in an energy fighter - Fw-190, P-51 etc. - against a skilled pilot in an I-153 (well aware of that type's strengths and weaknesses). One on one. No altitude advantage at the beginning. No wonder woman view.

Turning with the I-153 is obviously not an option, so one will have to stick to energy fighting / "stall fighting". Diving away, gaining altitude, zooming down on the I-153 from above - problem is, the enemy pilot will probably turn for a headon attack whenever the BnZ attack begins.

So, what is the proper tactic?

Xiolablu3
06-18-2007, 04:14 AM
Get well above him, and B&Z him.

Dive down, pick out the path he is flying along.

SHoot where your bullets and him will meet in the air and fire.

If you miss, zoom back up and repeat.

SOmetimes this involves shooting when you cannot see the enemy, he is behind your engine, but with practice, its not too hard.

Thats why the FW190 and Tempest are so good for this, they have a lot of 20mm Ammo so you can lay down a spread of fire in the path of the enemy..

If he turns for a head on he will have burned loads of energy in the turn, fly back up and repeat, he can only do this so many times until he is floudering in the deck with no energy and an easy target.

Manu-6S
06-18-2007, 04:16 AM
BnZ works but remember of doing a good SA before you attack: at every zoom look around you for co alts contacts...

I prefer to work to ambush them.

Henkie327
06-18-2007, 04:23 AM
First merge, race at him headon dive under and shoot him in the belly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Make the I153 use neg G to trick him to cut out his engine. I153 has pretty bad forward visibility but good rear visibiliy.

Other than that basically just BnZ. Very boring scenario 1 on 1 because for BnZ you need surprise, but in 1 on 1 there is hardly any surprise so you don't cause much SA problems for the I153 (no externals settings).

If you fight a I153 player with good SA and good experience with evasives, you will most likely run out of fuel or ammo and not hit anything. The BnZ plane can BnZ all day, but an I153 can keep his speed up and make evasives all day.

PF_Coastie
06-18-2007, 04:39 AM
I agree with all of the above but, it must be done with a wingman. You need to tag team the bandit until he makes a mistake. This is much easier to do with 2 or more pilots with good timing on the attacks.

rnzoli
06-18-2007, 04:42 AM
So, what is the proper tactic?
Teamwork. Even the most manouverable and situationally aware I-153 cannot aim its guns at 2 separate aircraft at the same time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you are alone, it will be indeed an even match, the most patient will win (or the one, who took more fuel, no kidding!). Manouverability can compensate for the lack of speed and energy to some extent.

* edit * Coastie was faster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Okay some more hint then: try QMB Me-262 vs. Ki-27. When you down the Ki-27, you know how to beat the I-153 online.

Ratsack
06-18-2007, 04:47 AM
Go and find a target who doesn't know you're there.

That's what Hartmann did.

cheers,
Ratsack

carguy_
06-18-2007, 05:42 AM
Drag & bag.
In online wars in year `41 experienced LW virtual pilot packs love this kind of engagement.

The guy gets picked on by I153,dives and half minute later another 109 swoops down on the vvs with big speed margin.The second he`s finished the attack,the guy who was picked on is ready to attack.

One on one I don`t fight I153.Keep the speed above 380km/h and you`re safe,just don`t climb under 400km/h speeds.

Against one opponent it`s iritating most of the time.The positioning goes on forever and even if you hit some,it is not nearly enough.

For FW190 the I153 is not a threat.Some pilots ignore them,some pilots go for easy kills.


Now the I16 changes the situation.

stalkervision
06-18-2007, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Get well above him, and B&Z him.

Dive down, pick out the path he is flying along.

SHoot where your bullets and him will meet in the air and fire.

If you miss, zoom back up and repeat.

SOmetimes this involves shooting when you cannot see the enemy, he is behind your engine, but with practice, its not too hard.

Thats why the FW190 and Tempest are so good for this, they have a lot of 20mm Ammo so you can lay down a spread of fire in the path of the enemy..

If he turns for a head on he will have burned loads of energy in the turn, fly back up and repeat, he can only do this so many times until he is floudering in the deck with no energy and an easy target.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Blood_Splat
06-18-2007, 07:16 AM
If he sees you be prepared for the 6G turn lol.

tigertalon
06-18-2007, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Get well above him, and B&Z him.

Dive down, pick out the path he is flying along.

SHoot where your bullets and him will meet in the air and fire.

If you miss, zoom back up and repeat.

SOmetimes this involves shooting when you cannot see the enemy, he is behind your engine, but with practice, its not too hard.

Thats why the FW190 and Tempest are so good for this, they have a lot of 20mm Ammo so you can lay down a spread of fire in the path of the enemy..

If he turns for a head on he will have burned loads of energy in the turn, fly back up and repeat, he can only do this so many times until he is floudering in the deck with no energy and an easy target.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

and: whenever he turns upwards to meet you headon, you break your attack, wait for him and when you judge he is nearing his stall, whoop down and hit him right when he is hanging helplessly in the air.

DKoor
06-18-2007, 07:20 AM
Best tactic against TnB fighters?
Speed?

rnzoli
06-18-2007, 07:38 AM
Your speed is your safety, you dictate the fight, but only your bullets can win the fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hence my suggestion of Me262 vs Ki27 - wanna do some more track recording for us? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I assume that a good I-153 pilot will not turn and bleed energy all the time. He will save energy during separation and then bring his guns on the approaching enemy only when closing into gun range, levelling the chances for mutual hits, rather than playing the expected underdog of evading, evading, evading.

On the other hand I don't see a problem evaporating the I-153 in a head-on , provided you fly the Fw-190s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG14_Josf
06-18-2007, 08:17 AM
the enemy pilot will probably turn for a headon attack

Rammjaeger,

If you have an energy fighter (I can't confirm or deny that the plane set you mention is a angles versus energy fight), then, your description above is a good set-up for the sustained turn technique using two circle turn geometry.

I can go on describing this technique but it is a secret and after telling you I'd have to kill you.

Actually I can describe it again and point you to Robert Shaw's book: Fighter Combat where Shaw describes what he calls The Sustained Turn Technique.

If you want me to describe it, this time, please consider answering at least one question first: Do you know how to perform a lead turn and if so describe it.

I ask that to begin introducing The Sustained Turn Technique.

I notice how the previous answers you receive fail to understand how the energy fighter can stay and fight and win. No dragging and bagging and no hitting and running. The maneuver even works under certain conditions when your plane is double inferior. The maneuver even works under certain conditions when your plane is double inferior and it doesn't have a higher top speed.

In other words the maneuver even works if you are flying an Fw190A-8 against a Spitfire IX (25) under certain conditions that begin with a head-on merge.

My guess is that the plane set you describe is a true one on one dissimilar match-up between an angles fighter and an energy fighter i.e. two single superior aircraft matched in a dog fight. The energy fighter in that case has The Sustained Turn Technique as an almost sure bet (unlike trying to use the Sustained Turn Technique while flying against a double superior plane while your plane can't go as fast as the opponents where the Sustained Turn Technique can only work under strict and fleeting conditions).

Henkie327
06-18-2007, 08:30 AM
Sustained turn technique?

190 vs I153? one on one? human vs human?

Very interesting hehe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would like to see this explained in word and in track http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
A question for online dogfighters:

Let's suppose one is up in an energy fighter - Fw-190, P-51 etc. - against a skilled pilot in an I-153 (well aware of that type's strengths and weaknesses). One on one. No altitude advantage at the beginning. No wonder woman view.

Turning with the I-153 is obviously not an option, so one will have to stick to energy fighting / "stall fighting". Diving away, gaining altitude, zooming down on the I-153 from above - problem is, the enemy pilot will probably turn for a headon attack whenever the BnZ attack begins.

So, what is the proper tactic?

Any fighter that has control authority at high speed and good firepower will make mincemeat out of the I-153.

Even when he knows you are coming he cannot escape 4 x 20mm (in the case of the Fw 190) all the time. The I-153 is mince meat on the 2nd or 3rd pass.

JG14_Josf
06-18-2007, 09:23 AM
I would like to see this explained in word and in track

We fly from approximately 8pm Eastern Time launching from Hyperlobby most nights. We record many track files. You can join in on days where we decide to practice stuff rather than competing in on-line wars (Forgotten Skies) or dog fight servers (Spits and 109s, Warclouds, Winds of War).

If you join Hyperlobby and see me on the waiting list then don't hesitate to type a greeting. I can ignore it if too busy talking on Teamspeak or you can be voted into our session for whatever. Making track files of specific maneuvers would be great. I even think Wotan has a few training maps set up just for this stuff Wotan is the CO for his JG53 bunch Hertt and I are on loan from JG-14 since our squad went into hibernation.

Anyway I can describe the Sustained Turn Technique in more words than a normal human being can stand to read but first it is probably a good idea to have you, or someone, answer the Lead Turn question. I think it is important to get that understood before diving into two circle turn geometry.

HuninMunin
06-18-2007, 09:30 AM
Simply put:

You pursuit an enemy and decide to cut the distance by pointing your flightpath to a point in his flightpath before his plane ( like you were aiming to make a deflection shot) instead of moving behind him on his flight path ( true pursuit).

A lead turn is such a motion projected onto a plane that flys parralel to you in the opposite direction.
You engange with several hundred meters of horizontal distance and turn inside the enemy before you actualy are on same height.
With the right timing you end up on the enemys six.

Bremspropeller
06-18-2007, 09:52 AM
Okay.

At first you gotta shift your priorities from shooting down the enemy to surviving your missions and accomplish your tasks. In that particular order.
"Surviving" also includes your assigned teammates.


You gotta think of what energy fighting gives you as advantage:
YOU chose whether to attack (tactical situation is in your favour) or not to attck (tact. situation is not in your favour).

So what is a good tactical situaton?
Basicly this includes:
- you're above the nemy
- your a/c is faster

Always remember: you don't have to engage if you're not in a superrior position.
It's better not to engege when your chances are not good (at least) to survive an engagement.

If that I-153 always turns around an ruins your shooting-solution...fine!
As long as you keep up enrgy (speed and alt advantage) he may counter your attacks, but otherwise he can't kill you either!
A very important rule is not to concentrate on a single target (target fixiation).

Remember: it's always the guy you didn't see that shoots you down.
When you fail to bring down an enemy, it's better not to stay and try to shoot him down, but to go ahead and search for an easier target.

That may not sound quite glorious, but it'll keep you alive for quite a longer time.


An eagle also only gets it's prey on every 7th attempt (statistical fact).
Think of the eagle that fails to get his lunch in 6 out of 7 strike-attempts.
Yet he still manages to stay alive and not to starve.

The point is:
You gotta learn to be patient and not to loose your head because some guy won't let you shoot him down that easyly.

stalkervision
06-18-2007, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Get well above him, and B&Z him.

Dive down, pick out the path he is flying along.

SHoot where your bullets and him will meet in the air and fire.

If you miss, zoom back up and repeat.

SOmetimes this involves shooting when you cannot see the enemy, he is behind your engine, but with practice, its not too hard.

Thats why the FW190 and Tempest are so good for this, they have a lot of 20mm Ammo so you can lay down a spread of fire in the path of the enemy..

If he turns for a head on he will have burned loads of energy in the turn, fly back up and repeat, he can only do this so many times until he is floudering in the deck with no energy and an easy target.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

and: whenever he turns upwards to meet you headon, you break your attack, wait for him and when you judge he is nearing his stall, whoop down and hit him right when he is hanging helplessly in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


where you can see the advantage of this best is flying a 109e agains't a early spit. I do it all the time in "BOBWOV" I pick a one on one mission agains't a spit and after the merge instead of reversing the turn right away I CLIMB. The 109e has a much better climb rate and angle of climb then the spit 1. When I get high above him I do b and z all day long on the spit pilot.

Remember this winning tactic with the 109 when "BOBSOW" comes out. It shows why in the battle of Britain the spit was considered the superior defensive plane and the 109 the superior offensive one..

JG14_Josf
06-18-2007, 10:35 AM
Simply put:

Thanks. Since I like to type I will.

The lead turn assumes that the target does not perform a lead turn at the same time and that is why I ask to conceptualize the lead turn.

How does the person performing a lead turn accomplish a lead turn if the other person is also performing a lead turn?

That is not the same thing as asking:

How does the person performing the lead turn accomplish the lead turn if the other person is going for a head-on shot?

A lead turn is, again, a maneuver that involves some basic conditions:

1. Opposite headings (two planes approaching each other in the forward hemisphere).
2. One turn diameter separation just before both planes pass each other (merge)
3. One plane turning while the other plane does not turn.

A perfect lead turn can be described as a split S onto a non-maneuvering bomber that has no tail gunner. The attacking fighter plane maintains one turn diameter distance above the bomber during the head-on attack. Just before passing the bomber the fighter rolls inverted and starts a maximum performance turn at corner speed (the g force will keep the plane from accelerating above corner speed and gravity will keep the fighter from slowing down below corner speed).

At the end of 180 degrees of lead turn the fighter is at the perfect range behind the bomber on the same heading as the bomber.

If the bomber pilot pitches up into the attack, then, there is no lead turn.

Now; assume that the angles fighter approaching is going for the head-on shot.

You don't know it yet. You are trying to set up a lead turn (and The Sustained Turn Technique) so you place the target off to your right (for example). You pilot your plane on a heading that isn't directly at the target. You are trying to maintain the one turn diameter separation required for a lead turn and the attacker isn't cooperating.

What happens as you try to set-up a lead turn while the target is going for the head-on shot?

Henkie327
06-18-2007, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would like to see this explained in word and in track

We fly from approximately 8pm Eastern Time launching from Hyperlobby most nights. We record many track files. You can join in on days where we decide to practice stuff rather than competing in on-line wars (Forgotten Skies) or dog fight servers (Spits and 109s, Warclouds, Winds of War).

If you join Hyperlobby and see me on the waiting list then don't hesitate to type a greeting. I can ignore it if too busy talking on Teamspeak or you can be voted into our session for whatever. Making track files of specific maneuvers would be great. I even think Wotan has a few training maps set up just for this stuff Wotan is the CO for his JG53 bunch Hertt and I are on loan from JG-14 since our squad went into hibernation.

Anyway I can describe the Sustained Turn Technique in more words than a normal human being can stand to read but first it is probably a good idea to have you, or someone, answer the Lead Turn question. I think it is important to get that understood before diving into two circle turn geometry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I would like that a lot, but I have no idea what 8 pm Eastern Time in GMT is?

Would be nice to see how this fictive 190 vs I153 scenario plays out.

(edit for type error)

JG14_Josf
06-18-2007, 10:55 AM
Ok I would like that a lot, but I have no idea what 8 pm Eastern Time in GMT is?

16:54:24 Monday June 18, 2007 in GMT converts to (http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc)

Henkie327
06-18-2007, 11:09 AM
Ok thx, I will see if I can make it 8 pm US/Eastern time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
06-18-2007, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Get well above him, and B&Z him.

Dive down, pick out the path he is flying along.

SHoot where your bullets and him will meet in the air and fire.

If you miss, zoom back up and repeat.

SOmetimes this involves shooting when you cannot see the enemy, he is behind your engine, but with practice, its not too hard.

Thats why the FW190 and Tempest are so good for this, they have a lot of 20mm Ammo so you can lay down a spread of fire in the path of the enemy..

If he turns for a head on he will have burned loads of energy in the turn, fly back up and repeat, he can only do this so many times until he is floudering in the deck with no energy and an easy target.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

and: whenever he turns upwards to meet you headon, you break your attack, wait for him and when you judge he is nearing his stall, whoop down and hit him right when he is hanging helplessly in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


where you can see the advantage of this best is flying a 109e agains't a early spit. I do it all the time in "BOBWOV" I pick a one on one mission agains't a spit and after the merge instead of reversing the turn right away I CLIMB. The 109e has a much better climb rate and angle of climb then the spit 1. When I get high above him I do b and z all day long on the spit pilot.

Remember this winning tactic with the 109 when "BOBSOW" comes out. It shows why in the battle of Britain the spit was considered the superior defensive plane and the 109 the superior offensive one.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like doing this in IL2 in a Bf109F4 vs a Spitfire V.

The 109F4 has a far better zoom climb and dive, its just far better in the vertical.

I imagine that the same in the Bf109E and the SPit 1 in BOBWOV.

Ramm, try setting up a few QMB's with you in a BF109F4 vs a SPitfire Vb 1941 and practice staying in the vertical.

ALso fly with Josf, he will teach you some stuff, although I think you would be better both flying on a friendly icon srver at first, so that you can keep tabs on each other.

stalkervision
06-18-2007, 05:21 PM
I like doing this in IL2 in a Bf109F4 vs a Spitfire V.

The 109F4 has a far better zoom climb and dive, its just far better in the vertical.

I imagine that the same in the Bf109E and the SPit 1 in BOBWOV.


Sounds exactly the same as the 109e and the spit 1 in BOB2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

works really well too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Rammjaeger
06-21-2007, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If you want me to describe it, this time, please consider answering at least one question first: Do you know how to perform a lead turn and if so describe it.


Do you mean doing a neat turn at the right time without losing speed? Possibly yes.

I've downloaded that book, will take a closer look at it as soon as I can.

Thanks for the replies everyone! (well, for the useful replies anyway...)

JG14_Josf
06-22-2007, 12:56 PM
Do you mean doing a neat turn at the right time without losing speed? Possibly yes.

A lead turn is an early turn. A lead turn example is one where the Fighter is attacking a non-maneuvering bomber (or another fighter where the pilot is not paying attention) and both planes are approaching each other head-on.

The lead turn is accomplished by flying a path that is not on the same trajectory as the target, rather, the attacker moves his trajectory one turn diameter off the trajectory of the target; think in terms of going after a lower target for example.

The idea is to begin an early turn from one turn diameter above the target and end up scribing one half circle ending right behind the target in guns range.

That would be a perfect lead turn.

A lead turn can be used while the target is maneuvering and you may wonder what happened while you are shot down during a lead turn when you are the victim. That cannot happen when you and the opponent both turn into a lead turn at the same time, do you see this, one has to turn early?

A lead turn is an early turn.

If you do understand a lead turn, then, I can proceed to describe (my wording) Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique. If your opponent can get you with a lead turn, then, he probably won't fall for the Sustained Turn Technique. Many players know these maneuvers but they may not know how to put them into words. They can be seen on track files when you know what to look for.

zugfuhrer
06-22-2007, 02:24 PM
Some a/c in this game are more than turn n burn.
Some got some very contradicting characteristics.
They dont bleed energy but they break hard as son as the throttle is idle, and after you have overshoot them they catch up on you as if they got afterburners.
They got good top speed, die harders and good divers not so bad rollers.
If they also got good guns and tough damageprofiles, there is only one tactic, join a server where they are excluded.

LEXX_Luthor
06-22-2007, 05:13 PM
Ratsack::
Go and find a target who doesn't know you're there.

That's what Hartmann did.

cheers,
Ratsack
hehe, as we saw recently in the "pilot fatigue" thread, this is not an option in Online death match competition gameplay.

The old Flying Tigers in China may offer some clues. They were not much "faster" than their opponents, but they always tried for altitude advantage for one diving pass, and made it count. After that, they dove to safety to dive another day. The tactical advantage the Flying Tigers had were billions of Chinese ground obsevers armed to the teeth with telephone lines and having experience since the time of Soviet involvement in the earlier air war from 1936 to about 1940 or so.

MrMojok
06-22-2007, 05:32 PM
Josf-

what was the link for that Boyd aerial combat .pdf file you gave me one time? I have lost it.

JG14_Josf
06-22-2007, 07:12 PM
The Gold Mine (http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm)

Fast Transients (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/fast_transients.pdf)

Aerial Attack Study (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/boydaerialattack.pdf)

MrMojok
06-22-2007, 07:14 PM
Thanks, man.

lowfighter
06-22-2007, 09:17 PM
A track or several would be very interesting! Having the I-153 flown by an experienced pilot (who knows well, as Rammjaeger explicitely stated, also the tactics emplyed by B&Z good opponents). As Henkie and others,I don't think it will be that easy, except for headon shots, but the I-153 pilot, I don't think he will risk headons against a FW190.
Offline you can of course gain advantage on him and then B&Z at leasure, but experienced humans are orders of magnitude better and smarter and will not do what you want them to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
I think watching such a fight would be pretty entertaining too if the 2 opponents have also a good deal of imagination besides the experience.

leitmotiv
06-22-2007, 09:36 PM
Ignore them and hurt their feelings. You can't ignore a big, nasty P-38. Death from above.

Henkie327
06-22-2007, 10:51 PM
yes just for curiosity, I would like to see this scenario in track: 190 vs I153 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(both human players ofcourse)

JG14_Josf
06-22-2007, 11:19 PM
Henkie327,

I am still open to recording track files. When I start my flying time at 8 pm Eastern the other guys show up and then the opportunity is closed if we are already up and flying.

Do you understand this?

If you show up on time, then, we can start communicating in the effort to set things up.

When I show up at hyperlobby I look for others, join TS, enter a server and then start teamwork. If there is to be a change of routine, then, that change has to arrive early.

On that note: How can we demonstrate any particular maneuver without a script? Are you willing to be the non-maneuvering target to illustrate a lead turn?

Without a clear understanding of the lead turn it is more difficult to conceptualize the Sustained Turn Technique.

Anyway - the plane set you wish to test should be a clear example of an energy fighter against an angles fighter so the random dog fight session will probably generate more than one example of something resembling the Sustained Turn Technique.

You may not (or you may) appreciate how teamwork is a primary premium expenditure of time and energy. How can I demonstrate this fact? Join up early and perhaps you can be voted in before things are tracking.

When you showed up JG53 Wotan and I were working targets I had to dump him to get you on board. Wotan was heading out on vacation. I chose to continue teamwork.

Understand?

8pm Eastern time most nights and on Forgotten Skies nights we warm up before the 9:30pm Eastern start time for that on-line war.

Why is there a reluctance to discuss the maneuver before trying to demonstrate it?

Do you understand the lead turn?

Henkie327
06-23-2007, 12:19 PM
sure I am also open to record track files.

I will see if I can make it at 8pm Eastern time if I am not too sleepy then.

And about a script:

for me the goal is not so much to demonstrate a maneuver, for me the goal is to see how the 190 will deal with the I153.

But it would be interesting to see how the 190 can win from the I153 using this "sustained turn techique" that you talk about. Where you say:

-----------
begin quote:

"...the energy fighter can stay and fight and win. No dragging and bagging and no hitting and running. The maneuver even works under certain conditions when your plane is double inferior. The maneuver even works under certain conditions when your plane is double inferior and it doesn't have a higher top speed.

In other words the maneuver even works if you are flying an Fw190A-8 against a Spitfire IX (25) under certain conditions that begin with a head-on merge.

My guess is that the plane set you describe is a true one on one dissimilar match-up between an angles fighter and an energy fighter i.e. two single superior aircraft matched in a dog fight. The energy fighter in that case has The Sustained Turn Technique as an almost sure bet (unlike trying to use the Sustained Turn Technique while flying against a double superior plane while your plane can't go as fast as the opponents where the Sustained Turn Technique can only work under strict and fleeting conditions)."

end quote
---------

I was just curious about all the above.

The matchup 190 vs I153 could not be any more extreme. energy fighter pur sang (190) vs angles fighter pur sang (I153)

However I don't think the I153 must be a non maneuvering target. At the very least it must do what it can to deny the 190 an easy victory.

JG14_Josf
06-23-2007, 01:41 PM
Henkie327,

If you show up before things get going, then, I can drop out of the team stuff long enough to run a few testing sessions. My guess is that the others will be up for it too.

The end game for an energy fighter using the Sustained Turn Technique is unmistakable and to explain this in words is a reverse engineering type thing.

You know you are victim to the Sustained Turn Technique when the opponent is almost but not quite in your sights above you while you stall going straight up. You stall. He doesn't.

The end game can be variations on the above to extremes such as you are completely stalled with your nose up at the moment your opponent kills your pilot, or, your stall brings you almost out of control with your nose down as the opponent lines you up in his sights from your rear hemisphere.

The best, in my opinion, is the former; where - the victim is hanging on his prop looking up at you aimed down into his cockpit.

Getting to the end game situation above is possible from many approaches; the Sustained Turn Technique is one of them possible approaches.

If the match-up you prescribe is a single superior/inferior angles fighter against a single superior/inferior energy fighter, then, the end game described above will be an easy thing to produce. The energy fighter will have that option to utilize no matter what the angles fighter does absent any errors in flying skill on the part of the energy fighter; particularly those errors associated with a failure to judge relative energy states accurately.

Once the angels fighter is worked' to a lower energy state the energy fighter can then employ the end game. If the angles fighter takes the bait, then, the angles fighter will be shot down.

If not, then not.

A single superior/inferior angles fighter against a single superior/inferior energy fighter is a stalemate fight when both pilots know what to do and what not to do in my opinion.

Compare that to the case where two equal angles fighters fight, where, the fight is anchored' and soon the fight is a slow stall fight on the deck as both fighters go for angles. Both fighters turn around on opposite sides of a stalling turn at ground level = stalemate.

Compare that to the case where two equal energy fighter's fight, where, the fight, more often than not, becomes a vertical rolling scissors fight. The stalemate ends when one plane dives out while the other is rolling up. At that point the stalemate ends, unlike the anchored stall fight (angles), because energy fighting depends upon an ability to gain an energy advantage, so, the winner is the one gaining the advantage in energy and the loser (second place) is the one who recognizes the loss of energy advantage soon enough to leave before that energy disadvantage is fatal.

And then there are those things called over-shoots, which, are thoroughly communicated in John Boyd's Aerial Attack Study.

JG14_Josf
06-23-2007, 06:30 PM
yes just for curiosity, I would like to see this scenario in track: 190 vs I153

Henkie327,

The guys are all busy with real life stuff tonight. While waiting for someone to show up I tried your plane match-up with the quick mission builder Ace I153P versus 190A-4 100 fuel.

I got the A.I. the first time with the Sustained Turn Technique. I have the track file if you want it.

MrMojok
06-23-2007, 06:50 PM
I would like to see it.

na85
06-23-2007, 08:24 PM
Josf, I would like a copy of that track as well, if it's not too much trouble.

Henkie327
06-24-2007, 01:38 AM
Hi Josf,

Sorry I couldn't make it yesterday, was working around the house all day and tired. I will try today to be online a little before 8 pm eastern time.

About the track, yes sure I would like to see it. However I would like to see more both human players in for example 190A4 vs I153 scenario.

ViktorViktor
06-24-2007, 05:36 AM
The FW190 vs I153 scenario is unlikely to happen on the servers I visit. A much more common situation I experience is a low-flying FW190A with a Tempest/P51 appearing 800m over him.

What can a FW190A pilot do to survive this situation ?

JG14_Josf
06-24-2007, 09:09 AM
Guys,

Where can I send the track file?

As for the 51/Tempest/190A-4 match-up:

The FW is outclassed, double inferior, the envelope is completely covered by the opponents so that leaves high speed hit and run tactics, teamwork, overshoots and a lot of luck.


The FW190 vs I153 scenario is unlikely to happen on the servers I visit. A much more common situation I experience is a low-flying FW190A with a Tempest/P51 appearing 800m over him.

What can a FW190A pilot do to survive this situation ?

It is possible to get one good player to overshoot once. If you can't turn that into a crippling shot with a reverse or at least an escape, then, there really isn't much the 190A can do in that defensive situation with the Fw190A under a Tempest/P-51 appearing 800m over him. Good players don't fall for the overshoot - certainly not twice in a row.

The game does not allow Fw190A models to pitch up and gain relative energy on anything contemporary not even bombers.

The Fw190A, in the game, against contemporary fighters, must employ a descending fight from high speed and high altitude to low altitude (and then you had better be over your own AAA). Going up doesn't work from equal energy states. "Do not pitch up at all during a fight" is what I try to communicate to anyone who is flying with me teaming up with the Fw190A. The fight must be descending especially during dragging maneuvers.

You can see this clearly in a dragging maneuver.

Example:

You make the first pass and your wingman is behind. Your wingman is lagging behind too much. You pass, the target hears you and breaks, you overshoot, and then the target reverses his break turn and falls in behind you. DO NOT GO UP.

If you go up the target will close on you and the target will gain distance on your wingman, who, must also pitch up. This isn't true if your overtake speed on the target is great, of course, as the target must then be flying slowly.

In a plane match-up where you are flying a plane that pitches up well, then, you can pitch up and gain distance on the target as your wingman closes. The Fw190D is this type of plane.

If, instead, in the Fw190A the fight goes level (after the hit part of the hit and run pass) this will make sure that the target remains interested and doesn't become bored (range stays the same after the overshoot), then, your wingman can hang out behind the target as you drag the target all over the map.

If, instead, in the Fw190A the fight descends, then, you start gaining range on the target while your wingman closes on the target.

A. Go up and the target closes on you while the target motors away from your wingman.

B. Go level and the target, the wingman, and you stay about the same range.

C. Go nose low and you gain distance on the target while your wingman can close on the target.

That is how the Fw190A works against contemporary fighters in the game according to as many track files as you care to look at.

The low and slower Fw190A is a target.

ViktorViktor
06-25-2007, 12:56 AM
Thx JG14_Josf, your account checks with what I have experienced so far. When I get caught low and slow and ALONE, I've gotten an attacker to overshoot, but in the course of getting him to do that, my 190 has always been on the verge of a stall, so that bringing my guns to bear on my opponent hasn't possible. My opponent then recovers and shoots me down. If I'm paired, I'll use your tactics, otherwise I'll hope I can wring a head-on pass out of the situation.

MrMojok
06-25-2007, 01:30 AM
Josf, you can upload it to filefront or similar site, or you can e-mail it to me and I'll upload it to my esnips account, and everyone can get it from there.

I'll pm you my email address in case you want to send it to me.

JG14_Josf
06-25-2007, 06:27 AM
I'll pm you my email address in case you want to send it to me.

MrMojok,

Thanks.

The track file may gain ability in communicating if a few things are written about it. I didn't spend a whole of time making this file. That file is the first one against that plane.
That file is the second one of a session of two quick missions in a row; the first one was against the wrong plane (the one with the high wing = not a bi plane).

During the first try, with the wrong plane, the A.I. did a better job on the first pass (performing a lead turn) and so I spent too much time extending in the nose low turn leaving the A.I. bored' so it went up instead of pulling lead on my nose low turn.

I didn't concentrate on centering the yaw during the start of this quick mission (it doesn't help a whole lot but it does help some).

I didn't find the target at first which is something that is easy to do if the player spends a lot of time running quick missions with the quick mission builder; after awhile the routine puts the target in the same place every time.

Out of habit, from days when I did use the quick mission builder often, I begin with a very slow turn away (to the right since the targets spawn to my left = because I make it a habit to fade to the right after spawning).

Here is something to think about concerning lead turning and lag turning. If I slowly arc to the right and the opponent continuously tries to pull lead on me, then, he is turning (and burning) more than I am. Compare that picture of how things work with an entirely different situation that the opponent can do in this situation (and something I often do when flying with a wingman).

From the opponent's perspective while attacking a target that is slowly arcing away from a head on pass (that is what I do in the track file i.e. slowly arc away from a head on pass = maintain one turn diameter lateral separation):

The opponent could slowly turn to match the turn and at the same time turn more to pull lead, or, the opponent can pick a spot well ahead of the target (expecting the target to continue his slow turn away maneuver). The differences are important to consider. The continuous turning method burns energy the whole time while approaching the target. The quick turn (more degrees of turn all at once) to a heading well out ahead of the opponent leaves a whole lot more flight time (until merging with the target) at minimum drag.

Anyway the track files has me turning very slightly away to the right and the A.I. is lead turning me (not quite pure pursuit).

I see the opponent and then maintain lateral separation with a left turn into the target (this is now becoming two circle geometry or nose to tail geometry. Step back for a moment to the spawn point and imagine what would happen if I flew straight at the opponent from the start of the engagement rather than setting up the nose to tail (two circle) geometry [Edit].

I maintain lateral separation by matching the opponents turn (keep the target right up in the corner of my canopy frame). I try to turn exactly the same time that the opponent makes his lead turn. This is the tough part. If you pass very close and the opponent shoots behind you, then, you did a really good job of it. If you and the target plane pass on opposite headings, then, you did a perfect job. If the opponent has gained some angles at that merge point, then, don't worry too much because he had to burn more to get those extra angles. If, on the other hand, you turn too late, then, your opponent will have done the impossible i.e. Performed a lead turn on you while you performed a lead turn on him (you messed up bad).

Right after the merge (the first merge) the idea is to maintain vertical maneuvering speed (Shaw says: Corner Speed or Vertical Maneuvering Speed whichever is higher). The idea is to get the opponent to turn more angles faster, burn more energy, and have him at an energy disadvantage during the second merge that you are setting up.

Note: If you did the first merge perfectly, then, the target must turn 180 degrees more than you turn just to get his nose pointing in your direction while you turn at Vertical Maneuvering Speed (he will have to turn at a slower speed = burn more energy turning 180 degrees more than you turn).

Now you have the target in your rear hemisphere bearing down on you cutting your turn. If, instead, the opponent isn't quite where you want him, instead, the opponent is out on the side of your wingtip (not quite into the rear hemisphere yet), then, you can afford to slow down a little bit by pitching the nose up. Do not tighten the turn. The idea is to turn less than the opponent so pitch the nose up. DO NOT TIGHTEN THE TURN.

You don't tighten the turn because you want the opponent in your rear hemisphere (which shows that he does turn harder and shows that he does burn more energy while you DO NOT TIGHTEN THE TURN).

If, on the other hand, the opponent did burn a lot of energy and the opponent is bearing down soon after the first merge, then, drop the nose to gain distance and maintain Vertical Maneuvering Speed but NO MORE THAN VERTICAL MANEUVERING SPEED. If you are not gaining range by dropping the nose (and tightening the turn to keep the speed under vertical maneuvering speed), then, the game is up because that opponent can turn 180 degrees more than you can and still out accelerate you at speeds above corner speed, so, ease off on your turn and dive away.

If, on the other hand, the nose low turn (tighter to keep speed from getting too fast) does give you some range (and you can nose up and ease off on the turn if range becomes too great), then, you have a Sustained Turn Technique operating as it can.

Now it is time to time the turn into the second merge. It is no good to keep turning like this because the turn fighter eventually gets inside your turn geometry; in other words the advantage of making the target turn hard after the first merge won't last. Turning too soon won't offer enough room to get your nose meeting his nose head-on for the second merge.

There is a whole lot of different factors to consider to get the second turn timed right and I have found (not written in Shaw's description) that setting up the second merge under the target helps because he is then forced to split S for his second lead turn.

The second merge is the same thing as the first merge only this time the opponent has definitely spent more time turning tighter not more total angles turned - timing is important.

Replay:

Equal altitude, Equal speed, not equal energy at spawn time
You fade right burning minimum energy.
Target burns more energy in pure pursuit or leading your turn.
First merge makes you turn more to make up his angles gains but you turn all at once and then unload the turn (quick rate of energy burning followed by an efficient energy burn rate at Vertical Maneuvering Speed)
First merge is head-on and nose to tail geometry (two circle geometry).
Target is foaming at the mouth, smelling blood, so the target burns to make up more angles faster after the first merge while you ease off on g force (drag).
Nose low to gain range if needed (tighten turn if speed builds too high)
Nose high to close up range if needed (ease off on turn if speed decelerates too fast)
Set up second turn.

Note: Setting up the first merge requires more speed control not too fast not too slow exiting the first lead turn (merge) at corner speed is good, no lower than corner speed, therefore entering the first merge (especially with the Fw190) with speed to burn is essential; but not too much speed.

For the turn into the second merge, in the track file, I rolled inverted and went under the approaching target burning my turn at black out. I can do this because I've done this so many times. The geometry looked just right. If the target is too far away, then, the target may pull up instead of pulling down. If the target is too close, then, you will be the target as the opponent can then make a passing shot.

Just right is when things go the same way it does during the first merge i.e. very close passing nose to tail with equal angles off the nose. In this track file the Bi Plane easily turned inside my split S like I was flying a truck. In order to do that the Bi Plane had to burn a lot of energy. I had to burn a lot of energy too. I burned energy from a maximum speed at the bottom of my turn of 700 km/h (too high for a 109 but for the 190 the Vertical Maneuvering Speed range goes very high).

Replay:
Opponent in rear hemisphere and the opponent is slower
I roll and turn 180 degrees trying to get back to head on merge (lead turn head-on with lateral separation = not a head on shot merge).
My turn is fast and wide.
Opponent turns slow and tight inside my turn (following my turn).
My plane is lower, faster, and level at the bottom of my turn.
Opponent is higher, slower, and level at the bottom of his turn.
The Merge didn't happen because the opponent performed a lead turn (burning more energy to make the tighter turn (same angle gains).

Remember the total angle gains.
First Merge = equal
After first Merge = opponent is up by 180 degrees (burning for a longer time and a tighter turn to get inside my turn)
Before second merge = equal again (I roll under and get that 180 degrees back as fast as possible and in this case probably too fast = reaching 700 km/h).
Before second merge = equal angle gains but not equal energy loss since the opponent is turning a much tighter turn to pull lead (and make that inverted lead turn while I tried to make it a second merge at equal angles).

Note: I could have run away at the bottom of my turn (if I didn't feel confident about the geometry and relative energy states) but instead I bet the farm'.

Continuing the turn into a pull up places my plane crossing the opponent's flight path giving him a shot. Here it is a good idea to start rolling to find out if the estimate on geometry and energy states was accurate. It is also a good idea, in my opinion, to keep turning past the pure vertical and aim your zoom climb (unloading the elevator) behind where you just dove, in other words, make the target pull past pure vertical too.

If the estimate was right, then, you can afford spending a little more time near black out before unloading the elevator into the zoom climb and the target cannot afford that extra time spent pulling on his stick.

When things go right the target won't even bother shooting because he can't pull the nose ahead of your flight path.

He stalls. You don't; or your stall is later and not as bad if it is done right.

This can be done with the Fw190A against Spitfires flown by players that are green; otherwise get a wingman to pick off the Spitfire dragging behind you in a nose low extension.

Fw190D versions are different planes from the A versions like night and day the take off roll, for example, is very short for the D and very long for the A. What's up with that!

MrMojok
06-25-2007, 07:41 AM
OK, here is Josf's track. Please let me know if you have any trouble downloading this.

Sustained Turn Technique (http://esnips.com/doc/e97a6728-b00b-4ced-8945-4484147208ed/Josf_STT)

Thanks, Josf.

MrMojok
06-26-2007, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
OK, here is Josf's track. Please let me know if you have any trouble downloading this.

Sustained Turn Technique (http://esnips.com/doc/e97a6728-b00b-4ced-8945-4484147208ed/Josf_STT)

Thanks, Josf.

Bump-- anyone download this?

JG14_Josf
06-26-2007, 06:00 PM
Bump-- anyone download this?


I did.

DKoor
06-26-2007, 06:05 PM
It seems that Josf 0wned a Tchaika thru high speed dive and climb on that track....... sustained turns?

I may be a victim of miscommunication but if those are sustained turn maneuvers then I didn't understand them all along.

JG14_Josf
06-26-2007, 06:25 PM
I may be a victim of miscommunication but if those are sustained turn maneuvers then I didn't understand them all along.

Robert Shaw describes his technique better; after all - it is his.

na85
06-26-2007, 08:17 PM
Josf, thanks for the lesson

I have a general question, though:

What are corner speed, vertical maneuvering speed, and how are they determined? Should I just google them?

My best guess: Vertical Maneuvering Speed - the speed required to perform a half-loop?

JG14_Josf
06-26-2007, 09:32 PM
What are corner speed, vertical maneuvering speed, and how are they determined? Should I just google them?

na85,

I had Fighter Combat worn out before loaning it to my brother. He loaned me Stick and Rudder and his Bonanza manual so I don't have Fighter Combat handy. In Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw are his descriptions of corner speed and vertical maneuvering speed. In the context of Robert Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique those definitions must be understood in context if you know what I mean.

In the game there is a speed at which turn rate is maximized and turn rate is minimized and that speed should be when the pilot is almost blacked out at the slowest possible speed.

If it is not, then, the game is messed up.

I think the game has the physics correct so; corner speed is maximum performance speed in a turn where energy is being burned.

On the Fw190 the corner speed is near 400 km/h depending upon the model.

If you fly the Fw190 under 400 km/h and expect to get maximum performance in a turn, then, you will stall. Above that speed you can black out the pilot. Right in the middle is corner speed. Does that make sense?

Vertical maneuvering speed is a level flight speed at which you can remain in control of the plane going straight up if you pitch up from level flight.

In the game the vertical maneuvering speed for the Fw190 is around 500 km/h under that speed your plane isn't very useful once it finally gets pointed straight up.

In my track file I used more vertical than the Sustain Turn Technique described by Shaw. I think it is my own version of the tactic to tuck under the target during the second merge. My explanation earlier may not fully communicate the reasons for that addition.

What can I say?

My fans on this board have managed to create some idiot wearing my name tag.

na85
06-26-2007, 10:17 PM
If you fly the Fw190 under 400 km/h and expect to get maximum performance in a turn, then, you will stall. Above that speed you can black out the pilot. Right in the middle is corner speed. Does that make sense?

Rgr, that makes perfect sense.

Regarding your track, I thought it was quite useful, especially after having watched this one:

http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/downloads/tracks/Energy_game.zip (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/%7Echapman/il2guide/downloads/tracks/Energy_game.zip)

MrMojok
06-26-2007, 11:17 PM
I think of equal importance to the climb and dive-shootdown at the end of the track are the turns beforehand.

Henkie327
06-27-2007, 01:24 AM
Thx for the track http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif,

I saw it, it was nice but vs the AI. No disrespect, but I have my doubts if it's going to be succesful online vs a human I153 player.

I think in the scenario 1 v 1 the 190 could have problems to kill the maneuverable I153. On the other hand, it will be impossible for the I153 to shoot down the 190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

rnzoli
06-27-2007, 03:50 AM
but I have my doubts if it's going to be succesful online vs a human I153 player.

I am also unsatistified with going against AI, because it was too easy to shoot even the Ace I-153 AI down.

Therefore in order to sort out this question once and for all, I uploaded a standard, 1 vs 1 online co-op mission to the 102nd COOP dedicated server.

I-153 M-62 vs. FW-190 A-4

Clear skies, no AAA, winter map, 12:00.

The aircraft are heading towards each other head-on @ 2500m, in, engagement occurs in 2 minutes.

Tracks are automatically recorded.

You can fly the mission against the AI as well. Both are set to "Ace" level.

The server can be joined from HL, ASE and direct IP as well, it is running 24/7. Since this mission accommodates only 2 players to fly, try this mission when the server is empty (not when 10 other people are also playing on it, with other missions).

If you want to play against a human opponent, bring someone with you from HL, or simply join, practice against the AI and soon someone might join you.

In order to load up the mission, type 'DSC MAP tnb_vs_bnz' or short, 'DSC MAP 94_' (observe the upper case letters and the underscores).

To terminate an ongoing mission, put in DSC TERMINATE.

For the sake of courtesy, I think if you win a match, it is polite to allow your opponent to take the other aircraft, and try that scenario again, in reverse roles. This can help eliminating a few myths about the superiority of T&B and B&Z combat tactics.

I will try to drop in during the European evenings this week and see how it goes for me.

Henkie327
06-27-2007, 04:22 AM
Cool! thx http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElSjonnie
06-27-2007, 05:18 AM
Nice Josf, finally someone SHOWING SOMETHING instead of just simple talk.

Ratsack
06-27-2007, 06:45 AM
I wouldn't bother, to be honest. The guy in the Chaika can out turn you, so why get into a turning contest at all? In the Fw 190 A4 you have speed, firepower, dive and climb. You've probably got a roll advantage, too.

I just ran this scenario a couple of times (Moscow, 2,000 m, 100% fuel both planes, 1200, clear weather, ace AI), and I found I could kill the I-153 without him ever getting to guns on me. It took quite a bit longer than Josf's method (which was very neat), but most importantly from my perspective, I never had to expose myself to a lucky shot from that bastage.

The method was the same as Josf's up to the merge. After that, where Josf continued his left-hand turn, I continued straight ahead in a very shallow dive. The object was to gain separation so I was out of gun range by the time the Chaika reversed. I then gently pulled out and into a shallow climb. When my airspeed approached 400 km/h, I leveled again and picked it back up to 500 km/h or more.

After doing this twice, I had good separation and was slightly higher than the Chaika. I then pulled up into a climbing turn to reverse, being careful to ensure that I still had not less than 350 km/h at by the time I was leveled out well and pointing back towards the baddy. This meant that by the time we got back to the merge, my speed would be well over 400 km/h. I also ensured I ended my reversal so I was not heading directly AT him. There's precious little future in accepting head-ons against the AI, and I tend to avoid them against humans online, too.

At this point we are nearly back to square one, except that I have a very big energy advantage. I go for a shallow dive into the merge, which is again done so as to keep the baddie to one side, and then climb steeply away after the merge, taking advantage of my very large speed difference to gain even more height.

At the top of this zoom I decide whether I have the position to attack, or whether I have to develop my advantage further. If the latter, rinse and repeat.

In the two run-throughs I just did, I was able to attack successfully straight away. In the first my shooting was rubbish (as per normal), and I needed a second pass to finish him. In the second run he died with the first burst.

The main points about this are:

1. I never engaged in a turning contest with him;

2. I used my speed advantage to accrue a large energy advantage that allowed to play it such that;

3. He never got a shot at me.

4. If it had happened in the middle of a large furball, my first move (extend) would amount to disengaging. This is why my first post in this thread:



"Go and find a target who doesn't know you're there.

That's what Hartmann did."

still stands. I only dogfight when I'm defensive.

cheers,
Ratsack

rnzoli
06-27-2007, 07:56 AM
ace AI
All valid points, but I am afraid even the Ace AI cannot do the kind of break-turns that humans can. That's why the setup is much easier against AI than humans.

Which leads to my next question: what do we call when the FW-190 cannot shoot the I-153 down within 20 minutes?

A draw? I would say: that's a win for the I-153 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ratsack
06-27-2007, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ace AI
All valid points, but I am afraid even the Ace AI cannot do the kind of break-turns that humans can. That's why the setup is much easier against AI than humans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you're correct. The timing of the AI sucks. However, I've successfully used that sort of offset merge to gain separation from Spitfires and La5s and La7s, so I don't think the general approach is invalid. It just requires a very sure touch.



Which leads to my next question: what do we call when the FW-190 cannot shoot the I-153 down within 20 minutes?

A draw? I would say: that's a win for the I-153 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree. But - and this is the big objection - in an online environment with multiple contacts, if you can't kill your target in the first couple of passes, you become the target yourself. By the same token, a manoeuvre that gives you the shooting chance against an inferior opponent by leaving you slow and predictable (i.e., committed to a dive) is also likely to make you a target.

This is why I keep saying, if you can't get your kill quickly, you have already made a mistake and need to look to your exit and your SA.

cheers,
Ratsack

DKoor
06-27-2007, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
This is why I keep saying, if you can't get your kill quickly, you have already made a mistake and need to look to your exit and your SA.

cheers,
Ratsack This can't be more true.

JG14_Josf
06-27-2007, 10:22 AM
Best tactic against TnB fighters?

The Sustained Turn Technique is a technique. It works one on one and it works best when the plane using this technique zooms better (less unloaded deceleration). It only works if the opponent follows the script.

I am going to show a picture of a similar technique that also falls into the category of energy tactics (separate from angles tactics).

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Vertical%20Zoom.jpg

The idea again is to bet the farm' on knowing relative energy states. In that on-line engagement the Spitfire pilot followed the script. I attacked from higher and faster. He avoided the first pass shot from his rear hemisphere and he reversed (classic vertical scissors or overshoot counter ala Boyd); however my energy state was sufficiently higher to allow me to zoom over his top causing him to stall while he went for the shot. All rounds went wide. This was not a piss poor Spitfire opponent either.

The Spitfire stalled controllably but none the less stalled and my roll and dive to attack was just slightly late (sometimes it is possible to anticipate the opponents stall rather than react to it).

Note: Someone a long time ago told me "Don't dive under the target".

First pass (slightly lower going up through the target); target evades.

Don't press the attack beyond an unrecoverable point (over commitment); in other words if a quick high g turn can place your trajectory in front of the target for a passing shot, then, do that quickly and then unload again (saving energy).

If the enemy evades well then just go vertical with a quick loading up of the wings to a new heading upward and then unload to minimize drag during the zoom.

Check relative energy states by watching the rate of change in range. If the target falls away rapidly, then, your energy state is sufficient to bet the farm'. If the target is closing range, then, flip inverted and quickly load up the wings for a dive heading that is as opposite the opponents heading as possible.

If the bet the farm' option looks good then load up the wings for a new heading over the top of the opponent. Many times the opponent will pull over the top to follow your progress over him. He stalls. You don't. You don't stall because you know relative energy states well enough.

When done right the opponent will be stalled out right below you and therefore you can afford to be very slow near a stall because your plane will fall straight down on top of the opponent. All you need then is enough control to point at the target. When it works really good the target is in a very deep stall because he hung on his prop too long desperately spraying his guns like a lawn sprinkler. The target is motionless looking up at you dropping down on him; just like Robert S. Johnson describes in one of the best examples of energy tactics' reported by Robert Shaw in Fighter Combat.

In angles tactics (gamers call it TnB) the idea is to saddle up' in the rear hemisphere of the opponent by pulling on the stick. That involves one circle geometry whereby a turn radius advantage (slow speed) is used to get into the opponents rear-hemisphere and stay there.

Energy tactics (gamers mistakenly call this BnZ) involves two circle geometry (and one circle geometry combined = nose to nose and nose to tail geometry is the U.S. Navy version) where over-shoots (placing the opponent in the rear-hemisphere on purpose) are utilized (betting the farm) as a specific end to a specific maneuver.

Energy tactics involve specific maneuvers that must occur in a specific time frame (before energy advantages are lost).

Angles tactics, at least as I understand the term explained in detail by Robert Shaw, involve a general usage of a turn radius advantage where that advantage maintains a target out in the front of the Angles tactic user (forward hemisphere).

Angles tactics are easily understood when looking at a rolling scissors fight. The idea is to overshoot the opponent. The winner is the one who can fly slower. The fight is a series of nose to nose (one circle geometry) maneuvers played out in three dimensions and there is no significance to the gravity vector other than which plane slows down faster.

Energy tactics are easily understood when looking only at the nose to tail Sustained Turn Technique followed by the unloaded zoom climb where a high speed turn rate advantage is manipulated into effect as the opponent goes for the angles'. Once the angles are given' to the opponent at no cost in relative position (due to how turn rate relates to turn radius and speed) the energy tactician uses the advantage earned with his higher energy state to maintain control of his airplane in the unloaded zoom climb while the opponent does not.

That is clearly illustrated by Robert S. Johnson and numerous accounts that make reference to vertical maneuvering (as opposed to horizontal maneuvering).

Energy tactics clearly involve advantages concerning the gravity vector.

This may be why modern Fighter Combat (with planes having very high sustainable g loads and positive vertical acceleration straight up) diminishes the demarcation between angles and energy tactics where gravity is increasingly irrelevant.

It isn't a good idea to ever get out in front of an F-16 such as what is done with the Sustained Turn Technique.

It isn't a good idea to go vertical with a Focker Tri-plane as a means of betting the farm' since those very light, very high drag, and very low thrust airplanes have very small flight envelopes that do not reach very high in the vertical plane if that makes any sense.

Boyd often writes about cones' when describing fighter combat. The cone or area out in front of an F-16 that can be reached on one or two seconds is a very large area that reaches straight up for a long distance especially when the F-16 is traveling at its maximum level speed.

The cone at max speed for the WWI fighter plane is short and narrow.

The F-16 is the supreme angles fighter (with the exception of the newer jets having vector thrust) but not compared to a WWI Fighter Plane.

WWII Fighter Combat is where the Angles fight became the Energy fight and where the horizontal fight went vertical if that makes any sense.

Do not let anyone tell you that Shaw's book isn't applicable to WWII Fighter Combat unless you want to be fooled. The Sustained Turn Technique is simply one very good example of how Fighter Combat is, in fact, a very good source of information that is applicable to WWII fighter combat in general and applicable to IL2 Fighter combat simulation specifically.

My earlier Energy Game track file has been mentioned and if you look at that download you will find a text file that can be loaded into the game as a training file. Mike, from his site, offers instructions on how to load those training track files he also offers a wide variety of track files on his site (outdated for the current version of the game) for anyone interested in viewing training track files that are specific to specific maneuvers.

The following is an example of Angles Tactics (keep the opponent in the forward hemisphere):

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Yak.jpg

Next is an example of angles tactics after a very good example of rolling scissors:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Art/Nastyshot.jpg

Any track file can be broken down into a series of maneuvers described by Robert Shaw or John Boyd in much the same way as Mock combat is debriefed' on those discovery channel television shows where modern jets record Mock combat.

Most of the maneuvers will fall into the Angles Tactic category (gamers TnB). Not all of them. Many of the maneuvers will fall into the Hit and Run or Teamwork category. Not all of them. A few of the maneuvers will be vertical one on one betting the farm' zoom climb or pitch-back' maneuvers where the Energy Fighter is using gravity assisted turns (very high turn rates are possible during a wing over or hammerhead type gravity assisted turn and the turn radius is almost nil) because the Energy fighter sets this up to where his stall occurs after the target plane stalls.

Like this:


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

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

RSJ: That's a pretty good description.

CCJ: So what happens next?

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

CCJ: Energy?

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

If a person records track files during a dog fight on a dog fight server with IL2, then, they can find the above type of tactic being employed by some of the players against other players and that isn't a hit and run tactic. It is an energy tactic. It is described very well by Robert Shaw in his book titled: Fighter Combat.

John Boyd describes something similar in his Arial Attack Study during his description of overshoots. John Boyd's perspective focuses on Jet aircraft from the Mig-15 versus F-86 up to his babies the F-16 and F-18. Shaw covers WWII in great detail.

The Korean match-up (Mig-15 versus F-86) is another step up from the horizontal into the vertical (where thrust isn't yet greater than weight) and John Boyd's work clearly maps out how performance drives tactics. In the pre-missile Korean fight the F-86 is clearly the energy fighter while the Mig-15 is the Angles fighter.

A quick look at a simple version of the EM perspective illuminates this fact.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

The white area clearly shows an energy advantage held by the lower T/W F-86 with the higher wing-loading. The F-86 is the vertical maneuvering fighter plane.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Wing%20Loading.jpg

The Mig-15 is clearly the Angles fighter. The red area maps out a specific advantage in slow speed turn performance.

Those charts above scratch the surface of EM theory where overlaps of constant lines of Specific Excess Power can further illuminate the actual advantages possessed by these real aircraft.

Performance drives tactics.

The F-86 was not a hit and run plane (Gamers call it Boom and Zoom). The F-86 was the Energy fighter and the F-86 held the Energy Fighting advantages against the Angles fighting Mig-15.

There is a term used by Fighter Pilots that may help focus the perspective upon a specific relevant point.

Out rate

DKoor
06-27-2007, 10:27 AM
I find this tactic very risky... I'll only go for it when I really have t0ns of energy more than my oppo.

109 used to be more effective in vertical maneuver than it is now.
Without using prop pitch cheat of course.

na85
06-27-2007, 11:42 AM
Prop pitch cheat?

Henkie327
06-27-2007, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Best tactic against TnB fighters?

The Sustained Turn Technique is a technique. It works one on one and it works best when the plane using this technique zooms better (less unloaded deceleration). It only works if the opponent follows the script.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only works if the opponent follows the script...

ok...

But what if the opponent doesn't follow the script?

na85
06-27-2007, 04:38 PM
Then you crump out and try something else.

If your opponent doesn't take the bait, you can just extend away and go for altitude.

Ratsack
06-27-2007, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Then you crump out and try something else.

If your opponent doesn't take the bait, you can just extend away and go for altitude.

Quite right. This is why I would be leary of beginning an energy-bleeding turn in the combat area. If he follows, great. If not, you've just sacrificed E in the presence of the enemy and that's a dangerous thing to do, particularly if there's other baddies in the vicinity.

cheers,
Ratsack

na85
06-27-2007, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
particularly if there's other baddies in the vicinity


Are we the baddies, Hans?

Ratsack
06-27-2007, 07:26 PM
Sorry, the joke's lost on me. I've not watched the vid in that thread, and my connection is smeg at the moment so I won't be seeing it in the near future. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

na85
06-27-2007, 07:28 PM
You're missing out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rnzoli
06-29-2007, 01:18 AM
Enough of AI! Two online tracks I-153 vs. FW-190 A-4 from the 102nd COOP server:

http://161.53.204.25/MP4/Tracks/01_I-153_vs_FW190_2007_...30_28_quick0002.ntrk (http://161.53.204.25/MP4/Tracks/01_I-153_vs_FW190_2007_06_29_00_30_28_quick0002.ntrk)

http://161.53.204.25/MP4/Tracks/01_I-153_vs_FW190_2007_...42_36_quick0002.ntrk (http://161.53.204.25/MP4/Tracks/01_I-153_vs_FW190_2007_06_29_00_42_36_quick0002.ntrk)

This is recorded by the server, so play it back with Manual View Control enabled, and then switch to the combat aircraft with Shift+F2 (I-153) and Control + F2 (FW-190).

I think the tracks show generally everything in line with things said before, but there is no need to overcomplicate the issue.

The FW has its best and short chance with a simple zoom-climb in the beginning, because if I-153 takes the bait, it can be hit at the time when it is the slowest and least manouverable. A short dive before the zoom climb is also useful to lure the I-153 into a negative G manouver or a split-S, and make it lose energy before it's attempt to climb behind the FW-190.

However, the I-153 can also stand its ground provided that it never tries to zoom climb with insufficient energy, uses FW-190 extension times to gain energy too, and then convert that into hard break-turns with the right timing, under attack runs.

Really, it's up to the violinist, even in this case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A balanced battle outcome may be down to small issues like supercharger handling in I-153...

Eternal thanks goes out to my firend, who volunteered to fly this test mission with me without prior preparation from his side. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

By the way, he is the best historical co-op maker I know, he contributed ~200 hand-made missions to the 102nd (and about 60 of them in the PTO are also availabel on the Sea of Madness COOP server too). If you don't believe me, check out his co-op maker guide he posted recently on M4T: http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=2592

Henkie327
06-29-2007, 03:30 AM
ftp://www.europeanaf.org/shared/records/Henkie/Henkie3xJG5_vs_3x_EAF.zip

I found one old track and don't know if it works, but this is a online track of 1 x I153 vs 3 x BnZ 109E's.

Maybe the way to fly the 190 is a bit different compared to the 109. But basically it shows BnZ flying from the 109 players.

JG14_Josf
06-29-2007, 09:10 AM
Enough of AI! Two online tracks I-153 vs. FW-190 A-4 from the 102nd COOP server:

rnzoli,

How can someone figure out relative speeds during those flights if the track files are recorded by the server?

Do you discredit specifics with the following comment?


I think the tracks show generally everything in line with things said before, but there is no need to overcomplicate the issue.

One thing that Robert Shaw doesn't communicate specifically (as far as my memory goes concerning his detailed and specific explanation of his Sustained Turn Technique) is how that technique is a tool used to safely judge relative energy states.

I am not over complicating the issue from my viewpoint quite the opposite the issue is a stepping stone.

lowfighter
06-29-2007, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
...

Nice and full of lessons tracks Zoli! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

rnzoli
06-29-2007, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
How can someone figure out relative speeds during those flights if the track files are
recorded by the server?
I am not sure I understand. Same way as with tracks recorded on someone's PC. It won't show the speed of my opponent, so I can only rely on the judgement by knowing the object size, and evaluating the rate of increase/decrease in visible size. If you ask my own speed, I have track files from my cockpit as well, but I don't think they show anything extraordinary.


Do you discredit specifics with the following comment?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think the tracks show generally everything in line with things said before, but there is no need to overcomplicate the issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not at all. I am just keeping in mind, that there are players with
- 6 years experience
- 2 year experience
- 2 monhts experience
- 2 day experience
with IL-2. The same things cannot be explained the same way to all of them.


One thing that Robert Shaw doesn't communicate specifically (as far as my memory goes concerning his detailed and specific explanation of his Sustained Turn Technique) is how that technique is a tool used to safely judge relative energy states.

I am not over complicating the issue from my viewpoint quite the opposite the issue is a stepping stone.

You are right, but that method is generic, works for all unknown opponents. For an I-153 vs. FW-190 setup, you don't need that sophisticated method to know the relative energy states http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Due to it's less weight, and lower Vne, the I-153 will posess less E usable within its flight envelope than a FW-190 with 100% fuel load http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif kept fast on the same altitude.

By the way, this is what Shaw exactly says about this:


Originally written by Robert L. Shaw:
In order for the high-wing-loaded fighter pilot to gain an energy advantage where one does not exist initially, he must either increase energy faster than the opponent (which may be done by exploiting superior diving acceleration and high-speed energy addition rate in a diving extension), or induce the bogey to bleed energy at a faster rate (which may be accomplished
by sustained-turn techniques). The latter method allows evaluation of the bogey's turn performance based on its known sustained capabilities relative to those of the high-wing-loaded aircraft.

rnzoli
06-29-2007, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
...

Nice and full of lessons tracks Zoli! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is because the mission itself is quite educational on purpose http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Very good for practicing with friends! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
06-29-2007, 02:52 PM
Did any of you guys see HARTDreyers tracks in the 109K4?

Those were fantastic examples of energy fighting and B&Z

He rarely fired more than 1-2 rounds of 30mm at a time and usually came back with 5-10 kills per sortie.

Incredible pilot.

If anyone can post any of his tracks then downoad and study them. They are incredible.

JG14_Josf
06-29-2007, 03:03 PM
I am not sure I understand. Same way as with tracks recorded on someone's PC. It won't show the speed of my opponent, so I can only rely on the judgement by knowing the object size, and evaluating the rate of increase/decrease in visible size. If you ask my own speed, I have track files from my cockpit as well, but I don't think they show anything extraordinary.

As far as useful information goes toward figuring out which performance lends to which tactic it is vital to know relative energy states therefore having a velocity for both planes at the moment both planes pass each other during the first merge, for example, is filling in the important blanks once the second merge occurs, where, the plane going faster is the plane that gained more energy.

Example:

First merge speed is equal (and altitude is equal because both planes pass nose to nose in the effort to make things equal at the start of the mock combat test flight checking for relative performance driving tactics).

Second merge has one plane 100 km/h faster than the other plane.

In between the first merge and the second merge will be tactics. If one plane is 100 km/h faster than the other plane, then, something occurred in between the first merge and the second merge.

Not knowing the relative speeds before the first merge (something I could not determine with your two track files) is not knowing a significant variable needed in determining what goes on between the first merge and the second merge.

A. The first merge has one plane 100 km/h faster and higher.
B. The first merge has one plane 200 km/h faster and lower.
C. The first merge has one plane higher at the same speed.
D. The first merge has one plane lower and slower.

A is not the same fight as D for obvious reasons.


No, not at all. I am just keeping in mind, that there are players with
- 6 years experience
- 2 year experience
- 2 monhts experience
- 2 day experience
with IL-2. The same things cannot be explained the same way to all of them.

Rgr - and the devil may be found within the details - perhaps not.


Originally written by Robert L. Shaw:
In order for the high-wing-loaded fighter pilot to gain an energy advantage where one does not exist initially, he must either increase energy faster than the opponent (which may be done by exploiting superior diving acceleration and high-speed energy addition rate in a diving extension), or induce the bogey to bleed energy at a faster rate (which may be accomplished
by sustained-turn techniques). The latter method allows evaluation of the bogey's turn performance based on its known sustained capabilities relative to those of the high-wing-loaded aircraft.

Thanks.
In practice the first merge is usually a guess. By the time the Sustain Turn Technique sets up a second merge (the opponent can run away or follow the script one way or the other i.e. turning hard and bleeding energy or doing the same Sustained Turn Technique at which time you know what is up because that one isn't doing the typical thing and at that point the best you can hope for is energy parity at the next merge). The knowing (of relative energy states) occurs during the relative gains in position and range during the Sustained Turn (at corner speed or vertical maneuvering speed whichever is higher) part of the Sustained Turn technique. When betting the farm you tend to find out if you learned anything worth learning.

rnzoli
06-29-2007, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Henkie327:
ftp://www.europeanaf.org/shared/records/Henkie/Henkie3xJG5_vs_3x_EAF.zip

I found one old track and don't know if it works, but this is a online track of 1 x I153 vs 3 x BnZ 109E's.

Maybe the way to fly the 190 is a bit different compared to the 109. But basically it shows BnZ flying from the 109 players.

3 vs. 1? LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No, in fact, You did an excellent job in defense. That is what I am saying too, too - a well flown T&B fighter is a hard target. And there are times, when B&Z-ing pilots can be lured into little bit of turning the twisting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is where the big difference b/w FW190 and Bf109 lies. The FW190 is markedly more suitable for B&Z fights, and less forgiving for bleeding energy due to the temptation of "that last, decisive shot". Had an FW190 done the same type of departures from disciplined flying, it would have been defeated and shot down.

rnzoli
06-29-2007, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Did any of you guys see HARTDreyers tracks in the 109K4?

Those were fantastic examples of energy fighting and B&Z

He rarely fired more than 1-2 rounds of 30mm at a time and usually came back with 5-10 kills per sortie.

Incredible pilot.

If anyone can post any of his tracks then downoad and study them. They are incredible.
Yes I did, but now his website is down and he lost his own tracks. Also, those tracks from old versions, pre-4.xx flight model, where trimming wasn't so crucial.

The most remarkable thing was his S.A. - his keypad views were so fast, it was impossible for me to follow what's happening http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I also liked the simplicity of his tactics. Always attacked from advantage. Always run when attacked in disadvantage, while his exit window was large enough. No middle ways, hesitations - he stuck to these rules successfully.

It was quite ironic though, that his game against Harmann's record ended when he misjudged the relative energy difference with a P-38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif No kidding - one of the best B&Z-er was shot down after misjudging the zoom climb ability of his opponent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Now, how do we spell "life is cruel" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Well, combat zone is dangerous for even the experienced pilots.

Xiolablu3
06-29-2007, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Did any of you guys see HARTDreyers tracks in the 109K4?

Those were fantastic examples of energy fighting and B&Z

He rarely fired more than 1-2 rounds of 30mm at a time and usually came back with 5-10 kills per sortie.

Incredible pilot.

If anyone can post any of his tracks then downoad and study them. They are incredible.
Yes I did, but now his website is down and he lost his own tracks. Also, those tracks from old versions, pre-4.xx flight model, where trimming wasn't so crucial.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Rnzoli,

Could you please explain what you mean when you say 'trimming was not so crucial'?

Are you saying it is 'crucial' now? And if so for what?

I never trim, I fly the planes as they take off, only using a bit of elevator trim if the plane is diving or climbing excessively. I usually just compensate with the stick for anything else.

Am I losing a lot of performance flying like this? I seem to do OK, better than average.

COuld you suggest anything to help?

rnzoli
06-30-2007, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hi Rnzoli,

Could you please explain what you mean when you say 'trimming was not so crucial'?

Are you saying it is 'crucial' now? And if so for what?

I never trim, I fly the planes as they take off, only using a bit of elevator trim if the plane is diving or climbing excessively. I usually just compensate with the stick for anything else.

Am I losing a lot of performance flying like this? I seem to do OK, better than average.

COuld you suggest anything to help?

Maybe the term "crucial" is an over-statement, but IIRC the yawing anf torque effects became sginificantly pronounced with the 4.01 patch, affecting aerial gunnery. In his old tracks, it looked all too easy to hit the target, after 4.01 patches, the planes became significantly more unstable, including side-slipping due to speed variations. So in short: I mean that the gunnery part looks deceivingly easy from old tracks.

How much you miss out? Hard to say, because it depends a lot on your combat environment. If no-one else uses trim on your favourite server, you don't lose out on anything, rigth? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also, if you don't have a trim box, you better not fiddle with trimming by keyboard, because it would distract you from the fight too much. Trimming is only fun if you have free sliders or a trim box.

You can also consider that the German aircraft didn't have in-flight rudder trim. If they didn't consider it useful enough, it wasn't that crucial in RL either. On the other hand, nearly all Allied aircraft has got in-flight adjustable rudder trim, and probably you know, the Allied won WWII http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So maybe trim was crucial after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I see the following advantages of trimming
- marginal speed increase
- more accurate shooting from long distance
- lower gun-induced yawing
- finer control with stick (near its neutral points).

In co-op I fly a lot in formation with other aircraft (human or AI), so I find trimming also important for this reason, especially for longer flights. So I can arrive to the battle fresh and fit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There was a recent thread about "trim or not to trim", if you can find it, you can get more pros and cons on this topic.

Henkie327
06-30-2007, 07:55 AM
(rudder trim on the planes that have it)

But to get back to the topic, there is not much difficulty to do a succesful BnZ attack if you have the surprise.

If you can shoot the guys wing off with a big gun and he never saw you coming, then there is no way he can defend against it. If he sees you however, and if he's in a maneuverable plane like the I153, he can defend himself in time to spoil the attack.

In this scenario I153 vs 190 one on one the chance that either one doesn´t see the other is small. So you take away already a lot of the effectiveness of BnZ. If the 2 players don´t make a lot of mistakes it´s going to be difficult for both players to shoot the other one down and the fight could end in stalemate.

The I153 is inferior in everything that is great to have to be and stay on the offense (speed, climb, dive, acceleration). But the 190 is no match for the I153 when it comes to slow speed maneuverability. So as long as the 190 does no slow speed maneuvering he should be ok. He could try to trick the I153 into pulling neg G to cut out his engine.

But as long as the I153 doesn´t try to outspeed, outclimb or outdive or outaccelerate the 190, it should be possible for the I153 to maneuver out of the way of just about every 190 attack, provided he sees the 190 coming. But you can not expect the I153 to be on the offense. If the 190 pilot doesn´t make mistakes the I153 should be on the defense all the time. But after every missed attack from the 190 he has plenty of time to recover.

JG14_Josf
06-30-2007, 11:41 AM
If the 2 players don´t make a lot of mistakes it´s going to be difficult for both players to shoot the other one down and the fight could end in stalemate.

Rgr,

That is a description of single superiority/single inferiority where both fighters can stay and fight so long as both pilots know their planes strengths and weaknesses.

antonis2010
04-17-2011, 06:06 PM
rnzoli
Hi all. I recently read this conversation about energy tactics. I have try to download the rnzoli's tracks, but they are not available.
Where to find them?

Is very difficult for me to visualize the Shaw's book. I'm interesting about energy tactics too much.

Treetop64
04-17-2011, 06:41 PM
Simple Rule of Thumb:

> BnZ is generally offensive and maintains the initiatve.

> TnB is mostly defensive and reactionary.

Xiolablu3
04-18-2011, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by antonis2010:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">rnzoli
Hi all. I recently read this conversation about energy tactics. I have try to download the rnzoli's tracks, but they are not available.
Where to find them?

Is very difficult for me to visualize the Shaw's book. I'm interesting about energy tactics too much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello mate,

This post is 4 years old unfortunatly. Make a request on the forum in your own post, I am sure Someone will post some tracks for you. Or maybe look on youtube>?

antonis2010
04-18-2011, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Henkie327:
ftp://www.europeanaf.org/share...e3xJG5_vs_3x_EAF.zip (ftp://www.europeanaf.org/shared/records/Henkie/Henkie3xJG5_vs_3x_EAF.zip)

I found one old track and don't know if it works, but this is a online track of 1 x I153 vs 3 x BnZ 109E's.

Maybe the way to fly the 190 is a bit different compared to the 109. But basically it shows BnZ flying from the 109 players.

What a great defensive!!! Have you more tracks like this one?

Luftw4ffe
04-18-2011, 08:25 PM
AWESOME. that describes the sustained turn technique. i pit myself (FW 190) against an ai spitfire HF 9. it was on my tail but higher than me. i pulled a sustained turn and it couldnt get a shot on me eventually after expending lots of ammo it broke off and i dived down with speed in excess of 700KM/H. Bye Bye spitfire! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

TipsyTed
04-19-2011, 06:07 AM
B'n'Z:

http://troutunderground.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/kingfisher.jpg

VISTREL
04-19-2011, 08:48 AM
Boom and Zoom is always preferable tactic if you want to get kills and survive. Here's nice guide made specifically for IL2-Sturmovik online gameplay, Boom an Zoom guy, however, it is in russian: http://www.armedassault.org/il2

Bremspropeller
04-19-2011, 10:39 AM
Go vertical!
http://www.galleryofbirds.com/Bulgaria2010/Peregrine%20stooping%207700.jpg

Bremspropeller
04-19-2011, 11:38 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

horseback
04-19-2011, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Luftw4ffe:
AWESOME. that describes the sustained turn technique. i pit myself (FW 190) against an ai spitfire HF 9. it was on my tail but higher than me. i pulled a sustained turn and it couldnt get a shot on me eventually after expending lots of ammo it broke off and i dived down with speed in excess of 700KM/H. Bye Bye spitfire! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif ai rarely catch you in a sustained turn; in my experience, the Ace & Veteran can pop your wing with a 90 degree deflection shot from 750m away, but they cannot chase you down from behind and make a 30 degree deflection shot from 200m or less...

cheers

horseback

ROXunreal
04-19-2011, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
A question for online dogfighters:

Let's suppose one is up in an energy fighter - Fw-190, P-51 etc. - against a skilled pilot in an I-153 (well aware of that type's strengths and weaknesses). One on one. No altitude advantage at the beginning. No wonder woman view.

Turning with the I-153 is obviously not an option, so one will have to stick to energy fighting / "stall fighting". Diving away, gaining altitude, zooming down on the I-153 from above - problem is, the enemy pilot will probably turn for a headon attack whenever the BnZ attack begins.

So, what is the proper tactic?

Against an I-153? Get him in gunsight. Shoot him down.

I-153's are overrated, and very easy to shoot down especially with a well armed plane like the 190. People fear them as a difficult target due to their maneuverability, but the trick is, just start shooting early. Open fire from between 600 and 400 meters, with a minimal amount of lead. They often wait for you to come close before turning, but if you fire early enough, before they do their main evade, due to their low speed there is a very good chance that you will actually score hits or likley just shoot him down on the first pass. Again, they're slow, so very little deflection is required, just making it easier.

It's been a long time since I flew against one of those piloted by a human but from what I can remember before, the above mentioned tactic had a very, very high success rate for me...

antonis2010
04-19-2011, 06:44 PM
Hi all. I'm new here.
Finally is there a track that explains this "sustained turn technique"?
I'm very-very interested about this.

I have read the Shaw's book but i could not understand well.

So i think he try to speak about the philosophy that a most powered and a hi wing loader fighter must have.

Turning the plane at this speed the enemy cannot go inside the turn of the energy fighter. Also if the angles fighter try to turn harder the distance increase and the energy fighter gaining angles coz of the higher turn rate. Now if the energy fighter go close enough to the angles fighter tail in lag pursuit always, maybe the angles fighter turn harder and harder or try to go to scissors, so the energy fighter can use his superior T/W ratio and higher speed to go to the top and beginning the mini boom zoom game. If the energy fighter cannot gain angles, he has to extend and come back another day...

I think this is the method that f16 pilots using due to the extraordinary T/W and sustained turn rate f16 have.

So i have try it offline and is worked.

But is worked and online too... It was not perfect, I'm not the better pilot, so if you want guys to see the video, tell me to upload it to you-tube. I was defensive and using this trick i made my opp to loose all of his speed and finally to panic and crash down!

Practically i don't know if this is the better method but i think is more matter of the way to think instead of maneuvers.

Sorry about my bad English too...

Luftw4ffe
04-19-2011, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
OK, here is Josf's track. Please let me know if you have any trouble downloading this.

Sustained Turn Technique (http://esnips.com/doc/e97a6728-b00b-4ced-8945-4484147208ed/Josf_STT)

Thanks, Josf.

Here u go antonis2010 this is a very cool track and it helped me understand this technique. very useful

antonis2010
04-20-2011, 10:55 AM
I have look at this track and i totally disagree with Josf!

Is not a good think to expose your self to the enemy guns even for a moment coz "maybe a bullet is not enough to exploit your plane but is enough to exploit your head".

I don't even agree with Ratsack coz this has described is a kind of "extension-pichback" technique (but i think is the most safe and effectiveness). But is not the "sustained turn technique".

But what happen when we have not enough energy to extension?

Shaw speak about "hi-turn-rate' against a lower T/W ratio plane.

Look at page 142 of Shaw's book:
"...the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on
energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent. Lag pursuit
and vertical/oblique maneuvers are necessary ingredients. Nose-totail
geometry is usually preferable because of the assumed disparity in turn
radii"...

and at page 162:
..."a better option for the energy fighter in this scenario is a
sustained nose-to-tail turn. This procedure was discussed in the previous
chapter; its advantages are even greater in this case. Since the low-T/W
fighter seldom has a substantial sustained-turn-rate superiority, such a
maneuver forces it to turn harder than sustained-G levels to gain a rapid
angular advantage. The energy fighter pilot should maintain best sustained-
turn-rate airspeed, or vertical-maneuvering speed, whichever is
greater, in a level or climbing turn, and watch the bogey's turn performance.
A shallow, climbing turn is usually preferable, since this generally
induces the bogey into bleeding energy more rapidly. If it appears that the
bogey will gain more than 90 advantage on the first turn, a slightly
nose-low turn can be started to maintain speed while limiting the opponent's
angular advantage at the pass to about 90. In this case the energy
fighter should have adequate airspeed margin at the overshoot to begin a
pitch-back safely"...

Also consider about this (Rate-Kills), i found it at falcon4 manual, page 199:
"...a fighter with a superior turn rate can outmaneuver a fighter that has a poor turn rate but a tighter turn radius. Fighter pilots have a
simple two-word saying: Rate kills. The ability to move (or rate) your nose is the primary means
of employing weapons (which is what offensive BFM is all about). A bandit may have a tight turn
circle, but if you can rate your nose on him and shoot, the fight is over..."

So i'm thinking about it and i have to say that if the high T/W have no other option but to engage in close dogfight, he has to turn with his opp at sustained turn rate (not too tight-not to large radius) and use his superior turn rate to go to his opp six. As he gain angles (if he can) the bogey must do something to avoid guns at him. So either his going to break hard or he will going to scissors (going up is suicide) and he give the opportunity to the energy fighter for a quick guns solution, or to go to the top and beginning the mini boom-zoom game.

I play only 1 year and i was in a red squad but i leave I'm more interested about energy tactics, so if someone know for sure, please correct me.

TipsyTed
04-20-2011, 01:29 PM
In my experience, dogfighting against an I-153 is like playing with a scorpion.

Wildnoob
04-20-2011, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by TipsyTed:
In my experience, dogfighting against an I-153 is like playing with a scorpion.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Really, I recommend watch all the videos of this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkqPaAei0VQ

ROXunreal
04-21-2011, 06:31 AM
that's why horizontal turning when with a superior energy state is stupid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

antonis2010
04-21-2011, 10:49 AM
Finally i think it is. I have to agree...

K_Freddie
04-23-2011, 01:36 AM
I have bothered to read 'years of advice', but countering BnZ is relatively simple.

Assuming you spot the opponent in time, you turn to place him on your six and if you have height go into a gentle dive building up speed into a gentle turn.. then you wait...

Keeping an eye on him, and 'at the right moment' you go into a 'corkscrew' or barrel roll, the tightness of the move depends on the attackers speed - use different variations on each attack.

This move is very difficult for a high speed attacker to follow, and as he passes you turn onto his six giving him a burst. If anything make sure the burst passes in front of him - After a few of these he'll either bug off or get really stupid and make a mistake. In either case you'll win.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BWaltteri
04-23-2011, 05:33 AM
Their mistake is your best tactic.

antonis2010
04-23-2011, 06:51 AM
But i think we speak here about "sustained turn technique" instead of "extension/pitch-back".

K_Freddie
04-24-2011, 02:17 PM
There is no named technique, sport.. just give the bast..d a burst a few times and he'll bugger off.
If not he's dead meat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

antonis2010
04-25-2011, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
I have bothered to read 'years of advice', but countering BnZ is relatively simple.

Assuming you spot the opponent in time, you turn to place him on your six and if you have height go into a gentle dive building up speed into a gentle turn.. then you wait...

Keeping an eye on him, and 'at the right moment' you go into a 'corkscrew' or barrel roll, the tightness of the move depends on the attackers speed - use different variations on each attack.

This move is very difficult for a high speed attacker to follow, and as he passes you turn onto his six giving him a burst. If anything make sure the burst passes in front of him - After a few of these he'll either bug off or get really stupid and make a mistake. In either case you'll win.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's ok with you to make a track (offline probably) of this technique and upload it somewhere to see it, or to send me the track? It sounds interesting.

DKoor
04-26-2011, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
A question for online dogfighters:

Let's suppose one is up in an energy fighter - Fw-190, P-51 etc. - against a skilled pilot in an I-153 (well aware of that type's strengths and weaknesses). One on one. No altitude advantage at the beginning. No wonder woman view.

Turning with the I-153 is obviously not an option, so one will have to stick to energy fighting / "stall fighting". Diving away, gaining altitude, zooming down on the I-153 from above - problem is, the enemy pilot will probably turn for a headon attack whenever the BnZ attack begins.

So, what is the proper tactic?

Release your 50s , MG151/20s , Mk108s earlier... no seriously. Do just that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Meh, the only thing you need to do vs any aircraft is to drag him around... in this game it is pretty much all downed to speed probably just like IRL, who has more speed wins in most cases.

Say you are at level going head on. Avoid head on just open the throttle and start high speed climb, there is no way he can follow.
Then start to spiral climb above him, when he cuts out that's where you start to provide show for him.

Works for any battle really unless you are in slower aircraft in which case I suggest CTRL+E.

DKoor
04-26-2011, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by antonis2010:

Is not a good think to expose your self to the enemy guns even for a moment

+1
There are people playing this game who will exploit 0.001223785 sec of your exposure to their cannons to saw off left side of your skull.

Seriously there isn't more flawed tactic than exposure of any kind because that's ego trip tactic which goes wrong every time you run onto someone who eats, sleeps, **** and practically lives in the pit of his fav fighter.

Such individual wont have any problem to snipe you from 500 m in deflection etc.

<span class="ev_code_RED">ERROR: attach your wings and hit refly</span>

DKoor
04-26-2011, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by TipsyTed:
In my experience, dogfighting against an I-153 is like playing with a scorpion. You couldn't have said it better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

It also depends on whatcha fly and whatcha fly against... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Ki-43 and Ki-27 aren't much inferior in turning battles (http://www.esnips.com/nsdoc/48f19ed3-985d-4996-b879-ebf55a69882c/?action=forceDL) vs I-153 especially in they are going in with advantage, but still they sometimes get tougher end http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Xiolablu3
04-28-2011, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TipsyTed:
In my experience, dogfighting against an I-153 is like playing with a scorpion.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Really, I recommend watch all the videos of this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkqPaAei0VQ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with this video is that I *think* the SPitfire has almost the same shot as the FW190, but earlier. Its just that the FW190 takes the shot and hits. The Spitfire pilot missed, the FW190 didnt.

Gaston444
04-28-2011, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
A question for online dogfighters:

Let's suppose one is up in an energy fighter - Fw-190,

In simulation fantasyland, yes... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Gosh, it has been barely over two billion SECONDS since the real FW-190As were constantly used with success in turn and burn fighting, and pancaking themselves into the ground in vertical fighting... What will be left of our history in a thousand years? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Gaston

M_Gunz
04-29-2011, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftw4ffe:
AWESOME. that describes the sustained turn technique. i pit myself (FW 190) against an ai spitfire HF 9. it was on my tail but higher than me. i pulled a sustained turn and it couldnt get a shot on me eventually after expending lots of ammo it broke off and i dived down with speed in excess of 700KM/H. Bye Bye spitfire! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif ai rarely catch you in a sustained turn; in my experience, the Ace & Veteran can pop your wing with a 90 degree deflection shot from 750m away, but they cannot chase you down from behind and make a 30 degree deflection shot from 200m or less...

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They can't see a deflection shot being set up either though you get close enough long enough they will react.

Imagine a PC that could support 12+ really human-competent AI! Or even just 1!

M_Gunz
04-29-2011, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
A question for online dogfighters:

Let's suppose one is up in an energy fighter - Fw-190, P-51 etc. -

I would like to point out that while these planes are normally used to carry out energy fighter roles in WWII sims due to their ability to reach higher speeds that they do -not- completely fit Shaw's definition of an energy fighter in many circumstances.

One of Shaw's criteria for an energy fight is higher T/W. With -jets- that is simple because available thrust is constant but with -props- the same plane can have a higher T/W in one speed range and a lower T/W in another **depending on the opposition**.

A heavy, fast fighter like a loaded 190A-8 will not have T/W over a 109F-2 at low speeds, maybe not at medium speed, but it will a good ways before the slower 109 reaches its top speed. If the 109 pilot can get the 190 pilot to bleed down then the 190 will lose all advantage except firepower and the 109 can dance all over the 190 unless it dives and runs.

Weight is constant.
Power available is constant at any one altitude.
Speed is not constant. :-)

Thrust = Power / Speed ===> more or less, 1st approximation, the graph is a straight line high at zero speed to zero well beyond top level speed.

Acceleration is by (Thrust - Drag) / Weight

A plane with 150% more power but 2x the weight won't be a good energy fighter at speeds where drag is low. Work it out if you need, I am sure that Brems can tell the same more clearly and completely.

antonis2010
04-29-2011, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

available thrust is constant but with -props- the same plane can have a higher T/W in one speed range and a lower T/W in another...

Oh... So i think i have loose a lot of time trying to learn this f****d energy game.
Maybe its time to leave IL2 and go to a simpler hobby like chess or billiard mattes...

M_Gunz
04-29-2011, 06:05 AM
You can do what you want. If you want to energy fight in WWII props then base your tactics on getting, keeping and using an energy (kinetic + potential) advantage over the other guy and not relying on simple P-51="energy fighter" type solutions.

The nitty gritty is mostly good to know so you don't get snowed with poor advice or misinterpretations of combat stories.

What Shaw does lay out in energy tactics does apply for these planes more to situations. When you see the situation then you have a good idea how to deal with it even if that means working your moves to change to a better situation. It's all about building and using an energy advantage however you do it.

Bremspropeller
04-29-2011, 06:27 AM
Acceleration is by (Thrust - Drag) / Weight

Almost: it's (Ft-Fd)/ Mass.

F = m*a = weight

=> a = F/ m = (Ft-Fd)/ m

Going vertical:

an = a-g; with an = net acceleration and g= 9,81m/s^2

M_Gunz
04-29-2011, 08:38 AM
Will the numbers come out different?

Kettenhunde
04-29-2011, 09:15 AM
One of Shaw's criteria for an energy fight is higher T/W.

Exactly.

In propeller aircraft power is considered constant at a given altitude/engine setting and thrust depends on velocity.

Therefore, the Thrust/Weight picture will change with the aircraft's speed.

A WWII fighter might have a a higher thrust to weight in one portion of the envelope but not in another.

This is why pilots fly aircraft by V-speed numbers to attain best performance.

It is also why the aircraft with the higher top speed can out turn the slower aircraft at higher speeds.

So while one aircraft might be able to sustain a better turn rate at low velocity, it might not be able to do so at a higher velocity portion of the envelope.

This is the basic science behind how "Energy" fighters dictate the fight and force their "better" turning "TnB" fighters to a lower speed or "energy state".

The "TnB" fighter sustainable performance cannot outmaneuver the "energy" fighter sustainable performance without slowing down.

Boyd's Energy Maneuverability theory outlines a solid mathematical approach for quantifying and comparing the relative potential to maneuver in combat aircraft.

Bremspropeller
04-29-2011, 09:27 AM
Will the numbers come out different?

Yes. Weight is a force.

M_Gunz
04-29-2011, 12:29 PM
Sorry Brems, I *am* guilty of using incorrect labels because though I wrote for example weight I do mean mass and seriously if a plane "weighs" 3000 kg then I am pretty sure that is the mass. Ditto for my terms of thrust and drag.

M_Gunz
04-29-2011, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by antonis2010:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

available thrust is constant but with -props- the same plane can have a higher T/W in one speed range and a lower T/W in another...

Oh... So i think i have loose a lot of time trying to learn this f****d energy game.
Maybe its time to leave IL2 and go to a simpler hobby like chess or billiard mattes... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a great 3rd party tool called IL2Compare (updated to 4.09 is still good) that will give you graphs for each plane that are good to show -relative performance- in a number of ways. You can put curves from two planes to make comparisons.

There is a link to the download here. (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=13114) Links can be found elsewhere.

Kettenhunde
04-29-2011, 01:05 PM
then I am pretty sure that is the mass


Mass and weight are not the same. An object that weighs 3000kg will have a mass of 306 kg.

Weight = Mass X Acceleration of Gravity

Mass = Weight / Acceleration of Gravity


An object's mass doesn't change (unless you remove some!), but its weight can change.

What is confusing you is the kilograms are in common use for both.

You are not wrong in using Kilograms, just don't get confused between which unit is a force and which is just mass.

Weight is actually Kilograms force. It includes the acceleration component of distance over time.

Weight in Kilograms Force = Mass <Kg) * Acceleration of gravity<m's^2)

Kg-m/s^2 = Kilograms Force

Kilograms force is commonly expressed in just kilograms which causes much confusion!


have used "kilogram" so far because that is what you would see on a pair of scales, but it is technically wrong to talk about weight in kilograms ...

... so sometimes people say "kilogram force" (kgf) or "pound force" (lbf) to show that they are talking about the force that the mass exerts because gravity is pulling down on it.

But there is a better measurement ... Newtons

http://www.mathsisfun.com/measure/weight-mass.html

Bremspropeller
04-29-2011, 02:38 PM
There is no such thing as "Kiligrams Force" - propably an English-speaking thing with all that lbs-force BS and measures that outside the US, only dwarfs and unicorns still use http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
The correct (historical) name of "Kilograms Force" was "Kilopond".
It's been rendered obsolete by the use of Newtons:

Force is measured in Newtons, and a Newton is one Kg*m/s^2 = [N] <=> m*a = F

When people speak of "weight", they usually mean "mass".
Aviation is currently converting that mistake, too, by calling everything that used to be called "weight", "mass".
Example: "MTOW" is called "MTOM" now.
At least with us, in the Old World http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Kettenhunde
04-29-2011, 02:49 PM
There is no such thing as "Kiligrams Force"


It is certainly not a technical term but it one that is used in most college freshman level non-engineering curriculum physics courses in the United States.

http://www.google.com/search?c...22bf32b5c0e0691&bs=1 (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=578&q=kilograms+force+college+physics&btnG=Google+Search#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&pq=kilograms%20force%20college%20physics&xhr=t&q=kilograms+force+to+newtons&cp=16&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&hs=soa&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&biw=1024&bih=578&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=kilograms+force+&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=822bf32b5c0e0691&bs=1)

Bremspropeller
04-29-2011, 02:53 PM
Just looked it up and found out it was actually used in the English-speaking world http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif


Do they teach (use) SI-units nowadays in college (US industry)?
Those imperial units seem to be a pain in the butt to work with http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

M_Gunz
04-29-2011, 06:45 PM
Funny but 1/2 liter of water used to move the scale up 500g and we spoke of the mass of the water as 500g.
And I'm pretty sure that if I look at my turn spreadsheet that the P-47 weight of 14,000+ lbs got used directly.

Oh well, I musta got alzheimers. Who are you guys anyway?

Kettenhunde
04-29-2011, 07:04 PM
Do they teach (use) SI-units nowadays in college (US industry)?


You get the pleasure of BGS and SI.....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

M_Gunz
04-30-2011, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Just looked it up and found out it was actually used in the English-speaking world http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif


Do they teach (use) SI-units nowadays in college (US industry)?
Those imperial units seem to be a pain in the butt to work with http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

They used to teach them in Jr. High and High School. It's just been a while for me to say the least. That was well before the Reagans started the 'rape public education' trend.

Bremspropeller
04-30-2011, 07:59 AM
Max, whenever somebody talks of "weight", he means "mass". It's like the colloquial term for the same thing.

In physics, however, mass and weight are two different cups of tea.

M_Gunz
04-30-2011, 10:52 AM
Brems, I took physics and chemistry as well as physical sciences courses all during those last 6 years of public school.

I know the difference between mass and weight thank you. Weight being the effect of acceleration on mass, a force, I've weighed electrons by measuring the curve of their path in a magnetic field and got within 3% of the 1973 accepted value.

Still 1/2 liter of water by weight has 500g mass does it not? IOW, we -can- find the mass of objects through weighing them?

M_Gunz
05-02-2011, 06:51 AM
Same as the other thread, which I did cross-thread (sorry ALL!)

What are the final units or these two:

1) Thrust / Weight

2) Thrust / Mass

And why did NACA and Shaw and I dunno who-all else use T/W?

Bremspropeller
05-02-2011, 06:57 AM
1) Force/ Force = ratio, no unit
2) Force/ Mass = Acceleration

Kettenhunde
05-02-2011, 08:03 AM
1) Force/ Force = ratio, no unit

Exactly

Gunz....

Boyd's EM theory related by Shaw simply shows a way to quantify the potential to maneuver. Energy Height is not an actual performance number. The aircraft would have to be fighting in a vacuum in order for the Eh to equal performance.

It is a way to quantify in general terms which aircraft has more options and would have an advantage in a maneuvering dogfight.

If you follow the units in the formula, units for the force of weight cancel, and you are left with units of distance.

Weight is used in aircraft performance calculations because it is the force behind the generation of that often misunderstood force that is so important to our aircraft's flight.....LIFT.

FORCE OF LIFT = FORCE OF WEIGHT

Kettenhunde
05-02-2011, 08:05 AM
Here is pretty good discussion on this topic.

http://www.saairforce.co.za/fo...?f=2&t=1991&start=30 (http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1991&start=30)

M_Gunz
05-02-2011, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
1) Force/ Force = ratio, no unit
2) Force/ Mass = Acceleration

That's what I'm getting at. Both ways there have uses too.

With jets it is easier but the shape of the fan plots in IL2Compare does tell the tale (at IIRC 1000m) for these IL-2 props.

Kettenhunde
05-02-2011, 09:32 AM
With jets it is easier but the shape of the fan plots in IL2Compare does tell the tale (at IIRC 1000m) for these IL-2 props.


Fan plots for jets are completely different in shape from fan plots for props....

It would not make any sense at all for propeller aircraft to have the same shape in your IL2 Compare program.

Jets are thrust limited at the stall while props are aerodynamically limited.

M_Gunz
05-02-2011, 10:59 AM
Comparing the fan plots is easy. It tells what kind of speeds IAS one plane should have advantage/disadvantage/parity with the other. The compare utility is free. Caveat is that the curves were made by AI flying so they are only good for comparisons.

Kettenhunde
05-02-2011, 12:22 PM
Caveat is that the curves were made by AI flying so they are only good for comparisons.

Not sure I follow the significance.

Math is math, either the performance agrees with the aircraft's capabilities or it does not.

Xiolablu3
05-02-2011, 03:39 PM
Guys, I dont want to lock a thread which you are all interested in, but how about starting a new topic with a title such as 'Discussion about how physics relates to Fighter tactics' or something similar?

I think the thread starter is actually looking for practical tactics rather than maths/physics.

A breif description of why such a manouvre works is fine, but endless maths is probably not what most IL2 pilots are looking for.

Its a bit like someone asking for instructions how to drive a car, and geting in reply all sorts of maths/physics equations. When I had driving lessons, the instructor never bothered explaining what physics was involved in pushing/pulling etc - it simply isnt needed to drive well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Of course if the OP wants to hear all this stuff about forces etc, feel free to carry on. But I still think a dedicated physics thread where you lot can discuss all this stuff would be better for all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
05-02-2011, 03:50 PM
Xio,

As a RL pilot, you have to know the physics in order to safely operate the aircraft. The FAA spends a lot of time explaining it and you have to demonstrate your knowledge of it in terms of airman-ship.

Even the laymen pilots of WWII had to have a good understanding of it. I have several interesting documents where such things as the physics of aggravated stalls are explained to them.

If your game is decent simulation, then knowing the physics IS knowing a practical method to defeat your opponent.

It is that simple.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
05-02-2011, 04:40 PM
I hear ya Xio. I jumped in with T/W after reading Shaw quoted and certain planes being characterized as energy fighters. The fact is that it isn't so simple at all. Long time belief that it is so simple has led to loads of players bashing the FM because their cracked idea doesn't always work.

What people do get right is that in the planes they think of as energy fighters it is a cardinal rule to not slow down.

That is mostly true and a good stick-to but it cuts out a few good tricks involving the vertical where a tighter turn can be had at the top when you have slowed down temporarily while in the clear for example.

IMO the best base to build energy tactics is practice in flying energy management.

Xiolablu3
05-03-2011, 02:58 PM
I wasnt trying to get at you lot, just saying that a dedicated physics thread may be cool for you guys to discuss all that stuff.

My only slight worry was that every tactics thread turns into a physics bashing thread like it was around 6 months ago, but we are nowhere near that right now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I saw two tactics discussion thread on the first page which looked like they were both going to turn into pages and pages of equations.

Please carry on if the OP has no objections. I would rather see an active discussion than not see one at all. But all this physics stuff is totally over my head...I have no real interest in it, but I respect you guys do.

M_Gunz
05-03-2011, 03:51 PM
Geez Xio, what more needs to be said? Even the technical bits have been gone over to death long ago.

Did you read the second post of the thread lately? It pretty well covers what the OP asked.

Problems arise when you get the whacko posts with the pseudo-science that all end up blaming the FM for why they don't work. The FM is not perfect but it's not so far off that energy tactics used correctly don't work. Used incorrectly, they wouldn't work IRL either.

So do you want lists of "do this" "don't do that" (can't you reeee-eead the sign?) with no explanations of how and why?

What do you need to know to energy fight? The tradeoff of speed and height. Storing energy as height. Efficiency and inefficiency of different maneuvers and use of controls (like cross-controlling, ie diagonal stick). Judging relative energy states (particularly hard to do when watching LODs). When to burn energy for angle and when to run. And -then- into particular maneuvers like barrel rolls, yoyos, climbing spirals and tilted circles, wingovers and half-loops or other.

Somewhere along the way there will be posts about aerial equivalents of 1 + 1 = 11 that can't be put to rest on opinion alone. For that matter nothing else will work either. So why bother? I remember at one time you were agreeing with josf and the science posts did get within your grasp enough to wake you up?

Xiolablu3
05-04-2011, 01:13 PM
I certainly wasnt ever agreeing with Josf, I have no idea what the hell he is talking about.

If you dont think a dedicated physics thread is a good idea, then please carry on.

M_Gunz
05-04-2011, 03:45 PM
I am not the best person to start any dedicated physics thread. A year or two ago I started one on turn calculations after setting up a spreadsheet and all and it got no real interest at all. What a shame and all that huh?

Really there are several members far more qualified to do that than I am but there is also a lot of animosity between some of those members. You mention anything and two or more people will see it through a different set of givens or other POV that can take 10+ pages to untangle just to make sense of whom (or should that be who?) is saying what. I can usually tell because for me without those same assumptions the pieces don't fit and have to ask, not being formally educated with my own set of "it is done this way" rules.

That and it's been over 35 years and some hard life since I did physics in school. I don't even use the right terms any more!

There's been some good PM discussions and I did learn a lot about air and foils in those.

K_Freddie
05-07-2011, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by antonis2010:
It's ok with you to make a track (offline probably) of this technique and upload it somewhere to see it, or to send me the track? It sounds interesting.
Sorry, been away with RL, but here's a offline scenario as it's easier to setup.
I'm modded to V10.1 + HSFX-5.0 and I don't think this will run on vanilla 1946..

Counteracting BnZ (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Pics/BnZ_Thing.zip)

antonis2010
05-19-2011, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Enough of AI! Two online tracks I-153 vs. FW-190 A-4 from the 102nd COOP server:

http://161.53.204.25/MP4/Tracks/01_I-153_vs_FW190_2007_...30_28_quick0002.ntrk (http://161.53.204.25/MP4/Tracks/01_I-153_vs_FW190_2007_06_29_00_30_28_quick0002.ntrk)

[URL=http://161.53.204.25/MP4/Tracks/01_I-153_vs_FW190_2007_06_29_00_42_36_quick0002.ntrk]http://161.53.204.25/MP4/Tracks/01_I-153_vs_FW190_2007_...42_36_quick0002.ntrk[/URL

Broken lings, plz fix them.

M_Gunz
05-19-2011, 01:17 PM
You might want to check what year that post was made. Since you resurrected the dead thread.

K_Freddie
05-19-2011, 03:29 PM
All you have to do is keep you a/c within it's highest performance envelope and you'll outwit/move anyone else BnZ or TnB.
It's really simple http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

rnzoli
05-24-2011, 12:45 AM
Hi, those files from 2007 were lost during a server upgrade, but the mission (I/153 vs. FW/190) is still available, playable. The purpose of the mission is to practice exactly BnZ vs. TnB.

By the way, back to the original post. Actually the TnB fighters can indeed turn head on to any attacker, but there is one specific direction, where they can only do this temporarily - that is straight up.

So if I am the attacker, and constantly struggle with the little bugger turning into me all times, I attack vertical down, where he cannot maintain a head-on attitute against me for too long.

When I am a defender, I always try to gain speed before defensive manouvers, so I can extent the time while I can point my guns at any direction where the attacked is coming from. Gaining speed however, often means losing height, and usually good pilots with fast planes can nail a well-manouvering turner on the ground level, simply because there is no more "money in the bank (=energy)" left for defensive manouvering.

Gaston444
05-24-2011, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Henkie327:
ftp://www.europeanaf.org/share...e3xJG5_vs_3x_EAF.zip (ftp://www.europeanaf.org/shared/records/Henkie/Henkie3xJG5_vs_3x_EAF.zip)

I found one old track and don't know if it works, but this is a online track of 1 x I153 vs 3 x BnZ 109E's.

Maybe the way to fly the 190 is a bit different compared to the 109. But basically it shows BnZ flying from the 109 players.

3 vs. 1? LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No, in fact, You did an excellent job in defense. That is what I am saying too, too - a well flown T&B fighter is a hard target. And there are times, when B&Z-ing pilots can be lured into little bit of turning the twisting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is where the big difference b/w FW190 and Bf109 lies. The FW190 is markedly more suitable for B&Z fights, and less forgiving for bleeding energy due to the temptation of "that last, decisive shot". Had an FW190 done the same type of departures from disciplined flying, it would have been defeated and shot down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif:

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

Quote: "Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:

FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.

FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time."

Hey, a dose of actual reality never hurts, right?

Gaston

M_Gunz
05-24-2011, 02:02 PM
Funny how nowhere in there does it say what speeds the FW makes these left turning attacks or how they fit in the group tactics.

However it does say:

It must be however pointed out that FW-190 have not been fighting on our front for too long and thus their tactics are still being developed. They are more than likely to change drastically very soon.

Why would the LW need to change FW tactics drastically?


Yak-1, Yak-7 and La-5 fighting an FW-190 have all the factors necessary to win. Our fighters are almost as fast as the FW-190, turn and climb better and have formidable firepower.

So WHY quote an article in part when simply by reading the whole its easy enough to see that conclusions about the suitability of the FW as a turn-fighter will be revealed to be BS-as-Usual? Did you bother to read the whole thing?

Another gem:

FW-190 is inferior to Me-109G by the following criteria: it is substantially heavier than the Me-109G (wing loading of 206 kg per square meter) and thus its climb rate is worse.

Inferior to the Me-109G by criteria that with proper tactics don't matter. And wing loading being higher is a disadvantage in tight turns is physical fact but you have to be able to understand that in the first place.

Add to this that most East Front FW pilots were not fighter pilots but bomber pilots, something the Russians were not aware of early on. But you picked that page for the bits you could rip out of context and took what you could get.

Gaston444
05-24-2011, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Funny how nowhere in there does it say what speeds the FW makes these left turning attacks or how they fit in the group tactics.

So WHY quote an article in part when simply by reading the whole its easy enough to see that conclusions about the suitability of the FW as a turn-fighter will be revealed to be BS-as-Usual? Did you bother to read the whole thing?

Another gem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FW-190 is inferior to Me-109G by the following criteria: it is substantially heavier than the Me-109G (wing loading of 206 kg per square meter) and thus its climb rate is worse.

Inferior to the Me-109G by criteria that with proper tactics don't matter. And wing loading being higher is a disadvantage in tight turns is physical fact but you have to be able to understand that in the first place.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still in denial huh? Read what the quote ACTUALLY says:

"FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time."

QUITE A LONG TIME... Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about the speed?

Who cares what bombastic claims the Russian make about their own Yaks... They coud be right or not, but I never made claims about relative Yak turn performance. I'll note that in "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe", one FW-190 "Jabo" pilot claimed 75 kills in only 3 weeks...

As for the tactics "changing later" as the Russian text speculates: I'll guide you to the "Boddenplatte" episode of "Dogfights", where the EXACT same Me-109G/FW190A interaction is observed on January 1st 1945...

A whole TWO years later...

You are still failing to address the relative useage of the two types by people who knew how to use them to their best from extensive experience...

Yet, it pretty much says it all...

As for the significance of the wingloading, The Me-109G does have 196.1 Kg/Sq. M. while the FW-190A-8 has 234 Kg/Sq. M.... (A-4 is around 212 Kg/Sq. M.)

That this is considered of absolute significance by Aero-engineers is indeed on your side, but I have the maths now that demonstrates this is just complete ignorance on their part... Pretty sad I have to say, if this is to the incredible extent that I think...

I'll get back later on that wingloading issue, as I have done all the relevant math now, and I understand better the reason why they failed to see what should have been staring them in the face...

Pretty amazing oversight I have to say...

Gaston

M_Gunz
05-24-2011, 03:05 PM
Bodenplatte where a whole load of untrained LW student pilots and a very few experienced LW pilots attacked a US fighter base resulting in a lot of LW planes being shot up and shot down.

Speaking of shot down....

Kettenhunde
05-24-2011, 05:13 PM
That this is considered of absolute significance by Aero-engineers is indeed on your side, but I have the maths now that demonstrates this is just complete ignorance on their part...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Gaston444
05-26-2011, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
That this is considered of absolute significance by Aero-engineers is indeed on your side, but I have the maths now that demonstrates this is just complete ignorance on their part...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes Kettenhunde, I will return with the full math and graphics, and I can already tell you it does demonstrate not only why they are wrong, but also WHY they missed it...

As an aside, I am sure these WWII aircrafts were never tested for gradated wing flex vs actual load in flight with calibrated flex-to-weight electronic sensors while in flight...

When you consider the P-47D has around 284 Kg/Sq. M., while the Me-109G-6 has around 196 Kg/Sq. M., and yet the Me-109G has virtually no hope against the P-47D in prolonged slow speed low-altitude dogfights, you know there is something wrong about simplistic Aero-engineer assumptions...

Here's the source for that BTW: "On Special Missions: Kg 200": "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G": German opinion by German testers.

You'll note the absence of a similar statement vs the FW-190A, for good reasons...

The P-51 is not mentionned out-turning the Me-109G either (it was roughly equal at full power), instead only: "The stall is very dangerous, and killed one of our pilots"

Wonder of wonders, it all matches quite well what these aircrafts were doing vs each other in 1200 combat reports...

Gaston

K_Freddie
05-27-2011, 04:28 PM
Back to the same arguments...

In a sustained (unimaginative/noob) turn, every a/c can outturn another, depending on certain conditions - this is what Gunz/Kettenhunde are on about when they quote formulae (ad nauseum).

But as we know, for example with the Me109E/SpitV comparisons, that both a/c have the upper hand at certain altitudes/conditions.

Doctrines dominated at the time, but one thing is for sure... Those that broke the 'rules' generally got results (+ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif or - http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) , and I'm sure this happened on both sides.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Gaston444
06-19-2011, 09:30 PM
Actually, in real-life, sustained 3.5 G turns show patience and are anything but "noob" turning...

It's 6 G unsustained "jerk and turn" that was noob turning in real life, because it rarely gave the prolonged sight picture the guns usually needed (unless the pilot was lucky in his shooting)... Still, "jerk and turn" was often very successful, and more intuitive and forgiving of tactical errors by inexperienced pilots...

The Spitfire, P-51, Me-109 were superior "jerk and turn" aircrafts, but more gradual and patient fighting at slower speed, in sustained turns, was the domain of FW-190As, P-47Ds (and the Hurricane as well)...

This is the real reason why one type would out-turn the other: Not speed, not altitude, but the AMOUNT of pulled Gs (and also the throttle level)...

Of course, in current simplistic view, a better aircraft at 3 Gs is ALSO the better aircraft at 6Gs... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif This is why test pilots get results so opposite to real-life combat: Assuming the initial turn-in superiority of a Spitfire translate into sustained turning (which it didn't), they then maintained the initial rate of gain when the reality in fact changed completely as the speed and Gs lowered over the long haul...

In addition, I think the sustained turns figures in some tests could be hard 6Gs turns on 180 followed by a looser turn for 180, giving a "same exit speed" as result. That would make comparisons to real-life sustained turn combat, where no "relaxing the turn" was practical, invalid...

As an example of how counter-intuitive all this is, it is widely reported by many pilots that the Spitfire could not hold prolonged turns with the Hurricane (not even close!)... In addition, there is widespread evidence horizontal combat was not very useful to the Spitfire except for short "jerks" over around one full circle, and that successful use of the Spitfire required the use of the vertical plane, where it was comparatively excellent, in sharp contrast to its horizontal performance... This was the conclusion of the Soviets with their own Spitfires (they were so bewildered by this, they even tried taking the outer Mgs out to improve the turn rate, of course to no avail), and this was widely concurred by many Allied pilots, regardless what the numbers (and Eric Brown)supposedly "proved"...

All this shows clearly current assumptions about how these things flew are fundamentally wrong... Mainly the EXACT opposite of reality in fact... I'll get back to explaining why this is so in more details later, WITH the math to back it up this time around...

Gaston

P.S. I don't know how many times I have to say this: The Me-109E vs Spitfire I early war charts show 6G "Corner Speeds" around 220-240 MPH (if memory serves): The reality, as tested in 1989 on 4 different WWII types by the SETP, is around 320 MPH at a low "Normal Power", and in fact they say "close to the maximum level speed" because they found the "Corner Speed" FOLLOWS the maximum speed depending on power level.

The Spitfire I and Me-109E chart are so detailed because they are CALCULATED, and relate only (vaguely) to reality if nose-down or in a power off condition...

Their "Corner Speed" is thus very close to whatever their "maximum level speed" is at for the given power: Maybe as high as 350 MPH at full power...

There is no later-war versions of these charts because they were useless to combat pilots...

G.

gothkrieger
06-22-2011, 10:47 PM
These links are broken.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The Gold Mine (http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm)

Fast Transients (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/fast_transients.pdf)

Aerial Attack Study (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/boydaerialattack.pdf)

FoolTrottel
06-23-2011, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by gothkrieger:
These links are broken.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The Gold Mine (http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm)

Fast Transients (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/fast_transients.pdf)

Aerial Attack Study (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/boydaerialattack.pdf) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, the post dates four years back, so, yeah, that's what can be expected... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

gothkrieger
06-23-2011, 10:31 AM
LOL, True but you know me, I want my cake and eat it too.