An other ride along clip

[humble]

I totally disagree with you, a two circle fight is defined by the two planes flying separate circles, the fact that those circles may be superimposed on each other to a degree is not especially important IMO. All you need to do is view it with tracks, thats a classic vertical 2 circle fight. At no time until my extension are we in a nose to tail configuration in plane or out. In fact you can clearly see where shane reverses into a 1 circle fight that I refuse by extending. Any fight where the intersection is front quarter to front quarter is a 2 circle fight.

[Dawger]

Nose to nose geometry is one circle.

Nose to tail geometry is two circle.

Shaw (Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering) discusses it on pp. 77-82.

Its pretty simple to prove to yourself.

[Dawger]

Excerpts from the Navy T-45 ACM training materials

HIGH ASPECT CONCEPTS
FLOW
As you have already seen from your reading, every engagement can be broken down in terms of the flow
that it is generating. One of the keys to gaining an advantage in high-aspect ACM is driving the fight into
flow, which will allow you to exploit your aircraft’s performance characteristics. With similar performing aircraft, recognizing flow first, and then flying your jet accordingly will achieve the advantage.

• One-circle flow occurs when one aircraft reverses at the merge, creating a fight defined by turn radius.
In a one-circle fight, the jet, which can turn the tightest circle, will achieve positional advantage. When engaged in one-circle flow, you need to collapse your turn radius as tightly as possible in order to create turning room between you and the bandit. This means transitioning to an airspeed that is both slower than his and controllable in terms of g available. 110 KIAS may well be slower than his
airspeed, but it affords no ability to turn your jet and will soon result in the loss of any position advantage gained.

Two-circle flow occurs when both aircraft turn across each other’s tail,
forming a fight defined by rate. When engaged in two circle flow, the jet with the greatest turn rate will bring the nose to bear first while at the same time, achieving weapons separation. With your  nderstanding of T-45 performance characteristics, you know that your greatest turn rate will be achieved at the g limit at approximately 410 KIAS. But you’re not going to be able to maintain this pull for long.  Unless time to kill is exceptionally short, the aircraft with the greatest sustained turn rate will win two-circle fights. When you recognize that the flow is two-circle, attempt to capture your Tactical Turn
Rate airspeed band and make energy excursions as required to gain angular advantage.

[Dawger]

Excerpt directly addressing vertical tactics and geometry

FIGHTER NOSE HIGH
In general, when we go nose high, we will be collapsing the fight as our airspeed decreases. 

Vs. Nose High - the bandit has chosen to go up with us in one circle fight.  In this case,
think like you have entered a flat scissors and fight a tight radius fight.  Lift Vector placement and AOA/airspeed control will be critical here.

Vs. Nose Level - the bandit is not using altitude to assist his fight.  Use it against him by
fighting the one circle fight aggressively in the vertical, thus collapsing your turn radius
with respect to his and managing your airspeed by climbing. Recognize that you’re outside his turn circle, get back in, then work behind the post, but don’t get buried nose low in your pursuit of two-circle glory. With sufficient turning room, you may be able to turn behind the bandit’s post and transition to a two-circle fight while accelerating in a descent. If not behind the bandit’s post, use good one circle mechanics: Early turn to get in phase, maintain weapons separation and control your airspeed and nose attitude.

Vs.- Nose Low - If you can reverse and make this a one-circle fight, you will be highly offensive; if this continues two circles you will be on the losing side of the rate war. It is crucial that you make this one circle fight early. Then transition as stated above. If you don’t reverse, you will be setting yourself up for a vertical merge, a bad vertical merge.

[humble]

In pages 77-82 shaw discusses the two options both parties have when meeting in a front quarter pass. No where is a discussion of the definition or application of 1 vs 2 circle fights. A flat nose to tail chase is the easiest visualization of a 1 circle fight. both planes are flying a circular "racetrack" trying to gain an angular advantage. This is the classic "dog fighting" image most people have. Out of plane does not disrupt this "one circle" fight unless the planes then convert to a nose to nose interaction. The easiest example of a 2 circle fight is the "figure 8" where the only interaction is at the junction of the 2 circles. Again an overlap or modification of this does not eliminate the nature of the fight unless the parties convert to a tail chase of some type. When Shane pulls up into me he is initiating a nose to nose turn in the vertical. Had I dropped in and then pulled back up into a rope I would be attempting to convert to a one circle fight. I chose to accept the 2 circle fight and then Shane converted it to a one circle fight with his reverse which I refused.

[humble]

I've always felt what your showing is a very limited and bastardized explanation (and IMO totally wrong) write up. In fact I think it shows exactly what forced shaw to write his book. This is the type of drivel that led to the total degradation of our dog fighting capabilities. While figure 2 is certainly a classic 2 circle opener off of an even merge lets look at figure one. We have an absolutely poor merge with minimal efficiency "countered" by a tweener merge that creates a fleeting snapshot with an impossible AOT and almost no chance to continue the fight without an overshoot. IMO the last thing the aggressor wants to be is in plane, ideally I'd guess he'd be in a vertical lag roll looking to secure a suitable AOT. The entire concept of the "one circle fight" is to obtain an AOT that allows for a tracking guns solution. A 2 circle fight is any fight that keeps an opponent at bay by forcing a nose to nose interaction. Figure 2 shows the classic example...both planes arrive back in a nose to nose configuration....which is identical to figure 1. The true defining indicator is lift vector orientation not geometry.

[Dawger]

So, you don't have a clue about fight geometry is or you can't admit to a mistake.

Those are your choices here after several posts.

It would have been simpler for you to admit the mistake.

You are confusing several different topics. When you are in the saddle you are in a 2 circle fight in the control position (Nose to Tail geometry)


I can see it will be pointless to go any further.

[Murdr]

One circle
Two planes merge with lift vectors oriented in the same direction and enter immediate turns.

This is a geometry that gives advantage to the better turn radius.  Since this is with identical planes, both planes need to turn at least 180 to gain the opponent in their front quarter.  180 each makes 360 which is one circle, which is also demonstrated visually.

Two circle
Two planes merge with lift vectors oriented at each other (or lift vector in opposite directions) and enter immediate turns.


This geometry favors the better turn rate.  Since this diagram is with identical aircraft, both planes turn 360 (360x2).  That's two circles.  Not only visually in diagram, but in gross angle change before either gain the opponent in their front quarter.

[Dawger]

I've always felt what your showing is a very limited and bastardized explanation (and IMO totally wrong) write up. In fact I think it shows exactly what forced shaw to write his book. This is the type of drivel that led to the total degradation of our dog fighting capabilities. While figure 2 is certainly a classic 2 circle opener off of an even merge lets look at figure one. We have an absolutely poor merge with minimal efficiency "countered" by a tweener merge that creates a fleeting snapshot with an impossible AOT and almost no chance to continue the fight without an overshoot. IMO the last thing the aggressor wants to be is in plane, ideally I'd guess he'd be in a vertical lag roll looking to secure a suitable AOT. The entire concept of the "one circle fight" is to obtain an AOT that allows for a tracking guns solution. A 2 circle fight is any fight that keeps an opponent at bay by forcing a nose to nose interaction. Figure 2 shows the classic example...both planes arrive back in a nose to nose configuration....which is identical to figure 1. The true defining indicator is lift vector orientation not geometry.

By the way, the manual I quoted is the 2007 edition of the US Navy T-45 ACM manual and the diagrams are from the US Navy Instructor Lecture  Guide. In other words they are current US Navy doctrine influenced by Shaw and Boyd.

I would have posted my own material that I have taught for over a decade but I thought you would accept the US Navy a little more readily. Murdr has now posted identical information to mine so maybe that will be the end of the confusion.

Flow or fight geometry is really only relevant in a high aspect angle fight. Once the angle has been reduced (i.e. you have gained an offensive position or the bandit has) the fight either results in a snapshot or the offensive fighter is using applied pursuit curves to arrive and remain in the control position or saddle. The fight could quickly degenerate into high aspect again and often does.

But for clarity of discussion, nose to nose maneuvering in the horizontal or vertical plane is a one circle fight favoring the fighter achieving the smallest turn radius. Nose to tail maneuvering favors turn rate. The two situations require different actions.

And there can be multiple swaps of fight geometry (or flow as the Navy calls it) in a very short period of time.

In a 1 v 1 similar aircraft fight it is rare to see two circle geometry unless one of the pilots is pretty savvy.

In a dissimilar aircraft fight, the smart pilot will recognize pre-merge which geometry favors him and try to steer the fight into that geometry.

And to avoid confusion (The intent of all my posts in this thread, it isn't personal), Figure two in my post is a ONE CIRCLE merge (supported by Murdr's post (In case you don't believe the USN)(excellent graphic BTW Murdr).

Its clearly marked "one circle fight"

[Mace2004]

By the way, the manual I quoted is the 2007 edition of the US Navy T-45 ACM manual and the diagrams are from the US Navy Instructor Lecture  Guide. In other words they are current US Navy doctrine influenced by Shaw and Boyd.

Ahhhh, just for historical accuracy's sake...Shaw wrote an interesting book but you've got the sources reversed here.  These things were all being taught in the Navy before Shaw wrote his book, he documented what we already knew (and were doing) in an interesting, well written (and unclassified) book for the general public, he didn't invent this stuff nor influence fighter tactics development.  On the other hand, Boyd was a true innovator and much of his original work on energy fighting was influential in Navy TACMANs and NFWS syllabus.

BTW Dawger, just curious but where did you get a T45 TACMAN and the "lecture guide" you mention?

[Murdr]

BTW Dawger, just curious but where did you get a T45 TACMAN and the "lecture guide" you mention?

P-1289 (Rev 2-07)

[Mace2004]

Thanks Murdr.  My son is at Kingsville right now waiting to class up for the T45, I don't think they've been clued in on what's available for study while he's waiting so thought he might want to take a look at it.

[Dawger]

Ahhhh, just for historical accuracy's sake...Shaw wrote an interesting book but you've got the sources reversed here.  These things were all being taught in the Navy before Shaw wrote his book, he documented what we already knew (and were doing) in an interesting, well written (and unclassified) book for the general public, he didn't invent this stuff nor influence fighter tactics development.  On the other hand, Boyd was a true innovator and much of his original work on energy fighting was influential in Navy TACMANs and NFWS syllabus.

BTW Dawger, just curious but where did you get a T45 TACMAN and the "lecture guide" you mention?

I didn't mean to imply that Shaw was the originator. I was responding to a comment in another post implying what I posted pre-dated Shaw. My only intention was to show it was published after Shaw. Shaw got it from the Navy (obviously, since they trained him).

Pretty much everyone agrees nothing much has changed in a pure dogfight since they were invented in 1914. The biggest confusion has to be that the names of stuff constantly evolves. Folks were flying all of the maneuvers and tactics described in current publications in 1943 (with the exception of vertical extensions going up) but they certainly weren't calling them by their modern names.

Here is the url for the T-45 Strike p-pubs page

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs/ppub_t45_str.htm

Lots of T-45 stuff there...not just ACM.

 I stole from Shaw liberally (with permission...he is a nice guy) rewriting down to a more layman level when I was developing training materials a decade ago in Warbirds.

All of the Navy stuff that is out there now has me revising my training website I started several years back, stealing liberally from the Navy (again). I'm building a lesson by lesson approach going from setting up views through primary manuevers, formations, BFM, 1 v 1 high aspect ACM and on into many plane engagements.

I'll post a link to it when I get it fairly squared away through BFM.

[Murdr]

Folks were flying all of the maneuvers and tactics described in current publications in 1943 (with the exception of vertical extensions going up)

I couldn't help but immediatly recall Bud Anderson recounting what was essentially trading vertical extentions with a 109   From his point of view though, he was doing the only thing he could think of to stay out of guns (ie. it just happend as opposed to being a premeditated tactic).

[Murdr]

I would have posted my own material that I have taught for over a decade but I thought you would accept the US Navy a little more readily.

I looked in the Navy and Air Force materials I had on hand first, but I figured that identical plane diagrams might be the best way to remove any ambiguity about it.