PDA

View Full Version : Energy fighter vs turn fighter, 1vs1 that is



|ZUTI|
03-14-2007, 12:31 PM
Hi all,

one question. Let's say tempest vs bfG2. How to shoot the hell out of that G2 in tempest. Don't get me wrong, i know hot to fly energy fighters and i know that that poor sucker stands no chance if i fly it fine. Just run away and i'll be fine, no worries. But i'd like to fight the sucker. The thing is that match is 1vs1 and he sees me. How to down him? Outrun and outclimb him, then dive on his 6 or what? It's totally different story if there are a lot of ppl on the server, you can find someone that is not watching. But like i said, take 1vs1 scenario. And please, no over/under moddeled ****. Take everything as it is. Thanks.

|ZUTI|
03-14-2007, 12:31 PM
Hi all,

one question. Let's say tempest vs bfG2. How to shoot the hell out of that G2 in tempest. Don't get me wrong, i know hot to fly energy fighters and i know that that poor sucker stands no chance if i fly it fine. Just run away and i'll be fine, no worries. But i'd like to fight the sucker. The thing is that match is 1vs1 and he sees me. How to down him? Outrun and outclimb him, then dive on his 6 or what? It's totally different story if there are a lot of ppl on the server, you can find someone that is not watching. But like i said, take 1vs1 scenario. And please, no over/under moddeled ****. Take everything as it is. Thanks.

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by |ZUTI|:
Hi all,

one question. Let's say tempest vs bfG2. How to shoot the hell out of that G2 in tempest. Don't get me wrong, i know hot to fly energy fighters and i know that that poor sucker stands no chance if i fly it fine. Just run away and i'll be fine, no worries. But i'd like to fight the sucker. The thing is that match is 1vs1 and he sees me. How to down him? Outrun and outclimb him, then dive on his 6 or what? It's totally different story if there are a lot of ppl on the server, you can find someone that is not watching. But like i said, take 1vs1 scenario. And please, no over/under moddeled ****. Take everything as it is. Thanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

109G2 is hard, because it climbs so well...........

anyway, yes, patience is what you needs. Dive, shoot, climb, come again. not only shoot from its 6 , learn to shoot with lead ! than you can attack from every position.

BSS_AIJO
03-14-2007, 12:41 PM
hop in a G2 sometime... Try having a good look at your low 6. Yea, the view sucks.. Even if you are wiggling the plane around a bunch.. So, use speed and dive as an advantage.. Stay really high in the sun and catch him flying in a straight line for a little too long dive to the backside and come up from the low 6.. The g2 wont even know what hit him..


BSS_AIJO

Zoom2136
03-14-2007, 12:53 PM
1 vs 1...

use those 4x 20mm to your advantage... take snap shot.... just a few hit will make him a lot less manoeuvrable... or may even kill him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Go head on if you got your conversion setout pretty far out... the Tempest is a rock steady gun platform... I know head on are never a good idea... but you've got him OUTGUN bigtime...

In all... stay fast... don't bleed your E as this will make you a sitting duck...

Waldo.Pepper
03-14-2007, 01:40 PM
I don't get it!

I think I must have always been missing something - but I have never thought that the G2 was all that and a bag of chips. (Nothing special to fly, and not terribly hard to kill either.) So I don't really see the problem in wiping out a G2 with the Tempest.

Stay fast.
Put your guns on the target.
Squeeze.
Home for bacon and eggs.

AFJ_rsm
03-14-2007, 02:55 PM
i dont get all these "x plane vs y plane what to do against" threads


the point is, if both planes are flown right, it'll be a nightmare for either of you to win


dont think of yourself as being in the tempest fighting a 109g2. You're fighting another guy. Find out what the pilot's weaknesses are and use that. All the climbing abilities in the world wont help him if he doesnt know how to use his altitude, or if he doesnt even have the patience to climb. try to get the clues from his flying style.
If he's a turner on a bnz plane, dont even think about getting him on a turn fight even if you believe his plane will suck at it. It most of the times happens that his skills at that particular field will compensate for whatever it is his plane is lacking.

VW-IceFire
03-14-2007, 03:42 PM
This would be hard...I usually loose the 1 vs 1 or fight to a standstill in a TNB versus BNZ setup. Usually this favours the plane with the better turn. The Tempest pilot would be best to try and get the 109 in a spot where he Tempest pilot could then zoom climb, hammerhead and come back on the 109 before the 109 could turn to engage. Head on could work...in any case the 109 would need to land several good shots on the Tempest while only a brief moment in the Tempests gunsight and the 109 would be toast.

Actually the other night a 109 I was shooting at eneded up with just the cockpit and the engine left...wings and tail shot away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEBillfish
03-14-2007, 03:57 PM
Have killed many G-series in a Tempest....In kind many Tempests in a G series....go figure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Frankly they both are brutal beasts...

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-14-2007, 04:09 PM
Well, u have to consider one fact : G2 isnt worse energy fighter than tempest is, so its not energy fighter against turn fighter. As far as ive seen G2 is even better energy fighter than tempest. Anyway, AFJ_rsm said something very important, take his words seriously, cause if u will meet good pilot in G2, u cannot fight against him, u simply have to run, unless u like to risk ur life. Its good to play on servers/fronts where is flak on the airfield, so u can safely runhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif As AFJ_rsm mentioned, its important to use other pilots skills to win, if he knows G2, IMHO, he will shoot u down if u will try to engage him. The most important thing is to check as fast as possible, if he is good pilot or not. If he is dumb pilot u can energy fight against him, np. But try that with good pilot and u will be on the ground. Running away, to the flak isnt being a chicken, its usually saving ur lifehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And i wouldnt take those hints seriously:
"Stay fast.
Put your guns on the target.
Squeeze.
Home for bacon and eggs."
Those arent telling u anything. If u want to stay fast, u cant turn, or u need 3km separation. In the air u are making some mission, attacking ground targets, escorting or anything else, u simply dont have time to make such a big separation, unless u will have great energy superiority above enemy.If u want to put ur guns on the target u need to turn, turn quite much, and loose ur speed. The key is to know when to turn and when not, and dont believe that u shouldnt turn in some types of planes, in all u have to turn. And i know that what im saying now isnt giving u much hints, cause its simply impossible to describe all the possible situations and learn them... And i still dont know how to react at ALL situations, and i dont think that i will even learnhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thats why i fly in such a manner:

- Engage enemy if possible from surprise.
- If enemy saw me first, and he is very dumb(its easy to see that after 1-2 maneuvers) i might engage him
- in all others situations - RUN AWAYhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Why i fly in such a manner? Because as ive said before, its almost impossible to learn all ur enemys, and all their tricks, u might down 99 AC, but this 1 might maneuver in a such style, that u simply wont know how to response. Thats sad, but truth, better not engage dogfight, unless u feel total superiority against ur opponenthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Scen
03-14-2007, 04:27 PM
Welcome to the world of a FW pilot versus a Spit. The good news is the Tempest turns a bit better than a FW and she hits about as hard so this one should be in the bag if you play it smart.

Don't be suckered into a turn fight with the Biff. Use your speed (G2 is pretty slow compared to a tempest)and zoom climb. It will most likely relegate you into taking snapshots and maybe a short tracking shot if he blows it. Keep your speed up and always fight when you have the advantage. Just extend if he latches on and you will leave him in the dust.

Just my 2 cents

Viper2005_
03-14-2007, 04:35 PM
Don't fight him at all. Bounce him and kill him.

If you get into a fight and he's as good in the G2 as you are in the Tempest then he can force a draw.

JG14_Josf
03-14-2007, 06:19 PM
Try Shaw's sustained turn technique using nose to tail geometry and corner speed (or vertical maneuvering speed whichever is higher). If nothing else it will let you know a little bit more about relative energy states and pilot skill without having to bet the farm right away.

Brain32
03-14-2007, 06:41 PM
First of all I don't get this "energy fighter" and "turn fighter", ok I'm not a real pilot let alone military pilot, but judging by this game(yes I know games are not the best source for judgemts but the question is about the game anyway) all planes are "energy fighters". To my understanding DF is all about having more E on your oponnent and being able to use it, also TnB and BnZ is what I would call "styles" of fighting, or "styles" of engagement that pilot can vary in relation with his plane and enemy plane he is engaging. For example in il2, P47 facing 109 at lower altitudes is recommended to engage in a BnZ to use it's dive and zoom advantage against a better turning 109, however a P47 facing a 190A can freely engage it in a turnfight as it holds significant advantage here. I however always(even in planes like Spitfire or Zero) prefer BnZ engagements as it's much safer and I really get the kick out of high speed executions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Second thing here is, you have the opportunity to fly the planes you fight against and learn what they can or can not do, small tricks and glitches, and how they react to certain situations. For example the 109, even G2 has severe manouverbility problems at speeds of 450kmh and beyond which get progressively worse with later models where they can't even follow minor manouvering, they are wicked at low speed(below 280kmh but you are not that stupid to dump so much E, are you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )etc.

Third thing and maybe most important is the SITUATION, you say 1vs1 fight, but how did it start, are you offensive or defensive, do you have airspeed or altitude advantage, what is your altitude, do you have enough room to dive away if things go utterly wrong? Etc,etc...

I know I didn't gave a direct answer, but that's just because there is no concrete and always valid answer to this question, in the air, atleast the simulated one, situation is always different however it may seem the same but it's not...

|ZUTI|
03-15-2007, 12:50 AM
Hey guys,

the thing is, i know G2 pretty well (besides dora/A9 that one is my faw german plane). And friend with whom i fly with is quite a decent pilot and he knows what he's going. But he prefers turn fights, so, it's usually tempest vs g2 or dora/a9 vs la5F. I know how to stay alive, no problems there. Just set PP to 90%, throttle to 90% and climb. Quite simple. However, i was just curious hot to "die" him. If it comes down to 1vs1... if i dive on him, he is good enough pilot to turn away in the right direction just in time, so my bullets miss him. I never try to go and turn fight him or if i do, i never let my speed to bleed below 200knots... but when we try different tactics, sometimes i try different things, even tighter turns. That's why i opened this topic. To see if you guys have any different aproaches in dealing with aware turn fighters. Aware is the key http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I see that i was getting the picture quite well (hehe, flak is my friend indeed, if he gets too annoying and i end up too slow).

Usually the easiest way to get rid of him is, like some of you mentioned, to do a high speed dive (i throw in a spiral, where good G2 looses it's ability to turn with me), but, new tactics newer hurt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll try to set my convergence to 300m and see if that helps. Oh, i never do head-ons, just don't like the odds (and 200m convergence vs his nose-mounted guns, nah, don't do that too often http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Might improve my lead shots (jup, use them too).

Thanks.

PS: brain32: we try different situations, that's why i didn't mention any specific one. And you are right about energy fighting... it's just that some turn quite better than others and so others are "forced" to use energy tactics. At least that's how i see it.

Treetop64
03-15-2007, 01:11 AM
Given two equally capable and wise pilots employing the proper tactics suited to their respective machines, the energy fighter will always have the initiative over the turn fighter.

Perhaps he will not fly his craft quite as agressively as the turn fighter, but the energy fighter can always put himself in a position to decide when and where to strike, or whether to strike at all. The best the turn fighter can hope for in this scenario is agressive defensive measures, and smart reactions to what the energy fighter does.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 04:21 AM
If you can pick the altitude of the fight sea level to 2500 m would be my choice for this planeset if I was in the Tempest. If you are good in the Tempest and know how to trim you will have a 70 km/h speed advantage at these altitudes. The rate of climb is close up to 2000m and the turn rate is only 1 or 2 sec better for the 109 G2.

Convergence at 400m
Trimmed for flying at 600km/h
Try engage with a slight height advantage to get up to top speed
I bet this pilot you fight against likes to break in one direction more than the other ? For most pilots its to the left - shoot in anticipation of his evasive manuvers and hope to damage him in the 1st pass.
If you fail to damage him but force him to evade violently try and convert your speed advantage (lets say you are going 640 km/h ish and he will be &lt;400 kmh if he manuvered hard) in to a positional advantage either above him or behind him.

Its not the end of the world if you get in to a medium speed turn fight, push your plane dureing the fight until you feel that he is getting away from you slightly once this happens simply nose down and run away for a bit, rember once you get to over 540 km/h he is losing ground so if you are running hot you can even slow to around 570 km/h and still be safe. Once you have pulled 2km away turn 180 deg using a high speed turn and aim to have a slightly off angle head on with him ie come in on his 1 o'clock or his 11 o'clock. This means that if he wants to head on he has to turn to face you thus waste precious aiming time or he can decline the opportunity which still leaves a shot on for you. If he decides to climb as you approach head on even better, use some deflection shooting and take advantage of your Ace card 4 x 20mm and great gunsight.

If he climbs and tries to go above 2500m this is the equivalent of you running away. Just let him, done bother following but keep your speed high and your engine coll while you wait for him to pounce. The 109 cant manuver at 600km/h enough for you to be in trouble so when he attacks do a roll reversal at 600km/h or so. Conserve your energy as much as possible and when he overshoots and climbs you will be presented with another shooting opportunity. If you play the fight this way you can present yourself with several half chances and deny him any real shooting opportunites. Make these half chances count.

Worst scenario is you have a 15 min engagement and you have yet to hit him - guess what just keep flying declining to fight and wait for his fuel to run out. At 110% the G2 has a very small endurance, a Tempest at 75% or 50% gas will outlast a G2 at 100% or 75% and you can shoot him down when he runs out of gas and tries to land. Dirty tactic ? Ofcourse who said war was fair.

tigertalon
03-15-2007, 05:49 AM
It's easy to say "dive, shoot, climb back up" when you already have alt advantage at the beginning. However, if you meet him on same alt, you have no option but run, and in the meantime a clever G2 pilot will not follow you full throttle (and lock his controls), he will start to climb at his optimal climbrate instead so he will always be above you.

To put it straight: against a skilled G2 pilot, with equal starting alt, no chances (save the luck) of downing him (with a Tempest).

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
It's easy to say "dive, shoot, climb back up" when you already have alt advantage at the beginning. However, if you meet him on same alt, you have no option but run, and in the meantime a clever G2 pilot will not follow you full throttle (and lock his controls), he will start to climb at his optimal climbrate instead so he will always be above you.

To put it straight: against a skilled G2 pilot, with equal starting alt, no chances (save the luck) of downing him (with a Tempest). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tiger Talon you will never meet an equally skilled, perfectly matched pilot imo. One pilot will always have a slight advantage. It is your job to engage with kind of an energy advantage otherwise you should always decline to fight and run away when in a Fw 190/Mustang/P47 Tempest ect. As the Tempest is faster at all heights than the G2 running away shouldnt be much of a problem. Sidestep one , two or three of his attacks then once co E run away.

You can also say that the 109 will always be above you - until he has to rtb because he runs out of fuel - then you will be above him, ofcourse that is if we are talking about absolutes. A 109 above me is much less of a threat than a Fw 190 above me and that is purely down to controllability. You cannot fight the same way in a 109 as you would in a later war fighter, it just wont allow you to make fast 400mph plus passes with a good chance of scoring hits on an evading target.

Xiolablu3
03-15-2007, 07:27 AM
The big advatage of an energy fighter in the hands of an intelligent pilot is :-

1: If you are above your enemy then you can attack

2: If you are not above your enemy or in a favourable position, you have the speed to get away and come back IN a favourable position and/or with support.

Its not rocket science, its really as simple as that. However 50% of online flyers will engage as soon as they see an enemy, whatever state they are in. That is why they die often, and why their results will never be comparable to a real fighter pilot whose life is at stake.

If you want to see how the planes in teh game perform in rea life situations, then pick a server which has semi historical maps.

I know its still a game, but its surprising how close to real life accounts that the online 'miniwar' games can be.

Of course the arcade 'arena' servers are nothing like reality (still good fun tho, I learned the basics in these servers), here the La7/Spitfire25lbs/Ki84C will reign supreme because they suit the situation so well (low alt turn and burn). In semi-historical servers with good pilots, there are so many situations that its much more like the 'randomness' of real life encounters.

PFflyer
03-15-2007, 07:52 AM
WEll lets see, you are in a much faster aircraft with more than four times the firepower of a 109g2 and you cannot figure that out?

Is your name Jethro Clampett?

tigertalon
03-15-2007, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
It's easy to say "dive, shoot, climb back up" when you already have alt advantage at the beginning. However, if you meet him on same alt, you have no option but run, and in the meantime a clever G2 pilot will not follow you full throttle (and lock his controls), he will start to climb at his optimal climbrate instead so he will always be above you.

To put it straight: against a skilled G2 pilot, with equal starting alt, no chances (save the luck) of downing him (with a Tempest). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tiger Talon you will never meet an equally skilled, perfectly matched pilot imo. One pilot will always have a slight advantage. It is your job to engage with kind of an energy advantage otherwise you should always decline to fight and run away when in a Fw 190/Mustang/P47 Tempest ect. As the Tempest is faster at all heights than the G2 running away shouldnt be much of a problem. Sidestep one , two or three of his attacks then once co E run away.

You can also say that the 109 will always be above you - until he has to rtb because he runs out of fuel - then you will be above him, ofcourse that is if we are talking about absolutes. A 109 above me is much less of a threat than a Fw 190 above me and that is purely down to controllability. You cannot fight the same way in a 109 as you would in a later war fighter, it just wont allow you to make fast 400mph plus passes with a good chance of scoring hits on an evading target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not speaking about perfectly matched pilots, only about matched E state. As I said, it's easy for tempest to BnZ if he has initial E advantage (which he should have, but same could also be said for a 109 pilot). Now if tempest doesn't have E advantage, things get complicated a bit.

If G2 pilot is skilled, no matter how skilled tempest pilot is, tempest can not touch the G2 until the later runs out of fuel or maybe with a very lucky snapshot. I am not saying G2 has the upper hand, far from that! It's even harder for G2 to get a tempest - all I am saying is, a clever G2 pilot can stay untouched (until fuel lasts that is of course) by a tempest given they meet at approx. same E state, 1v1, that's due to it's superiour sustained optimal climb and better performance at higher altitude (comparatively).

Energy fighters as we have them in PF are not good for 1v1, yet they excell in teamplay/DnB. Take 2 tempests v 2 G2s and 109s are pwnzored. Take 4 v 4 and it's a butchery. But not 1v1 (as original poster set it to be).

|ZUTI|
03-15-2007, 10:01 AM
Xiolablu3: i get you and i undarstand everything u wrote. And i host a full-real server, so when there are a lot of ppl there, it's not that hard to score with tempy. Like i said, 1vs1. And i stated that i know how to survive. Was just asking for new tactics...

PFflyer: how did u figure that one out? And try erading posts next time. I can figure that out, you see. But trying something new once in a while never hurts. Or does it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tigertalon: exactely!

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 10:09 AM
You can win 1 vs 1 in a Tempest, Fw 190 or any other energy fighter against aircraft like the G2, Spitfire IX or La5 FN.

You need to have good gunnery and be able to execute scissors - thats it. Ofcourse its difficult but it is not impossible, also if it is your server why is this guy flying a Bf 109 G2 anyway? Put him in an appropriate Bf 109 for starters.

|ZUTI|
03-15-2007, 10:13 AM
Like? K4? Not as maneuverable as G2. He flys that one only because of that. Scossors u say. Hm, that tends to get speeds down, doesn't it?

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-15-2007, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You can win 1 vs 1 in a Tempest, Fw 190 or any other energy fighter against aircraft like the G2, Spitfire IX or La5 FN.

You need to have good gunnery and be able to execute scissors - thats it. Ofcourse its difficult but it is not impossible, also if it is your server why is this guy flying a Bf 109 G2 anyway? Put him in an appropriate Bf 109 for starters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im sorry i totally disagree with u. Its last ditch maneuver, and its best used when flying planes like G2, La5 or Spit, not Tempest, FW190 or P47. U can just try to lower power 0% and try one sharp turn in FW190, if ur opponent wont slow down, u might get a shot or buy some time, but if he is good u dont stand a chance. Scisscors is defensive maneuver, that can be done, usually when ur opponent has made some mistake. So how u can shoot down enemy plane, if scisscors are defensive? U got like 10% that u will shoot him down, and 90% that he will do the same. Its last ditch maneuver, not offensive one.

Also FW190A vs La5FN - La5FN is energy fighter here, FW190 is simply double inferior.

WWSpinDry
03-15-2007, 10:35 AM
From "In Pursuit" pages 84-85. Yeah, it's not Shaw, but I had this one handy at work.

13.8 Scissors
The object of the Scissors is to force an overshoot on part of the enemy currently on your
six. The Scissors is best employed by a slower and better turning aircraft against a faster
fighter with high wingloading, but any aircraft with a decent roll-rate can scissor. The Scissor
is basically a series of reciprocating reversals with you in the driver's seat. All the enemy can
do, beyond disengaging, is to react to your moves. The bandit will feel compelled to match
your turns and in so doing he will be a fraction late in every reversal, unable to stay in your
plane of manoeuvre (i.e. his wingline will not match yours). In addition to this, he will try to
cut across your circle, thus increasing his forward speed and further aggravating his troubles.
Before long (2-3 reversals) you will be essentially neutral, nose to nose at which time the
enemy will either overshoot before your guns or fall prey in a stationary turn fight. You can
enter the Scissors at any speed. However, it is best initiated when the enemy is already in or
very close to guns range. If you start it too soon, all you will do is to present a comfortable
target as the enemy closes the distance, cutting across your feeble and predictable reversals.
It is also highly auspicious to make your reversals inverted, that is, instead of sticking to
turning nose-over-the-horizon, you half-roll through the current bank to inverted and pull to
reverse somewhat nose low as you complete the half-roll. This may cause you to lose sight of
the bandit momentarily as you swing him through your low cold six, but it will also make
your reversals more rapid.
Why does the Scissor work so well? It's because simple human reaction time works
in your favour. You are the one who leads the enemy along the pursuer must contend with
the brief span between seeing, deciding and acting on a given input and he is thus always a
fraction late in matching your manoeuvre. The worse reactions he has, the better your
scissors works, and if his roll rate is inferior to yours the scissors will work even faster.
Key to making the Scissors work is of course timing, but first you need to keep your
eyes on the bandit! Your eyes should never stray from him, and since he'll be behind you and
in your high rear a good deal of the time, you need to be adept at "flying backwards". Once
you see his wingline getting out of synch relative to yours, you know the scissors is working
keep it up and aggravate the plane-of-manoeuvre disparity until you're canopy to canopy
with him. You'll also see him creep farther forward in your upview during the reversals,
indicative of your forward progress being slower than his. Keep it up, and you'll soon find

yourself behind his wingline the table's reversed! Never forget that YOU are in command
of the fight. You're not defending here you're attacking!

Scen
03-15-2007, 11:02 AM
Scissors is a defensive maneuver I say don't put your self in the position of being defensive...

Control the fight with your E state and only spend E when you can get a shot. The pilot that can retain the E advantage will control the fight for the most part. The Tempest holds better cards in terms of E if the fight started at co-alt assuming the Tempest merged with a better airspeed.

Unfortunately there are quite a few assumptions. Same speed same altitude could easily go to plane that has better turning so you would have to be careful with a Tempest. Assuming you survived the merge extend/zoom climb and get seperation or better position to re-engage the fight on your terms.

BTW all this stuff is pretty fluid and things might be considerable different if the G2 had the E advantage (speed alt or both).

JG14_Josf
03-15-2007, 11:03 AM
If an energy fighter can't fight 1 on 1 against an angles fighter from equal altitude and equal speed, then, it is not an energy fighter.

Confusing hit and run tactics with energy tactics or team tactics is a common mistake.

The game typically models double superior versus double inferior performance which makes one plane the energy/angles fighter and the other plane the hit and run fighter at best.

The Tempest should own the 109G-2 in reality if the pilot uses vertical maneuvering and tactics similar to Shaw's sustained turn technique. The 109G-6 should show itself better in an energy fight with the Tempest due to higher thrust and higher mass which adds to dive acceleration and energy retention in vertical maneuvering.

If the game models the 109G-2 as double superior with a slower top speed compared to the Tempest then that is just plain wrong.

If the game models the 109G-6 double inferior with the 109G-2, then, for the same reasons that is stupid.

Two of the best examples of one plane having vertical maneuvering energy advantages against a horizontally maneuvering angles fighter in actual reality were the Fw190A-3 versus the Spitfire VB and the Mig-15 versus the F-86.

In both cases the angles fighter was the lighter wing-loaded and higher power to weight ratio horizontal maneuvering sustained' or stall fighter against the heavier wing-loaded and lower power to weight ratio, high thrust, energy fighter and these facts show up on EM charts.

The energy fighter excels in high speed decelerating and accelerating turn performance in vertical maneuvering from high speed to low speed and back to high speed (fast transients) where mass and high density (small size compared to weight) aid in both dive acceleration and zoom climb deceleration (energy retention) and where high engine power despite increased mass equates to higher thrust for pushing air mass at higher speeds where air force is more than square with velocity due to compressibility effect.

The angles fighter excels in sustaining turns in level or climbing flight or maintaining and gaining lower speed energy; once the light weight fighter with lower thrust is pushing more air into the higher speeds the light weight fighter with low density and low thrust will accelerate slower and decelerated faster during maneuvering in the high speed ranges above corner speed where compressibility takes effect particularly in the vertical plane.

The game appears to fudge the compressibility effect and how higher density aircraft are not accelerated by air mass as much as low density aircraft and this fact shows up in many cases during many match-ups between simulated fighter planes.

If the reader wishes to ignore these facts then no amount of text or data on charts will illuminate these facts; yet they remain facts.

A few glaring examples of how the game fudges things include:

The Spitfire VB (1941) modeled with a high climb rate and low speed as if the engine can produce more power in a climb and less power in level flight.

The huge jump in performance capability between the 109G2 and the 109G6 as if 50kg and a few aerodynamic compromises destroy a planes fighting capability despite an increase in engine power.

The huge jump in performance between the Spitfire IX and the Spitfire IX 25 as if an increase in engine power works for Spitfires but does not work for 109s and 190s.

The huge jump in performance between the Early and Late P-47s, again, as if an increase in engine power works for P-47s but does not work for the increase in power from the 109G-2 to the 109G-6 or the jump from the 190A-4 increasing power to weight and increasing engine power with very minor changes in aerodynamic design to the Fw190A-8 or Fw190A-9.

Example:

Which is the better energy fighter among the following match-ups?

Bf 109G-2 versus Bf 109G-6
Spitfire VB (1941) versus Spitfire IX 25

In both cases the engine power is increased, the weight is increased, and the power to weight is decreased from early to late model?

Fw190A-5 versus Fw190A-9
P-47D (early) versus P-47D (late)

In both cases the engine power is increased, the weight is increased, and the power to weight is decreased from early to late model?

The 109G-6 must use hit and run tactics or avoid fighting the 109G-2

The Spitfire IX 25 owns the Spitfire VB in all but turning circles'.

The Fw190A-9 must use hit and run tactics or avoid fighting the 190A-5
The P-47D (latest model modeled) owns the P-47D (early model in the game).

As far as my reading goes the Tempest was a very good energy fighter because it was heavy and dense with a lot of engine thrust.

One on one between a 109 and a Tempest in reality should be an easy fight for both planes when using the right tactics against the wrong tactics and if both fighter pilots are using the right tactics then both planes can avoid each other's attacks. One maintains altitude or gains altitude while turning and the other can gain energy faster in dives and retain energy longer in climbs. One plane uses one circle geometry, lead turns, horizontal maneuvering and angles tactics and the other plane uses two circle geometry, decelerating corner speed turns, dives, zooms, high and low yo yos, lag displacement rolls, and pitch/backs.

The Tempest versus 109 fights should be very similar to the 190A versus Spitfire fights in reality (before the Spitfire gained density and thrust), the Tempest versus 109 fights should be very similar to the Spitfire versus P-47 fight (when Robert S. Johnson is using energy tactics), and the Tempest versus 109 fights should be very similar to the Mig-15 versus F-86 fight where the higher thrust and higher density aircraft with the lower power loading and the higher wing loading uses vertical maneuvering to fight the low density angles fighter.

If you do not know how to employ energy tactics such as Shaw's very well detailed sustained turn technique including the pitch/back or stall turning maneuver in one on one fights from equal altitude and equal speed; and if you only know how to use angles tactics or hit and run tactics, then, these words will mean nothing to you perhaps.

Once the sustained turn technique is among your accomplished maneuvers, then, you may employ that maneuver to stalemate or victory even when fighting one on one from equal altitude and equal speed against a double superior plane like the 109G-2 when flying the Tempest. If the opponent is flying the Messerschmitt and he falls into the trap by burning too much energy during the sustained part of the maneuvering, then, the Tempest can bet the farm on a well timed and executed zoom climb and pitch back preferably with a rolling spiral during the vertical part of the zoom climb.

If you don't know how the maneuver works, then, you can ignore it and call it names or just call me names instead like ignoramus.

I can take it.

|ZUTI|
03-15-2007, 12:08 PM
JG14_Josf: shaw you say, interesting as i am waiting to get his "Fighter Combat - tactics and maneuvering" book. Should be interesting read, specially since you pointed out few important techniques. Thanks.

Xiolablu3
03-15-2007, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:


Also FW190A vs La5FN - La5FN is energy fighter here, FW190 is simply double inferior. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the La5 a terrible energy fighter, it breaks up at such low speeds.

How can you energy fight properly when you cant go over 650kph?

I agree its a very hard fight vs the La5FN in a FW190A6/A8, but I guess the Russians having one superior plane for a few months of the war is not a huge traversty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I do believe its lablled wrong and should be 1944 however.

The La5FN is the only plane which scares me bad when I am flying a contemporary FW190 (A8 or A6)

Josf - from what you wrote, it seems to me that you think in WW2 people should still be flying biplanes with incredible turns and super climb rates.

Because if the FW190A9 (ingame) with its higher top speed and much better roll is 'double inferior' to the Spitfire IX with its much lower top speed, but better climb rate and turn, then isnt this just saying that planes with the better climb and turn are 'double superior'?

Surely the much higher top speed stops the FW190 from ever being 'double inferior' to any contemporary Spitfire.

Brain32
03-15-2007, 01:00 PM
La5 can go up to 700kmh in a dive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you are offensive you don't need and you can't really use even those 700kmh as you will enter compression country anyway. Defensively if you have to dive away in a La5...wait, why should you when you can just turn,climb and shoot the guy in his back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Like thread starter already said, in a DF turn advantage is the best one you can have and it's quite obvious this game's second name is "The BS Allied rollercoster" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG4_Helofly
03-15-2007, 01:39 PM
Energie fighting in this game is not energie fighting like in RL imo. In game you can only hit and run or turn and burn, but this a game engine problem, a limitation.
Holzauge proved that compressibility and prop efficiency decrease with high speed are not modeled, so I would ask myself if this is probably the problem and not a Bias on red or something like that.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You can win 1 vs 1 in a Tempest, Fw 190 or any other energy fighter against aircraft like the G2, Spitfire IX or La5 FN.

You need to have good gunnery and be able to execute scissors - thats it. Ofcourse its difficult but it is not impossible, also if it is your server why is this guy flying a Bf 109 G2 anyway? Put him in an appropriate Bf 109 for starters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im sorry i totally disagree with u. Its last ditch maneuver, and its best used when flying planes like G2, La5 or Spit, not Tempest, FW190 or P47. U can just try to lower power 0% and try one sharp turn in FW190, if ur opponent wont slow down, u might get a shot or buy some time, but if he is good u dont stand a chance. Scisscors is defensive maneuver, that can be done, usually when ur opponent has made some mistake. So how u can shoot down enemy plane, if scisscors are defensive? U got like 10% that u will shoot him down, and 90% that he will do the same. Its last ditch maneuver, not offensive one.

Also FW190A vs La5FN - La5FN is energy fighter here, FW190 is simply double inferior. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems that you have not read any of my other posts in this thread and have taken my last post out of context. I have been talking about the Tempests high speed roll advantage over the Bf 109 at speeds around 400mph. This is a clear and undeniable advantage.

At no stage did I ever stat reduce throttle to 0% In the correct context I was talking about 'roll reversal' and dodging a Bf 109 diving at high speed. Then continuing to foil his firing solutions until you are co E then you can utilise your superior speed and acceleration at speed.

I boiled it down to the minimum in my last post to emphasis that the situation is far from hopeless. Infact only hopeless pilots would write themselves off in such a scenario, why even bother taking off?

JG14_Josf
03-15-2007, 02:57 PM
X3,

You are talkin' to me again?

If you confuse hit and run tactics with energy tactics, then, YOU confuse hit and run tactics with energy tactics. Blaming me for your error is ahhh - repetitive. Do you wake up in a new world every day?

Show me?

[ZUTI],

My copy of Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering is still lost at my brother's house along with my copy of Boyd. I have his copy of Stick and Rudder and his copy of his Beech Bonanza manual.

I can't remember the page number for The Sustained Turn Technique. It is near the section on one versus one double inferior' conditions.

The technique answers your questions.

When passing an opponent at the same altitude without knowing how fast the opponent went by and without knowing exactly how well the opponent and his plane stack up to you and your plane; the technique offers a method of finding out some important information and may offer an opportunity to use an energy advantage to defeat the opponent even if the opponent is double superior (top speed is only good for running away and we are talking about staying and fighting no?).

The idea is first to get a measurement of the opponents relative energy state and secondly to get an idea on what is going on in the mind of the opponent pilot.

Interestingly enough this technique also destroys the A.I. when the A.I. is flying an inferior plane. This technique can be practiced on A.I. when the A.I. is flying a double superior plane.

On-line the technique works like it does in Shaw's book probably because the player are human beings; on-line.

Do you know how one circle and two circle geometry works with turn rate and turn radius?

If not then look here (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf) before reading on if you are interested.

Scroll down to Figure 6.43
TURN RADIUS ADVANTAGE

Scroll down to Figure 6.44
TURN RATE ADVANTAGE

Even if you do already know the relationship between geometry, turn rate, and turn radius; the link offers much more for anyone interested.

Back to the sustained turn technique:

Passing the opponent correctly is a must. If you go for the head on shot, then, you invite the opponent to do so and therefore that option is not for me. It's like flipping a coin which makes no sense if I've already spent 20 minutes setting up this fight.

Passing the opponent with a lead turn is ideal when the opponent is trying for the head on shot.

Do you know what a lead turn is?

A lead turn is an early turn. Ideally the lead turn is made on a non-maneuvering target like a bomber or a fighter with a sleepy pilot. A perfect lead turn is a head-on pass that is exactly your turn diameter off-set; meaning that your fight path is opposite the opponents flight path offset one turn diameter like two parallel lines going opposite headings.

The perfect lead turn places you right behind the sleepy fighter in exactly convergence range.

Your turn has to start well before the opponent passes and that is why it is an early turn.

A lead turn is NOT a turn where you are leading the target by pulling lead.

A lead turn is the best way to start the sustained turn technique in my experience using the sustained turn technique in the game with any plane match-up.

What has to happen is an approach to the target (who is approaching you) where you vector to an estimated point that is one turn diameter off-set from the target. In other words you do not fly straight at the target. You fly to the side of the target and during the first pass it is a good idea to fly to the right or left of the target instead of above or below the target if the idea is to set-up the sustained turn technique.

If the opponent is trying to shoot at you during the first pass, then, that is an ideal set-up to start with and if the opponent is trying to do a lead turn on you, then, you may find out soon enough that you are dealing with a pilot that can shoot you down without much trouble.

Suppose the pilot is trying to shoot you in the first pass; note how you have to adjust your off-set because the opponent continues to vector at your plane and therefore he cancels your off-set. The reason why this works out really well for the sustained turn technique is due to the fact that in this situation the opponent is burning more energy trying to lead ahead of your flight path while (essentially) you are lagging behind his flight path. Just before he is in position to fire you start your early turn (the lead turn described already).
What has been set-up is a two circle turn because you are now both turning in the same direction; that is both turning right or both turning left.

Suppose for example that you had a target approaching dead center in your sights so you off-set his approach by turning to the right and now the target is in the left hand side of your forward view. That situation requires you to lead turn to the left at the exact time. The target is already trying to pull lead with a left turn for him.

The initial pass is a decreasing radius turn for you and therefore for him the angles required to pull lead accelerate too fast; you must time things correctly.

After the initial pass the two circle geometry begins to work for you because you DO NOT TURN sharply and instead you allow the opponent to turn ALL THE WAY AROUIND to get on your six. He must turn at least 270 degrees while you stay fast and turn just over 180 degrees. You maintain vertical maneuvering speed or corner speed which ever is higher (in the game it is about 400 km/h and an extra 50 km/h or 450 km/h on the dial is a good cushion).

Time is used up between the initial merge and the moment when the opponent is on your tail. You are ahead and he is behind and the elapsed time or rate of closure from the merge to the tail chase is going to tell you how much energy the opponent had and how eager the opponent is in this fight. If you know the opponents plane then you can easily tell if the opponent is burning loads of energy as he turns hard to get on your six while you give up very little energy. Remember you allow his to turn around his circle to get into your circle which is a big advantage gained with two circle geometry because he has to turn many more degrees of turn to make up the range.

If the opponent is almost immediately on your six as if his plane is a UFO, then, you can dive nose low soon and get away because, again, you turn just over 180 degrees and he has turned at least 270 degrees. He had to have made up the range with a superior turn rate which can only happen with a high energy state and or a superior plane.

Even so, even if the opponent was at a higher speed at the initial merge and even if the opponent has a superior energy fighter, even if the superior pilot and plane has closed range on your six, even so, the fact that he turned at least 90 degrees more and the fact that you maintained 400 to 450 or even 500 km/h in your sustained turn technique' turn, even so, the situation is a lot better than burning speed just after the first pass, so, even so, you can dive away and look for an easier target.

If the opponent does close range quickly but not so quickly as to present an imminent threat right on your six, then, what you probably have an opponent at 8 o'clock pulling lead from a slower speed. He is making up angles cutting into your turn. You are faster. What you want to do now is to make him burn more energy while you burn less energy. You are going to give him some angle and then lead turn again to make the angles he needs arrive too fast with a decreasing radius turn.

To do that you must set up another lead turn/early turn by moving the target from your 8 o'clock to your 12 o'clock high. That accomplishes a few things all at once. You can crank in as much turn rate as needed while dropping your nose without losing speed.

The ideal set-up is your early/lead turn starting below him so that your lead turn is going up into the vertical while he is trying to shoot at you passing by in a second merge set up by you and he will have to roll inverted in a split S to get the shot he desperately wants.

Again your nose low or low yo-yo turn places him from 8 o'clock to 12 o'clock high and if he was trying to pull lead all during your turn, then, he is presented with a need to roll inverted and split-S to keep his vector in front of you. Essentially you have maintained a lagging turn until you time your lead turn, which, in the ideal set-up has your lead turn going from level flight to straight up in a zoom climb.

What this does, again, is create another two circle turn where you pass in a second merge with him going straight down and you going straight up. He must now turn 180 degrees more in addition to his 90 degree turn from level flight to straight down flight and his 180 degree extra turn is against gravity. You, on the other hand, are turning 90 degrees going straight up in addition to your moving him from 8 o'clock to 12 o'clock which is just over 90 degrees of turn, AND, you have maintained high speed in all of your turning i.e. you sustain' corner speed or vertical maneuvering speed until the last minute when you use that speed to zoom up in the vertical.

Keep in mind; at any time you can dive and extend if things are not working out and the sooner you realise that things are not working out the better.

The ideal situation is him going straight down from a slower speed because he kept trying to pull lead on you while you are now going straight up at a higher speed because you kept lagging his turns and you lead him into this ideal situation.

Note: the first merge may have had the opponent at a faster speed. The second merge will have the opponent at a slower speed if the opponent kept trying to pull lead on you while you kept your turn lagging behind him i.e. he turns more angles around the two circle geometry.

In the ideal situation your energy fighter gains more energy in the dive and your energy fighter does not lose energy as quickly in the zoom climb because your energy fighter is dense and it cuts through air better and your energy fighter has a lot of engine power for thrust and your energy fighter is a clean design aerodynamically. Your energy fighter may not have a good slow speed turn rate in a level turn while maintaining altitude. Your energy fighter may even have a slightly higher corner speed. Your energy fighter may even slow down quicker in a decreasing radius turn, which is, a better turn rate and a smaller turn radius because it slows down quicker.

You are now going up and the opponent must burn another 180 degrees of turn just to point his guns on you.

In the ideal situation the opponent tries to turn and zoom up after you but can't. His energy is out by the time you top out and hammerhead. Now you are dropping on his stalled plane and he is looking up at your guns.

To lead the opponent into the ideal situation it is important to zoom climb behind the opponents split S and increase his required angles in the second two circle turn after the second merge. It is also a good idea to roll around and unload your stick while zooming on the correct trajectory after your pitch up into the vertical. Rolling around helps you keep an eye on the opponent trying to recover from his split-S and dive that he tried to accomplish during a high deflection passing shot just ahead of your sustained turn technique or lag' turn just before you timed the perfect lead turn into the vertical. Unloading the stick in the vertical zoom decreases the rate of deceleration by decreasing the induced drag. Meanwhile the target is burning his last energy trying to bring his nose from straight down to straight up after you in the second two circle turn after the second merge.

I know what it is like to over-commit while piloting a plane that has made a pass and zoomed into the vertical while I try to pull the nose up to follow but can't; as my plane stalls and he starts dropping down into my cockpit with guns blazing; that is why I don't over-commit much anymore.

The sustained turn technique merely sets up those situations described above so long as the opponent is too eager and so long as the opponent will try to lead your maneuver consistently. If the opponent doesn't follow your leading, then, it will be an opportunity to try something else if you have the energy fighter. If you have the double inferior fighter, then, you have to run away when the opponent does not follow the script.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-15-2007, 03:03 PM
The question isnt if u should take off, but the question is if u should accept a dogfighthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Call me chicken, but i dont engage any fight if i dont have strong advantage.
Also uve posted that to win u need good gunnery and be able to execute scissors, nothing hidden under those words, if u want to be understood well, better write everything that u mean, else its total BS.

I agree totally with Josf, IMHO his 100% right, and he has very clearly written whats the problem.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
The question isnt if u should take off, but the question is if u should accept a dogfighthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Call me chicken, but i dont engage any fight if i dont have strong advantage.
Also uve posted that to win u need good gunnery and be able to execute scissors, nothing hidden under those words, if u want to be understood well, better write everything that u mean, else its total BS.

I agree totally with Josf, IMHO his 100% right, and he has very clearly written whats the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said decline to fight unless at an advantage. When flying a plane that is 60 km/h faster than the G2 you have meny opportunities to run even when Co altitude or at a slight disadvantage.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-15-2007, 05:13 PM
But 60km/h maxium speed advantage doesnt give u any serious advantage in dogfight;] Its all about acceleration, turn rate, climb rate and energy retention during the turns. G2 holds advantage in all aspects.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
But 60km/h maxium speed advantage doesnt give u any serious advantage in dogfight;] Its all about acceleration, turn rate, climb rate and energy retention during the turns. G2 holds advantage in all aspects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are incorrect. The G2 has advantages in all areas at slow to medium speeds. At high speeds the Tempest V out classes the Bf 109 in all areas including roll which you have omitted.

60km/h is significant, it allows you to disengage, a priceless attribute.

Acceleration at speed is also something which the Tempest wins at. Handy if you are accelerating from 500km/h to beyond the G2s max speed of 540 km/h.

LEBillfish
03-15-2007, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Don't fight him at all. Bounce him and kill him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BY FAR!....The wisest comment made here...

I don't care if you're in a Ki-27 fighting a Me262 or visa versa...No matter how offensively you fly, the second you botch your first pass or are spotted you are some degree having to be defensive as now he is trying to kill you.

Turners can evade all day waiting for you to blow your E and hammer you...Zoomers can extend and set up...No plane is the end all, yet more so no pilot is. No matter how good anyone is all it takes is that 1 slight stall, 1 misguess as to which way he's going to go, 1 minimal error and you're done.

The ONLY advantage to a zoomer is their ability to "run"....Stability, dive speed etc. helps, yet in the end it's your ability to over take or extend that is your saving grace. Turners can't run, yet they can evade all day against numerous opponents and pick their moment YET can't run.

In the end it's being that sniper....Unseen, unheard, sending out the one bullet they never heard that got them. It is only those times you hear pilots clearly feeling confident when interviewed....Any other, and they make it quite clear they were thinking ..."uh oh...cwap".

Kettenhunde
03-15-2007, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fw190A-5 versus Fw190A-9 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The FW190A8/A9 has a better power to weight ratio and more power available than the FW190A5 series.

All the best,

Crumpp

Treetop64
03-15-2007, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Don't fight him at all. Bounce him and kill him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BY FAR!....The wisest comment made here...

I don't care if you're in a Ki-27 fighting a Me262 or visa versa...No matter how offensively you fly, the second you botch your first pass or are spotted you are some degree having to be defensive as now he is trying to kill you.

Turners can evade all day waiting for you to blow your E and hammer you...Zoomers can extend and set up...No plane is the end all, yet more so no pilot is. No matter how good anyone is all it takes is that 1 slight stall, 1 misguess as to which way he's going to go, 1 minimal error and you're done.

The ONLY advantage to a zoomer is their ability to "run"....Stability, dive speed etc. helps, yet in the end it's your ability to over take or extend that is your saving grace. Turners can't run, yet they can evade all day against numerous opponents and pick their moment YET can't run.

In the end it's being that sniper....Unseen, unheard, sending out the one bullet they never heard that got them. It is only those times you hear pilots clearly feeling confident when interviewed....Any other, and they make it quite clear they were thinking ..."uh oh...cwap". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Exactly. Ever wonder why Harmann always had a wry smile on his face when describing his kills? War is war, not a sporting event.

|ZUTI|
03-16-2007, 12:26 AM
JG14_Josf: thanks, specially for the book references. I can never have enough and rest assured, i'll find that technique. I'll check Boyd out too. About "one circle and two circle geometry", well, i do know what that is/how it works now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You know what, if u ever find yourself doing theese things in IL2 (on or off line), record it, if you'll remember. Reading is one thing, seeing it is absolutely another. I'm sure lot's of ppl would apriciate that. But even reading at what you wrote, one gets a pretty good picture. Just have to get that sustained turn figured out. Excellent posting Josf!

LEBillfish: i undarstant perfectly what u are saying. And i know that that is fine tactic. But like i said, when 1vs1 and oponent sees you, that is not so simple to acomplish. What you described I practice when there are a lot of ppl on server(s). Just pick un-aware target and execute. Even if i miss, well, I just zoom back up and look for another one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
But 60km/h maxium speed advantage doesnt give u any serious advantage in dogfight;] Its all about acceleration, turn rate, climb rate and energy retention during the turns. G2 holds advantage in all aspects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are incorrect. The G2 has advantages in all areas at slow to medium speeds. At high speeds the Tempest V out classes the Bf 109 in all areas including roll which you have omitted.

60km/h is significant, it allows you to disengage, a priceless attribute.

Acceleration at speed is also something which the Tempest wins at. Handy if you are accelerating from 500km/h to beyond the G2s max speed of 540 km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can u read what i write? I said that max speed doesnt give u any serious advantage in DOGFIGHT DOGFIGHT DOGFIGHT. DOGFIGHT isnt EXTEND ffs. You found that 500km/h+ acceleration is usefull in dogfight? So how do u fight, flying all the way straight? And no, BF109G2 doesnt turn worse under high speed, if enemy pilot will use trim. Such a minor difference in roll is almost useless in dogfight. The most important speeds in dogfight are 300-500km/h, and here G2 holds it's advantage.

Also, ive found that roll advantage is useless in this game, usually difference between planes like FW190 vs La5FN, or FW190 vs SpitIX doesnt give u any advantage. The only planes that rolls really slow are Hurricane and IL2, in all other fighter planes that small advantage is useless, unless i dont know something http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

La7_brook
03-16-2007, 02:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
But 60km/h maxium speed advantage doesnt give u any serious advantage in dogfight;] Its all about acceleration, turn rate, climb rate and energy retention during the turns. G2 holds advantage in all aspects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are incorrect. The G2 has advantages in all areas at slow to medium speeds. At high speeds the Tempest V out classes the Bf 109 in all areas including roll which you have omitted.

60km/h is significant, it allows you to disengage, a priceless attribute.

Acceleration at speed is also something which the Tempest wins at. Handy if you are accelerating from 500km/h to beyond the G2s max speed of 540 km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can u read what i write? I said that max speed doesnt give u any serious advantage in DOGFIGHT DOGFIGHT DOGFIGHT. DOGFIGHT isnt EXTEND ffs. You found that 500km/h+ acceleration is usefull in dogfight? So how do u fight, flying all the way straight? And no, BF109G2 doesnt turn worse under high speed, if enemy pilot will use trim. Such a minor difference in roll is almost useless in dogfight. The most important speeds in dogfight are 300-500km/h, and here G2 holds it's advantage.

Also, ive found that roll advantage is useless in this game, usually difference between planes like FW190 vs La5FN, or FW190 vs SpitIX doesnt give u any advantage. The only planes that rolls really slow are Hurricane and IL2, in all other fighter planes that small advantage is useless, unless i dont know something http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> been doing sum spit25 v anton work i ill till ya that roll is the key too winning the fight , a fight lossed is a fight u made errors in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Matz0r
03-16-2007, 02:48 AM
Some of you guys don't understand difference between E-fighting and BnZ. E-fighting can be done at 150 kph and is all about using your energy state to gain advantage over an opponent in a dogfight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">usually difference between planes like FW190 vs La5FN, or FW190 vs SpitIX doesnt give u any advantage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless the FW is going really fast this is true, usually I treat La5FN and SpitfireIX the same and limit my manoeuvring to one flip and turn when attacking them to get maximum separation for extending, against an over eager opponent this can put them in your gunsight a second time if they try to s onto your six.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 02:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">been doing sum spit25 v anton work i ill till ya that roll is the key too winning the fight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
La7_brook, can u desribe please, how do u use such a roll advantage to win a fight? Track would be apprecieated also.

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 03:55 AM
Any fight where Anton beats spit 25lb proves only that noob was driving spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif For 25 lbs spit no one anton is a match. No matter how wonder scissors U do spit with a good driver will eat ya for a breakfast.

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Can u read what i write? I said that max speed doesnt give u any serious advantage in DOGFIGHT DOGFIGHT DOGFIGHT. DOGFIGHT isnt EXTEND ffs. You found that 500km/h+ acceleration is usefull in dogfight? So how do u fight, flying all the way straight? And no, BF109G2 doesnt turn worse under high speed, if enemy pilot will use trim. Such a minor difference in roll is almost useless in dogfight. The most important speeds in dogfight are 300-500km/h, and here G2 holds it's advantage.

Also, ive found that roll advantage is useless in this game, usually difference between planes like FW190 vs La5FN, or FW190 vs SpitIX doesnt give u any advantage. The only planes that rolls really slow are Hurricane and IL2, in all other fighter planes that small advantage is useless, unless i dont know something http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calm down dear!

Maybe I was imagining the 4 x Spitfire 25lb boost I shot down in one online sortie last nite in my Fw 190 D9 ? Someone forgot to tell me that rate of roll, high speed turn and high speed acceleration were of no use in IL2http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You are funny, you claim to know a lot about IL2, about the Fw 190 and about RL tactics yet you ignore everything true I state and come up with some BS points completely twisting my argument. Its really simple, if you think that straight line speed, high speed acceleration, high speed manuverability and rate of roll are useless then Im afraid there is no hope for you.

If you are in the faster aircraft YOU DICTATE the speed of the dogfight. For some reason you think of dogfight as SLOW SLOW SLOW SLOW, it is if you fly to the turn fighters strengths. La 5FN vs Fw 190 A8/6 IS NOT THE SAME SCENARIO. In this sceario the Tempest vs G2, the Tempest is so much faster that it can easily dictate the terms of the fight, it is also manuverable enough so that if it is in the G2s rear quarter it can CONVERT ITS GREATER ENERGY to gain a shooting opportunity.

Greater speed and high manuverability at speed allows the Tempest to convert its E to gain angles quicker than the G2 can. We are talking seconds here but how long do you want a dogfight to last? Instantaneous turn and instantaneous roll are a huge advantage if you misuse this advantage or choose to ignore it you wont be successful. Likewise if you accept a sustained low speed turn fight in a Fw 190 or a Tempest you wont be successful.

Dogfight on your terms, if you fight at speed you CAN manuver and when your speed reduces you CAN disengage.

Xiolablu3
03-16-2007, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
X3,

You are talkin' to me again?

If you confuse hit and run tactics with energy tactics, then, YOU confuse hit and run tactics with energy tactics. Blaming me for your error is ahhh - repetitive. Do you wake up in a new world every day?

Show me?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt realise I WASNT talking to you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I dont have time to read every thread on the forum, I read what seems interesting on the day I am here.


I wasnt blaming anyone for anything, it was a question....

Are climb rate and turn rate alone, what makes an opponent 'double superior'? In terms of what you are talking about?

I dont wake up in a new world every day, but it IS a chance to do it differently and in a better way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW your new writing style is much clearer.

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 04:47 AM
I think if there will meet two equal aces one in Tempest seccond in G2 fight can be verry even. Sure Tempest is faster but G2 still handles much better. Is more stable, turn and climb better. G2 can easily avoid Temtests shoots and climb to gain alt. As fight lasts longer and get higher as G2 gets advantage over tempest. G2 has great nose pointing ability and that Tempest is faster not solve problem because bullets are still faster. Tempest is fragile to take damages contrary to G2 which is good flyable if engine and controls are still in good condition. 1 vs 1 fight is surely not Tempest enviroment.

Xiolablu3
03-16-2007, 04:52 AM
I think it totally depends on the skill of the pilots, Pinker.

If it was Roland in a Tempest vs another in a 109G2, then I would bet on the Tempest.

However, if I didnt know the 2 guys, I would probably edge towards the 109G2, purely because it takes a very good pilot to beat a better dogfighter in a worse turning, worse climbing, plane (I gather what you guys are calling double inferior)

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 04:58 AM
The Tempest isnt actually that much worse in turn or climb from sea level to 2500m in IL2. Despite being twice the weight it has close to twice the Hp which enables it to dogfight to some degree.

Xiola it is much much easier to dogfight a Bf 109 in a Tempest than a Spitfire IX in a Fw 190. So much so that when I get in to a good position I will press it, enter a dogfight and normally win, whereas in a Fw 190 vs Spit IX you REALLY have to be careful.

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Is more stable, turn and climb better. G2 can easily avoid Temtests shoots and climb to gain alt. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When a G2 is infront of me and we are both going over 300mph, how does the G2 pilot reverse position on me without presenting a target? It cannot pull in to a turn or a climbing turn with the same ease or speed that the Tempest can. In otherwords I can afford to watch where the G2 pilot turns then pull inside that turn and shoot him.

I agree that 1 vs 1 is not the ideal environment for the Tempest but I disagree completely that such a fight is a foregone conclusion in favour of the G2.

Xiolablu3
03-16-2007, 05:07 AM
I agree, I very rarely 'dogfight' interms of turning with a Spitfire IX in a FW190A6/A8, its simply not worth the risk. Only if I am 90% sure I can make the turn and get behind him will I even bother to try and appraoch his tail.

The rest of the time I climb instead, especially if he has seen me as he will just pull a hard turn.

Much better to play it safe in this situation and climb to be above him, rtaher than waste energy on a fruitless attack.

As for the Tempest, I havent really flown it much as a fighter, always taking bombs and maybe fighting my way back to base. I have certainly not 'studied' it like you have so the tips are useful, thanks.

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 05:13 AM
One thing I would say to you is the little bomb racks reduce speed by up to 30 km/h which is quite a lot really. If possible when you fight dont open your radiator and when diving or in level flight reduce pitch, when climbing or turning hard increase pitch.

Its like a Fw 190 D9 in terms of turn and climb definitely more so than a Fw 190 A series. As the Bf 109 is less manuverable than the Spitfire and the Tempest is more manuverable than the Fw 190 the fighting style you employ can be much closer to turn and burn because the turn performance gap between Bf 109 and Tempest is 1 or 2 seconds whereas between the Fw 190 and Spitfire it is around 6 to 8 seconds.

Crank up IL2 compare and look at Tempest and G6 AS's turn rates for example.

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 06:06 AM
At equal terms 1 vs 1 dogfighting 1-2 sec of turn advantage often means difference between live or death. After first pass I often do half loop with a little turn and I watch what opponent is doing. In this case if Tempast do the same and try lead to shoot all what G2 driver is need is to do spiral climb. Tempest cant follow and at this moment hes toasted. At this situation Tempest is often forced to dive and extend to make separation and count on headon shoot. This can work if G2 will follow but if not and even start to climb when Tempest do dive for extend than G2 have all cards. Tempest can run only. Thats how its work when I fly. Tempest overheat much more than G2 so cant use hes max power so effectively as G2 can.

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
At equal terms 1 vs 1 dogfighting 1-2 sec of turn advantage often means difference between live or death. After first pass I often do half loop with a little turn and I watch what opponent is doing. In this case if Tempast do the same and try lead to shoot all what G2 driver is need is to do spiral climb. Tempest cant follow and at this moment hes toasted. At this situation Tempest is often forced to dive and extend to make separation and count on headon shoot. This can work if G2 will follow but if not and even start to climb when Tempest do dive for extend than G2 have all cards. Tempest can run only. Thats how its work when I fly. Tempest overheat much more than G2 so cant use hes max power so effectively as G2 can. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems that you dont unerstand the concept of high speed manuverability or instantaneous turn rate. If you did your belief that a 1-2 second advantage can mean the difference between life or death directly applies here also. Even in a head on pass if you are going faster than 300mph let alone 400 or 500 mph, the G2 doesnt respond to elevator input as well as the Tempest does. When you pull in to a climbing turn, the Tempest can pull in to a steeper turn for the same given manuver time :

this translates directly in to a shooting opportunity for the Tempest.

Only when the fight becomes one of sustained manuvering at speeds less than 300mph in RL or 400km/h in IL2 does the G2 gain advantage, at speeds above this the Tempest has the advantage.

As for the Tempest overheat, here is some news for you. At sea level to 2500m I can CRUISE faster than the G2's maximum speed. So your overheat comment is inaccurate and stems from lack of knowledge for the aircraft.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 06:51 AM
U are wrong here, if G2 pilot will use trim, then he can do as good turn as u or even better, especially when its climbing, not descending turn.
And no, I dont consider dogfight as being slow, but when i energy fight(I use method described by Josf) my speed varies, especially when i use much vertical from 300 up to 600km/h, so advantage in speeds 500-600km/h is none, when compared to energy disadvantage at 300-500km/h. I would really appreciate, if u could show me via track, or describe it with details(like Josf did), how u can win a fight 1 vs 1 with better high speed acceleration, better max speed, and better high speed turn(in ur opinnion). As high speed i consider speeds 500+km/h.

tigertalon
03-16-2007, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Even in a head on pass if you are going faster than 300mph let alone 400 or 500 mph, the G2 doesnt respond to elevator input as well as the Tempest does. When you pull in to a climbing turn, the Tempest can pull in to a steeper turn for the same given manuver time :

this translates directly in to a shooting opportunity for the Tempest.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what I ment by "except a very lucky snapshot" in my previous posts. If planes went headon without scoring any hits first pass, a skilled G2 pilot will pull up gently and slowly into a zoom climb (not vertically of course, say some 45 degrees). Tempest driver has to do half-loop very fast in order to get a shot before 109 is out of reach, and if he does that, he burns large quantities of E.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Only when the fight becomes one of sustained manuvering at speeds less than 300mph in RL or 400km/h in IL2 does the G2 gain advantage, at speeds above this the Tempest has the advantage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A smart G2 pilot will never follow a tempest at speeds over 500kph, he will rather stay slow and perform a sustained climb.

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
U are wrong here, if G2 pilot will use trim, then he can do as good turn as u or even better, especially when its climbing, not descending turn.
And no, I dont consider dogfight as being slow, but when i energy fight(I use method described by Josf) my speed varies, especially when i use much vertical from 300 up to 600km/h, so advantage in speeds 500-600km/h is none, when compared to energy disadvantage at 300-500km/h. I would really appreciate, if u could show me via track, or describe it with details(like Josf did), how u can win a fight 1 vs 1 with better high speed acceleration, better max speed, and better high speed turn(in ur opinnion). As high speed i consider speeds 500+km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why dont you just come on to UKD2 and sit and watch me from externals. You can then even take a 109 and fight me if you like.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 07:09 AM
So come that server, then. Whats ur online name?

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 07:13 AM
<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 mynameisroland:
Even in a head on pass if you are going faster than 300mph let alone 400 or 500 mph, the G2 doesnt respond to elevator input as well as the Tempest does. When you pull in to a climbing turn, the Tempest can pull in to a steeper turn for the same given manuver time :

this translates directly in to a shooting opportunity for the Tempest.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what I ment by "except a very lucky snapshot" in my previous posts. If planes went headon without scoring any hits first pass, a skilled G2 pilot will pull up gently and slowly into a zoom climb (not vertically of course, say some 45 degrees). Tempest driver has to do half-loop very fast in order to get a shot before 109 is out of reach, and if he does that, he burns large quantities of E.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Only when the fight becomes one of sustained manuvering at speeds less than 300mph in RL or 400km/h in IL2 does the G2 gain advantage, at speeds above this the Tempest has the advantage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A smart G2 pilot will never follow a tempest at speeds over 500kph, he will rather stay slow and perform a sustained climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must be the luckiest pilot in the world then because I hit more often than not when presented with such an opportunity and I wouldnt say my gunnery is brilliant. At no point in any of my threads have I said the Tempest will beat the G2 during sustained manuvers. However it will keep up with the G2 for prolonged periods especially in a climb at sea level.

The big question is how long does the G2 need to be in the Tempest's gunsight? If it decides to climb how long will it take for its superior climb to show? At sea level there is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">nothing </span> in it really. So the G2 has to climb for a prolonged period to gain seperation. Not healthy when the Hispanno hits accurately at distance.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/climb.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/turn.jpg

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
So come that server, then. Whats ur online name? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the name in my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

come online wearing your IL2 forums sig so I can look out for you.

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 07:16 AM
Tempest can't keep sustain high speed manouvering without alt lost or letting G2 to take position. G2 has no high speed elevator freeze if U use trims. If U dogfight Tempest U must choose what U want to archieve. Get on manovering and shooting position or to keep high speed. U cant have both. If U enter manouvering with G2 U enter into G2 enviroment and U are lost. Tempest during manovers bleeds more energy than G2. If U will not turn to keep speed up U will let G2 to get on your six and situation is in a tie. U cant get G2, G2 cant get U at least till ones mistake. High speed manovering is not solution because following plane dont need to repeat every manover U do and can cut corners. Tempests only hope is mutch greater speed at merge what gives oportunity for zoom climb and balsting G2 of the sky. If U think that U can manouver with G2 because of elevator freeze or only 1-2 sec turn advantage U are wrong. G2 also handles better and can reach much higher AOA than tempest. G2 is alot more agile. Accelerate and Deaccelerate much more rapidly too.

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 07:26 AM
Its not difficult to avoid to not be hit at first merge If U know what are U doing. If one dont go straight for a headon and do a little of evasive almost never get even a scatch. Its easy to train with AI. If AI wont hit U than no human can. U just get profits of that allmost all noobs are going for a headon with.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 07:26 AM
Roland: Cant see u on HL :&gt;

Pinker is talking wellhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Tempest can't keep sustain high speed manouvering without alt lost or letting G2 to take position. G2 has no high speed elevator freeze if U use trims. If U dogfight Tempest U must choose what U want to archieve. Get on manovering and shooting position or to keep high speed. U cant have both. If U enter manouvering with G2 U enter into G2 enviroment and U are lost. Tempest during manovers bleeds more energy than G2. If U will not turn to keep speed up U will let G2 to get on your six and situation is in a tie. U cant get G2, G2 cant get U at least till ones mistake. High speed manovering is not solution because following plane dont need to repeat every manover U do and can cut corners. Tempests only hope is mutch greater speed at merge what gives oportunity for zoom climb and balsting G2 of the sky. If U think that U can manouver with G2 because of elevator freeze or only 1-2 sec turn advantage U are wrong. G2 also handles better and can reach much higher AOA than tempest. G2 is alot more agile. Accelerate and Deaccelerate much more rapidly too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why paint it black and white ?

Tempest can dogfight for a short while and STILL be able to retreat and come back later.

Does the elevator trim trick work immediately? No. Does it help the G2s stiff aerilons? No. Sorry but you cannot supplant real control authority for using trim on a slider.

Tempest loses more speed during manuvers, Tempest has more speed to lose. How long must a manuver last before you decide you have the advantage or you are losing it?

High speed evasive manuvering is the answer because no 109 can roll at 400mph. High speed bleed is an advantage when cutting the angle for a shooting opportunity. The Tempest can stall instantaneously at over 400mph. How can the G2 out turn it at 400mph when it can even black the pilot out at 400mph?

Hold on, just a minute ago you were saying that 1-2 second advantage is all you need. Sorry now you are changing this in to "If U think that U can manouver with G2 because of elevator freeze or only 1-2 sec turn advantage U are wrong." Actually you are wrong. According by your maxim that <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">it only takes 1 or 2 seconds</span> the Tempest has an advantage that translates directly in to a gunnery solution - if you are good enough to take it.

"G2 is alot more agile. Accelerate and Deaccelerate much more rapidly too." At SLOW speeds. All dogfights I enter are at high initial speeds, where the Bf 109 is no really classed as agile. Infact it is the least agile late war ETO fighter at high speeds. Its acceleration and deceleration qualites only apply at SLOW speeds. At the merge how can the G2 bleed off the 200mph it needs to to become manuverable again? Likewise how does the G2 out accelerate something from 450 km/h to 600 km/h when the G2 maxes out at 540 km/h? Acceleration slows as you reach maximum speed.

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Roland: Cant see u on HL :&gt;

Pinker is talking wellhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont use Hyperlobby.
Pinker is talking well because he agrees with you. Do you need someone to agree with you to make your views relevant?

I find it very depressing that a supposed Fw 190 fan doesnt understand how to convert one fighters advantages against a slower more manuverable opponent. Do you really just run away against every opponent if you dont surprise them?

Maybe you score all your kills by surprise bounces.

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 07:37 AM
Am I talking what ? Rolling and scissor monovering cant help when G2 driver is smart and go up than wait for U. All yours Tempest vs G2 dogfighting is based on G2 driver stupidity.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 07:40 AM
So what server should i join then? No G2 and tempest in current UKD2 planeset.

Yes, thats exactly how i fly. I engage only from surprise, or when i have advantage : alt, opponent is **** pilot, or he flys **** plane.

I simply agree with Pinker15, because he says clearly, why u cannot get energy advantage above G2. Who will make alt faster, Tempest climbing at 500km/h or G2 climbing at 300km/h, huh?

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 07:45 AM
This topis is about 1 vs 1 fight conditions so no one server fit to this. I suggest to one player host 1 vs 1 map scenario. 2 airfields at distance between up to 5km, airstart, full real difficulty set, same alt merge.

tigertalon
03-16-2007, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I must be the luckiest pilot in the world then because I hit more often than not when presented with such an opportunity and I wouldnt say my gunnery is brilliant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland: At no point in any of my threads have I said the Tempest will beat the G2 during sustained manuvers. However it will keep up with the G2 for prolonged periods especially in a climb at sea level.

The big question is how long does the G2 need to be in the Tempest's gunsight? If it decides to climb how long will it take for its superior climb to show? At sea level there is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">nothing </span> in it really. So the G2 has to climb for a prolonged period to gain seperation. Not healthy when the Hispanno hits accurately at distance.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/climb.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/turn.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, in order to be a fair match, I assumed the fight to be headon, co E co alt, no hits scored headon pass. Again, after the merge, a smart G2 will pull into a 45 degrees zoomclimb without turning. If the tempest driver wants a firing solution, he must reverse and follow the 109 into a slow speed sustained climb:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Tempest_V_109G2.jpg

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 07:49 AM
Ye sure, but he doesnt use HL -.-

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Ye sure, but he doesnt use HL -.- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read all of my posts. I already stated that the G2 was never the historic opponent of the Tempest. UKD2 uses realistic plane match ups, it also has over 60 maps in rotation spanning 1936 to 1946. I have given you an open invitation to come to the server I frequent. Decline it or accept it, it is up to you.

Unfortunately Pinker I have also said that in this comparison the Tempest pilot would want to stay below 2500m not airstart at 5000m. Again please read posts before commenting.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 07:57 AM
If we want to match G2 with Tempest, so why the hell should we fly on another planeset? Or are u simply afraid that ur tactic wont work? U are pissing me off now.

Whirlin_merlin
03-16-2007, 07:58 AM
TT

What I can't figure is why the tempest would want to do this when instead it could disappear off into the great blue yonder. Climb at it's leasure and either come back to fight or go home for tea and crumpets.
I agree that pulling that reverse manouver would burn E big time, as it would for the G2 if you changed the labels around on the diagram.

P.S Of course it is exactly the kind of silly manouver I would try but then I'm rubbish. Boemher wouldn't in my experience.

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 08:00 AM
I've nowhere written that airstart will be at 5k meters. If U set airstart at difficulty panel than it will be around 1000 meters. U should know this if U are familiar with 1 vs 1 dogfighting.

tigertalon
03-16-2007, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
TT

What I can't figure is why the tempest would want to do this when instead it could disappear off into the great blue yonder. Climb at it's leasure and either come back to fight or go home for tea and crumpets.
I agree that pulling that reverse manouver would burn E big time, as it would for the G2 if you changed the labels around on the diagram.

P.S Of course it is exactly the kind of silly manouver I would try but then I'm rubbish. Boemher wouldn't in my experience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder that too, this diagram was a direct reply to boemher previous posts... even the one I quoted when I posted the pic. Actually I posted it because I assume there is some kind of misunderstandement in this debate, as I cannot imagine such a skilled pilot like boemher pulling this maneouver.

Whirlin_merlin
03-16-2007, 08:07 AM
Oh gotcha 'cos that's not really how I interpeted it, but I see where you are coming from.
Now back to watching what happens when Riki get's pissed off, could be fun this.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 08:09 AM
I simply dont like ppl who are writting 345345345 posts how they can win a fight with xxxx technique, and then are afraid to show it. If u dont want to show ur uber tactic, then better shut ur mouth, and dont talk at all.

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 08:13 AM
<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 mynameisroland:
I must be the luckiest pilot in the world then because I hit more often than not when presented with such an opportunity and I wouldnt say my gunnery is brilliant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland: At no point in any of my threads have I said the Tempest will beat the G2 during sustained manuvers. However it will keep up with the G2 for prolonged periods especially in a climb at sea level.

The big question is how long does the G2 need to be in the Tempest's gunsight? If it decides to climb how long will it take for its superior climb to show? At sea level there is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">nothing </span> in it really. So the G2 has to climb for a prolonged period to gain seperation. Not healthy when the Hispanno hits accurately at distance.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/climb.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/turn.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, in order to be a fair match, I assumed the fight to be headon, co E co alt, no hits scored headon pass. Again, after the merge, a smart G2 will pull into a 45 degrees zoomclimb without turning. If the tempest driver wants a firing solution, he must reverse and follow the 109 into a slow speed sustained climb:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Tempest_V_109G2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


To answer your question a smart Tempest pilot will engage head on or chose to disengage by flying away. Why are people trying to suggest that the Tempest will play the G2s game in this scenario? If both pilots decide to play to their strengths the neither can engage. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">My point is that the Tempest has a fighting chance during the initial stages of all manuvers and then if it fails to take advantage of them it can disengage.</span>

To avoid presenting a target the G2 has to manuver. If it manuvers to avoid being hit it bleeds energy, if it bleeds energy tht Tempest can stay longer in the fight.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Tempest_V_109G22.jpg

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
I simply dont like ppl who are writting 345345345 posts how they can win a fight with xxxx technique, and then are afraid to show it. If u dont want to show ur uber tactic, then better <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">shut ur mouth</span> , and dont talk at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah the last resort of the moron

I have given you the option, told you where I fly and what my name is. What do you do ? Act like a little girl and throw a hissy fit

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

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Oh gotcha 'cos that's not really how I interpeted it, but I see where you are coming from.
Now back to watching what happens when Riki get's pissed off, could be fun this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not how I interpreted it either, obviously TigerTalon assumes that A my gunnery is bad enough not to hit on a head on or that B I would fight the G2 at its own game long enough to get shot down.

Worst case scenario for me in a 1vs1 in this match up is I rtb. After strafing the G2 as it crash lands having ran out of fuel.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 08:21 AM
Yeah sure, cowardhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So, tactic of ronald was denied, Tempest isnt able to dogfight with G2. Still head on isnt a tactic. Try head on over enemy territory, 40km from the border, with 1 20mm shell in ur engine, good luck!

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 08:22 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Yeah sure, cowardhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif/QUOTE]

Come play with me then , how many offers do you want so far I count 3! You must be a chicken s**t. Oh I forgot you are just a piss poor pilot who cant score kills unless you bounce a helpless opponent.

Only a nancy says that Headons arent a valid tactic. lol

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

tigertalon
03-16-2007, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I must be the luckiest pilot in the world then because I hit more often than not when presented with such an opportunity and I wouldnt say my gunnery is brilliant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland: At no point in any of my threads have I said the Tempest will beat the G2 during sustained manuvers. However it will keep up with the G2 for prolonged periods especially in a climb at sea level.

The big question is how long does the G2 need to be in the Tempest's gunsight? If it decides to climb how long will it take for its superior climb to show? At sea level there is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">nothing </span> in it really. So the G2 has to climb for a prolonged period to gain seperation. Not healthy when the Hispanno hits accurately at distance.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/climb.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/turn.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, in order to be a fair match, I assumed the fight to be headon, co E co alt, no hits scored headon pass. Again, after the merge, a smart G2 will pull into a 45 degrees zoomclimb without turning. If the tempest driver wants a firing solution, he must reverse and follow the 109 into a slow speed sustained climb:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Tempest_V_109G2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


To answer your question a smart Tempest pilot will engage head on or chose to disengage by flying away. Why are people trying to suggest that the Tempest will play the G2s game in this scenario? If both pilots decide to play to their strengths the neither can engage. My point is that the Tempest has a fighting chance during the initial stages of all manuvers and then if it fails to take advantage of them it can disengage.

To avoid presenting a target the G2 has to manuver. If it manuvers to avoid being hit it bleeds energy, if it bleeds energy tht Tempest can stay longer in the fight.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Tempest_V_109G22.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, but still, I assumed no headon hits because they are pure toss of a coin. Both planes have a very fragile engine and a single 7.9mm bullet can kill it. Online 1v1 dogfighting has absolutely nothing to do with history or RL, it's a fun, sporty match, like a match of chess or tenis. It is usually done by merging co alt co e with guns keeping silent before planes fly past eachother.

To sum up: basic question of the thread starter was: "How to shoot the hell out of that G2 in tempest."

In order to answer to that, I still stand firmly behind a following opinion:"Without initial advantage (be it alt, E, or angles/surprise), and without luck, you can't touch skilled G2 beore he runs out of fuel."

|ZUTI|
03-16-2007, 08:28 AM
Guys guys. =SLO=ZServer... that's what i host. It's on HL. or you can join by zuti.mine.nu:21000 from the game itself. And do record when u fight. There are currently 5 maps, 2 with tempest and G2 in planesets, 2 pacific theatre and one jets. Just "&lt;vote" yourself to the map with palneset if other map is loaded http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And i put together those missions not historically accurate but one side vs other side planesets... tempest has dora, bf G2 has La5f etc... something in that aspect.

JG14_Josf
03-16-2007, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pinker is talking well because he agrees with you. Do you need someone to agree with you to make your views relevant? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To Whom It May Concern:

Getting on the same page is the same goal as getting on the same server no?

The goal is to communicate the relevant perspective. The means to achieving the goal is either words or actions in this case.

If you guys do record a track file that any one of you are convinced that the track file does, in fact, convey your viewpoint then please post the file somewhere for others to view in the effort to understand your viewpoint.

I have a series of track files recorded last night, coincidently enough, as JG53 Wotan helped me out testing energy fighting capabilities between the Spitfire VB (1941) versus the Fw-190A-4. I can say with absolute confidence that the Spitfire VB is the energy fighter. The Fw190A-4 is the hit and run fighter. The Spit is also the angles fighter.

I didn't record track files during those tests. My mind was not thinking at that time; however oddly the Winds of War server was sporting a Spitfire VB (1941) versus Fw190A-4 match-up and I joined and recorded hit and run passes on Spitfires.

I know my tests are not the Tempest versus 109G-2 fights so my effort at this time is simply to suggest recording track files and sending track files to anyone confused about what you are trying to say. The track file should speak much louder than words.

My time flying with the new patch isn't much due to reason that are not important; however I had a chance to fly the 109G-2 on Spits and 109s server recently and with much confidence I can say that the 109G-2 is a very good energy fighter.

One more thing: JG53 Wotan and his squad recently hosted a test server against JG14 and we tested relative performance between the 109G-2 and the Spitfire VB (1941). I can say with confidence that the Spitfire VB owns the 109G-2 in energy maneuverability. I was flying the Spitfire. It was NO CONTEST. The Spitfire VB (1941) is double superior to the 109G-2. The 109G-2 is the hit and run fighter compared to the Spitfire VB (1941).

If the game does model two planes that match up as the angles fighter against the energy fighter, then, I am anxious to see a track file showing this match-up. My guess is that it will be the P-47D (newest version) against the 109G-10. My experience is limited. I think the P-47D will out perform the 109G-10 in vertical dives and zooms while the 109G-10 will turn a tighter sustained circle.

Clues:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tempest loses more speed during manuvers, Tempest has more speed to lose. How long must a manuver last before you decide you have the advantage or you are losing it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When the rate of energy loss is the same, then, by definition the rate of loss is the same.

When the rate of loss favors one plane over another plane, then, the rate of loss inferiority determines how long must a maneuver last before deciding that the advantage is gained or lost. The rate of loss favoring one plane decelerating in unloaded vertical flight is the energy fighter for maneuvers going up in the vertical and the energy fighter should be the higher density plane with the cleaner lines and the greater engine thrust.

Example:

Take the Tempest and the 109G-2 at high speed in level flight side by side and see which plane gains the most altitude if both pilots pitch straight up at the same time. The energy fighter in vertical zoom climbs will be the energy fighter that goes higher.

If the Tempest is the energy fighter in vertical zooms from level flight because it goes higher at the same speed, then, the Tempest will go even higher if it starts out at a higher speed. The 109 will stall first and the Tempest will stall later.

If the 109 is the energy fighter because it goes higher in that vertical zoom test, then, the 109 is the energy fighter in vertical zooms because it retains more energy in a vertical zoom. END OF STORY for vertical zoom energy retention showing which plane has the vertical zoom energy retention advantage.

If both planes are side by side at minimum speed in level flight (that would be determined by the plane with the higher stall speed since it cannot go slower) and both planes Spit S and dive, then, the plane reaching top speed in the dive first will be the energy fighter in dives. The top speed of the slower top speed is the determining factor since it is ridiculous to expect the plane with the slower top speed to reach the top speed of the plane with the higher top speed in the dive.

If the Tempest reaches the 109 top speed first, then, it is the vertical dive energy fighter.

If the 109 reaches the 109 top speed first, then, it is the vertical dive energy fighter.

If the 109 zooms to a higher altitude in the zoom test and the 109 dives to the top speed first in the dive test and the 109 can sustain a tighter sustained turn in level flight, then, the 109 is double superior even if it doesn't have a higher top speed.

There is one more test to perform:

If both planes are side by side in a dive to a higher speed than the level flight high speed zoom test and both planes are pulled out of the dive into a vertical straight up zoom climb, then, the energy fighting tests are complete. The plane that can pull out from the dive and gain the highest altitude before stalling will be the better pulling out from a dive and gaining the highest altitude in the vertical zoom climb test plane i.e. the energy fighter with the better "pull-out" performance.

I the player performing the "pull-out" test with the 109 does not use the proper trim, then, that test may not be a valid test compared to a test performance by the player who uses the proper trim. END OF THAT STORY?

Not quite?

The player who maximizes turn performance in the pull-out' test and the plane that is pointing straight up sooner will be the plane that unloads induced drag sooner and will be the plane that reaches the higher altitude. The plane that does not maximize performance for any reason such as not having the trim set for high speed turn performance will expend more time and energy pulling' out of the dive and that will cause a later capability to unload the elevator in the vertical zoom straight up and that plane will not reach the higher altitude compared to the plane with the maximum high speed turn at the bottom of the dive zoom test. Ende?

X3,
I've been writing the same stuff for years. You woke up in a new world. How is it today?

No time to edit. As to the IL2comare chart that is ONLY sustained level flight turn performance curves i.e. NOT CORNER SPEED.

Xiolablu3
03-16-2007, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


X3,
I've been writing the same stuff for years. You woke up in a new world. How is it today?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better writing style, same attitude. Shame.

------------------

Compare very understandlable and readable:-

------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
'When the rate of energy loss is the same, then, by definition the rate of loss is the same.

When the rate of loss favors one plane over another plane, then, the rate of loss inferiority determines how long must a maneuver last before deciding that the advantage is gained or lost. The rate of loss favoring one plane decelerating in unloaded vertical flight is the energy fighter for maneuvers going up in the vertical and the energy fighter should be the higher density plane with the cleaner lines and the greater engine thrust.

Example:

Take the Tempest and the 109G-2 at high speed in level flight side by side and see which plane gains the most altitude if both pilots pitch straight up at the same time. The energy fighter in vertical zoom climbs will be the energy fighter that goes higher.

If the Tempest is the energy fighter in vertical zooms from level flight because it goes higher at the same speed, then, the Tempest will go even higher if it starts out at a higher speed. The 109 will stall first and the Tempest will stall later.

If the 109 is the energy fighter because it goes higher in that vertical zoom test, then, the 109 is the energy fighter in vertical zooms because it retains more energy in a vertical zoom. END OF STORY for vertical zoom energy retention showing which plane has the vertical zoom energy retention advantage.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-------

With WTF?!?! :-

-------
<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 purpose of discussion is to find agreement.

The purpose of argumentation is to argue.

If the numbers above are accurate, then, the numbers used to get those numbers agree; factually.

Human beings can see accurately and so long as human beings see accurately so long with human beings find agreement through discussion.

Discussion is also called PEER REVIEW.

I can find much to agree with in finding an accurate number for lift-loading. Lift-loading has much more critical information concerning actual plane performance than the superficial wing-loading.

Plane A lifts 132 kg (weight) for every square meter of wing area

Plane B lifts 131 kg (weight) for every square meter of wing area

Plane B lifts 1 kg (weight) more for every square meter of wing area.

What is missing is speed. At what speed can Plane A lift the weight of the plane to 1 g (power on and clean)?

Plane B can lift 1 kg (weight) for every square meter of wing area.

What does that say?

What does that say compared to this:

Plane B can lift the entire weight of Plane B to 1 g at 200 km/h.

What does that say compared to this:

Plane B can sustain 3 times the entire weight of Plane B in a level sustained turn at 235 km/h (full power).

Compared to this:

Plane A can sustain 3 times the entire weight of Plane A in a level sustained turn at 250 km/h (full power flaps down 5 degrees).

Hint: Knowing speed and g will also provide the necessary information to find turn rate and turn radius. Speed and g can be plotted on an EM chart.

What is missing?

At what speed can Plane A lift the entire weight of plane A?' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

---------


Hope I got my point across...It seems to be you thats in 2 different worlds, and the new one is definitely easier for us to understand. Well done.

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Good point, but still, I assumed no headon hits because they are pure toss of a coin. Both planes have a very fragile engine and a single 7.9mm bullet can kill it. Online 1v1 dogfighting has absolutely nothing to do with history or RL, it's a fun, sporty match, like a match of chess or tenis. It is usually done by merging co alt co e with guns keeping silent before planes fly past eachother.

To sum up: basic question of the thread starter was: "How to shoot the hell out of that G2 in tempest."

In order to answer to that, I still stand firmly behind a following opinion:"Without initial advantage (be it alt, E, or angles/surprise), and without luck, you can't touch skilled G2 beore he runs out of fuel." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still think you underestimate the lethality of any frontal engagements with the Tempest. It is easier to hit a target when you have a great gunsight and 4x 20mm cannons that have a relatively straight trajectory than it is with the G2s armament.

Remember that head on a while back on the italy map when you were in Mustang and I was in Fw 190 A5 and you engaged with a height advantage?

The basic question of the thread starter was "How to shoot the hell out of that G2 in Tempest" The answer to that is fight to your strengths. The way I fight there are numerous firing opportunities, if I hit during any of these I will win. If I miss and find myself co energy I will disengage and come back later.

If we are talking absolutes the G2 cannot climb forever it will have to land at some point. Or it will have to play the Tempests game and try and bounce it and manuver at high speeds.

Your stance can be applied equally to both planes. Without luck the G2 can never catch the Tempest before he runs out of fuel. What I think is that there is always a small but deadly window of opportunity for the Tempest pilot to score hits. I also think that G2 vs Tempest is a bogus match up.

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I know my tests are not the Tempest versus 109G-2 fights so my effort at this time is simply to suggest recording track files and sending track files to anyone confused about what you are trying to say. The track file should speak much louder than words. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the key thing here Josef, the Spit Vb vs Fw 190 A4 match up is completely irrelevant for the Tempest and G2.

The Tempest is faster and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">climbs and turns nearly as well</span>at certain heights. When I say nearly I mean the disparity between the two aircraft is much much closer than the Spit Vb Fw 190 A4 comparison.

Does anyone have access to the Energy bleed chart thay JtD posted ?

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by |ZUTI|:
Like? K4? Not as maneuverable as G2. He flys that one only because of that. Scossors u say. Hm, that tends to get speeds down, doesn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just spotted this ZUTI

If he flies the K4 the Tempest can out turn him. Try it.

tigertalon
03-16-2007, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I still think you underestimate the lethality of any frontal engagements with the Tempest. It is easier to hit a target when you have a great gunsight and 4x 20mm cannons that have a relatively straight trajectory than it is with the G2s armament. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a thing for a debate that can last 20 pages. Like said before, both planes have an extremely vulnerable inline one hit wonders (TM) which really doesn't distinguish between 20mm or a pesky 7.9mm frontal hit. Another thing in 109s favor is that it's armament is closely packed around the centerline and is effective for sniping at all reasonable distances, while tempest weapons are effective around convergence distance, anything out of it and you need quite some luck to hit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember that head on a while back on the italy map when you were in Mustang and I was in Fw 190 A5 and you engaged with a height advantage?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I can't remember it right now. I assume I lost, still a one time instance proves nothing. Next, P51 vs 190A is a great match IMO, and I can never put myself in the same league as you are, I probably spend more time in bombers than fighters. Errr... wait... I went into a headon flying a mustang versus an Anton, and having alt advantage on my side??? Must have been drunk...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The basic question of the thread starter was "How to shoot the hell out of that G2 in Tempest" The answer to that is fight to your strengths. The way I fight there are numerous firing opportunities, if I hit during any of these I will win. If I miss and find myself co energy I will disengage and come back later.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, my question is, when you disengage and come back later, what do you think he will do in the meantime?

Next question, which are these numerous firing solutions (after a headon pass) when he simply climbs away?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If we are talking absolutes the G2 cannot climb forever it will have to land at some point. Or it will have to play the Tempests game and try and bounce it and manuver at high speeds.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why risk?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your stance can be applied equally to both planes. Without luck the G2 can never catch the Tempest before he runs out of fuel. What I think is that there is always a small but deadly window of opportunity for the Tempest pilot to score hits. I also think that G2 vs Tempest is a bogus match up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course I agree that it's even harder (impossible) for a G2 pilot to get the tempest, but this symetry of the problem you are trying to imply, is something I can't agree on. Reading initial post again, it becomes clear, that 109s job is surviving, not shooting Tempest down, while tempest has no problem surviving, he is trying to bring the 109 down...

In all of your posts, apart from headon pass and waiting for the 109 to run out of fuel, I still fail to see a reliable tactic a tempest can use to bring a G2 down...

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 09:40 AM
For |ZUTI|

I have recorded some tracks for you against AI Tempest vs G2, 1000m merge no head on attack attempted. Then I started to give the AI an altiude disadvantage - agan no head on shots. Would you like them ?

Bremspropeller
03-16-2007, 09:48 AM
LoL this thread is gettin rocket science again.


The energy-fighter is supposed to win since it can engage-disengage at will (granted, energy-state is at least equal at merge).

The problem is, most ppl fail to recognize unfavourable tactical situations and therefore don't disengagee when it's neccessary.
Thatswhy we see energy-fighters loose that often online.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 09:48 AM
Hahah, so here is secret of ronald's tactic, it only works against AI, lmao.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-16-2007, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
LoL this thread is gettin rocket science again.


The energy-fighter is supposed to win since it can engage-disengage at will (granted, energy-state is at least equal at merge).

The problem is, most ppl fail to recognize unfavourable tactical situations and therefore don't disengagee when it's neccessary.
Thatswhy we see energy-fighters loose that often online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Energy fighters.... u meant Spits IX and La5FN/La7, yak3 etc ?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
03-16-2007, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
LoL this thread is gettin rocket science again.


The energy-fighter is supposed to win since it can engage-disengage at will (granted, energy-state is at least equal at merge).

The problem is, most ppl fail to recognize unfavourable tactical situations and therefore don't disengagee when it's neccessary.
Thatswhy we see energy-fighters loose that often online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Trust me when I say Rolands tactics dont just work vs AI. He is one of only a handful who I often see with KD ratios of 30:1 on servers.

But I doubt he will bother to explain anymore now.

Brain32
03-16-2007, 10:06 AM
When I am in the Tempest 109/190A or clay pigeons, it doesen't matter, I might as well engage passanger planes or unarmed C47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Really in general combat situation, if one can't deal, actually not deal but completely humiliate a 109, then the same pilot wouldn't last a nanosecond against a Spitfire in a Fw190.
Also 109G2 vs Tempest is a bad matchup it's actually not a match up at all. Let's try 190D9 vs SpitMkVb and wander why we can't win it in a turning contest lol.
As for 1-2seconds of turn time being a life saver, I dissagree, just look at SpitIX vs 109G2 matchups, Spitfire has 2-2,5 seconds better turn time and there are many people claiming that 109G2 outturns Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
If only we were allowed by the devs to have captured, crashlanded, with strange proppelers FockeWulf turn times...but that would be too much I guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

AFJ_rsm
03-16-2007, 10:13 AM
if Pinker15 is 303_Pinker in Hyperlobby, I'd listen very closely to what he is saying.


And even if he isn't, what Pinker15 is saying is 100% truths

AFJ_rsm
03-16-2007, 10:21 AM
Oh and I havent read through everything, but I think roland should assign some trim keys and go have a flight in the G2.


Clearly, he isnt respecting the G2's authoratah!

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
if Pinker15 is 303_Pinker in Hyperlobby, I'd listen very closely to what he is saying.


And even if he isn't, what Pinker15 is saying is 100% truths </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes thats me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Nice to see U Rsm. More talking about 1 vs 1 fight between Tempest and G2 is just speculations and should be checked online. Unfortunatly I cant fly till easter but I know buddys who can fly instead like Rafaeli, Haupt or Ironman69. Last of them is 109 lover so Im pretty sure he will be pleased to fly.


P.S. I'd like to see that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif S! =AFJ=

JG14_Josf
03-16-2007, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Better writing style, same attitude. Shame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

Your examples to show how you are right and I am wrong work for you; that can be assumed.

Who is this "We" that you can speak for when you prove your point?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hope I got my point across...It seems to be you thats in 2 different worlds, and the new one is definitely easier for us to understand. Well done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is "us"?

The "NEW ME" has left the old world and in my new world YOU and your buddies can understand me better now?

When I read your quotes of my old style' of bad writing it appears to be a case of YOU not understanding one of the quotes you present as an example of YOUR inability to understand what is written.

The funny part is that this whole routine of you blaming me for your inability to read has been explained by me already to you with written words that you didn't understand the first time or the second time or the third time or how ever many times the obvious has remained obvious.

Do I have YOU confused with someone else?

Do I have YOU confused with one of your buddies?

Here is a clue as to WHOM has a problem: if you don't understand something written by someone, then, you can ask for clarification. If all you do is criticize the incomprehensible writing as being incomprehensible according to YOU, then, all YOU are doing is criticizing the writing that is, so far, incomprehensible to YOU (today). Tomorrow is a new day.

The following Chart is an example of a lead turn performed without the required lateral separation of 1 turn diameter:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Tempest_V_109G2.jpg

Text:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Question: will the tempest be able to execute such a maneuver before G2 gest out of reach, considering the amount of energy both fighters will burn, and 109s better sustained climb? I bet not, except with a very lucky shot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From equal speeds at the merge in the diagram where neither plane turns until both planes are side by side the tempest turning almost 180 degrees will certainly be far behind the G2 turning 45 degrees.

Note: That is an example of one circle geometry i.e. Angles Tactics where an advantage in turn radius is utilized.

How?

Imagine the same co-speed co-altitude merge and both planes want to fight instead of one plane wanting to fight and the other plane wanting to run. In other words the G2 isn't chicken.

The G2 pilot expects that the Tempest pilot will try a 180 degree nose high turn so the G2 pilot pulls the throttle back to idle (in the game the best way to slow down appears to be by using the prop pitch cheat where prop pitch is set to 0 prop pitch which acts like an air brake but this cheat is something that Wotan showed me while I tried to over shoot him so I can't say how well it works while I use it yet).

The G2 pilot pulls back on the throttle, goes to manual pitch, sets the prop pitch to zero (if the game allows this cheat to work with the 109 I don't know) and decelerates very fast as the G2 pilot pulls up into a very tight decelerating turn at minimum radius.

The G2 pilot expects that the Tempest pilot will try turning a turn at full throttle which will be a larger radius turn.

What happens?

ONE-CIRCLE FIGHT
Co-Altitude
Equal Turn Rate
Scroll down to Fig. 6.43 (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf)
TURN RADIUS ADVATAGE

If you don't think it works in the game, then, you don't think it works in the game.

If the speed at the merge is exactly the speed required to stall out after getting the shot with the engine at full power, then, it is certainly not a good idea to pull the power or the prop pitch.

If the speed at the merge is well over the speed required to turn the smallest turn rate and get the shot, then, not pulling the power will increase the turn radius.

If the trim is not right, then, the plane will not turn the smallest radius.

That IS how the game works.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Tempest_V_109G22.jpg

Text:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why deny the head on opportunity? This is about killing each other not about sportsmanship. At the point where the Tempest chooses to climb it has more energy because it commits to the maneuver later than the G2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The diagram presented explains what I was trying to explain concerning how to set up a two circle lead turn merge against an opponent that insists upon going for the head-on shot.

Going for the head on shot causes an overshoot for the shooter and that is fine for the shooter if the shooter scores and if the target doesn't perform something that the shooter can't handle like a one circle minimum radius turn or a two circle geometry lead turn setting up a sustained turn technique.

For X3: The words "TWO CIRCLE GEOMETRY LEAD TURN" is a new term made up by me and you can ask questions if you can't understand the meaning behind the new term. YOU X3, and your buddies, can ask questions or just go about criticizing my "STYLE" or lack thereof that is OK too.

Since the diagram with the Tempest going for the head-on shot' is set-up as a vertical once circle geometry turn, then, it can remain as such (in the vertical) to illustrate how the G2 can turn the event into a two circle geometry lead turn (it would have been better if the G2 went nose low rather than nose high just before the merge).

The G2 does not simply turn from level flight to a 30 degree climb if the G2 expects to make the head-on pass difficult for the Tempest attacker. The G2 slowly increases the turn away from the Tempest attack and then times a reversal into the attack at just the right time. What that does is twofold.

A. It turns the Tempests shot from an easy to track snap shot where the Tempest pilot is leading his target getting ready to shoot, from that situation into: a very difficult shot where the Tempest pilot has to push forward on the stick to account for the change in angles or the Tempest has to roll 90 degrees and use just the right amount of rudder for the proper lead, or the Tempest has to roll 180 degrees and pull back on the stick for the proper lead.
B. The turn geometry is changed from one circle to two circle and the Tempest overshoots nose to tail instead of nose to nose.

Nose to nose may work better if the idea is to minimize turn radius and go for the shot early. Nose to tail places the Tempest going in the opposite heading and therefore increasing lateral separation at the highest possible rate (both planes are flying fast away from each other).
Nose to nose decreases range quickly on purpose. Nose to tail increases range on purpose.

The G2 can dive away knowing that it will take a long time for the Tempest to turn around and continue the fight.

The G2 can also start the sustained turn technique'.

The Tempest can also start the sustained turn technique'.

Neither pilot has to know exactly what the sustained turn technique' is in order to perform it.

Nose to tail or two circle geometry is probably 80% of all the turn fighting in the game.

Those players who really know how to stall fight and angles fight are the ones using nose to nose geometry. Anyone in any plane can use nose to nose geometry to take advantage of a smaller turn radius so long as the opponent is flying faster around a larger turn.

The G2 in the diagram can spoil the head-on snap shot with a two circle geometry lead turn instead of simply pitching up into a sustained climb to run away from the fight with the Tempest.

After the merge, which is an overshoot no matter how the angles add up, (unless one plane performs a lead turn) the G2 can be involved in a two circle geometry turn rate fight. The plane that can turn around his circle faster will get the snap shot opportunity.

TWO-CIRCLE-FIGHT
Co-Altitude
Turn Rate Advantage
Scroll down to Fig. 6.44 (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf)

Since the diagram of the Tempest going for the head-on against the G2 is drawn for a vertical merge, then, the G2 reversing the one circle fight into a two circle fight will be going down in his circle while the Tempest is going up after the overshoot.

If the G2 can get around faster, then, the G2 will be all over the Tempest.

If the Tempest can get around faster, then, the Tempest will be all over the G2.

If the merge happens at high speed then both planes can get around without stalling.

If the merge happens at low speed then the Tempest (because it went) up will probably stall before completing his turn while the G2 can accelerate during the dive.

The G2 may stall, if the merge occurred at slow speed, before gaining the shot on the stalling Tempest.

The energy fight is all about using excess energy in decelerating turns (corner speeds) and the rate of energy gain/loss determines the energy fighting capabilities.

The notion that a heavy plane (above corner speed) will BLEED more energy than a light plane is ridiculous. A heavy plane (above corner speed) starts out with more energy because it is more massive. It will not BLEED energy. Energy is converted into lift vector acceleration so the BLEEDING is TURNING. If the BLEEDING is not TURNING, then, the game models a plane that is BURNING energy not TURNING.

If that is happening in the game, then, the game is modeling a plane that is inefficient in turning which has nothing to do with weight. Either the game is modeling a poor wing design or the game is modeling a plane with high parasite drag force as if the plane is slowed down by a parachute rather than being slowed down by induced drag WHICH IS TURNING FORCE.

If the Tempest is being modeled as a poor energy fighter as if the Tempest slows down in turns rather than TURNING in turns, then, the game is wrong. The Tempest was a very dense, very clean (despite the big scoop behind the prop), very powerful ENERGY FIGHTER and as such it should accelerate very fast (relative to less dense, less clean, and less powerful thrust production planes) in vertical unloaded dives (where induced drag is not a factor) and the Tempest should not decelerated fast especially when going vertically straight up against parasite drag force in an unloaded Zoom climb where gravity will slow down each plane equally fast HOWEVER the denser, cleaner, and more thrust producing plane will minimize deceleration caused by contact with air mass; therefore the TEMPEST should be THE ENERGY FIGHTER against any lesser dense plane with greater aerodynamic deceleration and against any plane with lower total THRUST.

If the game models a race to the highest altitude from a side by side level flight condition at the 109G2s level flight top speed where the Tempest can gain more altitude when both planes race to higher altitude, then, the Tempest is modeled as the vertical zoom climbing energy fighter compared to the 109G2.

The players conducting the tests will have to be the best at what they are doing. It can't be a valid test of the game model if one of the players conducting the test loses the race while piloting both planes against the opponent test player.

If the Tempest and 109G2 are in a dive at the maximum dive speed of the 109G2, side by side, and both players pilot their planes in a race to the highest altitude in that test and the Tempest wins the race every time no matter who is piloting the planes being tested, then, the Tempest is the energy fighter of those two planes for pull-out' and zoom climbs.

The 109G-2 stalls first.

If the Tempest and 109G2 are flying in a side by side test in the game at minimum level flight speed for the 109G2 and both planes roll inverted and dive to a race to see which plane reaches the 109G2 TOP SPEED in a dive and the Tempest wins that race every time no matter which player is doing the test, then, the game models the Tempest as the energy fighter in dive acceleration.

Add all those tests up and the Tempest, if it is the Tempest, gains more energy in the vertical dive and the Tempest retains more energy in the pull out from the dive and the Tempest reaches a higher altitude in a vertical zoom climb. Gaining more energy and retaining more energy is the stuff that makes an energy fighter an energy fighter.

If those tests result in virtually no difference in dive acceleration or vertical climb deceleration, then, as far as energy modeling the game models both planes equal in energy modeling.

If both planes are equal in energy modeling and one plane has a smaller turn radius in a horizontal turn while sustaining altitude, then, the plane with the slow speed turn performance advantage is single superior and both planes are equal in energy performance; therefore the plane with the superior slow speed sustained turn performance will be the superior dog-fighter and the other plane will be a hit and run plane even if it has a higher top speed.

I can offer some evidence supporting the perspective that the Tempest was the energy fighter in reality; however there is much more evidence proving that the Fw190A-3 was the energy fighter compared to the Spitfire VB (June 1942) [never mind the Spitfire VB (1941) versus the Fw190A-4] and that is clearly not the case in the game, so, if there is error between energy/angles fighter in one case, then, there is probably error in the other case unless the game is purposefully made to degrade the performance of certain planes for specific reasons such as play balance. The only one who knows why the game is modeled the way the game is modeled is the producer/designer or producers/designers of the game. "We" can guess. "We" have opinions.

No time to edit again.

AFJ_rsm
03-16-2007, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:

Yes thats me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Nice to see U Rsm. More talking about 1 vs 1 fight between Tempest and G2 is just speculations and should be checked online. Unfortunatly I cant fly till easter but I know buddys who can fly instead like Rafaeli, Haupt or Ironman69. Last of them is 109 lover so Im pretty sure he will be pleased to fly.


P.S. I'd like to see that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif S! =AFJ= </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rafaeli quit the game sadly, until he gets a better computer and more time away from his job. But Haupt, Ironman, Viper and me fly about 3 times a week on closed 1v1 and 2v2 games for training purposes, which are fun as hell! I've heard nothing but good things about you from Ironman, and if Ironman has something good to say about anyone, I'll sure as heck believe it.

Hope to have you join our 1v1 club games soon.

P.S Here's a video Viper made of one of our many sessions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgLHSnbMkjs


~S~ Pinker!

JG14_Josf
03-16-2007, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">~S~ Pinker! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

&lt;S&gt;AFJ

If you really want to minimize turn radius in a stall fighting rolling scissors utilizing nose to nose or one circle geometry, then, use flaps too?

Nice video

AFJ_rsm
03-16-2007, 12:40 PM
yes we use flaps

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:

Hope to have you join our 1v1 club games soon.

P.S Here's a video Viper made of one of our many sessions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgLHSnbMkjs


~S~ Pinker! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx mate sure I will esspecially I gonna need this after a long break.

P.S. Who on that movie had Polish markings ? Im really happy because of that. Im so pleased I even could kiss him :P

AFJ_rsm
03-16-2007, 01:42 PM
That was probably Haupt.

|ZUTI|
03-16-2007, 03:32 PM
Josf & roland: check PMs, thanks.

HellToupee
03-16-2007, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
As for 1-2seconds of turn time being a life saver, I dissagree, just look at SpitIX vs 109G2 matchups, Spitfire has 2-2,5 seconds better turn time and there are many people claiming that 109G2 outturns Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well u fail to understand the effect on speed in the turn, g2 will turn equal to better than a spit 9 under about 250kmh and is also easyer to fly on edge.

Pinker15
03-16-2007, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
As for 1-2seconds of turn time being a life saver, I dissagree, just look at SpitIX vs 109G2 matchups, Spitfire has 2-2,5 seconds better turn time and there are many people claiming that 109G2 outturns Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well u fail to understand the effect on speed in the turn, g2 will turn equal to better than a spit 9 under about 250kmh and is also easyer to fly on edge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. That what makes spit so danger for 109 is not its turning ability what think most but its ability to keep E during those turns. Most funny is that the same great energy retention can lead to death because of risk of overshoot etc.

|ZUTI|
03-17-2007, 03:54 AM
Hey guys,

i made a track of how i down G2 theese days. But somehow i doubt it would go like this when on-line. Remember, i wasnot running this time. What am i doung wrong (despite the fact that i did down him, ace difficulty, and i could overheat the engine, unlike AI)?

http://zuti.mine.nu/UploadedFiles/Projects/tempest_vs_g2.ntrk

PS: it's short http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pinker15
03-17-2007, 03:59 AM
Sadly one can outmanouver AI G2 even on P51 D20. AI just cant fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
03-17-2007, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
When I am in the Tempest 109/190A or clay pigeons, it doesen't matter, I might as well engage passanger planes or unarmed C47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Really in general combat situation, if one can't deal, actually not deal but completely humiliate a 109, then the same pilot wouldn't last a nanosecond against a Spitfire in a Fw190.
Also 109G2 vs Tempest is a bad matchup it's actually not a match up at all. Let's try 190D9 vs SpitMkVb and wander why we can't win it in a turning contest lol.
As for 1-2seconds of turn time being a life saver, I dissagree, just look at SpitIX vs 109G2 matchups, Spitfire has 2-2,5 seconds better turn time and there are many people claiming that 109G2 outturns Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
If only we were allowed by the devs to have captured, crashlanded, with strange proppelers FockeWulf turn times...but that would be too much I guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brain32 get with the program:

The Bf 109 G2 is the most uber turn fighter in the Luftwaffes arsenal. How could the Tempest beat one it in a dogfight?

I guess when I have been giving some credit to the plane it was infact my own complete brilliance that was winning all of these dogfights and the 109 guys were the ones in the superior plane all along !

There are two mindsets here, the guys who seem to thing the La5FN, Spit IX and G2 are the best fighters and those who long ago understood that the P51D, P47D, Tempest V and Fw 190 D9 were.

Manu-6S
03-17-2007, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
As for 1-2seconds of turn time being a life saver, I dissagree, just look at SpitIX vs 109G2 matchups, Spitfire has 2-2,5 seconds better turn time and there are many people claiming that 109G2 outturns Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well u fail to understand the effect on speed in the turn, g2 will turn equal to better than a spit 9 under about 250kmh and is also easyer to fly on edge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. That what makes spit so danger for 109 is not its turning ability what think most but its ability to keep E during those turns. Most funny is that the same great energy retention can lead to death because of risk of overshoot etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and the guy in the Spit should explain to me why his speed is under 250km/h.

It's really difficult for a Spit to reach that speed... without a dumb pilot.

Brain32
03-17-2007, 06:59 AM
Still I yet have to meet that average anyone can do it 109G2 pilot that will outturn me AT ANY SPEED while I fly a Spitfire, especially the MkV. Once I outturned a G2 in MkVc at 240kmh AFTER he bounced me and shot of my rudder control cable with his cannon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tigertalon
03-17-2007, 07:14 AM
We are obviously talking about two completely different things here. B mate u know me, and u know that I'd pick a 47, 51, 190, tempest over any 109 or even spit any day of the week - for almost any kind of mission - however, 1v1 dueling is excluded from it.

As a matter of fact, the whole above discusson is not applicable to P51 (or P47) vs G2. Why? Because P51/P47 gets better performance at high alt - it simply power climbs at 500kph to 9km alt, and pwnzores the 109 - something the tempest can't do coz it has worse alt performance than 109 (same thing happens with 190A vs SpitIX).

Problem is that experience from flying/fighting on a dogfight server full of planes should never be applied to 1v1 dueling. Planes as tempest and 190 (NOT the P51 or 47, again, because of their superb alt performance) are great examples of that.
This tracks (http://s29.quicksharing.com/v/2888113/Shifter_vs_TT.zip.html) tracks show what a dueling is, me flying a G2 against an opponent in a SpitVIII and I would have never fared better in any 190. However, this is the only situation in which I find a G2 better than, say, A6.

tigertalon
03-17-2007, 07:15 AM
Brain, check tracks I posted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I can offer some evidence supporting the perspective that the Tempest was the energy fighter in reality; however there is much more evidence proving that the Fw190A-3 was the energy fighter compared to the Spitfire VB (June 1942) [never mind the Spitfire VB (1941) versus the Fw190A-4] and that is clearly not the case in the game, so, if there is error between energy/angles fighter in one case, then, there is probably error in the other case unless the game is purposefully made to degrade the performance of certain planes for specific reasons such as play balance. The only one who knows why the game is modeled the way the game is modeled is the producer/designer or producers/designers of the game. "We" can guess. "We" have opinions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Excellent post. This last paragraph says it all.

JG4_Helofly
03-17-2007, 10:36 AM
Josf, you wrote that in a zoom climb the havy and the light plane will slow down the same due to gravity, but this is not true. The gravity vector which goes straight down, takes also weight in consideration. Remember mass*9,81. Here I would say that thrust to weight is important.

Davinci..
03-17-2007, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Josf, you wrote that in a zoom climb the havy and the light plane will slow down the same due to gravity, but this is not true. The gravity vector which goes straight down, takes also weight in consideration. Remember mass*9,81. Here I would say that thrust to weight is important. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to be "Captain Obvious" here, but all objects(light or heavy) are slowed "by gravity" at the same rate.
A heavier object would only slow down slower because it is more resistant to drag because of its mass.
a heavy object accerlates at 9.8ms/s and a light one does as well.

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Davinci..:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Josf, you wrote that in a zoom climb the havy and the light plane will slow down the same due to gravity, but this is not true. The gravity vector which goes straight down, takes also weight in consideration. Remember mass*9,81. Here I would say that thrust to weight is important. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hate to be "Captain Obvious" here, but all objects(light or heavy) are slowed "by gravity" at the same rate.
A heavier object would only slow down slower because it is more resistant to drag because of its mass.
a heavy object accerlates at 9.8ms/s and a light one does as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
For two bodies of different weights and same shape and density that is true. Also for any two objects in a vacum.

If we have two planes with different weights and aerodinamical coeficients in air that is variable.

JG14_Josf
03-17-2007, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I hate to be "Captain Obvious" here, but all objects(light or heavy) are slowed "by gravity" at the same rate.
A heavier object would only slow down slower because it is more resistant to drag because of its mass.
a heavy object accerlates at 9.8ms/s and a light one does as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Capt Obvious:

The field of gravity forces objects at the same rate of acceleration, yes, I think what JG4_Helofly wanted to say had to do with lifting' more weight against gravitational acceleration.

This may be the idea' suggesting that the heavy object will slow down quicker because the engine can't lift it as fast because the plane weight it high; hence the heavy Fw190 slows down quicker than the Spitfire VB (1941) because the power to lift the weight is better for the lighter Spitfire.

There are all kinds of problems with that idea'.

A. Power loading is not T/W
B. In a straight up zoom climb the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all
C. In a straight up zoom climb the most the prop can do is minimize drag
D. In a straight up zoom climb the theoretical energy height (the altitude that will be reached if nothing except gravity slows down the object) the theoretical energy height for the Spitfire, the Fw190, and a Nerf Ball from the same speed and from the same altitude is the same for all three objects i.e. from 2,000 feet and from 300 km/h the Spitfire, the Fw190, and the Nerf Ball will zoom climb to the same exact altitude if ONLY gravity slows down all three objects from 2,000 feet and from 300 km/h
E. Even if all three objects (The Spitfire, the Fw190, and the Nerf Ball) had the exact same T/W ratio (all three having less T than W or More W than T and therefore none of the three objects can accelerate up at all), then, none of those three object will ever reach the theoretical energy height when flying through air mass.
F. Air mass is required to produce thrust with props.
G. The denser object with the cleaner lines and the smaller size will move air mass out of the way much easier than the not as dense object with the less clean lines and the larger size. The Fw190 is the denser object, the smaller object, and the object with the cleaner lines. If the Nerf Ball was equal to the Spitfire size, then, it would be BY FAR the least dense object and it would certainly have the worst aerodynamic shape and even if it had as much thrust as either fighter plane (yes the Fw190 was fighter plane and not a half fast fighter bomber) so...the Nerf Ball would be the poorest zoom climbing plane reaching a much lower altitude in the same zoom climb from the same altitude and from the same speed even if it has the same T/W (very little weight and very little thrust).
H. The Fw190 has much more engine power and much more prop thrust to reduce air drag during the pure vertical zoom climb were wings are ONLY IN THE WAY and therefore any advantage in wing-loading is negated in the pure vertical zoom climb.
I. I. The Spitfire has big wings that get in the way and slow it down in a pure vertical zoom climb were gravity is decelerating, air drag is decelerating, and engine thrust cannot AT ALL accelerated the plane (not one inch).
J. Thrust to weight is important and not power to weight and if the Spitfire did have higher power to weight that does not mean that the Spitfire VB (1941) had higher thrust to weight since flight tests confirm that the Fw190A-3 not only could climb at a higher rate but at also at a steeper angle compared to the Spitfire VB (June 1942).
K. Thrust to weight is important and not power to weight and if the Spitfire did have higher power to weight than does not mean that the Spitfire VB (1941) had higher thrust to weight since flight tests confirm that the Fw190A-3 could accelerate faster than the June 1942 Spitfire VB under all conditions of flight and particularly during the initial stages of a dive where the Fw190A-3 could leave the Spitfire VB (June 1942) with ease.
L. Having a stepper climb angle, a higher climb rate, and better acceleration in all conditions of flight indicates a higher Thrust to Weight ratio.
M. Flight tests conclude that the Fw190A-3 could gain altitude faster than the Spitfire VB (June 1942) from side by side level flight at high cruise speed pulling up into a zoom climb (even if the zoom climb is not purely vertical).
N. Flight tests conclude that the Fw190A-3 could increase the superior zooming up capabilities compared to the lighter, larger winged, lower thrust Spitfire VB (June 1942) when both aircraft are pulling out of dive into a zoom climb.
O. Gravity accelerates all objects at the same exact rate up, down, or sideways because gravity is a magnetic field and not a thrust producing engine.
P. The lifting force' in a vertical zoom climb going straight up is momentum or inertia i.e. mass in motion therefore the Fw190 being more massive and the Fw190 going the same speed as the Spitfire VB and the Nerf Ball from the same altitude is more mass at the same motion and therefore the Fw190 is starting out with more momentum or more inertia which is a higher force and a higher energy state that can move more air trying to reach the theoretical energy height that cannot be reached by any prop driven fighter plane that does not have more thrust than weight and more thrust than weight and drag.
Q. Even if the fighter plane did have enough engine power to accelerate the weight of the plane at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2, even so, it could not reach the theoretical energy height due to drag force; it may hover at a fixed altitude but it needs inertia to climb and drag force increases square with velocity up to .3 Mach, 220 mph, or 355 km/h at which time drag force increases at an even greater rate than square with velocity due to the effects of compressibility when energy is used up compressing air mass.
R. If the light, big winged, large, bumpy, and lower thrust powered Spitfire starts the zoom climb next to the Fw190 and the Nerf Ball at speed above .3 Mach, 220 mph, and 355 km/h, then, the force of drag is enormously decelerating the least dense object more so than the huge force of drag is enormously decelerating the most dense, smallest, cleanest, and most thrust powered object of the three.

P.S. That was a very nice edited track file of a nose to nose rolling scissors fight between the 109G-2 and the Spitfire III. The 109G-2 didn't even use flaps (that I could see). In my opinion the game's energy modeling really porks the Spitfires since that big wing and light loading should allow the Spitfire to decelerate and force the 109 to overshoot in such a fight without any trouble.

S. You can't have energy retention like a slim, small, and dense object has AND at the same time have the ability to decelerate quickly in reality it is like having your cake and eating it too.

A fighter plane can be designed to slow down and speed up quickly; however the F-16 isn't modeled in this game.

JG4_Helofly
03-17-2007, 05:49 PM
Interesting read josf.
In my previews post I had the last part of the zoom climb in mind, the hang on the prop part. From my poor knowledge in pysics I remembered this mass*gravity vector, but I see my mistake.

It's just strange that in this game the spitfire can zoom like an extra 300 and you have no chance in a heavy plane. In the focke-wulf I feel like in a over weighted under powered bomber when the nose goes up.
Thanks for the explanation

96th_Nightshifter
03-18-2007, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:

This tracks (http://s29.quicksharing.com/v/2888113/Shifter_vs_TT.zip.html) tracks show what a dueling is, me flying a G2 against an opponent in a SpitVIII and I would have never fared better in any 190. However, this is the only situation in which I find a G2 better than, say, A6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice tracks TT, demonstrates completely why time and time again I say the only 109 I fear is the G2.

HellToupee
03-18-2007, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:


Yes, and the guy in the Spit should explain to me why his speed is under 250km/h.

It's really difficult for a Spit to reach that speed... without a dumb pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if ur trying to outturn one, trying to maintian best turn speed, means they can still easily pull harder and get inside your turn, thus outturn you. Getting under 250in a 1v1 equal e manover fight isnt hard.

mynameisroland
03-18-2007, 06:25 PM
What people are misconstruing here is that I never said one on one the Tempest V could out turn or outclimb the G2. What I have pointed out till I am blue in the face is that because the performance gap is actually not that large the Tempest can 'hang' with the 109 in manuvers for a while, because it has very good manuverability at high speed. It can certainly manuver long enough to bring its guns to bear. It can also run away once it loses its positional advantage which is priceless.

So far the only person who has commented other than I, that I know has a lot of Tempest experience is Brain32. Guess what? He also thinks that to dogfight and defeat 109s in the Tempest you dont have to be a rocket scientist.

This evening I fought in a 4 vs 1 against 3 Fw 190 D9s and a Bf 109 K4 for at least 5 minutes. In the end IceFire joined me (bringing along another few bandits for good measure) and together we claimed 4 or 5 of them before colliding with each other in a comedy situation. I had a numerical disadvantage and an energy disadvantage yet I was able to repeatedly out manuver the D9s and the 109s. If you have spent time in a Tempest and you have learned how to fly it well it is very capable <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">even</span> in a one vs one situation.

Dont automatically think Fw 190 vs Spitfire IX when you picture this match up, Tempest vs 109 is a completely different scenario. For those of you who have IL2 Compare the Tempest actually out turns the K4 and G6AS and matches the G10 and G14s curves. Now imagine what you could do if a Fw 190 could hand with a Spitfire through 360deg of a turn? Well thats what flying a Tempest vs a 109 is like.

hop2002
03-18-2007, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">B. In a straight up zoom climb the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a Josf special. Physics will tell you that any force added will cause an acceleration, even if it is completely counteracted by another force.

In other words,if a plane is going straight up, it will go up further with the engine on than with it off.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">C. In a straight up zoom climb the most the prop can do is minimize drag </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, what the prop can do is add a force to the aircraft.

If a 10 ton aircraft is going straight up, gravity is pulling it straight down with a force of 98,000 newtons.

If the propeller is providing a thrust of 10,000 newtons, the net force on the aircraft is 88,000 newtons.

If two identical planes are travelling upwards, one has a net force of 98,000 newtons straight down, and the other a net force of 88,000 newtons straight down,the one with the 98,000 newton force is going to slow down more quickly, and reach a lower height.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even if the fighter plane did have enough engine power to accelerate the weight of the plane at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2, even so, it could not reach the theoretical energy height due to drag force; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is also wrong.

Josf doesn't seem willing to add forces, perhaps because it would make it clear where his assumptions are wrong.

In a vertical climb the 3 main forces acting on the aircraft are gravity, thrust and drag.

If the plane is capable of a sustained vertical climb, then thrust might be greater than gravity, but for WW2 prop fighters it will not be.

If the plane is travelling at less than maximum speed in level flight and it is not capable of sustained vertical climbs, then drag will also be less than gravity.

In the case of WW2 prop fighters, gravity will be the largest force, below maximum level speed thrust will be the second largest force, drag the least of the 3.

Now, in Josf's example the plane is capable of generating the same thrust as gravity. In that case, the plane will be slowed in the climb only by drag, because thrust and gravity cancel each other out.

For the plane to not be able to reach theoretical energy height,drag would have to be greater than gravity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's just strange that in this game the spitfire can zoom like an extra 300 and you have no chance in a heavy plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To quote from one of Josf's favourite books, Fighter Combat Tactics and Manoeuvring by Robert Shaw:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since a zoom takes a finite length of time to complete, the fighter is subject to the effects of weight, thrust, and drag (i.e., Ps) during the maneuver. The amount of energy gained or lost in the zoom depends on the average value of Ps during this period. To illustrate this concept, assume two fighters are identical in
all respects, except one is heavier (maybe it is carrying more internal fuel). If they begin zooms at the same speed and altitude (i.e., same Es), Equation 4 shows that the lighter fighter will have greater Ps, will therefore add more energy during the zoom, and will ultimately zoom higher than the heavy fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strangely enough, Josf doesn't often quote that passage.

JG14_Josf
03-19-2007, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a Josf special. Physics will tell you that any force added will cause an acceleration, even if it is completely counteracted by another force.

In other words,if a plane is going straight up, it will go up further with the engine on than with it off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would the world be like without Hopisms?

Rather than attack the error, if there is one, Hopisms attack the person and then misrepresents the actual information.

No WWII fighter plane can reach the theoretical energy height at all ever unless the WWII fighter plane can accelerate going straight up.

Even if the WWII fighter plane has enough thrust to accelerate the aircraft weight at 9.8m/s^2 the most that fighter plane could do is hover.

If the WWII fighter plane has enough thrust to accelerate going straight up, then, that fighter plane has enough thrust to accelerate going straight up.

What is the Hopism arguing about now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">B. In a straight up zoom climb the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The prop on a P-47, for example, can reduce the rate of deceleration (with an accelerating force); however the P-47 cannot thrust the weight of the P-47 upward NOT ONE INCH. The vertical zoom climb for the P-47 will be a constant rate of deceleration. That does not account for the acceleration on the lift vector during the TURNING performance part of a zoom climb before the zoom climb becomes unloaded vertical flight.

What is the Hopism arguing now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a Josf special. Physics will tell you that any force added will cause an acceleration, even if it is completely counteracted by another force.

In other words,if a plane is going straight up, it will go up further with the engine on than with it off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does the Hopism quote my words before stating the obvious?

Perhaps the Hopism misunderstands the words he reads and quotes?

Perhaps the Hopism is trying to misrepresent the words he reads and quotes?

Perhaps the Hopism is just trying to assassinate someone's character?
Only the Hopism will know the true answers to these questions and who can trust Hopism?

What is Hopism arguing now?

Is Hopism creating another Straw-Man?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, what the prop can do is add a force to the aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is that sentence saying NO to exactly?

When saying NO to something the effect is to say that the sentence is false.

Hop is saying which sentence is false?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">C. In a straight up zoom climb the most the prop can do is minimize drag </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the Hopism misunderstands the context of the sentence and therefore the Hopism writes NO after quoting the sentence no?

If the P-47, for example, can lift' the P-47 higher than the theoretical energy height, then, the P-47 will do more than minimize drag, in fact, the P-47 will accelerate the mass farther than the inertia of the P-47 will propel the P-47 straight up against the force of gravity. It can't. The P-47 cannot even reach the theoretical energy height due to drag force even while the P-47 engine is turning the prop disc creating a lifting force on the velocity vector even so the most that the prop can do is minimize drag since the P-47 will not even reach the theoretical energy height.

What was the Hopism arguing about?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a 10 ton aircraft is going straight up, gravity is pulling it straight down with a force of 98,000 newtons.

If the propeller is providing a thrust of 10,000 newtons, the net force on the aircraft is 88,000 newtons.

If two identical planes are travelling upwards, one has a net force of 98,000 newtons straight down, and the other a net force of 88,000 newtons straight down,the one with the 98,000 newton force is going to slow down more quickly, and reach a lower height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is the Hopism arguing with exactly?

If the P-47 can go higher than the theoretical energy height in a power-on vertical zoom climb, then, the P-47 will lift the P-47 with prop thrust. It cannot. The most the P-47 can do is minimize drag and reach the theoretical energy height. It cannot even do that.

The P-47C can zoom much higher than the Spitfire IX according to Robert S. Johnson.

I prefer reading Johnson to any Hopism; both respond to my words in the same manner neither pay attention to what I write.

That is OK.

What is the Hopism arguing about now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is also wrong.

Josf doesn't seem willing to add forces, perhaps because it would make it clear where his assumptions are wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hopism? OH Hopism? I am right here so you can ask me any questions that you are confused about!

What assumption do you claim to be wrong OH Hopism?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even if the fighter plane did have enough engine power to accelerate the weight of the plane at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2, even so, it could not reach the theoretical energy height due to drag force; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that assumption' wrong?

Is there a method that can be used to prove if the assumption' is wrong?

What is needed is a plane that can hover on the prop going straight up. Such a plane is a plane that can lift the mass of the plane at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.

No, that is also wrong.

Yes, that is also right.

No, that is also wrong.

No, that is also right.

Figure it out dude and then find something else to argue about no?

If such a plane existed (the hovering plane with 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration straight up) will not reach the theoretical energy height if the same plane is zooming straight up from 500 km/h because the force of drag at that speed is enormous. Sure I may be wrong; however to prove the statement right or wrong requires proving the statement right or wrong rather than misrepresenting the statement as wrong without proving the statement right or wrong.

What is Hopism arguing about now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the plane is capable of a sustained vertical climb, then thrust might be greater than gravity, but for WW2 prop fighters it will not be.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is that stupid Straw-Man when you need him for a good argument?

Look left.

Look right.

Look up.

Look down.

I can't find the Straw-Man. Hopism must be creating one out of thin air.

What is Hopism arguing about now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the plane is travelling at less than maximum speed in level flight and it is not capable of sustained vertical climbs, then drag will also be less than gravity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? Does that have anything to do with a vertical zoom climb?

What is Hopism arguing about now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the case of WW2 prop fighters, gravity will be the largest force, below maximum level speed thrust will be the second largest force, drag the least of the 3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is the Hopism going with these observations?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, in Josf's example the plane is capable of generating the same thrust as gravity. In that case, the plane will be slowed in the climb only by drag, because thrust and gravity cancel each other out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...I still don't quite get the angle here. It is simple enough. If the P-47 does not reach the theoretical energy height (the height where only gravity slows the plane down), then, the something slows the plane down even if the prop is adding thrust. Either the P-47 reaches the theoretical energy height or the P-47 does not reach the theoretical energy height.

What is the Hopism arguing now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For the plane to not be able to reach theoretical energy height,drag would have to be greater than gravity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?

I can't be the Hopisms interpreter on this one. Does the Hopism suggest that the P-47 under any conditions whatsoever can reach the theoretical energy height or not?

I can't tell. I don't speak Hopism.

Hopism goes on to quote someone else and the Hopism fails to identify that person by name. That may be typical innuendo or it may simply be laziness on the Hopism.

The next Hopism is precious:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Strangely enough, Josf doesn't often quote that passage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hopism must be well schooled in the art of propaganda or the Hopism is teaching propaganda even better than the teachers.

The usage of the root strange' lends to the innuendo demonizing his target. The target is me. I'm right here Hop.

I can answer for Josf now.

Josf does quote the passage of Shaw quoted by Hop. Hopism is sure to avoid lying about that outright.

The innuendo is such that "Josf" is wrong, strange, confused, and misrepresenting the facts.

Nice try.

Let's take apart the passage by Shaw OK?

Two identical P-47s are zooming up side by side.

Both P-47s are full of fuel and one P-47 dumps out all his fuel on the way up.

What happens?

Hopism suggests that Josf thinks that Josf knows it all. Josf does not.

Josf likes to ask questions to find answers.

When the Hopism can answer questions, then, Hopism can prove his superior knowledge.

When Hopism misrepresents Josf as being someone who thinks that Josf knows it all, by innuendo, well Hopism proves where Hopisms head is stuck.

As the fuel is dumped out of the P-47 in the vertical zoom climb the P-47 will gain Ps.

As the fuel is dumped out of the P-47 in the vertical zoom climb the P-47 will decrease in density.

Equation 4 shows that the lighter fighter will therefore add more energy during the zoom, and will ultimately zoom higher than the heavy fighter.

Equation 4 must then prove that the gain in Ps is a greater increase is T/W compared to the increase in D/W.

T/W D/W

Power available increases greater than Power required increases.

Thrust increases greater than the decrease in inertia.

The formula, and please correct me if what I am about to say is wrong, is Boyd's EM formula that can be normalized for weight.

Ps = (T-D)/W*V

The formula appears in Boyd's autobiography written with brackets.

Ps = [T-D/W]V

The later can be expressed as:

Ps = [T/D D/W]V

True or false?

I am not Mr. Know it All despite anyone's claim to the contrary.

Strangely enough: Hopism continues to misrepresent me.

What determines the rate of increase in lift vector acceleration as forward vector velocity increases?

Xiolablu3
03-19-2007, 02:37 PM
'Since a zoom takes a finite length of time to complete, the fighter is subject to the effects of weight, thrust, and drag (i.e., Ps) during the maneuver. The amount of energy gained or lost in the zoom depends on the average value of Ps during this period. To illustrate this concept, assume two fighters are identical in
all respects, except one is heavier (maybe it is carrying more internal fuel). If they begin zooms at the same speed and altitude (i.e., same Es), Equation 4 shows that the lighter fighter will have greater Ps, will therefore add more energy during the zoom, and will ultimately zoom higher than the heavy fighter.'

Thats interesting....

I would have thought the heavier fighter would in fact zoom higher, not the lighter one.

So in fact the lighter planes like the Spitfire and Zero should outzoom the other heavier ones.

JG14_Josf
03-19-2007, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thats interesting....

I would have thought the heavier fighter would in fact zoom higher, not the lighter one.

So in fact the lighter planes like the Spitfire and Zero should outzoom the other heavier ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting...

Ignore Ps and the formula and conclude some rediculous assumption based upon ignorance.

hop2002
03-19-2007, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rather than attack the error, if there is one, Hopisms attack the person and then misrepresents the actual information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not attacking you Josf, I'm pointing out you are wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No WWII fighter plane can reach the theoretical energy height at all ever unless the WWII fighter plane can accelerate going straight up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any plane with an engine can accelerate going straight up. Net acceleration might still be downwards, but the engine is capable of providing acceleration upwards.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even if the WWII fighter plane has enough thrust to accelerate the aircraft weight at 9.8m/s^2 the most that fighter plane could do is hover. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is energy height? It's the height you will reach if you convert kinetic energy into potential energy, with no gains and losses.

If you try to replicate it in the real world, you will zoom higher if thrust exceeds drag, and lower if drag exceeds thrust.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The prop on a P-47, for example, can reduce the rate of deceleration (with an accelerating force); however the P-47 cannot thrust the weight of the P-47 upward NOT ONE INCH. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the effect of reducing deceleration is to increase the height you reach.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What is that sentence saying NO to exactly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's saying NO to what you wrote.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> C. In a straight up zoom climb the most the prop can do is minimize drag



Perhaps the Hopism misunderstands the context of the sentence and therefore the Hopism writes NO after quoting the sentence no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea what you wanted to write. I can only respond to what you did write.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the P-47, for example, can lift' the P-47 higher than the theoretical energy height, then, the P-47 will do more than minimize drag, in fact, the P-47 will accelerate the mass farther than the inertia of the P-47 will propel the P-47 straight up against the force of gravity. It can't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it can. If the prop thrust exceeds drag (which it will at less than maximum speed in level flight at that altitude/engine setting) , then the net difference will be positive, ie the aircraft will zoom higher than theoretical energy height.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-47 cannot even reach the theoretical energy height due to drag force even while the P-47 engine is turning the prop disc creating a lifting force on the velocity vector even so the most that the prop can do is minimize drag since the P-47 will not even reach the theoretical energy height.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you are wrong.

Theoretical energy heigh assumes a perfect conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy. Thrust and drag are not included.

If you include other forces, then the result will be different. But to assume they will make things worse, you have to assume thrust will be less than drag, and at less than maximum speed that is not the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the P-47 can go higher than the theoretical energy height in a power-on vertical zoom climb, then, the P-47 will lift the P-47 with prop thrust. It cannot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What happens to the thrust from the engine? It magically disappears because the aircraft is travelling in the vertical?

Net acceleration on the aircraft in the vertical (minus is downwards, plus upwards)

- gravity
- drag
+ thrust

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-47C can zoom much higher than the Spitfire IX according to Robert S. Johnson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He actually said he was going faster, they pulled up in to a zoom climb at the same time, and the Spitfire held it's place, which isn/t the same thing at all. The AFDU didn't say anything like what you are claiming, either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What assumption do you claim to be wrong OH Hopism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the P-47, for example, can lift' the P-47 higher than the theoretical energy height, then, the P-47 will do more than minimize drag, in fact, the P-47 will accelerate the mass farther than the inertia of the P-47 will propel the P-47 straight up against the force of gravity. It can't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That shows a fundamental lack of understanding of physics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is there a method that can be used to prove if the assumption' is wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. A chap called Isaac Newton worked it out nearly 400 years ago:

Force = Mass x Acceleration

Note that the laws of physics are not suspended in a vertical climb. Acceleration still equals force divided by mass.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If such a plane existed (the hovering plane with 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration straight up) will not reach the theoretical energy height if the same plane is zooming straight up from 500 km/h because the force of drag at that speed is enormous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you claiming the drag on a WW2 fighter is a greater force at 500 km/h than gravity?

To take a Spitfire as an example, gravity accelerates it downwards with a force of say 7,400 lbs (for a Spitfire IX). The plane is capable of up to 660 km/h in level flight.

That means the engine can provide enough force to counteract drag at up to 660 km/h.

If the engine can counteract drag at that speed, then gravity has to be a much larger force, otherwise the Spitfire could sustain a vertical climb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hmmm...I still don't quite get the angle here. It is simple enough. If the P-47 does not reach the theoretical energy height (the height where only gravity slows the plane down), then, the something slows the plane down even if the prop is adding thrust. Either the P-47 reaches the theoretical energy height or the P-47 does not reach the theoretical energy height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. Where is your evidence it cannot reach theoretical energy height? That's just another of your (wrong) assumptions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can't be the Hopisms interpreter on this one. Does the Hopism suggest that the P-47 under any conditions whatsoever can reach the theoretical energy height or not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it can. Energy height is the sum of potential and kinetic energy. If you add energy (thrust) and take away energy (drag) then the result will be different. If you add more than you take away, then the result will be a greater energy height.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thats interesting....

I would have thought the heavier fighter would in fact zoom higher, not the lighter one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends on the parameters of the zoom. Shaw is giving an example of two otherwise identical fighters, which means drag is the same.

In general, though, power to weight has a big effect on the height gained in a zoom climb.

JG14_Josf
03-19-2007, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any plane with an engine can accelerate going straight up. Net acceleration might still be downwards, but the engine is capable of providing acceleration upwards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the point is?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you try to replicate it in the real world, you will zoom higher if thrust exceeds drag, and lower if drag exceeds thrust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hopism,

Who are you arguing with?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's saying NO to what you wrote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are quoting me and then saying NO and then writing another angle of view on the same thing.

If the WWII plane does not reach the theoretical energy height (which you now accuse your Straw-Man of not understanding), then, there is no NET acceleration produced by thrust.

What a tool. No time left to continue this fine discussion.

Thanks anyway.

luftluuver
03-20-2007, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What a tool. No time left to continue this fine discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Does that mean we all don't have to scroll through your babbling gibberish any more? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Bremspropeller
03-20-2007, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a 10 ton aircraft is going straight up, gravity is pulling it straight down with a force of 98,000 newtons.

If the propeller is providing a thrust of 10,000 newtons, the net force on the aircraft is 88,000 newtons.

If two identical planes are travelling upwards, one has a net force of 98,000 newtons straight down, and the other a net force of 88,000 newtons straight down,the one with the 98,000 newton force is going to slow down more quickly, and reach a lower height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL, Isaac Newton ain't your friend, buddy.

Ratsack
03-20-2007, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
...
If the WWII plane does not reach the theoretical energy height...then, there is no NET acceleration produced by thrust.

... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't checked these boards for a couple of weeks, but I popped in saw the title of this thread and just knew I'd find you in here, Josf.

To take up where we started this exchange nearly two years ago, what exactly does the sentence of yours I've quoted above actually mean? In terms of physics, that is.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does that mean we all don't have to scroll through your babbling gibberish any more? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lufthead,

You can try to get an excuse from your parents.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Right. Where is your evidence it cannot reach theoretical energy height? That's just another of your (wrong) assumptions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back to Hopisms,

Proving how something will not happen? That sounds like a familiar tactic. The claim that the P-47 or any WWII fighter plane can or cannot accelerate straight up can be proven with evidence that cannot be argued against with any political tactic whatsoever. Put a g meter in the plane and read it. If it measures acceleration going up, then, it measures acceleration going up.

The situation described is a WWII fighter plane pointing straight up and traveling straight up reaching for the theoretical energy height.

Since the Hopism questions an understanding of Energy Height (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c5.pdf) it may help to quote a source where Energy Height is understood.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Energy height is not an altitude, rather the sum of the aircraft's specific potential and kinetic energies. It represents the altitude which the aircraft theoretically would be capable of reaching in a zoom climb, if its kinetic energy were perfectly convertible to potential energy without loss of any kind, and if it arrived at that altitude at zero airspeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Energy Height uses a formula that in normalized for weight and ignores drag (pressure and temperature are included to arrive at an accurate distance from the earth surface). The formula can be found at the site and energy height experiments can be performed in a vacuum.

Example:

A catapult with a wide launching pad launches a Nerf Ball and a P-47 up at 400 km/h in a vacuum on the earth. Both objects reach the same altitude at the same time because gravity is the only force slowing both objects down at the same rate 9.9m/s^2.

Kinetic and Potential Energy is measured as ft-lbs which can be converted to Newton meters or Joules (http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm).

KE and PE in Energy Height ignore thrust and drag.

A Newton meter adds a measure of distance to a Newton; therefore a ft-lb. also adds a measure of distance to the unit of force used in the context of Energy Height.

The pound in ft-lb is not simply weight. The pound in ft-lb is FORCE as a Newton is Force in Newton Meter (N m) so POUND is force in ft-lb. as Pound-Force.

Newton
1 N = 1 kg * m/s^2

N m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_meter)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Newton metre is the unit of moment in the SI system. It is abbreviated N m or N"m, and sometimes hyphenated newton-metre. It is a compound unit of torque corresponding to the torque from a force of one newton applied over a distance arm of one metre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Foot-pound force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_force)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The foot-pound force (symbol: ft"lbf) is an English unit of work or energy. Foot-pound force is the name given as the unit of measure for "kinetic energy" equation. Foot-pound force is frequently abbreviated to foot-pounds.

The foot-pound force equivalent in the international system is the joule (J). A joule also can be written as a newton-meter N"m, commonly found when dealing with torques. The foot-pound force also has a direct equivalent as a measurement of energy within the non-SI metric system of CGS called the erg.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule)

1J = 1 kg * m^2/s^2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As a rough guide, 1 joule is the amount of energy required to lift a one kilogram object up by a height of about 10 centimetres on the surface of the Earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Force or Energy?

1 Joule, 1 Newton Meter, 1 Foot-Pound Force?

Energy adds an additional measure of distance or a vector quantity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While a newton metre is dimensionally equivalent to a joule, the SI unit of energy and work, in a newton metre, the force and the distance arm are normal to each other, while in the joule, force and distance are co-linear. Another fundamental difference between the two is the fact that work is a scalar quantity, expressed as dU=F"dr, whereas the moment of a force or torque is defined as a cross product and as such is a vector quantity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To calculate Foot-pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_force), you use this formula,
W = F * d
Where W is work, F is force, and d is distance over which the force is applied (measured in the direction of force).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Power adds an additional measure of time:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Power
The foot-pound force per minute (ft"lbf/min) and foot-pound force per second (ft"lbf/s) are English units of power derived from the foot-pound force. The English horsepower is defined in terms of it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Newton
1 N = 1 kg * m/s^2

The Newton all alone includes weight (kg), distance (m) and time (s)

1J = 1 kg * m^2/s^2

The Joule is the same as the Newton with an additional distance factor (m^2)

Suffice to say that Energy Height according to the people who should know is a measure of Energy (ft-lb.) and distance. The time factor (rate of energy loss) is determined by Gravity alone 9.8 m/s^2.

From the horses mouth again:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Energy height is not an altitude, rather the sum of the aircraft's specific potential and kinetic energies. It represents the altitude which the aircraft theoretically would be capable of reaching in a zoom climb, if its kinetic energy were perfectly convertible to potential energy without loss of any kind, and if it arrived at that altitude at zero airspeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is Hopism arguing about now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course it can. Energy height is the sum of potential and kinetic energy. If you add energy (thrust) and take away energy (drag) then the result will be different. If you add more than you take away, then the result will be a greater energy height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure. Hopism may simply be attacking my character in any way he can imagine. If the P-47 was capable of reaching the theoretical energy height then the P-47 was capable of reaching the theoretical energy height. The entire quantity of drag force accumulated during the entire theoretical flight must be removed by a greater quantity of thrust. If it can't, then, the most the P-47 prop can do is remove some of the drag force during the theoretical Energy Height test flight. If the prop removes all the drag force exactly, then, the P-47 will reach the theoretical Energy Height as if the entire flight occurred in a vacuum even under those conditions the P-47 will not accelerated upward at all until the g meter measures acceleration going straight up.

If the reader is reading and arriving at the conclusion that the Hopism has defeated his target, then, the reader has witnessed Hopsim defeating his Straw-Man argument.

WTG Hop!

What is the Hopism arguing about now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That depends on the parameters of the zoom. Shaw is giving an example of two otherwise identical fighters, which means drag is the same.

In general, though, power to weight has a big effect on the height gained in a zoom climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The formula to which Shaw was referring, and correct me if what I am about to say is in error or misleading, is Boyd's EM formula.

Ps = [T-D/W]V
Or
Ps = (T-D)/W *V

In either case the term D is not a simple measurement of aircraft size and shape. The term D is a measurement of TOTAL force at a specific snap shot of time at a specific altitude and at a specific speed.

What is the unit of measure for D?

Pound (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c5.pdf)

Scroll down to Figure 5.4
SPECIFIC EXCESS POWER VERSUS TRUE AIRSPEED

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ps is valid for a single flight condition (configuration, gross weight, normal acceleration, and altitude). A family of Ps plots at altitude intervals of approximately 5,000 ft is necessary to define the airplane's specific excess power envelope for each configuration. When presented as a family, Ps curves usually are plotted versus Mach number or calibrated airspeed (Vc) as shown in figure 5.5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If at any altitude, speed, aircraft weight, or any measurable variable of flight condition does not arrive at the accurate measure of D in pounds of force, then, Ps will be wrong by the magnitude of the error in accurately measuring D as a total force (power required) acting upon the aircraft at that time, altitude, speed, and flight condition.

The lowering weight as fuel dumps from two identical planes in a vertical zoom climb will cause a change in T/W were thrust is the same for two identical planes and weight is reducing for one plane. The same reduction in weight will cause a change in D/W as the density of the plane loosing weight reduces. From the perspective of Power Available/Power Required the accelerating force going up is increasing for the aircraft dumping fuel while the Power Required is increasing for the aircraft dumping fuel because the aircraft dumping fuel is becoming less dense.

What is the Hopism arguing now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That depends on the parameters of the zoom. Shaw is giving an example of two otherwise identical fighters, which means drag is the same.

In general, though, power to weight has a big effect on the height gained in a zoom climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> which means drag is the same.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drag is not the same in the Ps formula because density changes. If the Hopisms flock does not understand this fact, then, those dupes can go on believing in their Hopisms.

To leap from Shaw's statement into a notion that Zero's zoom climb better because they are light is like Pavlov's (Hopisms) dogs salivating at the ringing of a bell.

What would the world be without Hopisms? Hop is a master of false propaganda and if you bark when he commands, then, you are a dupe too bad for you.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0316881465.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

The Fighter Pilot who... (http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316881465)

One of the reasons I return to this board is the valuable links found here from the diverse forum populace. Years ago a poster linked the name John Boyd as I offered my typical posts concerning Robert Shaw. That was a very valuable contribution offered by that poster. I can't even remember his name. He was one of those posters who may read, who knows, but rarely posts.

Anyone reading the book John Boyd by Robert Coram who ends up feeling' as if they have wasted their time is someone who, in my opinion, is base. I can be almost as perfect as Lufthead.

When John Boyd utilized his formula he made sure that D was as accurate as possible.

Assumptions weren't good enough.

Ratsack
03-20-2007, 10:23 AM
That's most of a page, Josf, and you haven't actually met Hop's correction of your initial error.

Just the usual obfuscation.

I see nothing's changed.

Ratsack

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I see nothing's changed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratsack,

Perhaps you can translate for the Hopism.

He has not pointed out any error whatsoever.

Rather he propagates falsehood just like you.

Ratsack
03-20-2007, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


He [Hop] has not pointed out any error whatsoever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes, he has. Let's just take this one mistake at a time and you may see.

You said this:

'B. In a straight up zoom climb the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all'

Your statement above is - for once - unequivocal. You said the prop exerts no force, rembering that F = m.a, so if a = 0, and m &gt; 0, then F = 0. Which is to say the prop exerts no force. Fascinating proposition. I wonder why they insisted on fixing props on the front of these planes if they exert no force? Never mind.


Hop said:
'...Physics will tell you that any force added will cause an acceleration, even if it is completely counteracted by another force.

In other words,if a plane is going straight up, it will go up further with the engine on than with it off.'

He has very neatly pointed out a major mistake in your physics, upon which you build much of the rest of your argument. To say he's not pointed out anything is just wishful thinking. You cannot just wish physics away, however.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Rather he propagates falsehood just like you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't call me a liar, Josf. I've said nothing even vaguely untrue or misleading. Rather the opposite.

Now, are you going to correct your error and adjust the rest of your reasoning accordingly, or are you just going to continue to spout your rubbish, without reference to the established laws of physics?

And no, another quote from Shaw or Boyd will not save you.

Ratsack

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh yes, he has. Let's just take this one mistake at a time and you may see.

You said this:

'B. In a straight up zoom climb the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all'

Your statement above is - for once - unequivocal. You said the prop exerts no force, rembering that F = m.a, so if a = 0, and m &gt; 0, then F = 0. Which is to say the prop exerts no force. Fascinating proposition. I wonder why they insisted on fixing props on the front of these planes if they exert no force? Never mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratsack,

Have you been taking lessons from Hop in how to propagandize? You will never equal the master.

Lesson one. You can't simply quote my words and then rewrite my words and then claim that I wrote the words you write.

I did not say that the prop exerts no force'. If I did say the prop exerts no force', then, you might actually quote where I wrote the prop exerts no force'. If you can find where I wrote (not you writing and then claiming that I wrote) the prop exerts no force', then, quote my words and I will admit to that error.

Your thinly disguised Straw-Man is not even close to the Hopism's well disguised Straw-man.

You are a rank amateur compared to the Hopism. You've got some learnin' to do.

Straw-Man exposed in case one.

Amateur Straw-Man regurgitation case two:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hop said:
'...Physics will tell you that any force added will cause an acceleration, even if it is completely counteracted by another force.

In other words,if a plane is going straight up, it will go up further with the engine on than with it off.'

He has very neatly pointed out a major mistake in your physics, upon which you build much of the rest of your argument. To say he's not pointed out anything is just wishful thinking. You cannot just wish physics away, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop has you hopping on command.

When the master Hopism works he is stealthy. He quotes what I write followed by "NO" and then he states the same thing I'm describing with different words as if by innuendo I somehow disagree with that specific Hopism which I do not unless I actual do disagree with the words written by Hop.

You or anyone can claim to know what I know to be true or what I know to be false and your claims remain just that claims.

I do not argue either. That is another false claim call it a poor amateur case of ignorance number three defeated.

No argument whatsoever. From your perspective, as I can decipher it, you are right. So be it. If it makes you happy, then, it makes you happy to be false.

I do not think the things you claim simply because you claim them.
Not now. Not ever. No argument. It is simply false a statement of fact. If you can help me to avoid arguments, then, point out where you think I argue and I will adjust my behavior accordingly if you can prove that I am arguing. If your claim is similar to these false claims, then, my only option is to proceed as I currently can in my efforts to find agreeable things to discuss.

The shoe fits perspective:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't call me a liar, Josf. I've said nothing even vaguely untrue or misleading. Rather the opposite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you feel guilty about lying, then, you feel guilty about lying. I can't say if your spreading of falsehood is done as a conditioned response to your master Hopism or you make this stuff up yourself on purpose. You can only know that not me.

Appearances can be deceiving:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, are you going to correct your error and adjust the rest of your reasoning accordingly, or are you just going to continue to spout your rubbish, without reference to the established laws of physics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A. I do not claim that the prop exerts no force'
B. Hop has not neatly pointed out any mistake of mine

It appears as if you, Ratsack (or whatever your name is), are lying on purpose because the lies are so simplistic and transparent as if only a dupe would actually believe in those falsehoods.

If, on the other hand, you do believe those falsehoods, then, you believe in those falsehoods. Good luck with them.

Ratsack
03-20-2007, 10:11 PM
Josf wrote:

Lesson one. You can't simply quote my words and then rewrite my words and then claim that I wrote the words you write.'

Yes, I can. If you wrote it, I can and will quote it. You wrote:

B. In a straight up zoom climb the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all'

Do you now disclaim this sentence?

Let us consider a well-known law of physics:

F = m.a

Where F is force in N, m' is mass in kg, and a' is acceleration in ms^-2. This is Newton's Second Law of motion. It describes the behaviour of a body being acted upon by a force.



Let us consider the Second Law in the context of your sentence:

B. In a straight up zoom climb the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all'

Firstly, let us take in a straight up' to mean absolutely vertical, which is to say, in the direction 180 degrees opposed to the direction of gravity.

Secondly, let us take the phrase zoom climb' to mean you are talking about an aeroplane. Taken in conjunction with the first point, we can conclude that you're talking about an aeroplane in a vertical climb.

Thirdly, the agent of your sentence the prop' implies the presence on this hypothetical aeroplane of a propeller. It seems reasonable to conclude on this basis that you meant to convey the concept of a propeller-driven aeroplane in a vertical climb.

I'd be interested to hear if you object to any part of this interpretation of your words, so far.

Now, a propeller on an aeroplane when connected to a running motor - exerts a force. This force is called thrust, and it is this force of thrust that moves the aeroplane through the air. This force can be measured in Newtons (N).

Now let us re-examine your sentence:

B. In a straight up zoom climb the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all'

and in particular, the phrase: the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all'

In this part, you said that the propeller cannot accelerate the mass' at all. The mass in question is obviously meant to be the mass of our hypothetical propeller-driven aeroplane.

Now, we know that the Second Law describes acceleration: F = m.a. That is to say:

a = F/m,

which is to say that our hypothetical propeller-driven aeroplane will accelerate at a rate that is both directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force applied to it, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aeroplane.

Now we know that the prop exerts a force if the motor is running. This means that the term F in our rearranged Second Law is not equal to zero. This means that the term a', the acceleration of the propeller-driven aeroplane due the force of the thrust generated by the propeller, is not equal to zero. We can state categorically that:

If F is not equal to zero, then the absolute value of a' is greater than zero.

Let's have a look at your sentence again:

the prop cannot accelerate the mass at all'

The prop or the force generated by the prop cannot accelerate the mass of the aeroplane at all. It cannot accelerate. A normal English-language understanding of this phrase is that the acceleration due to the force exerted by the prop is zero. In algebraic terms of the Second Law:

a = F/m = 0

i.e., F/m = 0
i.e., F = 0

Therefore, the force exerted by the prop is zero. That is what your sentence means.

The idea conveyed by your sentence is that the prop exerts no force, and this is wrong. The prop does exert a force: the force of thrust.

This is not a question of interpretation: I've drawn the train of logic out to an excruciating degree just to ensure you can't wriggle away by saying I'm misconstruing your meaning. If you've got a problem with any part of the interpretations I've given above, let's hear it. Be specific, too.


Ratsack

|ZUTI|
03-21-2007, 03:37 AM
Could you, just a thought, get on with ways to down T&B in B&Z fighter? If there is anything left to say, that is. Just a thought.

Ratsack
03-21-2007, 04:04 AM
I think most of that's been covered already.

The thing you might want to understand about our correspondent Josf is that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. He spews a lot of quotes on the page, and he is very free with long, abstruse pseudo arguments to support his 'study', but he is a habitual cherry-picker of quotes, and a recidivist mangler of physics.

He's been rumbled again and again, but he never gives up. He has the tirelessness of the true troll.

He sometimes manages to trip up the new, the unwary, or those less familiar with the jargon of physics and aeronautics. His standard approach when challenged is to disgorge reams of verbiage, amid which he will attempt to disguise his change of tack (like a squid), and then he will come back with personal attacks and spurious challenges to answer his newly-found 'critical' questions.

It's all cr@p, usually.

He can be found trolling in any topic containing any the following key words and phrases in the title: energy; Fw 190; Focke-Wulf; turning tactics; corner speed. He carries a particular flame for Shaw and his fighter tactics, as you may have gathered by now.

cheers,
Ratsack

Whirlin_merlin
03-21-2007, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does that mean we all don't have to scroll through your babbling gibberish any more? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lufthead,

You can try to get an excuse from your parents.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Right. Where is your evidence it cannot reach theoretical energy height? That's just another of your (wrong) assumptions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back to Hopisms,

Proving how something will not happen? That sounds like a familiar tactic. The claim that the P-47 or any WWII fighter plane can or cannot accelerate straight up can be proven with evidence that cannot be argued against with any political tactic whatsoever. Put a g meter in the plane and read it. If it measures acceleration going up, then, it measures acceleration going up.

The situation described is a WWII fighter plane pointing straight up and traveling straight up reaching for the theoretical energy height.

Since the Hopism questions an understanding of Energy Height (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c5.pdf) it may help to quote a source where Energy Height is understood.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Energy height is not an altitude, rather the sum of the aircraft's specific potential and kinetic energies. It represents the altitude which the aircraft theoretically would be capable of reaching in a zoom climb, if its kinetic energy were perfectly convertible to potential energy without loss of any kind, and if it arrived at that altitude at zero airspeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Energy Height uses a formula that in normalized for weight and ignores drag (pressure and temperature are included to arrive at an accurate distance from the earth surface). The formula can be found at the site and energy height experiments can be performed in a vacuum.

Example:

A catapult with a wide launching pad launches a Nerf Ball and a P-47 up at 400 km/h in a vacuum on the earth. Both objects reach the same altitude at the same time because gravity is the only force slowing both objects down at the same rate 9.9m/s^2.

Kinetic and Potential Energy is measured as ft-lbs which can be converted to Newton meters or Joules (http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm).

KE and PE in Energy Height ignore thrust and drag.

A Newton meter adds a measure of distance to a Newton; therefore a ft-lb. also adds a measure of distance to the unit of force used in the context of Energy Height.

The pound in ft-lb is not simply weight. The pound in ft-lb is FORCE as a Newton is Force in Newton Meter (N m) so POUND is force in ft-lb. as Pound-Force.

Newton
1 N = 1 kg * m/s^2

N m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_meter)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Newton metre is the unit of moment in the SI system. It is abbreviated N m or N"m, and sometimes hyphenated newton-metre. It is a compound unit of torque corresponding to the torque from a force of one newton applied over a distance arm of one metre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Foot-pound force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_force)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The foot-pound force (symbol: ft"lbf) is an English unit of work or energy. Foot-pound force is the name given as the unit of measure for "kinetic energy" equation. Foot-pound force is frequently abbreviated to foot-pounds.

The foot-pound force equivalent in the international system is the joule (J). A joule also can be written as a newton-meter N"m, commonly found when dealing with torques. The foot-pound force also has a direct equivalent as a measurement of energy within the non-SI metric system of CGS called the erg.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule)

1J = 1 kg * m^2/s^2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As a rough guide, 1 joule is the amount of energy required to lift a one kilogram object up by a height of about 10 centimetres on the surface of the Earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Force or Energy?

1 Joule, 1 Newton Meter, 1 Foot-Pound Force?

Energy adds an additional measure of distance or a vector quantity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While a newton metre is dimensionally equivalent to a joule, the SI unit of energy and work, in a newton metre, the force and the distance arm are normal to each other, while in the joule, force and distance are co-linear. Another fundamental difference between the two is the fact that work is a scalar quantity, expressed as dU=F"dr, whereas the moment of a force or torque is defined as a cross product and as such is a vector quantity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To calculate Foot-pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_force), you use this formula,
W = F * d
Where W is work, F is force, and d is distance over which the force is applied (measured in the direction of force).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Power adds an additional measure of time:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Power
The foot-pound force per minute (ft"lbf/min) and foot-pound force per second (ft"lbf/s) are English units of power derived from the foot-pound force. The English horsepower is defined in terms of it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Newton
1 N = 1 kg * m/s^2

The Newton all alone includes weight (kg), distance (m) and time (s)

1J = 1 kg * m^2/s^2

The Joule is the same as the Newton with an additional distance factor (m^2)

Suffice to say that Energy Height according to the people who should know is a measure of Energy (ft-lb.) and distance. The time factor (rate of energy loss) is determined by Gravity alone 9.8 m/s^2.

From the horses mouth again:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Energy height is not an altitude, rather the sum of the aircraft's specific potential and kinetic energies. It represents the altitude which the aircraft theoretically would be capable of reaching in a zoom climb, if its kinetic energy were perfectly convertible to potential energy without loss of any kind, and if it arrived at that altitude at zero airspeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is Hopism arguing about now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course it can. Energy height is the sum of potential and kinetic energy. If you add energy (thrust) and take away energy (drag) then the result will be different. If you add more than you take away, then the result will be a greater energy height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure. Hopism may simply be attacking my character in any way he can imagine. If the P-47 was capable of reaching the theoretical energy height then the P-47 was capable of reaching the theoretical energy height. The entire quantity of drag force accumulated during the entire theoretical flight must be removed by a greater quantity of thrust. If it can't, then, the most the P-47 prop can do is remove some of the drag force during the theoretical Energy Height test flight. If the prop removes all the drag force exactly, then, the P-47 will reach the theoretical Energy Height as if the entire flight occurred in a vacuum even under those conditions the P-47 will not accelerated upward at all until the g meter measures acceleration going straight up.

If the reader is reading and arriving at the conclusion that the Hopism has defeated his target, then, the reader has witnessed Hopsim defeating his Straw-Man argument.

WTG Hop!

What is the Hopism arguing about now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That depends on the parameters of the zoom. Shaw is giving an example of two otherwise identical fighters, which means drag is the same.

In general, though, power to weight has a big effect on the height gained in a zoom climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The formula to which Shaw was referring, and correct me if what I am about to say is in error or misleading, is Boyd's EM formula.

Ps = [T-D/W]V
Or
Ps = (T-D)/W *V

In either case the term D is not a simple measurement of aircraft size and shape. The term D is a measurement of TOTAL force at a specific snap shot of time at a specific altitude and at a specific speed.

What is the unit of measure for D?

Pound (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c5.pdf)

Scroll down to Figure 5.4
SPECIFIC EXCESS POWER VERSUS TRUE AIRSPEED

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ps is valid for a single flight condition (configuration, gross weight, normal acceleration, and altitude). A family of Ps plots at altitude intervals of approximately 5,000 ft is necessary to define the airplane's specific excess power envelope for each configuration. When presented as a family, Ps curves usually are plotted versus Mach number or calibrated airspeed (Vc) as shown in figure 5.5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If at any altitude, speed, aircraft weight, or any measurable variable of flight condition does not arrive at the accurate measure of D in pounds of force, then, Ps will be wrong by the magnitude of the error in accurately measuring D as a total force (power required) acting upon the aircraft at that time, altitude, speed, and flight condition.

The lowering weight as fuel dumps from two identical planes in a vertical zoom climb will cause a change in T/W were thrust is the same for two identical planes and weight is reducing for one plane. The same reduction in weight will cause a change in D/W as the density of the plane loosing weight reduces. From the perspective of Power Available/Power Required the accelerating force going up is increasing for the aircraft dumping fuel while the Power Required is increasing for the aircraft dumping fuel because the aircraft dumping fuel is becoming less dense.

What is the Hopism arguing now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That depends on the parameters of the zoom. Shaw is giving an example of two otherwise identical fighters, which means drag is the same.

In general, though, power to weight has a big effect on the height gained in a zoom climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> which means drag is the same.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drag is not the same in the Ps formula because density changes. If the Hopisms flock does not understand this fact, then, those dupes can go on believing in their Hopisms.

To leap from Shaw's statement into a notion that Zero's zoom climb better because they are light is like Pavlov's (Hopisms) dogs salivating at the ringing of a bell.

What would the world be without Hopisms? Hop is a master of false propaganda and if you bark when he commands, then, you are a dupe too bad for you.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0316881465.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

The Fighter Pilot who... (http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316881465)

One of the reasons I return to this board is the valuable links found here from the diverse forum populace. Years ago a poster linked the name John Boyd as I offered my typical posts concerning Robert Shaw. That was a very valuable contribution offered by that poster. I can't even remember his name. He was one of those posters who may read, who knows, but rarely posts.

Anyone reading the book John Boyd by Robert Coram who ends up feeling' as if they have wasted their time is someone who, in my opinion, is base. I can be almost as perfect as Lufthead.

When John Boyd utilized his formula he made sure that D was as accurate as possible.

Assumptions weren't good enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for writting this post as it has confirmed my initial feelings that you are proof of the phrase, 'a little bit of knowlage is a dangerous thing'.

I teach maths and physics but my degree is in marine biology and biology is my specialty, so when I couldn't understand what you were on about I thought well it might be me. I therefore showed the post to the 'proper' physics teachers, the one's with at least a degree in physics.
They too couldn't get it, the feeling was that you were inapropriatly appling principles and formula.

This leads me to suggest three possibilities.

1) Your verbose, argumentative and arogant style has masked the meaning.
2) Physics graduates and teachers arn't very clever.
3) You're wrong.

JG14_Josf
03-21-2007, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you now disclaim this sentence?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

&lt;Snip&gt;

To whom it may concern.

If a g meter is placed in the P-47 as it is flying straight upward at full power the g meter will record the variations in acceleration. If the context of what I wrote is to be understood (rather than misunderstood and misrepresented), then, that g meter will record a contestant rate of deceleration in that straight up zoom climb.

If the rate of deceleration equals 9.8 m/s^2 (constant), then, the rate of declaration is that Plane in that vertical zoom climb climbing to the theoretical energy height - exactly.

If there is an error on my part the error will be a wrong assumption concerning Net acceleration. My assumption, stated as fact because I truly believe that it is fact (until someone can prove otherwise), the P-47 or any WWII prop plane (that cannot climb straight up) will not reach the theoretical energy height.

Things can be complicated or things can be simple. Do you understand Occam's Razor (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html)?

Take three starting speeds to test for the hypothesis:

The P-47 can/cannot gain (accelerate) vertically (net acceleration) during straight up flight.

1. Starting speed Zero
2. Starting speed at least Drag
3. Starting speed at greatest thrust
4. Starting speed at greatest drag and least thrust

One and two are definitely the same.
One, two, and three may be the same since the prop lift vector will be closest to the velocity vector at the flattest prop pitch angle.

The starting speed at zero is a NO-BRAINER. The P-47 cannot accelerate one inch from zero velocity in a straight up zoom climb.

Test procedure:

Build a special launching scaffold for the P-47 pointing straight up on the tarmac test site.
Place a g meter in the cockpit.

Start engine.

Take off going straight up.

Record the measurements on the g meter.

Measure the altitude gain with your finger placed under the rudder support, wing support, or other support that was supporting the weight of the P-47 as the P-47 accelerated straight up.

Test condition 2 (minimum drag):

Calculate the velocity at which the P-47 will be generating minimum drag and redo the test. Make sure that the calculations of drag are calculated as force accelerating the plane rather than an over-simplistic drag measurement of size and shape of the P-47. In other words the calculation of drag includes prop drag, prop wash drag, etc. In other words the test will be done with the prop removed from the plane since the prop causes drag as well as thrust. How high does the P-47 climb straight up without the prop creating drag?

Test condition 3 (Greatest net thrust)

This calculation requires specific information on the plane and its capability to produce a net thrust. My guess and anyone can correct my guess if it is wrong, the greatest net thrust for the P-47 will be at zero air speed. I would measure for this in two ways.

A. Place a load cell under the weight supports and measure the net decrease in weight on the launch pad.
B. Place a strain gauge on the prop shaft.

The load cell will measure how much less the P-47 weighs as it accelerates up against gravity. The distance going up will be less than one inch (my guess) but greater than nothing. The prop will lift and strain. The prop shaft will pull the reduction gearing on the reduction gearing thrust bearing. The reduction gearing bearing housing will be lifted. The reduction gearing mounts in the air frame will be lifted etc.

The g meter will also read a rate of acceleration for an instant and the g meter will probably read fluctuations as the P-47 bucks on its launch pad.

The load cell will read a net altitude gain converted from a reduction in load on the cell.

The prop shaft strain gauge will read a net force between the prop disc lifting the prop disc and the rest of the P-47 being lifted by through the prop shaft.

The prop shaft measurement can be measured in pounds of force or Newtons.

If the prop shaft measurement is equal to the weight of the plane, then, the load cells under the plane will zero out. The plane will become wieght-less.

The testing personnel can try to lift the plane with their finger to measure the altitude gain.

Test condition 4 (greatest drag and least thrust)

First it must be understood that the vertical condition of flight removes the factor of induced drag and therefore the greatest drag will not be the drag at the bottom of the horseshoe drag charts for level flight.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/images/sav11a.gif

The greatest drag will be a continuous rise in drag POWER as the vertical test speed increases. The green dotted line is the Parasitic Drag POWER increasing with speed.

Therefore the most Drag will be at the highest speed and therefore test condition 4 will involve either a flight test at the highest speed in possible in vertical flight or a vertical wind tunnel.

Test condition 4 adds least thrust' because that is what happens at the highest speed where the prop blade angle is very course and the lift vector on the prop blades is therefore angled steeply away from the velocity vector.

Test condition 4 is a condition where the least amount of power is available to increase altitude and the most amount of power is required to increase altitude.

Occam's Razor suggests that if the P-47 will not climb when the most amount of power is available to increase altitude and the least amount of power is required to increase altitude, then, the P-47 will not climb when the least amount of power is available to increase altitude and the most amount of power is required to increase altitude.

One plus negative two may be too complicated for some people I can't claim to know what is in people's heads with authority'. I can guess.

&lt;un-snip&gt;

No; I didn't read the rest of Ratsack's amateur hour. What is the point?

Topic starter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Could you, just a thought, get on with ways to down T&B in B&Z fighter? If there is anything left to say, that is. Just a thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ZUTI],

Did you get Fighter Combat by Shaw? I may not generate the A.I. example of the sustained turn technique to send to you for awhile. I think the technique must be understood if your question is to be answered. If you want to discuss that technique, then, I'm up for it.

JG14_Josf
03-21-2007, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1) Your verbose, argumentative and arogant style has masked the meaning.
2) Physics graduates and teachers arn't very clever.
3) You're wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the definition of assumption?

If anyone wishes to prove anything right or wrong then they can do so at will or anyone can assume.

If the teacher' can explain the difference between Boyd's formula as it is written in the book "BOYD" and Boyd's formula as it is written in Shaw's book, then, the teacher' can teach something more than an assumption.

BOYD version:

Ps = [T-D/W]V

Shaw version:

Ps = (T-D)/W * V

If the teacher' is familiar with the utility of the formula, then, the teacher knows that the factor D is measured as a force.

What that means, to those who know, is that the force of D will be a net force that can only be measured for one snap shot of time at one altitude, one speed, and one condition of flight.

If the teacher' does not understand this fact, then, the teacher' needs to return to what he or she does understand or the teacher' can continue to assume this or that at will.

Good luck with your assumptions.

Whirlin_merlin
03-21-2007, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1) Your verbose, argumentative and arogant style has masked the meaning.
2) Physics graduates and teachers arn't very clever.
3) You're wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the definition of assumption?

If anyone wishes to prove anything right or wrong then they can do so at will or anyone can assume.

If the teacher' can explain the difference between Boyd's formula as it is written in the book "BOYD" and Boyd's formula as it is written in Shaw's book, then, the teacher' can teach something more than an assumption.

BOYD version:

Ps = [T-D/W]V

Shaw version:

Ps = (T-D)/W * V

If the teacher' is familiar with the utility of the formula, then, the teacher knows that the factor D is measured as a force.

What that means, to those who know, is that the force of D will be a net force that can only be measured for one snap shot of time at one altitude, one speed, and one condition of flight.

If the teacher' does not understand this fact, then, the teacher' needs to return to what he or she does understand or the teacher' can continue to assume this or that at will.

Good luck with your assumptions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assumptions?

I just suggested three possibilites.
There could be others, all I know is that whilst we recognised much for what you wrote neither myself or those I asked could understand the point you were trying to make with it.
I am happy to accept this could be our 'problem' but maybe you could just try to simple state what you are trying to say.

Another possibility just occured to me, you don't have a point to make but just like antagonising people.

P.S Why the quotation marks around the word teacher? Is it because you feel I may have assumed what I do for a living?

JG14_Josf
03-21-2007, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is it because you feel I may have assumed what I do for a living? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whirlin_merlin,

A title does not make you a teacher. Did you assume otherwise? I did not.

Based upon your current level of ability to teach' - I wouldn't hire you as a baby sitter.

Perhaps you are capable of passing on instructions I don't know.

As to your three possibilities:

There are others no doubt.

The point' can be summed up as a question.

What is the difference between the following two formulas?

Ps = (T-D)/W * V

Ps = [T-D/W]V

If you can teach me anything at all, then, you can answer the question asked.

That is a point to ponder.

Blutarski2004
03-21-2007, 12:49 PM
Does anyone here besides me remember Professor Erwin Corey?

Whirlin_merlin
03-21-2007, 01:53 PM
Josf, I'm not trying to teach you anything. Teaching is what I do for a job and luckily my employers have a different view of my abilities to you.
For fun I like to play computer games about airplanes. However I'm not that good so any tips or info' about how to fight a 'turn fighter' in an 'energy fighter' etc would be usefull. Your equation spamming of this thread isn't of much use there, but I know that's my problem.

As to your question I have to be honest here, as I said I'm a biologist really, the only Boyd's formulas I'm familiar with is one for estimating the surface area of a human body. Not much use in a dog fight that.
It's because I was unfamilar with much of what you posted that I got some physics teachers to help me understand you, they couldn't. Read in it to that what you want.

As to the baby-sitting I doubt you could afford me. I'm now quite certain that your only aim is to irritate people and I'm now bored of you.

Feel free to take this as another victory for your superior inteligence if you wish.

JG14_Josf
03-21-2007, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Feel free to take this as another victory for your superior inteligence if you wish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whirlin_merlin,

I do not wish as you suggest.

I've been busy in the study of Fighter Combat for many years and am therefore capable of teaching a few lessons. Your opinion concerning my qualifications mirrors my opinion of yours i.e. based upon ignorance.

What is the actual point of your posts?

Mine is to learn.

When someone expresses an interest in exchanging what has been learned, then, I find reason to participate. So far your contributions' are all negative.

If you actually have an interest in learning more about employing tactics in Fighter Combat, then, my suggestion is to ponder the Sustained Turn Technique as described by Shaw or me or anyone capable of explaining it in a manner that you can understand. The technique obviously worked in reality or Shaw would not have taken the time to conjure up such a fabrication. The technique may or may not work in the game your mileage may vary. I find the technique to be a fundamental necessity if the idea is to hose the opponent.

If the idea is to be a target, then, game play can be designed with that in mind I suppose. I'm not the one having trouble with Fighter Combat.

I'm not your target even if that is your wish.

I do not abide by your perceptions even if that is your dream.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Feel free to take this as another victory for your superior inteligence if you wish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No tally whatsoever on my part. You have taught me, so far, even if the lesson is a simple reinforcement of a reasonable truth.

Example:

Don't feed the trolls. If you think I am a troll, then, don't feed the trolls. Is that simple enough?

Xiolablu3
03-21-2007, 04:10 PM
The thing is Josf, some people here are nice people, and they try to help you understand, but often you just insult them - especially when they prove you wrong.

So therefore you are not here to learn, you are here to try and push an agenda.

People are not 'feeding' the troll. They are pointing out your many mistakes to others, so as to make sure that they do not believe the stuff you push.

Its not so much for your benefit, they do this anymore (I can tell most of the more knowledgable lost patience with you a long time ago), but to help those of us who do not know as much about physics as they do.

JG14_Josf
03-21-2007, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People are not 'feeding' the troll. They are pointing out your many mistakes to others, so as to make sure that they do not believe the stuff you push. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

Which mistake?

The fabricated ones?

The latest example above is clearly not a proven mistake. Do you know how to read?

Ratsack
03-21-2007, 09:01 PM
As you can see, Zuti, Josf has dutifully gone through the motions I predicted he would in my post to you above. Even better, he's done them all on one page, which is unusual for him given the lengths to which he likes to hold forth.

Note that when he was pulled up on a fundamental mistake that cripples the rest of his reasoning' he first attempted to belittle Hop, who pointed out the error (merely the first of many such errors). He then attempted to belittle me when I averred that Hop was indeed right, and that he, Josf, had made a mistake at which a schoolboy should blush with embarrassment. He tried to pretend it was a straw man argument, and then tried to distract me by calling me a liar.

When these petty stratagems failed, he went to his To Whom It May Concern' ploy. When you read these words you can almost imagine the puckering of the squid's ink valve before it squirts. And then it comes: reams of unrelated rant as the squid furiously vomits gallons of ink in his desperate attempt to avoid being righteously skewered.

Please note that he neither admitted his initial mistake, nor its implication for the rest of his argument. Neither did he attempt to meet the argument. On the contrary, he just chuntered away, merrily declaring black to be white and white to be black, and to cheery blazes with anybody with the temerity to disagree. But one should not be fooled: it's just the verbal equivalent of alfoil chaff.

You will note his responses to Whirlin Merlin followed pretty much the same pattern. Note in particular the half veiled nastiness in his replies, particularly the backhanded way he attempted denigrate WM's teaching qualifications. Note also the juvenile debater's devices he used in edifying passage where he called me liar. When challenged on this he replied with treacly nonsense about me feeling guilty about spreading falsehoods. This is merely a variation on the schoolhouse when did you stop beating your wife' ploy, which Josf apparently thinks is clever. He's not yet grown out of this sort of thing.

So, Zuti, you can see that Josf is not really a nice guy trying to help out. He's actually just a nasty little poseur, with very bad manners and a wide mean streak.


cheers,
Ratsack

M_Gunz
03-21-2007, 11:33 PM
Jokf as usual cuts and pastes words. Words arranged without knowledge mean nothing which
is okay with him since he can't tell the difference anyway. He is a likeness to Aristotle
both in tone and ignorance.

I'm still trying to find out what grade he was when he quit school. Maybe 8th grade gets
boring the 3rd time around?

Ratsack
03-22-2007, 03:49 AM
I disagree, Max. You do 8th-graders a dis-service.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG14_Josf
03-22-2007, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note that when he was pulled up on a fundamental mistake that cripples the rest of his reasoning' he first attempted to belittle Hop, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

&lt;Snip&gt;

To Whom It May Concern:

How many people have their own personal Troll's following them around raise their hands?

There are excellent Trolls like Hop who can present a work of art in propaganda that requires careful study to unravel all the fine subtleties.

Then there are base and simply ridiculous Trolls like Neal who appear to merely have gas.

The rank amateur Troll is the type that simply parrots. The amateur Troll is incapable of originality like cardboard.

Even when the amateur Troll tries to imitate his master the amateur botches the effort since a simple repetition or copy of his masters troll posts would be even less transparent as rank imitation than his meager attempts to imitate the range and depth of the master's technique.

If any person writes something and another person quotes those words, then, it is customary to attribute the words quoted to the person who wrote the words originally. Note how there is an origin involved. A person originates a series of words and that person is the source of those words.

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"In war-time truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." 6/
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Deception (http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/feer_thinking_about_deception.htm)

If the point is to expose something, then, it may be a good idea to be truthful about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be original (http://rescomp.stanford.edu/%7Echeshire/EinsteinQuotes.html)

If you can't be original, then, don't be to upset about it. Some people won't be anything but Trolls ever.

If the supposed fundamental mistake is to post on a forum infested with Trolls who can lie, misrepresent, misquote, heckle, and even libel with impunity, then, I will gladly continue to make that mistake for as long as I continue learning in the process.

If the Trolls haven't yet succeeded in assassinating my character by now (especially Hop), then, their sad attempts are truly meaningless.

What is the point (http://www.fastcompany.com/online/59/pilot.html)?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Observation; orientation; decision; action. On the face of it, Boyd's loop is a simple reckoning of how human beings make tactical decisions. But it's also an elegant framework for creating competitive advantage. Operating "inside" an adversary's OODA loop -- that is, acting quickly to outthink and outmaneuver rivals -- will, Boyd wrote, "make us appear ambiguous, [and] thereby generate confusion and disorder." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the point is to understand Energy Fighting and how to use fast transients, then, Shaw is a good start. Boyd is another good source.

This may help (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/fast_transients.pdf).

The is also good (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/boydaerialattack.pdf).

If someone can stomach the Troll puke, then, I'm here to discuss those links, Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique, Energy versus Angles tactics, and why some planes are much better than others in vertical maneuvering.

Nose to nose geometry (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf) works for planes with an ability to slow down quick and turn a smaller, tighter, "Natural Hook".

Two circle geometry, on the other hand (http://www.flightlab.net/pdf/8_Maneuvering.pdf), favors a plane with a faster turn rate and in either case the fight becomes less and less a battle against gravity as the fighter planes and pilots can maintain higher speeds.

The game (not the forum) is a fantastic and enjoyable learning instrument built with an obvious touch of genius. The game, unlike the forum, is moving ever closer to a true representation of reality. I really think the P-47 players know what I mean even if they find no cause to express such an outrageous opinion on this public forum.

Don't feed the Trolls.

Ratsack
03-22-2007, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note that when he was pulled up on a fundamental mistake that cripples the rest of his reasoning' he first attempted to belittle Hop, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

&lt;Snip&gt;

To Whom It May Concern:

... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Love that 'To Whom It May Concern' twaddle.

Josf, you ARE the troll. You just haven't realized it over the noise of how terrific you think you are.

Ratsack

JG14_Josf
03-22-2007, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Love that 'To Whom It May Concern' twaddle.

Josf, you ARE the troll. You just haven't realized it over the noise of how terrific you think you are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratsack,

What is the point of your non-twaddle or whatever it is that you call your contribution here?

Can I guess?

AFJ_rsm
03-22-2007, 12:51 PM
someone pls lock this thread, it needs to die already before I develop a liver condition from the pissedoffness the absurdity generates on me.

antonis2010
05-02-2011, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by |ZUTI|:
Hey guys,

i made a track of how i down G2 theese days. But somehow i doubt it would go like this when on-line. Remember, i wasnot running this time. What am i doung wrong (despite the fact that i did down him, ace difficulty, and i could overheat the engine, unlike AI)?

http://zuti.mine.nu/UploadedFi...s/tempest_vs_g2.ntrk (http://zuti.mine.nu/UploadedFiles/Projects/tempest_vs_g2.ntrk)

PS: it's short http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry mate, the link is not working, can you update?

Xiolablu3
05-02-2011, 12:50 AM
Do you realise he posted that 4 years ago? I doubt you will get a reply.

Also if this turns into more endless off topic physics bashing I will lock it. The thread is supposed to be about tactics the everyday pilots can use, not a physics lesson.

M_Gunz
05-02-2011, 06:33 AM
This is the second old Joke thread resurrected in a week. It's sad but funny when someone wants to prove that gravity is wrong in a sim and it turns out they don't understand how gravity works in the first place. Or energy. Or drag.

I was looking for the special F-86 vs MiG chart that proves how prop planes should turn just for nostalgia....

M_Gunz
05-02-2011, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Also if this turns into more endless off topic physics bashing I will lock it. The thread is supposed to be about tactics the everyday pilots can use, not a physics lesson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That happens when someone insists that planes should behave in ways that defy physics or they claim that the planes defy physics where they don't, and then they can't accept arguments to the contrary. We know why they can't accept them don't we?

I like the one where the chase plane in the dive compare is pulling hard maneuvers on the way down while the lead plane flew smooth yet somehow that proves the chase plane doesn't dive fast enough. It's almost as good as the FW being a great low speed turn fighter!

Xiolablu3
05-02-2011, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Also if this turns into more endless off topic physics bashing I will lock it. The thread is supposed to be about tactics the everyday pilots can use, not a physics lesson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That happens when someone insists that planes should behave in ways that defy physics or they claim that the planes defy physics where they don't, and then they can't accept arguments to the contrary. We know why they can't accept them don't we?

I like the one where the chase plane in the dive compare is pulling hard maneuvers on the way down while the lead plane flew smooth yet somehow that proves the chase plane doesn't dive fast enough. It's almost as good as the FW being a great low speed turn fighter! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I understand this, mate, discussing that stuff is fine if the thread title is relevant. But the original poster wanted practical tactics useful for real pilots, not endless maths useful for physics gurus http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The average pilot really does not do sums in the heat of battle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I actually read this thread through earlier and found it the perfect example of Josf's rambling nonsence. I would really recommend reading it through for a good laugh and blast from the past! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
05-02-2011, 04:23 PM
Some of those suggested tactics are jokes as any close look reveals.

You don't have to do sums in energy fighting. You need to know about how well your energy stands compared to the enemy and then work out how what you are doing or plan to do changes the balance. To that end it's good to understand a few realities ahead of time is all.

K_Freddie
05-03-2011, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's almost as good as the FW being a great low speed turn fighter! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But Gunzie, this is true to perfection.!!

I've managed to outturn both a Spit-HF and Tempest at low speed in a FW, with both of them making a hole in the ground trying to follow me. Call them amateurs if you want to, but after minutes or so of each maneuvering for advantage.. it's your call!!

How I do it.. I'll never tell, but you can be certain that I'm not cheating.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

K_Freddie
05-03-2011, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Some of those suggested tactics are jokes as any close look reveals.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No need to analyse that lot... they all lack imagination, as do the text book tactics most 'swear' by.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

M_Gunz
05-04-2011, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's almost as good as the FW being a great low speed turn fighter! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But Gunzie, this is true to perfection.!!

I've managed to outturn both a Spit-HF and Tempest at low speed in a FW, with both of them making a hole in the ground trying to follow me. Call them amateurs if you want to, but after minutes or so of each maneuvering for advantage.. it's your call!!

How I do it.. I'll never tell, but you can be certain that I'm not cheating.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Example of how it is all not so simple and the people who don't or won't realize.

A discussion might revolve around the peak performance differences of two planes with excellent pilots and then out come the anecdotes of things that happened in real or virtual combat that are not peak performance of two planes at all and include unequal conditions either not stated or poorly so.

In practice it is never about plane to plane but rather first about conditions and pilots. And when both pilots are not so great the outcome is even more about those pilots and their 'tactics', certainly not about peak performance differences of the planes.

Freddie, I read your post about turning tail on a plane that BnZ's you with the goal of turning away just before he shoots. If you get away with that then the other is not a good fighter pilot at all. You have written many times about flaps down fighting which I can assure you is never going to put you at an advantage except by mistake on the part of your opponent. Again and again you describe tactics that against good opponents will get you shot down even if they are useful on noob servers.

TipsyTed
05-04-2011, 03:44 AM
Yesterday evening I've at slow speed easily outturned a Bf 109E4 in my Bf 109E4 (on a historical "Belgrade 1941" map), which can only mean that a Bf 109E4 easily outturns a Bf 109E4.

M_Gunz
05-04-2011, 06:36 AM
probably the biggest benefit of learning energy tactics is that the majority of players don't know them. Against those players you only have to be good enough to not get suckered into TnB to beat.

Gaston444
05-24-2011, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:


That happens when someone insists that planes should behave in ways that defy physics or they claim that the planes defy physics where they don't, and then they can't accept arguments to the contrary. We know why they can't accept them don't we?

.....It's almost as good as the FW being a great low speed turn fighter! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW-190A IS a great low-speed turnfighter, at least very close or comparable to the Spitfire, and I have the math evidence that demonstrates it. I just need to do the graphics that explains it.

And hey, it IS the laws of physics that say so...

Here's something to chew on in the meantime: If, in a 3 G turn, Aero engineers in their infinite wisdom say a 7106 lbs (3223 Kg) Spitfire Mk IX is putting a total load of 21 318 lbs on its wings (9669 Kg), for a so-called wingload at 3 Gs of only 88 lbs/Sq. foot (430 Kg/Sq. M.), then consider this:

From a supposed 21 3318 lbs at 3 Gs, I estimate the real total load put on the wings is actually 51 318 lbs (23 277 Kg), or a wingload of 212 lbs/Sq. ft. instead of 88 lbs/Sq. ft.

In other words, there is 30 000 pounds of wing load (13 608 Kg) missing somewhere...

Question: Since thrust slanting in a turn, because of the angle of attack increase, is the inevitable cause of all this, where does the necessary 30 000 lbs of extra wing lift come from?

It's pretty easy to figure out, since the extra load the wings can bear has to roughly match the known results of wind tunnel testing...

After all, if the wings could lift much more than they think, their wind tunnel tests would have told them...

And the answer is?

Gaston

M_Gunz
05-24-2011, 02:53 PM
Spit IX weights and loading data. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ab197.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2......Weight Summary.

*Load 1. 2.
'TARE' Weight (including 5 standard ballast weights of 17.5 lb. in tail 5749 5719
Service load 1008 798
Fuel 85 gallons @ 7.2 lb./gall. 612 612
Oil 8.5 gallons @ 9.0 lb./gall. 76 76
Flying weight 7445 7205

*Load 1. 2 x 20 m.m. gun Hispano and 3 x .303 Browning guns.
Load 2. 8 x .303 Browning guns.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wing area from multiple sources is 242 sq ft.

7445/242 = 30.76 lbs/sq ft at 1 G.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From a supposed 21 3318 lbs at 3 Gs, I estimate the real total load put on the wings is actually 51 318 lbs (23 277 Kg), or a wingload of 212 lbs/Sq. ft. instead of 88 lbs/Sq. ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be from some special gaston-factor? Because at 3 G's the load is 3x as much as at 1 G and not over 7x as you would have it. Is this part of your own special "better than Aero engineers in their infinite wisdom physics" or are you still using the kindergarten math you've rattled on about before?

Or is it what's needed to compare worse than a FW so who cares where you pulled it out of?

Since the rest of your driv... errr, post, depends on the first part I won't bother addressing it.

Wildnoob
05-24-2011, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Spit IX weights and loading data. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ab197.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2......Weight Summary.

*Load 1. 2.
'TARE' Weight (including 5 standard ballast weights of 17.5 lb. in tail 5749 5719
Service load 1008 798
Fuel 85 gallons @ 7.2 lb./gall. 612 612
Oil 8.5 gallons @ 9.0 lb./gall. 76 76
Flying weight 7445 7205

*Load 1. 2 x 20 m.m. gun Hispano and 3 x .303 Browning guns.
Load 2. 8 x .303 Browning guns.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wing area from multiple sources is 242 sq ft.

7445/242 = 30.76 lbs/sq ft at 1 G.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From a supposed 21 3318 lbs at 3 Gs, I estimate the real total load put on the wings is actually 51 318 lbs (23 277 Kg), or a wingload of 212 lbs/Sq. ft. instead of 88 lbs/Sq. ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be from some special gaston-factor? Because at 3 G's the load is 3x as much as at 1 G and not over 7x as you would have it. Is this part of your own special "better than Aero engineers in their infinite wisdom physics" or are you still using the kindergarten math you've rattled on about before?

Or is it what's needed to compare worse than a FW so who cares where you pulled it out of?

Since the rest of your driv... errr, post, depends on the first part I won't bother addressing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://warriorwriters.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/troll.jpg

M_Gunz
05-24-2011, 04:56 PM
Right. Sorry. My bad.

antonis2010
06-23-2011, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M_Gunz:


The FW-190A IS a great low-speed turnfighter, at least very close or comparable to the Spitfire </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, you have fun...

antonis2010
06-23-2011, 07:10 PM
Bla, bla, you are very funny people here. Instead of making some tracks, you spend your time writing and writing all the time and speaking theoretically for something you may even dont know.

Bremspropeller
06-30-2011, 03:13 AM
And what's the track-part for?

K_Freddie
06-30-2011, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

In practice it is never about plane to plane but rather first about conditions and pilots. And when both pilots are not so great the outcome is even more about those pilots and their 'tactics', certainly not about peak performance differences of the planes.

Freddie, I read your post about turning tail on a plane that BnZ's you with the goal of turning away just before he shoots. If you get away with that then the other is not a good fighter pilot at all. You have written many times about flaps down fighting which I can assure you is never going to put you at an advantage except by mistake on the part of your opponent. Again and again you describe tactics that against good opponents will get you shot down even if they are useful on noob servers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been a long time since I bothered here...
Afraid not.. everybody's prone to mistakes. You just gotta know how to 'fish the best' into making mistakes. There is a lot of 'luring' on my part http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
The flaps story I usually describe are the final phases of the 'coupe de grace'.

If the 'best' do not make mistakes there is no result, either way.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif