Dont think plane....think ACM

[Anaxogoras]

There is not a single thing the inferior pilot can do to prevent me from killing him unless he forces an error or survives my attack.

There ya go.

The thing is, you cannot "lock on" in a Fw 190.  It's AoA limitations prevent that, unless you're locking onto another 190.   The idea of forcing an altitude advantage on a Spit9 with a 190D so that you can just position on his 6 and blast him away is not realistic.  We're both knights.  Next time we're both on we can try it in the DA or TA if you like.

[humble]

I can kill a spitty in a 190 with no real problems beyond my normal gunnery issues. However my real issue with the 190 is that its an inferior plane (outside of the A5) so its boring to fly. You can't force a plane beyond its actual FM so the 190 is a very simple rinse and repeat type of ride. This limits aggression to a relatively small set of vertical manipulations and cutbacks and/or reversals. Basically its simply a slasher with little room for artistry. Easy to fly, easy to kill with and very survivable...but not all that satisfying to fly. Basically just a series of drive by muggings...

[Anaxogoras]

Many Spit pilots are new and therefore easy to kill in any plane.  Come up against a good one, though, and even with gobs of extra energy they're difficult to kill with a 190 in a 1vs1 fight.

I'm kind of shocked that you call the 190 series inferior.

[humble]

Many Spit pilots are new and therefore easy to kill in any plane.  Come up against a good one, though, and even with gobs of extra energy they're difficult to kill with a 190 in a 1vs1 fight.

I'm kind of shocked that you call the 190 series inferior.

not the series, the A5 is a well balanced plane, the A8 is optimized for ground/buff work and is excellent in its intended roles. The D-9 was designed to give inferior pilots a measure of survivability in a hostile environment and it shows. The biggest issue in learning to fly the D9 is realizing most of the time you have to much E...having "gobs of E" is a sign of poor ACM. The goal in flying a 190D is to induce a defensive move in conjunction with a reduction of your own E state and a refinement of your AOT to create a window that allows either a high % snapshot or a semi tracking shot that does not comprise your control of the enemy's 3-9 line...

i'll fire up a 190D and fly a few hops to show you what I mean. Basically the 190D is ACM with training wheels.

[Anaxogoras]

having "gobs of E" is a sign of poor ACM.

energy can be kinetic or potential, which you know.  Lots of potential energy is not a sign of bad acm.

[humble]

"potential E" is altitude and to much is the sign of a timid flyer. Once you engage you shold never be more then 1.5 K or so from your adversary in a +E state. Anything beyond that is simply giving him to much room.

[BnZs]

One could also say that attacking a Shawk who is at that moment so complacent that he just pulls his C-Hog for a shot that leaves him in a bad position after the miss  and who doesn't even drop his external tank until he realizes he is in a bit of trouble-and blasting him with 6 nose-mounted .50s is more or less equivalent to catching Chalenge on a bad day with the D9....same goes for following around and ultimately killing a N1K who tried to more or less HO a P-40 from a bad angle, thus giving up the angles, who then tries to solve his problems by hauling back on the stick to out-turn what is after all a *fairly* maneuverable plane instead of using his excess energy to go up and set up a better attack.

On the other hand, that P-51D vs. Spit clip Snaphook posted once...unquestionably brilliant IMHO. The Spit didn't make any huge mistakes, nevertheless, from first to last Snaphook controlled it, never gave the Spit any kind of a shot, never fatally compromised his superior position chasing a low% shot, and flew to a gun solution even I could hit.  

Expanding on what I have to say on the "angles" vogue, I get the impression that "good acms" and "good fights" are terms often applied to fights which involve one or more of the fighters being what I would consider recklessly aggressive. Situations where there are repeated exchanges off angle snapshots followed by exchanged overshoots until one plane falls, where there is actual opportunity missed for one of the planes to take a slightly more patient tack and establish themselves firmly in the rear quarter...the extreme example being some fights that actually seem to consist of stick heaving and semi-HOs called "brilliant"...and they are in terms of reflexes and shooting abilities, but not nesecessarily strategy. Is the standard for a "good fight" visceral excitement?

I was under the impression that the point of ACM was to fly yourself to as easy a gun solution as possible while giving as little opportunity as possible for the opponent to put guns on you. (My Jujitsu instructor always emphasized "You need to get the position before you get the submission".) Or kind of like hunting, the point of which is IMO ideally getting so close to the quarry a spear could do the job. In a perverse way, you could even say the worse the gunnery on the part of the pilot, the better the strategy required to fly to a kill.

BTW, the 190 A-5 is very little superior to the D-9 in turning ability, still behind the P-51D and most other aircraft. And the D9's thrust can help even things. If it can't be done with a D9, it probably can't be done with an A-5 either.

[humble]

Absolutely no question that shawk was complacent, however lets look at his opening moves. He actually killed himself early in the fight and died later. In the circumstances of that fight the extra drag was partially compensated for by the added mass since it was a "zoom" fight. I'm in no way faulting you for your tactics vs chalenge...I also didnt post the shawk film initially and almost not at all. I've got a hundred of those lying around  and always consider them more of "look at me" vs instructional in nature.

The D9 and the Tiffie are the 2 true predators in AH (non perk). They are in almost complete control of there environment and have the ability to force a fight at will. All planes are susceptible to positional disadvantage but none can turn the tables as quickly as a 190D.

The primary benefit of the shawk clip IMO was to show the value of "jumping the route". At the time shawk considered it an almost miricle shot when it wasn't. I literally overplayed it and actually got to far out in front of him and had to freeze the nose.

My comments on the 190 are not ment to be derogatory to you or Anax...they are ment to encourage you to explore the limits of the plane and use it more aggressively as the true energy fighter it is and not simply as a flying gun platform.

[BnZs]

My comments on the 190 are not ment to be derogatory to you or Anax...they are ment to encourage you to explore the limits of the plane and use it more aggressively as the true energy fighter it is and not simply as a flying gun platform.

Oh, don't get me wrong. There is some real brilliance to the even being able to exploit a mistake that well in a C-Hog vs. A-20 fight, no question, and it does succinctly demonstrate what a less maneuverable fighter can do to get guns...I was more or less demonstrating that it is possible to nitpick practically anything to death if one is motivated to do so. 

You'll notice that after the initial chase-down of that P-51 I was what, 40mph faster most of the time? Just enough.

An altitude advantage beyond a certain point is irrelevant/detrimental to maneuvering for the kill. A speed advantage beyond a certain point is irrelevant to maneuvering, though not to over-all strategy and survival.

IMO, while the ability to engage and disengage at will IS perhaps the most desirable trait in for a fighter plane in real life, in sim flying we are not too concerned if we die every so often and would very much like to shoot down other airplanes not just regularly, but with great frequency in target-rich environments. Thus top speed becomes merely one of many desirable advantages, and is arguably perhaps even below such things as turning ability and guns when it comes to what makes a plane desirable, "uber" or "easy mode" for sim-combat.

[Steve]

I was under the impression that the point of ACM was to fly yourself to as easy a gun solution as possible while giving as little opportunity as possible for the opponent to put guns on you.

Be careful, some holier-than-thou turnfighter will come in here and call you a pick dweeb or some such moniker.
Frankly the above quote is part of my approach to the MA. I see each flight as a vastly dynamic strategic event, not just a string of fights. I want to kill my opponent quickly so I don't fall prey to his teammates. I want to kill my opponent as efficiently as possible, while retaining enough E to deal with other bad guys. For me, the MA is a gigantic, three dimensional chess match and as such, I try to stay several moves ahead of my foe. I may be shooting at plane A but I'm already figuring what to do with planes B, C and D, with the notion to survive often in the equation. .

I do not possess spectacular ACM abilities.  I try to compensate by getting my plane to the right spot via anticipating what my intended foe is going to do. I also try to overcome my average flying ability by making my shot opportunities count. For this, I get called all sorts of names. I'm like the roadrunner: flyin my pony is my idea of havin fun.

There's nothing wrong with "living for the fight", it's just rediculous to whine about getting picked when you are yanking your plane around in circles, willingly oblivious to other planes beyond your immediate foe. I also know that several of these types complain about getting picked but are really masking their lack of SA. Whether they are not aware of the circumstances around them  or simply choose not to consider them is moot, bad SA is bad SA.

[BnZs]

Be careful, some holier-than-thou turnfighter will come in here and call you a pick dweeb or some such moniker.

Well, picking or not is kind of beside the point, though I agree Steve. What I was talking about was the perceived preference for more "aggressive" maneuvering at all times, pulling for the first shot of any kind, which can be quite workable if you are dead shot, and quite necessary if you are not in a plane or position where you can use a less aggressive angles or energy move. This of course leads to what seem to be considered the "good fights"-fast reflexive encounters with exchanges of positions and tough snap-shots. I just think this is a narrow definition though and a rather "boa constrictor" approach- trying to patiently consolidate small advantages without presenting any real exploitable mistake-doesn't necessarily suck. Especially if you can't shoot worth beans and don't want to give up position for a shot that probably won't end the matter anyway.

[humble]

1st,

Steve is a far from "average" pilot ACM wise and I have nothing against anyone flying in whatever manner they see fit. ACM is universal however the application of ACM is both plane and situation specific. Since a plane that has speed has the ability to force a fight or disengage less emphasis is often placed on correct (or optimal) ACM. The slower plane is forced to react and defend and use ACM to in someway create a window for offensive action. The "chess match" analogy is used very often...and almost always incorrectly. chess implies an even start and equal resources while air combat almost never is even or equal in nature.

Steve's flying is predatory not an "even fight" type of combat. Nothing wrong with that at all and certainly not an ACM deficient style of flying either.

[Steve]

 

chess implies an even start and equal resources while air combat almost never is even or equal in nature

It certainly does.  And as we sit in the tower, deciding what to do, where to launch, even what team we are on, the chess board is unsullied and perfectly pristine before each of us. No-one has an advantage. It is only after we make certain decisions, then take certain actions that the board tilts one way or the other.

[humble]

 

It certainly does.  And as we sit in the tower, deciding what to do, where to launch, even what team we are on, the chess board is unsullied and perfectly pristine before each of us. No-one has an advantage. It is only after we make certain decisions, then take certain actions that the board tilts one way or the other.

Very simplistic and factually incorrect...

[Steve]

Very simplistic and factually incorrect...

What's uneven about two guys sitting in the tower deciding what to do?