PDA

View Full Version : Flight sim Revisionism?



Freiwillige
08-11-2009, 02:30 AM
Turn fighting in WWII was more prevalent than us simmers care\dare to admit! Ive been reading allot of first person accounts from all sides and the one thing that strikes me is how common it is to hear of 1,2,3 and more tight circle horizontal turning fights. Fur balls, Dog fighting it was quite common.

Sure one side might bounce the other, but after the initial hit all hell broke loose and pilots would go up and down and round and round and chase each other to tree top heights trying to nose in for the kill.

So have we let how we fly in the sim affect our judgment on history?

Freiwillige
08-11-2009, 02:30 AM
Turn fighting in WWII was more prevalent than us simmers care\dare to admit! Ive been reading allot of first person accounts from all sides and the one thing that strikes me is how common it is to hear of 1,2,3 and more tight circle horizontal turning fights. Fur balls, Dog fighting it was quite common.

Sure one side might bounce the other, but after the initial hit all hell broke loose and pilots would go up and down and round and round and chase each other to tree top heights trying to nose in for the kill.

So have we let how we fly in the sim affect our judgment on history?

BillSwagger
08-11-2009, 03:03 AM
To make a generalization it sounds like most encounters involve striking from above, and either scoring the kill, or chasing the opponent to lower altitudes (even tree top levels), where a short turn battle ensued.
Even so, this is still an energy fight because from what i've been reading the planes that are able to use their dive speed to regain position are the ones that claim the victory.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...counter-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html)
I'm about 1/3 the way through reading these.
There are many pilots that use the words "orbited", "turned", "flicked", and "rolled", and did many of these things in a P-47 under 2000ft.
Even though pilots used a series of turns, I'm not about to conclude that the plane is a good turn fighter. It was their energy management that made them victorious on deck.

My idea of classic TnB, involves much tighter turns where most late war planes would surely slow and not have the energy to regain an advantage. Turn and burn refers to this idea, and was not a tactic that completely disappeared from the war. One consideration is that speed dominated later in the war where having a tight turning plane was less useful as having a faster rolling plane.

Use see this trade off in the wing load of many aircraft and how they were intended to fly.

And another thing...
I don't rely on game modeling as a historical reference on how a plane was actually flown, for the obvious reasons that have to do with game imperfections, and the fact that most of us are sitting at a nice cozy computer desk.

Manu-6S
08-11-2009, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
To make a generalization it sounds like most encounters involve striking from above, and either scoring the kill, or chasing the opponent to lower altitudes (even tree top levels), where a short turn battle ensued.
Even so, this is still an energy fight because from what i've been reading the planes that are able to use their dive speed to regain position are the ones that claim the victory.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...counter-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html)
I'm about 1/3 the way through reading these.
There are many pilots that use the words "orbited", "turned", "flicked", and "rolled", and did many of these things in a P-47 under 2000ft.
Even though pilots used a series of turns, I'm not about to conclude that the plane is a good turn fighter. It was their energy management that made them victorious on deck.

My idea of classic TnB, involves much tighter turns where most late war planes would surely slow and not have the energy to regain an advantage. Turn and burn refers to this idea, and was not a tactic that completely disappeared from the war. One consideration is that speed dominated later in the war where having a tight turning plane was less useful as having a faster rolling plane.

Use see this trade off in the wing load of many aircraft and how they were intended to fly.

And another thing...
I don't rely on game modeling as a historical reference on how a plane was actually flown, for the obvious reasons that have to do with game imperfections, and the fact that most of us are sitting at a nice cozy computer desk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the book I've read the only times somebody is turning is when they are flying a SpitV (Johnny Johnson): all the other times, from Clostermann to Steinhilper to Johnson himself when he received the new SpitIX, they are not turning but are usually attacking by bounces and dives.

They survived to tell this, so clearly their tactics where the most safest ones. Not many speak about turning in a furball... can't remember about Sakai.

Anyway I agree that the game is far from realistic (try RoF and you are going to see the difference... of course a difference of 8 years... because of this I can't wait for SoW and now I feel IL2 as an arcade game).

Kettenhunde
08-11-2009, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'm not about to conclude that the plane is a good turn fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The portion of the flight envelope were any aircraft will exhibit superiority or inferiority in any aircraft is a very small part of the overall envelope.

This part is dependent upon the velocity the aircraft is traveling.

All aircraft can match that turn performance if they are can travel the same velocity. They might have to trade altitude to do it.


This is why turn performance charts are universal!

At the same angle of bank and velocity, all aircraft will make exactly the same turn.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2386/aircraftturnperformance.jpg (http://img268.imageshack.us/i/aircraftturnperformance.jpg/)


All the best,

Crumpp

rnzoli
08-11-2009, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Turn fighting in WWII was more prevalent than us simmers care\dare to admit! Ive been reading allot of first person accounts from all sides and the one thing that strikes me is how common it is to hear of 1,2,3 and more tight circle horizontal turning fights. Fur balls, Dog fighting it was quite common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But not as common as in dogfight servers.
Especially when late war fighters appeared.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure one side might bounce the other, but after the initial hit all hell broke loose and pilots would go up and down and round and round and chase each other to tree top heights trying to nose in for the kill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It did happen, but reading both Clostermann (fighting against Fw-190s in a Tempest) and Hannig (fighting in an Fw against La's and P-51s), the Fw-190s were really good in vertical "turns" (!), and the Fw-190 pilots really did a lot of vertical hit-and-run attacks.

The P-51 after action reports also mention that in low-speed (!) turning, they were unable to get inside well-piloted Bf-109s, and in some cases had to run away due to this.


All in all, I think the refly button in the DF servers have a bigger impact on how we fly this sim than the accuracy of the simulation...

Kettenhunde
08-11-2009, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the refly button </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That leads to more unrealistic behavior than anything else I would imagine.

Dying is a very real consequence to any pilot.

KG26_Alpha
08-11-2009, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Turn fighting in WWII was more prevalent than us simmers care\dare to admit! Ive been reading allot of first person accounts from all sides and the one thing that strikes me is how common it is to hear of 1,2,3 and more tight circle horizontal turning fights. Fur balls, Dog fighting it was quite common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But not as common as in dogfight servers.
Especially when late war fighters appeared.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure one side might bounce the other, but after the initial hit all hell broke loose and pilots would go up and down and round and round and chase each other to tree top heights trying to nose in for the kill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It did happen, but reading both Clostermann (fighting against Fw-190s in a Tempest) and Hannig (fighting in an Fw against La's and P-51s), the Fw-190s were really good in vertical "turns" (!), and the Fw-190 pilots really did a lot of vertical hit-and-run attacks.

The P-51 after action reports also mention that in low-speed (!) turning, they were unable to get inside well-piloted Bf-109s, and in some cases had to run away due to this.


All in all, I think the refly button in the DF servers have a bigger impact on how we fly this sim than the accuracy of the simulation... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehehe

Imagine what a WWII fighter pilot would think of the "this sim isn't realistic because +insert gripe here+" crowd if he was standing over his shoulder watching them fly in a dogfight server, there's not a lot realistic about the way the aircraft are flown in most of these servers.
Their paint scheme might be the closest thing to historical realism.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
08-11-2009, 05:10 AM
Just because the overwhelming majority of kills were made without the target even knowing it was the target
doesn't mean that there were no dogfights.

When you read about turning fights, how much vertical travel do you also see either explicit or implicit?
How much is done right down at the stall-edge and how much in yoyos, loops and near loops?

It would be insane to get co-speed with a better slow-turning plane in a flat stall turn fight and using the
vertical is the only way to fight such a hard turning plane while holding on to superior speed.

AVG pilots writing on message boards tell exactly that when discussing fighting in P-40's against all manner
of better flat-turning planes even to give examples of others also doing the same in P-40's. One account that
was linked to here was a Russian pilot who told in interview about Germans out turning Yaks by flying up and
down as well as around, making it very hard to tell when they would strike.

Find a detailed account of how the FW's fought the Spit V's some time. Something more than one or two lines.

rnzoli
08-11-2009, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
Their paint scheme might be the closest thing to historical realism.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, you mean the neon signs, the skulls, and the various other "fun" skins???? Nah...not even that. In dogfight servers, only the aircraft types are historic (except for the Lerche-only server on HL).

But I think in co-op mode, especially when part of a dynamic campaign, where trained virtual pilots fly, it gets quite realistic. Still far from dying, but at least with a considerable penalty for it, of course.

Freiwillige
08-11-2009, 06:52 AM
There is allot more to it than Oh his plane turns better at low energy.

There are more variables in pilots than planes.

For example If you get bounced your not exactly gonna be at your best, Panic and fear gripped allot of pilots in that situation. Also Pulling G's Hurts! And its physically exhausting.

That is why in the Battle of Britain 109E's were turn fighting in the horizontal and beating spitfires and hurricanes at it. Veteran pilots pushing their fighters to the edge when newer pilots were afraid to tighten the turn to much.

It all depends on who your up against, Some Noob is gonna get clobbered while a veteran will pull more out of his craft.

Their are tons of stories of High wing loading aircraft beating lower wing loading aircraft just because the pilot superiority was so high.

P-47's have been low and slow mixing it up with 109's and won. Now how is that possible? Experience! The guy or guys that have the surprise have the first and biggest advantage and hunters will hunt.

Remember that there are two kinds of people flying in WWII, Fighter jocks and Targets! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kettenhunde
08-11-2009, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Now how is that possible? Experience! The guy or guys that have the surprise have the first and biggest advantage and hunters will hunt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely, flight characteristics power on at the edge of the envelope in a high powered taildragger can be pathological.

Pilot skill definately comes into play with a more experienced pilot being able to extract more performance in all aspects of his aircraft.

Here we can see pilot skill varies the stall speed of the F6F by ~15 Knots. This is about ~28 kph difference.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/872/f6fstall.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/i/f6fstall.jpg/)


All the best,

Crumpp

megalopsuche
08-11-2009, 08:48 AM
All insistence among flight simmers than TnB was an infrequent tactic in WWII is in proportion to how much TnB you see in online air combat.

JtD
08-11-2009, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
All insistence among flight simmers than TnB was an infrequent tactic in WWII is in proportion to how much TnB you see in online air combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's a perfect summary of the topic.

Manu-6S
08-11-2009, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
That is why in the Battle of Britain 109E's were turn fighting in the horizontal and beating spitfires and hurricanes at it. Veteran pilots pushing their fighters to the edge when newer pilots were afraid to tighten the turn to much.

It all depends on who your up against, Some Noob is gonna get clobbered while a veteran will pull more out of his craft.

Their are tons of stories of High wing loading aircraft beating lower wing loading aircraft just because the pilot superiority was so high.

P-47's have been low and slow mixing it up with 109's and won. Now how is that possible? Experience! The guy or guys that have the surprise have the first and biggest advantage and hunters will hunt.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

During that fights if the pilots pushed too much stick he could spin or break his wings... So inexperienced pilot would not tight the turn too much and the veterans could get a firing position.

When I think to this I think about bike races.. If you exaggerate you fall...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBfoy94baII

Manu-6S
08-11-2009, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
All insistence among flight simmers than TnB was an infrequent tactic in WWII is in proportion to how much TnB you see in online air combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's a perfect summary of the topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand the meaning...

Are you saying that in real life it was like in the DF server???

Because there are many "online air combat" in IL2... there are the guys who ban the BnZ, the guy with amazing SA (wonder woman + F6) and the guy who fly Air Wars or SEOW campaign...

If you ask me, as flyer of the last type of mission, when I know I'm same energy state or in disadvantage I dive for the clouds and my mission end there... A turn fight is an unknown thing to me during a serious campaign.. being in a 190 or a I16...

rnzoli
08-11-2009, 09:41 AM
After reading it 5 times, I think the statement means:
The more T&B we see in online DF servers, the more we insist T&B was not frequent tactic in WW II.

But I think it completely misses the point. The unrealisitic nature cannot be attached to "online combat" in general, just like you say as well. The unrealistic nature comes from DF servers, where pilots fly with no or minimal coordination, and have no consequences in crashing.

Put in co-ordination and serious consequences for crashing your airplane, and surprise, the online combat in dynamic online campaings become surprisingly similar experience to veteran accounts.

M_Gunz
08-11-2009, 10:26 AM
109E could well beat the Hurricane in sustained turning above 8,000 ft even with good pilots in both planes.
Reason being that the Hurricane engine was not doing as well as the 109 at height. I have that from a Polish
pilot in the BoB who when jumped by a 109 spiraled down and down while being chased until they were both below
4,000 ft from start over 12,000. At about 2,000 he leveled out and in a few circles he closed on the tail of
the 109 and shot it down. He wrote of wondering why the 109 pilot did not break off and run when he could
see he was losing. The Pole knew his Hurricane would turn better down where his engine was running best,
maybe the German "knew" from higher altitude experience that his 109 turned better? He was wrong and he was
stubborn and paid for that with his life. The account itself is moving, I've posted it here before.

gorkyporky
08-11-2009, 10:53 AM
is there a way to make a server that kicks you off after you have been killed, or just prevents respawning?

megalopsuche
08-11-2009, 11:09 AM
Chalk the confusion up to my laconic brevity.

"All insistence among flight simmers than TnB was an infrequent tactic in WWII is in proportion to how much TnB you see in online air combat."

The statement simply says that while TnB may have occurred frequently enough during the war, compared to its ubiquity in online air combat, it was relatively infrequent.

Bearcat99
08-11-2009, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Turn fighting in WWII was more prevalent than us simmers care\dare to admit! Ive been reading allot of first person accounts from all sides and the one thing that strikes me is how common it is to hear of 1,2,3 and more tight circle horizontal turning fights. Fur balls, Dog fighting it was quite common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But not as common as in dogfight servers.
Especially when late war fighters appeared.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure one side might bounce the other, but after the initial hit all hell broke loose and pilots would go up and down and round and round and chase each other to tree top heights trying to nose in for the kill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It did happen, but reading both Clostermann (fighting against Fw-190s in a Tempest) and Hannig (fighting in an Fw against La's and P-51s), the Fw-190s were really good in vertical "turns" (!), and the Fw-190 pilots really did a lot of vertical hit-and-run attacks.

The P-51 after action reports also mention that in low-speed (!) turning, they were unable to get inside well-piloted Bf-109s, and in some cases had to run away due to this.


All in all, I think the refly button in the DF servers have a bigger impact on how we fly this sim than the accuracy of the simulation... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not agree more... I also agree with the original poster in that the turnfight was more common.. even in late war AC... but from my understanding these guys used whatever they could.. they would have spat at thier opponents if it would have done any good. I have read so many encounters from Anderson, Archer, Yeager, the fight at Y-29 and more.. where the situation was so fluid that it flowed from one to the other.. One thing I can say... no one ever said "No fair!!! No more B&Z allowed!!!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AndyJWest
08-11-2009, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gorkyporky:
is there a way to make a server that kicks you off after you have been killed, or just prevents respawning? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think this is an interesting question, and needs to go in a new topic: doing that now.

Gammelpreusse
08-11-2009, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gorkyporky:
is there a way to make a server that kicks you off after you have been killed, or just prevents respawning? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think this is an interesting question, and needs to go in a new topic: doing that now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There have been servers offering exactly that. They did not live long, however. Eventually, unless you have a particulary good day, it's really getting onto your nerves to reconnect.

VW-IceFire
08-11-2009, 08:40 PM
I think the key issue with this debate is "what is turn fighting" because you can have a horizontal fight where turning is the key ingredient but you're doing it at 300 or 400 kph IAS and its a really fast and fluid fight. You can have those fights with FW190s, Corsairs, and all manners of aircraft.

I think in WWII these types of fights were common or more common than we assume. However, I also think that the sort of turn and burn fighting that we see on the average air quake server is not...we've all seen it...10 Spitfires circling each other (on either team) with their landing flaps down all jostling for a shot at another Spitfire. These guys are flying so low...and so slow...that you would probably be accused of booming and zooming no matter these guys while flying a FW190 while taking off...its that silly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I seriously doubt that very much of that ever happened in WWII.

dadada1
08-11-2009, 09:09 PM
I have to agree with the original poster.

M_Gunz
08-12-2009, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think the key issue with this debate is "what is turn fighting" because you can have a horizontal fight where turning is the key ingredient but you're doing it at 300 or 400 kph IAS and its a really fast and fluid fight. You can have those fights with FW190s, Corsairs, and all manners of aircraft.

I think in WWII these types of fights were common or more common than we assume. However, I also think that the sort of turn and burn fighting that we see on the average air quake server is not...we've all seen it...10 Spitfires circling each other (on either team) with their landing flaps down all jostling for a shot at another Spitfire. These guys are flying so low...and so slow...that you would probably be accused of booming and zooming no matter these guys while flying a FW190 while taking off...its that silly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I seriously doubt that very much of that ever happened in WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pure angles-fighter (as opposed to energy-fighter) will run hard on the accelerated-stall-edge while trying to get
behind the target. That doesn't leave much energy for vertical maneuver but it doesn't rule it out by any means.
Such a one can trade energy for altitude but only at temporary cost in ability to turn as hard. Decisions, decisions!

Bremspropeller
08-12-2009, 04:19 AM
Turn to kill, not to engage.
- Willie Driscoll

Manu-6S
08-12-2009, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Turn to kill, not to engage.
- Willie Driscoll </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tight turns were more a defensive than an offensive tactic and did not win air battles.

- J. E. "Johnnie" Johnson

Bremspropeller
08-12-2009, 05:19 AM
So you have a copy of Shaw as well? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Manu-6S
08-12-2009, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
So you have a copy of Shaw as well? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I do and I love it!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

BTW: I'm reading "Graf & Grislawski" by Bergstrom at the moment... very good book