Vy vs Best Energy Airspeed

[JG14_Josf]

Crumpp,

Please understand that if you percieve aggression on my part that this is not an intended result.

If I do not know something then I ask questions based upon what I do know.

For example I may know that 'if' something happens then something else 'may' happen. If the idea is in my mind then I see no reason not to ask the question.

Now I see that more care is needed when asking questions if miscommunication is to be avoided.

On the other hand one can simply keep quiet.

If we do manage to communicate, in the right place, on the right subject, at the right time, with the right words, then a miracle has occured, in my view.

Meanwhile, I think it is your interest in the FW that has inspired my participation on this board.

Thanks.

[Crumpp]

Now I see that more care is needed when asking questions if miscommunication is to be avoided.

Don't read into it, Josef.  There is no miscommunication at all.  Things are fine and I look forward to seeing your post's.

I think the sidetrack subject is covered is all.

Crumpp

[niknak]

Sorry to return to a question covered earlier about maximising energy before a merge.

My real question is while diving may be a valid tactic is it really a thing you should do every time? What i am really saying while you may maximize your total energy should you value k.e. as high as p.e.?

[Badboy]

Originally posted by niknak
Sorry to return to a question covered earlier about maximising energy before a merge.

My real question is while diving may be a valid tactic is it really a thing you should do every time? What i am really saying while you may maximize your total energy should you value k.e. as high as p.e.?

Hi niknak

In theory, you could argue that either way, you have the same amount of total energy, so it shouldn’t matter if you have it as potential or kinetic energy, but it isn’t that simple. Having your energy in the form of speed gives you more options at the merge, the option to extend or zoom climb, use the vertical, or if you decide to make a high aspect guns attack, your aircraft will be more stable and you will add speed and energy to your gun or cannon rounds. If you decide to commit to a hard turning engagement, and you start out near your corner velocity, you will begin the fight with maximum rate turns, and you can decide which direction you want to turn in based on the geometry of the fight, and not just which direction gravity is pointing. If you arrive at a fight high and slow, you may still have the same total energy, but being less maneuverable, you may only be able to turn level, or nose low which limits your options, and your initial turn rate will be frustratingly low. Being slower, you will be more vulnerable to that wingman you didn’t spot, and if you need to take a low g  high aspect shot, your aircraft will be less stable, because pitch oscillations are less effectively damped at low speed, so the scatter on your cannon or gun rounds will be worse. If the bandit has more energy than you thought coming in, getting out of the fight may require more drastic action, such as a defensive spiral dive.

I’m not saying it is always the best way to enter a fight, but if you go to the dueling arena and try the alternatives with similar aircraft, you will see what I mean. But even that isn’t so simple, diving into the merge for vertical turning room is a maneuver that has a lot of subtleties, particularly if your opponent knows what you are doing, and there are many variations on the theme. If you want to spend some time in the dueling arena, I’d be happy to show you some of those variations

Hope that helps...

Badboy

[JG14_Josf]

It is useful to consider tactics from an equal situation first where both combatants are at the same altitude, the same speed, and heading toward each other so as to eliminate all the other variables of relative position and energy.

Even if the idea is a simple consideration of doctrine as to what is more important generally between the energy of speed and the energy of altitude the co-altitude merge situation again becomes important as a point from which to begin logical consideration.

I think that this becomes very clear when flying along on patrol and it is first discovered that an engagement is imminent.

The first consideration involves a judgment of relative position and energy. In order to make such a judgment time must pass for relative position to change so as to provide the information necessary to calculate the rate of change and a value for relative energy. Meanwhile what is to be done?  
Climb, dive, turn, or do nothing? Go for more energy? Go for more altitude?

If the threat is determined and contact will occur or is desired then it makes sense that the required action is to turn toward and aim at the target.

If the target is lower then turning toward the target is going to result in the loss of altitude and increases in speed. Here again it is probably better to start thinking tactics from a co-altitude merge, so as to eliminate variables that otherwise determine a choice between gaining speed or gaining altitdue?

The co-altitude merge situation is relativly inevitable because the fight is on and it would not be a good idea to turn away from the fight. It is not a good idea to climb for this reason unless the target is higher. Any turns away from the head-on merge will give the enemy plane the advantages of geometry. Any turns will move the enemy plane closer into your rear hemisphere.

So the question to answer may be ‘how to’ gain an advantage after a head-on merge. But before that is done it may be useful to explore the extreme conditions that can occur even before that head-on merge occurs.

What if the merge is conducted at a very slow airspeed? What if the merge is conducted at a very high airspeed?

Climbing to arrive at a merge will result in slowing down and this brings us back to the co-altitude merge. Also it would be a purely defensive consideration to fight a higher plane. The enemy flying higher is known to posses more energy unless your airspeed is accumulated in a resent dive or that your cruise speed is very high. The higher the enemy fighter the more speed you would need to even consider a chance at conducting offensive maneuvers. This thinking again brings us back to the co-alt merge.

If the attack is conducted during a dive toward the target then the merge may occur at a very high speed. Here it again changes the nature of the initial decision to attack. If the enemy is seen lower initially then the condition of superiority is obvious in proportion to the altitude difference. If a condition of superiority exists initially then the question of energy management is much less important that considerations of relative position. In other words from an extreme altitude advantage there is an ability to maneuver into better position. From any advantage there is the ability to maneuver purely on an offensive basis. What this thinking points out is that the merge is something that occurs when combatants are vying for position from equal position because neither holds an initial advantage and the speeds during the merge are generally not going to be much above or below cruise speed.

Imagine a situation where two pilots see each other in the distance at the same time. Both pilots do the nature thing and they turn to fight, to do otherwise would be defensive. Neither pilot has a great advantage to exploit because if they did then the other pilot would be inclined to turn and run. This makes perfect sense. I don’t think we are talking about surprise attacks, bounces, and other such defensive situations. When the fight starts the assumption is that both planes have offensive maneuvering capabilities and the greater the situation begins from an unequal situation the less is the need to consider anything other than desperation.

Back to the two pilots at distance turning into each other and this time one of them goes high for altitude and the other one goes low for speed. The net result is the both pilots will remain relativley equal in energy and both will have a better idea of relative energy states because time will change things and if both pilots are energy conscious then they will note the rate of change. So what has occurred? For one thing; the inevitable merge has been delayed.

This brings us back to that ‘how to’ gain an advantage after a head-on merge, because the merge is going to occur. Well, you may say what if the guy who went for speed just keeps on diving, or what if the guy who went for altitude just keeps on climbing? I think that this is called extending away from the fight, it is defensive, it is turning away from the head-on merge, it is giving up angles and geometry.

What about the situation where they both go for altitude or both go for speed? Think about that for a moment because this consideration is very instructive. How does one judge relative energy? Closure rates and the rate of change in relative position during the merge help. If both pilots climb toward each other then closure rates are almost maximized (maximized when heading directly toward each other) but it is difficult to note the rate of change in angles. Each pilot can see little or no change in angles. The same is true in a situation where both pilots dive for speed. Why is this important? If you go back to the situation where one plane is climbing while the other plane is diving it should become obvious as to why it is important to realize that the rate of change in angles is important for judging relative energy states. The climbing plane will lose relative angular gains relative to the faster plane in a dive because the faster plane is traveling farther. The climbing plane will note that the faster plane is moving into his rear hemisphere while the faster plane is able to maintain the slower plane in his front hemisphere relatively better.
In other words the rate of change of angular gains favors the faster plane diving over the slower plane climbing. To visualize this simply imagine a dot near your gun sight that is moving (rate of change) from the gun sight towards your rear view.

This is where the sustained turn technique really shows its purpose. The sustained turn technique is a method of setting up a way to judge relative enegy states with minimum risk.

When then the idea is to maintain the balance between offense and defense then vertical maneuvering speed is the ideal. Any variation from vertical maneuvering speed is stressing offense or defense. Going faster than vertical maneuvering speed tends to be defensive while going slower tends to be purely offensive.

Examples of cases where faster is offensive and slower is defensive tend to fall into the area of desperation.

[TequilaChaser]

Originally posted by JG14_Josf

This is where the sustained turn technique really shows its purpose. The sustained turn technique is a method of setting up a way to judge relative enegy states with minimum risk.
 

how do you come to this conclusion? unless you know 1st hand before using the sustained turn technique what each plane type is capable of..if one does not know the abilitys of one's enemy then I find this to be a bigger risk then minimum

my reason for thinking such way is that your description of using the sustained turn technique is to maintain corner speed/velocity but this is much higher than the speed required for flying the best sustained turning speed, where are you using sustained turn if you are at corner speed?

( if you are getting this from Shaw's book, point me to the pages so I can re-read it please)

[JG14_Josf]

Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw

One-Versus-One Maneuvering, Dissimilar Aircraft

Low versus High Wing Loading with Similar T/W

page 179

Starting with:

"Because fo the T/W equivalence..."

The fight is on and unavoidable therefore a head on merge is the inevitable best possible initial contact. Any other form of contact is defensive for one of the combatants.

The sustained turn technique has the added advantage of illustrating the vital importance of employing correct post merge geometry. In this case the nose to tail turn allows for a safer evaluation of relative performance.

[Badboy]

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
The fight is on and unavoidable therefore a head on merge is the inevitable best possible initial contact. Any other form of contact is defensive for one of the combatants.

Joe, I don’t think that is a direct quote from Shaw, if it is, it must be out of context, because it simply isn’t true. A lead turn is almost always preferable to a head on merge, and is certainly not defensive.  

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw

page 179

Starting with:

"Because fo the T/W equivalence..."

Joe, I just checked the passage you are referring to, and I believe the warning I posted earlier is valid. In the following paragraph to the one you referred to Shaw gives an example of the sustained-turn technique, where he describes both fighters flying at optimum speed for the sustained turn, but then he says that grabbing greater angles would require the fighter to pay dearly in terms of energy… But here is the catch! That is a statement that only applies to Jets not Prop’s. The reason is that when a jet fighter is at its optimum speed for a best sustained turn, it can actually pull more g and increase the turn rate, because it is well above stall speed and has more g available, and as he points out, it costs energy as you can see from the jet EM diagram I posted. In a prop fighter, if you are at the optimum speed for the best sustained turn, you can’t grab any more, because you have no more g available because you are already on the edge of the envelope and the stall. Remember, Prop’s stall fight, Jet’s don’t! The description doesn’t survive the translation from Jet to Propeller driven fighters.

Do you know where else in the book Shaw refers to the “sustained-turn technique”?


Badboy

[JG14_Josf]

Badboy,

If there are no quotation marks then isn’t it a good idea to ask first before assuming the words are quoted?

Your interpretation of the sustained turn technique is different from mine.

I don't see much use in trying to communicate with people who are so prone to misinterpretation, who then assume authoritah (Eric Kartman).

If anyone else has any questions on this subject I am more than willing to try to communicate what I think I know (I like to write). What is communciated by Shaw is quite useful knowledge in my experience as it applies to simulated WWII air combat. I am almost reluctant to arm my potential rivals.

Shaw:
"The energy fighter pilot shoud set up a nose to tail turn at maximum sustained-turn-rate speed (or vertical-maneuvering speed, if that is higher), either level or slightly nose-high."

If you are being told that "Figher Combat" is for jets and that it does not apply to props, then you may want to do your own reading and make up your own mind.

[Badboy]

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
If there are no quotation marks then isn’t it a good idea to ask first before assuming the words are quoted? Your interpretation of the sustained turn technique is different from mine.

It doesn’t matter who wrote it, it is still wrong.

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
If you are being told that "Figher Combat" is for jets and that it does not apply to props, then you may want to do your own reading and make up your own mind.

Now you are the one misinterpreting, I never said anything about “Fighter Combat” not applying to prop’s, it does. However, Shaw goes to great lengths to describe energy and angles tactics, and that has always been just as applicable regardless of the aircraft type. The fact is, that not everything in Shaw’s book is applied in the exactly the same way, regardless of aircraft type, and that distinction is important.

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
Your interpretation of the sustained turn technique is different from mine.

I don’t know what your interpretation of the sustained turn technique is, perhaps you can explain, because so far what you have said doesn’t make sense, and some of it is just plain wrong.

Sustained turns can be conducted at any point in the envelope where the aircraft has zero specific excess power, and those points are shown in the following diagram for a prop’ and a jet.  When Shaw refers to the optimum speed for the best sustained turn, he is referring to the points shown in my diagram and his comments need to be taken in that context.


 
You can see that if you are flying the jet, Shaw’s comments at the top of page 180 regarding grabbing greater angles makes perfect sense, because to do so would mean reducing your sustained turn rate, you would effectively be falling into an energy bucket. However, you can also see from my diagram, that those comments don’t apply in the case of the prop’ fighter, if he is at the optimum speed for sustained turning, the situation is entirely different. I’m only trying to clarify this for you, and I’m always willing to answer questions.

Badboy

[TequilaChaser]

Originally posted by Badboy

Sustained turns can be conducted at any point in the envelope where the aircraft has zero specific excess power, and those points are shown in the following diagram for a prop’ and a jet.  When Shaw refers to the optimum speed for the best sustained turn, he is referring to the points shown in my diagram and his comments need to be taken in that context.


 
You can see that if you are flying the jet, Shaw’s comments at the top of page 180 regarding grabbing greater angles makes perfect sense, because to do so would mean reducing your sustained turn rate, you would effectively be falling into an energy bucket. However, you can also see from my diagram, that those comments don’t apply in the case of the prop’ fighter, if he is at the optimum speed for sustained turning, the situation is entirely different. I’m only trying to clarify this for you

thank you Badboy, that is what I was trying to get at, across or shoot for in my posting............. Shaw's book tactics/studies can be "applyed" to both Jet's and Props, but it does not "apply" to both  if you take it out of context, your diagram helps one keep it in context easier I think, again thanks

very good material here

[JG14_Josf]

"and some of it is just plain wrong."

Badboy,

If you do not understand what I write then how can you know if it is wrong?

I can see that the idea here is not to discuss things; instead the idea is to twist words around to come up with a means to discredit each other and win the word fight.

I see no reason to play this game, however, if you can please explain in your best language what exactly is 'just plain wrong' with what I wrote then perhaps I can defend my integrity.

Otherwise this one-upmanship crap is just a big waste of time.

The sustained turn technique works in simulated WWII combat, it works good and when it is understood the concept of aerial combat becomes a little easier to conceptualize, in this measure the book ‘Fighter Combat’ is specifically applicable to air combat with prop planes (in simulation).

If anyone is telling you otherwise then, again, it may be a good idea to read for yourself and make up your own mind.

Note the word ‘if’ and realize that ‘if not’ then the subsequent message does not apply.

[Badboy]

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
If you do not understand what I write then how can you know if it is wrong?

Because you said…

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
The fight is on and unavoidable therefore a head on merge is the inevitable best possible initial contact. Any other form of contact is defensive for one of the combatants.

That is “plain wrong” on two counts, firstly the head on merge is never the best possible initial contact. Even if it looks as though a head on merge is likely, it is always better to try and create some flight path separation for a lead turn, doing so isn’t defensive, it is an aggressive approach to gaining angles.  

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
I can see that the idea here is not to discuss things; instead the idea is to twist words around to come up with a means to discredit each other and win the word fight.

My idea is to try and be as helpful as possible, but it is difficult to point things out when folk get so defensive. Unfortunately, some folk aren’t just wrong, they are wrong with conviction and persistence, and no amount of reason helps.

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
I see no reason to play this game, however, if you can please explain in your best language what exactly is 'just plain wrong' with what I wrote then perhaps I can defend my integrity.

Certainly, here are a few examples:

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
Any turns away from the head-on merge will give the enemy plane the advantages of geometry.

Nope, if you can create enough separation for a lead turn prior to the merge, there is great potential for advantage, so that statement is incorrect.

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
Any turns will move the enemy plane closer into your rear hemisphere.

Nope, a lead turn will gain angles, and help solve your aspect and angle off problems.  

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
The sustained turn technique is a method of setting up a way to judge relative enegy states with minimum risk. The sustained turn technique requires the employer to maintain corner or vertical maneuvering speed which ever is the higher velocity.  

Actually, the sustained turn technique is a way to perform an optimal sustained turn, with minimal energy loss, and that only occurs near corner velocity in a jet, not in a prop. You appear to be quoting Shaw out of context and confusing the idea with energy tactics in general. There are other examples, but this should make the point.

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
Otherwise this one-upmanship crap is just a big waste of time.

If there is any one-upmanship here it isn’t coming from me, I only post to try and be helpful. It would certainly be a lot easier to ignore folk when they propagate errors or misconceptions, but it isn’t very helpful for those who might be misled by it. But as I said, it is very unfortunate that some folk aren’t just wrong, they are wrong with conviction and persistence. When that happens I guess it is just easier for them to make accusations about one-upmanship, and resort to polemics instead of the subject, which is always a shame.

Hope that helps...

Badboy

[JG14_Josf]

Badboy,

A reasonable person will stand by his convictions and honor his word.

If you are up to it then let us continue. If you are not then don't waste my time.

You continue to misunderstand what I write, you make conclusions concerning your error and the end result is that you destroy my reputation unless I defend myself.

Damage has already begun. I have no wish to further cause injury; however, if the goal is to be reasonable then we can proceed.

First:

Is your thinly veiled innuendo an indirect attempt to insult me?

If so please just dispense with the misdirection and state your opinion.

If not then why post such garbage?

Don’t waste my time.

[Badboy]

Joe,

I'm just trying to be helpful here, so if you ask me to point out errors so that you can defend the points, try not to act so wounded when I do. If I take the trouble to point out those errors, and you believe I’m wrong, it would be more constructive to respond with reason instead of silly accusations. Meanwhile I’ve made a significant number of technical and factual statements and I’m still waiting for a reasonable response, but I’m only prepared to discuss the air combat and aircraft performance issues.

Badboy