PDA

View Full Version : What is the P-51D's Corner Speed in Il-2?



Gaston444
02-27-2010, 02:55 PM
In an 1989 test by test pilots it was determined as "very close to the maximum level speed":

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com.../topic,261798.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html)

The limit used was 6G, but the wartime standard was actually 7G.

Gaston

Gaston444
02-27-2010, 02:55 PM
In an 1989 test by test pilots it was determined as "very close to the maximum level speed":

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com.../topic,261798.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html)

The limit used was 6G, but the wartime standard was actually 7G.

Gaston

Erkki_M
02-27-2010, 03:07 PM
Yep, the faster you fly the more G they can pull. There are some exceptions tho, such as MiG-3...

However, notice that cornering speed, this time, doesnt seem to mean best speed for sustained rate of turn: "Corner speeds of all were very close to the maximum level flight speed,
implying very rapid energy loss when turning at the structural limit."

JtD
02-27-2010, 03:10 PM
Depending on altitude, somewhere between 650 and 1000+ km/h.

Any news on the power off stall speed of the Bf 109G and Fw 190A in clean configuration, with the name of the source? (9th inquiry, I think)

Kettenhunde
02-27-2010, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The limit used was 6G, but the wartime standard was actually 7G. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Where do you get this stuff?

Let me see your source because none of the wartime documentation for operating the aircraft reflects this...

Gaston444
02-27-2010, 06:14 PM
Thanks for the answers.

The "structural limit" the test pilots refer to likely means anything above the WWII P-51D standard of 7 G.

The "structural limit" could hardly be reached in turns, as Oleg pointed out, since it is around 13-15 Gs...

In dive pull-outs however, wing flutter or an abrupt unintentional pitch-up could do it, but it is a stability issue, not something achieved by pilot strenght.

In a fabric-elevator P-51D, like most of those from WWWII(from spring 1945 only), I doubt pilot strenght was enough to even reach 7 Gs above 750 km/h (both the P-38 and tail-heavy trim Me-109G did better above 700 than the fabric elevator P-51), so the faster you go does not always mean the more Gs you can pull.

It would be nice to know what is the best SUSTAINED turn speed of the P-51D in Il-2. I would assume it is reached at full power...

Gaston

P.S. JTD, everybody knows the stall speed of the Me-109G is around 100-105 MPH, and that of the FW-190A's is at around 120 MPH (E. Brown's, "Duels in the sky"). What is your point? If you have something to say, say it.

G.

Kettenhunde
02-27-2010, 06:21 PM
Thanks but I know what a structural limit is....

Where do you get the idea it was any different in WWII??

What is your documented source?

The WWII P51D POH limits the aircraft to 4G's because "that is what the average person can stand and remain conscious". There is nothing that changes the airframe limits from the standard 6G's.

M_Gunz
02-27-2010, 07:16 PM
Report is a copy of a prior post at a forum or appears to be, it's already 2nd hand at best with unknown interpretations.
Gee, I wonder who would be posting such a thing on a game forum?

Power limited to max continuous, and it says "very close" to maximum level flight speed. Nothing about actual speed or
the meaning of "very close", ie good old unqualified subjective wording.

I didn't see a single word about Va or maneuver speed in there. A check of the POH would tell it right enough.
It's kind of telling right there since what pilot goes up to pull hard turns without knowing Va? In fact, what
pilot goes up without knowing Va, Vs, Vne, etc, especially in a very rare and expensive historic warbird?

OTOH if the report was made for non-pilots or by a non-pilot then we should expect History Channel accuracy and lack of
completeness.

Last of all this could be another one of those re-wordings of a report of a translation of say, part of an interview
with a Finnish Ace who actually said nothing like he is quoted as saying without reference to the actual source, ie
TROLLBAIT AS USUAL.

Someone got a P-51 POH? Can we get the Va and have a real answer please?

AndyJWest
02-27-2010, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Report is a copy of a prior post at a forum or appears to be... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, it's worse than that:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> That's a repost of a repost of a repost, lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
From Gaston's 'source', a couple of postings down:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com.../topic,261798.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html)

From some of the comments there, they also have problems with people who 'quote' things without giving a verifiable primary source.

M_Gunz
02-27-2010, 08:46 PM
A repost of a repost of a repost that you still don't know the posters and don't have the source.
And here we have a certified troll who's told us he's been arguing on the hitech forums for years.
What are the chances he's backing himself up as a source?

Some dogs will eat turds right off the ground. When that dog passes that turd, will another one eat it?
I could shoot that dog and save some lives, for sure.

arthursmedley
02-27-2010, 09:30 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 dogs will eat turds right off the ground. When that dog passes that turd, will another one eat it?
I could shoot that dog and save some lives, for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is surely a remarkable thing to ponder on as I make my way to bed now, Mr. Gunz. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

M_Gunz
02-27-2010, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arthursmedley:
<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 dogs will eat turds right off the ground. When that dog passes that turd, will another one eat it?
I could shoot that dog and save some lives, for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is surely a remarkable thing to ponder on as I make my way to bed now, Mr. Gunz. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! It's just reformation of an old joke, "You should thank me, I just killed a ....-eating dog!".
Our Warrant Officer used to like that one, that was in the 70's and it was old even then.

Anywho, I thought it appropriate to the repost of a repost of a repost cycle.

AndyJWest
02-27-2010, 10:35 PM
Another possibly pertinent point is why is 'corner speed' particularly significant in a WWII context anyway? As Gaston has acknowledged, it isn't sustainable with aircraft of the period, so exploiting the 'optimum' speed in combat will be transitory anyway. It isn't some 'magic number' that guarantees you will out-perform your opponent, but merely the meeting-point of two limiting factors on turn performance. One that you will fly through as you slow down, if you have sufficient speed to start with. So what?

JtD
02-28-2010, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:

P.S. JTD, everybody knows the stall speed of the Me-109G is around 100-105 MPH, and that of the FW-190A's is at around 120 MPH (E. Brown's, "Duels in the sky"). What is your point? If you have something to say, say it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was having several points, one would have been to see if you can work with sources. Another, more important one, would have been to use stall speed figures you are comfortable with, but which aren't too far off the mark for further analysis. Great that you finally provided them.
So, the further analysis goes into basic aerodynamics. It deals with how many g's you can pull at a certain speed. The very simple, but totally accurate physics say:

max g possible at a speed = sqrt(current speed / 1 g stall speed) * 1 g

There is no way around that relation. My question to you - is that something you can accept or not?

Kettenhunde
02-28-2010, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Another possibly pertinent point is why is 'corner speed' particularly significant in a WWII context anyway? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Va is significant to ANY aircraft. Flying along in smooth air and I hit turbulence, I slow down to Va.

Penetrating clouds in IFR, I slow down to Va. Va is the speed I can use full control deflection and not break or damage the airplane. The airplane will stall before it breaks at Va or below.

A fighter aircraft about to engage in a dogfight will slow down to Va in order not to break the airplane as well.

Stability and control were the largest hurdles for WWII designers. Fighting in an airplane with a longitudinal stability issue above Va is very dangerous.

M_Gunz
02-28-2010, 05:25 AM
It's a shame the forum lost so many posts previously as Buzzsaw had posted an article
by a test pilot who flew the Bf-109G-2, Black Six, and found the clean power-off stall
to be 155 kph. Power-on stalls are at even lower speeds. 100 mph is over 160 kph.
So much for what "everyone knows". Perhaps someone should wake Kurfurst up to the latest.

Gaston444
03-01-2010, 03:57 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 Gaston444:

P.S. JTD, everybody knows the stall speed of the Me-109G is around 100-105 MPH, and that of the FW-190A's is at around 120 MPH (E. Brown's, "Duels in the sky"). What is your point? If you have something to say, say it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was having several points, one would have been to see if you can work with sources. Another, more important one, would have been to use stall speed figures you are comfortable with, but which aren't too far off the mark for further analysis. Great that you finally provided them.
So, the further analysis goes into basic aerodynamics. It deals with how many g's you can pull at a certain speed. The very simple, but totally accurate physics say:

max g possible at a speed = sqrt(current speed / 1 g stall speed) * 1 g

There is no way around that relation. My question to you - is that something you can accept or not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No. What you are saying is that the stall hierarchy relationship between aircraft types at "medium" speeds stays the same going down to stall speed (I don't really contest that "stable" relationship for speeds much higher than "medium"; say 350 MPH+: It is the higher prop load relative to wing lift in "medium" speeds that mixes things up).

Here is why I think the stall in sustained turns from low speed to "medium" speeds is altered differently, from prop aircraft type to prop aircraft type: Higher speeds mean higher power, and propeller traction gains a NEW leverage when the nose is raised, either through a raising of the center of thrust, or a lowering of the airframe"s center of drag vs the prop center of thrust, and this new leverage taxes the WINGLIFT.

The center of thrust is inevitably offset upward compared to the airframe center of drag by the act of raising the nose. That offset can only create a vertical lever, and that vertical lever will inevitably push downward on the center of the wing lift: In effect increasing the WINGLOADING in ways peculiar to a specific aircraft type.

The only way that this extra wingloading could be avoided (besides downthrottling) would be to keep the drag center and the prop disc"s center of thrust PERFECTLY aligned when the elevator is deflected: Impossible on a prop-traction fighter. This is irrelevant on jets because there is nothing ahead of the wing that needs to be kept in perfect alignment.

Also the lack of a jet thrust "disc" means the "thrust center" cannot move upward and "ouside" the disc center under the pressure of a nose-up angle change, creating leverage; there is no lateral extension (the prop blade) for the thrust center to move on to...

Either through fuselage/wing shape or the shortness of the nose, WWII fighters do not tax their wing lift in the same way in "medium-speed" turns, where the prop disc load relative to the wing lift is the greatest.

I think the nose lenght probably plays a big role in mixing things up at those "middle" speeds.

Notice the jump in turn maneuverability performance between the Ki-100 and the Ki-61, when they both weight the same, the Ki-100 being in fact 100 lbs heavier. There was no comparison at all in turn performance. Same thing with the La-5 replacing the Lagg-3: The La-5 was about 150 lbs HEAVIER than the Lagg-3, 7198 lbs vs 7050 lbs loaded, and again there is no comparison: it was a jump in turn performance. The extra engine power alone could not have created this vast difference in handling on the exact same set of wings, especially with 100 lbs or 150 lbs of extra weight!

Note also that in the Ki-100 case there was NO difference in power with the aircraft it was actually derived from(!): The 1500 hp Ki-61-II... Yet the jump in turn performance WAS there compared to the Ki-61-II also...

NEITHER of these acclaimed radial-engined derivatives were lighter than their in-line predecessors, and in fact they both were HEAVIER... Worth pondering...

Quite logically, there was no such boost in turn ability from the FW-190A to the D-9, and in fact I have read from actual pilots that the D was slightly worse in overall agility (exact quote: "Less short-coupled and thus maneuverable") at lower altitudes: It was altitude performance and climb rate that went up.

The D-9 was "Less Short-coupled": German WWII fighter pilot words, not mine...

So because of different prop disc loads changing the wingload in non-linear ways, no, the power-off stall is not a linear predictor of medium speed turn performance, and that is why the FW-190A is overwhelmingly quoted as out-turning the Me-109G at these speeds. (Prop disc load does go down as you get nearer to dive speeds, or reduce power nearer to stall)

By the way, you remeber the ONLY, I repeat, the ONLY, WWII account of a Me-109G out-turning the FW-190A: That comment in the Rechlin La-5 test that the la-5FN "turns better than a FW-190A but less well than a Me-109G"?

It may turn out that this was an inversion: According to Wikipedia, citing the original Russian translation, probably from a captured original Rechlin document, the sentence likely should read: "The La-5FN turns better than a Me-109G, but less well than a FW-190A"

Check out the "Lavochkin La-5" on Wikipedia: It quotes from that Russian translation, which might be the most original source that remains: "The La-5FN possesses a smaller turning radius than the Me-109G, and climbs better than the FW-190A-8."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-5

No mention of the La-5 having a smaller radius of turn than the the FW-190A... This Rechlin evaluation does say the La-5 turned well enough to avoid turning with it, and the Russian Summary did say the FW-190A"s favourite tactic of slow-speed turning could be accepted...

So the true quote of this SAME La-5 test should be: "The La-5FN turns better than the Me-109G, but less well than the FW-190A".

If someone knows where to find that original Russian or German La-5 document, it would be worth checking out. Or by contacting Wikipedia themselves.

Wanna bet Wikipedia quoted the Russian source exactly right?


Gaston

ImpStarDuece
03-01-2010, 04:58 AM
Facepalm

The wikipedia uses the Rechlin evauation to measure the performance of the La-5FN against the Fw-190 and Bf-109.

Here's the conclusion from that Report (dated 20-March-1945), for those who are interested:

""
Tactical conlusions and suggestions:

The La 5 is according to its engine power especially designed for combat at low altitude. Its top speed at ground level is very close to that of the 8-190 and the 8-109 (each at emergency power). The 8-109 with MW 50 is in the entire range superior in top speed and best climb. The relative acceleration should be similar. The aileron effectiveness is better than that of the 8-109. The times for a full circle are better than those of the 8-190 at ground level and worse than those of the 8-109. Even at the best climb, the 8-190 is inferior at up to about 3 km altitude. Due to its higher weight, the 8-190 accelerates slower, but is superior in all descending and diving situations and in shallow high-speed climbs. Except for sudden jinks to evade, diving attacks (comparison to Thunderbolt) followed by shallow high-speed climbs to get into a new position to attack (at IAS of best climb, the La 5 climbs at a steeper angle) are appropriate for the higher weight and higher wing loading of the 8-190, as well as not giving up airspeed and avoiding protracted turning fights , since one shouldn't assume that the Russians who are used to worse handling characteristics will be impressed by the aforementioned [troublesome] turning characteristics of the La 5. The short endurance of about 40 min at rated power, that decreases further if supercharger high gear is engaged, deserves special mention.""

Emphasis mine.

My interpretation:

The FW-190 is outturned by the La-5FN.

German testing with an underperforming example (the aircarft is some 40km slower at sea level than Soviet tests) leads them to the conclusion that FW-190A8 pilots should employ clssic 'zoom and boom' tactic: diving with a shallow climbing extension away.

Protracted turn fights are to be avoided, despite a tendency for the La-5FN to undergo alieron reversal in turns and also to flick over in a stall, meaning it is difficult to get the best turn time out of the aircraft.

The La-5 had an estimated best turning time of 25 seconds at sea level. My reading leads me to conclude that the FW-190's turning time at sea level was worse than this.

BillSwagger
03-01-2010, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
In a fabric-elevator P-51D, like most of those from WWWII(from spring 1945 only), I doubt pilot strenght was enough to even reach 7 Gs above 750 km/h (both the P-38 and tail-heavy trim Me-109G did better above 700 than the fabric elevator P-51), so the faster you go does not always mean the more Gs you can pull.

It would be nice to know what is the best SUSTAINED turn speed of the P-51D in Il-2. I would assume it is reached at full power...

Gaston
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure if this was covered or not, but the turns in the test only represent sustained velocities. I wouldn't doubt if the P-51 could pull more Gs at the cost of slowing down in the turn. Holding 6-7Gs in a turn with out losing speed is different than turning tighter at say 9Gs but slowing down in the process.

You might check Il2 compare for best sustained turn speed. I get 220mph ~ 24.9 second turn time. This is at 1000m and it might actually be faster as you get higher in game.



Bill

AndyJWest
03-01-2010, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think the nose lenght probably plays a big role in mixing things up at those "middle" speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody else does. Provide the maths to prove it. Real maths based on proven physics and verifiable data.

thefruitbat
03-01-2010, 06:02 AM
i have to ask, why do you guys keep feeding him?

might as well try to nail diarrhoea to the ceiling.

JtD
03-01-2010, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:

No... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gaston, we are still in the power off condition, and are determining the minimum speed necessary for a certain amount of g's pulled.

Bremspropeller
03-01-2010, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Penetrating clouds in IFR, I slow down to Va. Va is the speed I can use full control deflection and not break or damage the airplane. The airplane will stall before it breaks at Va or below.

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">Well, at or below Va, you won't be able to take apart the aircraft by the use of flight-controls. That way of thinking emits gust-load-related damage or overshooting max G by a mix of gust-loads and applied G-forces by the use of flight-controls. Most people will say "I can't break the aircraft at or below Va - I just can't pull enough Gs" - well, that's true, but air isn't steady either - lots of a/c have been torn apart by weather and go-fevered pilots. I think this should be pointed out to more people: Pulling 6gs in a skid at Va and hitting a thermal updraft certainly ain't good news at all.</span>


A fighter aircraft about to engage in a dogfight will slow down to Va in order not to break the airplane as well.

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">Or they'll keep the Gs low. Hitting turbulence very much above Va won't produce nice feelings, though. Realistic weather (incl. icing and it's effects) would really get some people going in a combat sim...</span>

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DrHerb
03-01-2010, 12:26 PM
Might this be of any help?

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-51FOIC.gif

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-51OLL.gif

Gaston444
03-01-2010, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Facepalm

The wikipedia uses the Rechlin evauation to measure the performance of the La-5FN against the Fw-190 and Bf-109.

Here's the conclusion from that Report (dated 20-March-1945), for those who are interested:

""
Tactical conlusions and suggestions:

The La 5 is according to its engine power especially designed for combat at low altitude. Its top speed at ground level is very close to that of the 8-190 and the 8-109 (each at emergency power). The 8-109 with MW 50 is in the entire range superior in top speed and best climb. The relative acceleration should be similar. The aileron effectiveness is better than that of the 8-109. The times for a full circle are better than those of the 8-190 at ground level and worse than those of the 8-109. Even at the best climb, the 8-190 is inferior at up to about 3 km altitude. Due to its higher weight, the 8-190 accelerates slower, but is superior in all descending and diving situations and in shallow high-speed climbs. Except for sudden jinks to evade, diving attacks (comparison to Thunderbolt) followed by shallow high-speed climbs to get into a new position to attack (at IAS of best climb, the La 5 climbs at a steeper angle) are appropriate for the higher weight and higher wing loading of the 8-190, as well as not giving up airspeed and avoiding protracted turning fights , since one shouldn't assume that the Russians who are used to worse handling characteristics will be impressed by the aforementioned [troublesome] turning characteristics of the La 5. The short endurance of about 40 min at rated power, that decreases further if supercharger high gear is engaged, deserves special mention.""

Emphasis mine.

My interpretation:

The FW-190 is outturned by the La-5FN.

German testing with an underperforming example (the aircarft is some 40km slower at sea level than Soviet tests) leads them to the conclusion that FW-190A8 pilots should employ clssic 'zoom and boom' tactic: diving with a shallow climbing extension away.

Protracted turn fights are to be avoided, despite a tendency for the La-5FN to undergo alieron reversal in turns and also to flick over in a stall, meaning it is difficult to get the best turn time out of the aircraft.

The La-5 had an estimated best turning time of 25 seconds at sea level. My reading leads me to conclude that the FW-190's turning time at sea level was worse than this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


-You are correct that the report does support the opposite viewpoint, particularly the part about "not giving up airspeed and avoiding protrated turning fights".

But all these test pilot turn times are done at full power, which has little to do with actual combat, and may explain the blatant contradiction with the Russian actual combat summary below, which also states that the FW-190A's slow-speed turn preference can be challenged, meaning it at least agrees that the FW-190A was not really superior in low-speed turns to the La-5.

http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-eu...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-europe/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

Boom and zoom is widely discussed by test pilots but rarely seen in actual European WWII combat (barely any example in the 1200+ 8th Air force combat reports I have read: It is almost ALL about turn-fighting...; check the "WWII aircraft performance" site), especially BnZ from the FW-190A: Only against the early apparition of the Spitfire Mk IX does the FW-190A use this tactic, and also against the Mk V since it can't distinguish the two. Usually it doesn't do the FW-190A much good, though the firepower should help it in this tactic...

In any case I'll concede the praseology in the La-5 test leaves NO room for interpretation, and is totally against my thesis in the quote you have made, ImpStarDuece...

It is the only WWII document I knew of to say this about the low-altitude turn performance of the FW-190A vs the Me-109G... (Besides those Russian turn times at full power, which may be calculated...)

It leaves me wondering: Why does Wikipedia quote the SAME test saying "The La-5 has a smaller turning radius than the Me-109G, and climbs better than the the FW-190A-8", when this clearly seems to contradicts the more detailed quote you made?

Turn radius is not rate, so that could explain it, but often the two are treated as the same in report summaries. It would lead to confusion if one said: "The turn radius is smaller but the turn rate is worse", so that is rarely what is said in such reports: They usually pick the most significant part...

I will try to find the most original document of this La-5 test in full, so that the Wikipedia quote can be put in context to yours.

You have to at least concede that the "Russian Combat Experience" summary is in contradiction to the La-5's test quote you made...

I'll still go with the actual combat experience, but will get back on what I find on this La-5 test...

Gaston

Kettenhunde
03-01-2010, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bremspropeller
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. I think that gets lost in virtual airplane worlds....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Might this be of any help? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure is...It is for a Post war TF-51 not a WWII P-51 series. If you calculate the load factor adjusted for the weight though it comes out to well below 8G's. At Take off for a clean fighter P-51D, you are limited to ~6.6G's or just 6G's.

Load factor is a function of weight and that relationship holds true for any aircraft.

The G-meter in my airplane came out of an 8th USAAF P51D flown by Col Phillip Lacy during the war, btw.

AndyJWest
03-01-2010, 04:52 PM
Gaston writes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Boom and zoom is widely discussed by test pilots but rarely seen in actual European WWII combat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M_Gunz
03-01-2010, 05:26 PM
Exactly, Andy!
About 75% of pilots downed in WWII never saw their attacker yet it was mostly turning combat?

What to expect from yet another "kindergarten discussion" from another reality? It was mostly
ever turn fights where the less power you used, the better you turned, the prop only slows the
turn rate!

I'm looking forward to when our troll gets to 1st grade. With luck, maybe another 3 or 4 years?

Kettenhunde
03-01-2010, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most people will say "I can't break the aircraft at or below Va - I just can't pull enough Gs" - well, that's true, but air isn't steady either - lots of a/c have been torn apart by weather and go-fevered pilots. I think this should be pointed out to more people: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In fact the yellow arc on a modern airspeed indicator is there to warn a pilot of this exact thing. It represents Vno which is the maximum structural cruising speed. You cannot enter into the yellow arc except in smooth air.

The lower the wing loading, the slower velocity Va and Vno occurs.

TheGrunch
03-02-2010, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Exactly, Andy!
About 75% of pilots downed in WWII never saw their attacker yet it was mostly turning combat? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Makes you wonder why every WWII ace that wrote an autobiography stressed the opposite, really, doesn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Bremspropeller
03-02-2010, 06:57 AM
The yellow arc basicly says "no-go speed for steady and level flight during turbulence".

But I want people to recognize that the airplane can be over-G'd below Va by a mix of pulling back on the stick and a heavy gust.

I can only second that high w/l will definately help during turbulent flights.
Everyone who tried a buzz-job without waiting for thermals near the airport to die down will propably agree.
Hell, I was SURE I was pretty much strapped tightly into the seat - but what did I know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
03-02-2010, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Exactly, Andy!
About 75% of pilots downed in WWII never saw their attacker yet it was mostly turning combat? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Makes you wonder why every WWII ace that wrote an autobiography stressed the opposite, really, doesn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean like Hartmann? Or most of what the AVG members wrote about? Did US pilots in the Pacific really go
for turning on the flat with the Japanese? Some did, and then others wrote or spoke about it. They said don't!

There are many accounts of either bouncing or being bounced. Only the survivors relate their experience and
most of those did not publish so counting war tales is not going give an accurate picture.

Really, which is more exciting and memorable? The prolonged fight. And of those, how many stayed on the flat?

Seriously, our kindergarten troll must be making up his own bait.

TheGrunch
03-02-2010, 11:49 AM
<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 was mostly turning combat? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was talking about that part. So yeah, I agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Read any ace's autobiography and they all talk about setting up bounces and being bounced. Talking about turning is a rare thing, only happens once in Johnnie Johnson's book, for example (unsurprisingly one of Gaston's favourite quotes).

M_Gunz
03-02-2010, 04:45 PM
Chapter one of Bud Anderson's book has a fight where he and his were bounced. There is
turning but quite a bit of vertical too. It is there because that was the one that still
gave him nightmares decades later, it was skin of the teeth close.

IMO pilots that thought, planned and moved in 2D were in peril to those who operated in 3.
Perhaps it's a rookie to veteran kind of transition unless taught in fighter schools, a
lot of rookies only served to increase someone else's kill count. Some even done themselves
in by firewalling the engine when bounced low and slow if I can believe the reports.

Kettenhunde
03-04-2010, 04:40 AM
Brems,

Try Vb FAR 25.335(d):

http://www.flightsimaviation.c...ARS/part_25-335.html (http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-335.html)

Not all aircraft have a published Vb. You follow the POH instructions in this regard.

You are correct in what you are saying. It is possible to break an airplane at full control deflection at Va or below if the gusting conditions are bad enough. That is why Vb will be a published number in some POH's.

I don't think this is simulated very well in game or at least the importance and consequences of not managing your aircraft design speeds.

It is like the engine management:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
Slats are an attempt to have the advantages of good high speed performance while retaining low speed handling performance.

High wingloading is a way to ensure high cruise speeds and higher operating speeds.

Much of time gamers seem to focus on the Emergency Power performance which represents an extremely tiny portion of the airplanes envelope. The airplane cannot operate for more than a few minutes and ~3/4's of that tiny amount of time is spent reaching that level speed.

It is much more important what performance the aircraft achieves at maximum continuous and cruise speeds. That is where the airplane is primarily fought and operated.

The airplane with a higher cruise speed is going to have a dogfighting advantage in any neutral engagement.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...121009638#3121009638 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7131025438?r=3121009638#3121009638)

M_Gunz
03-04-2010, 12:04 PM
I doubt there's any such thing as a "safe in all conditions" flight mode. "It" happens.

Kettenhunde
03-04-2010, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I doubt there's any such thing as a "safe in all conditions" flight mode. "It" happens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No and we are strictly discussing gust loads.


Obviously if you are dumb enough to fly into such things as a Cumulonimbus then NO....

However a reasonable standard has been set at each category of design so that if the aircraft is operated IAW the POH speeds, it is safe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In 1988, the FAA, in cooperation with the JAA and organizations representing the American and European aerospace industries, began a process to harmonize the airworthiness requirements of the United States and the airworthiness requirements of Europe in regard to gust requirements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_...058bf48!OpenDocument (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/3d667bcbfc6270ce8625683a0058bf48!OpenDocument)

Gaston444
03-04-2010, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Exactly, Andy!
About 75% of pilots downed in WWII never saw their attacker yet it was mostly turning combat? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Makes you wonder why every WWII ace that wrote an autobiography stressed the opposite, really, doesn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-That 75% figure you will see is utter garbage if you read ALL these 1200+ P-47/P-51 combat reports: I would say the figure is less than 10% in all those, especially if you count "tracer warning"; then it's much less than even that...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...counter-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../combat-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html)

Don't confuse Japanese one-shot lighters and low-altitude engined Russians with what went down in late-war Western Europe...

But of course, feel free to believe people who didn't have the attention span to read any of it...

Gaston

M_Gunz
03-04-2010, 08:26 PM
If you go by the reports of those who returned....
Nothing like saying that pre-selected data is everything.

AndyJWest
03-04-2010, 08:39 PM
M_Gunz writes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">About 75% of pilots downed in WWII never saw their attacker... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gaston writes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...the figure is less than 10% in all those, especially if you count "tracer warning" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why should you count 'tracer warning'? I've been shot down online often enough to know that with tracer whizzing past, you take evasive action first, and if that works you try to figure out where you were being shot at from. Perhaps if you include 'seeing the attacker in the last few seconds before you died', MGs figure is an exaggeration, but it doesn't alter the fact that prolonged turning dogfights were the exception.

Though the combat reports are of use, without knowing whether they are representative of all kills, or are instead selected as being 'interesting', one cannot possibly measure percentages with them. Not that you actually have.

Finally:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't confuse Japanese one-shot lighters and low-altitude engined Russians with what went down in late-war Western Europe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fair enough, but don't confuse this with what occurred in the rest of WWII either, though I'd have thought that the 'low-altitude engined Russians' and the nimble Japanese fighters were more likely to be involved in turning fights if anything. But only if they saw their opponent first...

M_Gunz
03-04-2010, 09:38 PM
Might as well decide gunnery and damage from best-of gun-camera film collections.

Erkki_M
03-04-2010, 11:10 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt there just one single (reported) turning fight that lasted more than 20 seconds during the Eagle Day? First 109 almost outturning the Spitfire(or so the Spit pilot said), then Spit almost outturning him, and 109 leaving the fight with neg-G push through the clouds.

Someone get exact number of sorties flown that date, with a single turning fight resulting in 0 losses it doesnt look like 90% to me.

Besides, once tracers start flying past you, its most often already too late.

M_Gunz
03-04-2010, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt there just one single (reported) turning fight that lasted more than 20 seconds during the Eagle Day? First 109 almost outturning the Spitfire(or so the Spit pilot said), then Spit almost outturning him, and 109 leaving the fight with neg-G push through the clouds.

Someone get exact number of sorties flown that date, with a single turning fight resulting in 0 losses it doesnt look like 90% to me.

Besides, once tracers start flying past you, its most often already too late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I guess it depends on whether you call any turning at all "a turn fight". It's right up there with confusing "never saw
the attacker" with "never knew there was an attack". I've read many shoot-down reports where the target began to turn
and others where there was some amount of chase but few that devolved into a turn-fight -- and those were picked reports
to show relative performance in combat.

ImpStarDuece
03-04-2010, 11:39 PM
Reading the first 20 accounts (10 P-51/10 P-47) of those combat reports linked I get 7 out of 29 aircraft destroyed in turning combats, of which one, possibly two, could be called sustained turning combats.

Erkki_M
03-05-2010, 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 M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt there just one single (reported) turning fight that lasted more than 20 seconds during the Eagle Day? First 109 almost outturning the Spitfire(or so the Spit pilot said), then Spit almost outturning him, and 109 leaving the fight with neg-G push through the clouds.

Someone get exact number of sorties flown that date, with a single turning fight resulting in 0 losses it doesnt look like 90% to me.

Besides, once tracers start flying past you, its most often already too late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I guess it depends on whether you call any turning at all "a turn fight". It's right up there with confusing "never saw
the attacker" with "never knew there was an attack". I've read many shoot-down reports where the target began to turn
and others where there was some amount of chase but few that devolved into a turn-fight -- and those were picked reports
to show relative performance in combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say its a turn fight when aircraft use prolonged maneuvering to get into a firing position. Shooting inside a target's break turn, or pulling up into a high yo-yo and dropping behind for a shot dont count... Anything beyond would. I think head-ons, especially at similar energies, and actually a fight resulting from one were also extremely rare... Almost always, especially if either or both sides were radar controlled, it would begin as either side bouncing, and almost never 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2. Those would occur once the fight had spread out, or when single aircraft would try to extend from the fight for reason or another.

I think we should look at 40-43 reports only(in the west front), during those years the sides were at least reasonably even in the air in both quality and numbers... With 10:1 superiority in numbers single Allied pilots were nearly free to use any kinds of tactics, if they begin to loose they have many friends helping, and fights usually began with Allies usually having altitude advantage as well...

Anyone knows if there are RAF's air combat reports available in the Internet anywhere? Seen, apart from "ace stories" and such, only USAAF reports myself.

M_Gunz
03-05-2010, 12:12 AM
IMO into the vertical is not a turn fight. Well, maybe for one who will lose it is.
You can a lot of maneuvering without much turning at all. That's energy-fighting.
Head to head the better pilots zoom and roll.

gkll
03-05-2010, 06:48 AM
whats a dogfight then max

Better to think angles vs energy fighting

If the loop up and away isn't extend and reposition then we are somewhere getting close to angles fighting, how big is the loop?

You still have to rate your nose, ie pull on the lift vector, sure with low speed over the top and gravity to help, it can be a fairly free turn in terms of the sum of kinetic and positional energy (height) but it is still rating the nose in the end

1 vs 1 headon pass if you pull a lazy loop and the other fellow does a max g lead turn he will shoot at you immediately

im not a good pilot (zero practise and little online time is my excuse) however I do have some skills and game suggests the counter to a high g lead turn is another h g lead turn or extend, little in between (with not too much exageration)

M_Gunz
03-05-2010, 10:02 AM
There's a big difference between pulling a hard flat turn and pulling a loop.

You can turn flat with no gravity assisting you and get the full measure of bleed with no
savings at all or you can pull just as hard, sock speed away as height to lose less energy
in the direction change with option to roll along the way, get a 1 gravity assist in the
turn and still be able to cash in your height for speed. And you don't have fly predictable
course while doing it unless you're on the stall edge which IMO isn't too bright anyway.

If the other guy loops harder then he might get one quick snap shot at high deflection
which you should be able to see him position for. He had a better chance in the head-on!

If you don't have the speed then don't try the deed though. If you can't get up there and
still have speed for at least a good jink then you rode that zoom too far. I've been
surprised before by a target who at the top of his loop was able to barrel roll around
my shots, it was a lesson I took to heart!

You can game for position or you can game for the quick wound/kill. If you go for the latter
then don't miss. A good bit of Bullethead's energy tactics pages was based on suckering the
angles fighter into trying for just that. It's a shame those pages went down years ago.

gkll
03-05-2010, 01:43 PM
Sure sure I get all that, really. what is curious is how people yourself included seem to be making this enormous distinction between vertical and flat turning, whereas from my view of it you have 'angles' tactics and 'extend' tactics. dogfights happen in the vertical, your choice of move has to do with your energy and position at the instant you are making the call. You see, I &lt;get&gt; the slow over the top 1g assisted 'free' turn, however this can be part of close in angles fighting.

Not so sure that that one shot is less than a headon opportunity, in the day did a LOT of trials 1 v 1 coe and really you are giving up the 3/9 line and position, not just a shot... many many trials trying to find that zone where a lazy partial extension could beat a high g lead turn. Does not seem to exist. Of course coe 1 v1 merge is the rarity but given that situation I defy people to beat the high g lead turn (which as you know can &lt;certainly&gt; be vertical)without just flat extending with no turn and a reposition

EDIT what confuses this commonly is the original speed and altitude of the two, most people start thinking of the 'energy' fighter starting high and fast. Recalibrate your thinking to coe and headon, so no positional or energy advantage to either side. Then try something lazy against a determined opponent pulling a high g lead turn.

M_Gunz
03-05-2010, 04:12 PM
Energy fighters loath burning speed while angles fighters welcome it. Simple as that. You
don't get tight turns at high speed.

The difference in turns is in the bleed and the use of vertical. When you are rising and
slowing down you are storing energy -and- not burning as much just by turning at lower speed
(since you are rising) while using gravity to aid bringing your nose around (going up or down)
at the same time. You might slow down but you keep that energy as height.

Angles are about always all the time pushing as hard as possible to get the nose on target
with little or no concern for speed except to keep the turn radius small for faster turning.
In that kind of fight you have a small fraction to no energy left for a zoom without departing
the pursuit of angle. You can climb in a tight spiral and still be pushing angles but any
kind of zoom or sustained best climb and you are no longer pushing angles. Only at the start
if you have excess speed do you have energy to blow on anything truly 3D without leaving
yourself unable to pull enough G's to keep pressing angles. The other name for angle tactics
is stall fighting since that's what angles tactics is about -- riding the stall edge often
with flaps down to some degree.

It's also about planning. Energy fighting requires thinking well ahead while angles fighting
is a single minded pursuit, quite often against (an)other angles fighter(s) riding the stall.

Practically anyone with a little experience can fly angles tactics, not many can fly energy.
Very few people stick to energy tactics. They get greedy for a kill and find themselves stuck
unable to counter the other except by turning hard or losing height for no gain or both.

A good angles fighter is very good at looking like "just a little more and you've got me".
A good energy fighter is very good at keeping the other turning hard and losing height.

There are differences with jets so some care has to be taken when reading what Shaw wrote or
what trained jet fighters describe but the basics do stay the same.

IMO props do favor the turn fighter in some ways and defeat it in others. You have to be
both a good pilot and a good tactician to get away with energy fighting, unlike say BnZ.
Of course a good pilot also makes a better angles fighter because that one knows how to
ride the stall edge and stay there.

gkll
03-05-2010, 05:56 PM
Sure to all. My point about the merge still stands, there is no 'energy fighter' move to counter if we can trust the more or less of il2 physics, for ww2 birds the speeds and distances do not really allow it. Of course conditions apply, if the merge happens near top speed... probably a different case

Where we would differ is that tussling around in close, whether yo yos immelmans or straight lead pursuit etc (pick your terminology, 3d anyways) are all part of an angles fight to me. Maybe that is not good usage, OK, then it is all ppart of a 'dogfight' that much used and never defined term. There can certainly and absolutely be a mix of moves designed to either gain e or position, they are commonly mixed in short succession, as needed and as required, in a close in dogfight

People get caught (I get caught...) stall fighting, in your usage, however for me it is when the escape window is &lt;closed&gt; and the opponent is still gaining angles... lufberry here we come... however a 'dogfight' can go on a surprising time if both are exercizing energy tactics, with no stall fighting work

You would agree there is a place in an energy fight where a max g turn becomes useful or imperative? ie if a good shot becomes available eg

M_Gunz
03-05-2010, 06:31 PM
1 on 1 can be a very tough energy fight. 2 or more vs the same number, one at a time can keep
the mudhens (I started using that term in 1998 playing RB3D as a beta, it just seems right.)
busy.

As the situation develops, and with different pilots you can't say ahead how it will go, the
need to change tactics can become crucial. If you aren't suited to it, don't have advantage
in using some or all angles then it's best to know ahead of time and get out of Dodge. Worse
than changing tactics is to doggedly stay with one that is not working! In virtual combat it's
better to try -anything- since if it fails you might learn something from that.

IMO IL2 is very capable of recreating the historic situations of energy vs angles. The cross
channel fights where FW's dominated Spit V's so much that British doctrine had to address the
fact and the Spits were ordered to go in always at high speed which minimized their turning
advantage is as much proof that such a difference was real as any I can think of.
There is also the German method of a few fighters flying above Russian bombers with escorts
and one or two at a time going down to take shots, a traveling energy circus.

How well it doesn't work for any players is not proof of anything about the IL2 flight model
especially when there are those who work it very well. Historically there were no guaranteed
kills, you gotta know when to fold your cards and leave the table which many players do not.

I've nailed better turning planes starting to get away from me on the flat just by dipping
my nose a bit and coming around inside their circle then deflection shooting on the rise.
What I did then was energy fighting with a sliver of an advantage that the other simply did
not counter at all. Perhaps just was not looking, confident I could not catch up. Hehe, it's
something I did many times in a few sims. The planes may not be "significantly different" but
how they are flown often makes it so.

BTW, have you ever seen the Red Bull Air Races?

Kettenhunde
03-05-2010, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. such a difference was real as any I can think of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anytime one aircraft can sustain a higher load factor at a higher velocity this situation will occur.

AndyJWest
03-05-2010, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've nailed better turning planes starting to get away from me on the flat just by dipping
my nose a bit and coming around inside their circle then deflection shooting on the rise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that a 'low yo-yo', MG? If you do this right, you can use a bit of roll on the downward part to significantly tighten your turn. I think if I'm in a turning fight, I'm much more likely to use a shot like this than a co-alt turn. When above best-turn speed, a high yo-yo works instead - pull up, roll towards your opponent, and tighten your turn as you lose speed. Both manouvres have the advantage that you are not in the same horizontal plane (geometrically speaking..) as your opponent, so it presents a better target.

M_Gunz
03-05-2010, 07:19 PM
Yeah it depends on your relative speed and radius. You unload by sinking and can get a real turn advantage
just there alone, not to mention aligning your path more with gravity than when perpendicular to it.
Of course success has a lot to do with your target not countering your move. He may have higher energy at
the time and shift above your ability to make the shot or unload an out turn you even faster than he was.

Another way to gain a bit is with lag pursuit. How many times I've been accused of cheating because the
target was pulling to the edge of blackout and thought I could not follow let alone gain on him! LOL!
Idiot to think I was constrained to following the same path! Next thing I know there's a whine-post on
a forum about it! ROFLMAO!

It's hard enough judging energy states in sims and probably IRL. Not knowing the simple possibilities
is going to make any decent sim look "wrong" when faced with those who do know. And then, you meet a
player who knows more than you do -- be sure to thank them for the lesson! I had some good teachers.

gkll
03-05-2010, 10:48 PM
Max you were mentioning earlier some ways ww2 props might favor turning as compared to jets

Curious, as what comes to mind is that jet tactics stay flexible longer. Props have less power to weight by a lot, so any manuever may be the last of that kind, ie get to the point where a vertical manuever is no longer possible eg. In a jet you would retain the ability to execute extend and out of plane and or vertical manuevers far longer into the fight.. so props 'favor' turn fighting because as soon as a turn fight starts options foreclose rapidly and a stall fight aka lufberry may result. But this is not favoring, it just means the separation between energy and angles tactics is wider in props. 1 v 1 is a very tough energy vs angles fight, as you put it.

Another way to think of it is that jets can turn more and harder with less penalty, and can readily trade energy for position and back again. Props have less options. down nose manuevers in props gives large increments to acceleration relative to jets, the horizon matters in a prop, bigtime. Somebody kindly posted some calcs a while back comparing thrust in ww2 prop job with the acceleration added due to the sin or something of the down nose attitude... it was surprising and was close or equal to engine power if the nose was down as in a low slice as has been described. For a jet the effect is vastly less.

So why would props be better suited, in what way?

M_Gunz
03-05-2010, 10:56 PM
Prop thrust (at least by takeoff speed) is power/speed, power at alt being constant favors lower speed.
Jet thrust is the same with alt, jet power is thrust * speed, which favors higher speed.

gkll
03-05-2010, 11:37 PM
OK

but higher speed does not necessarily favor energy tactics. Jets can sit on corner speed, it is useful to know for planning tactics. And of course with the g suits this allows higher corner speeds, more useful. In props corner is peripheral information as you pass through it on your way to some other speed and turn... so energy tactics are separated more from angles tactics than in jets IMO

at higher alts less drag too, so better relative acceleration with height as well, jets to props.

M_Gunz
03-06-2010, 02:21 AM
Zoom potential is by the square of speed, all other factors the same. 10% faster, 20% higher.

JtD
03-06-2010, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Reading the first 20 accounts (10 P-51/10 P-47) of those combat reports linked I get 7 out of 29 aircraft destroyed in turning combats, of which one, possibly two, could be called sustained turning combats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This probably explains why, of the manymanymany accounts that describe the "downthrottling technique", the same one is being linked againandagainandagain.

M_Gunz
03-06-2010, 08:57 PM
From what I understand that one is being misquoted againandagainandagain too.