how do you beat the luftberry?

[trotter]

I did not refer to turn radius. I referred to turn rate.

<S>

Where are you getting your turn rate data? And - this turn rate data - at what speed is it representative of?

[trotter]

Turn "rate" data is inherently counter-intuitive in a luftberry discussion. Luftberry is sustained. Turn rate is instantaneous.

[BnZs]

Turn "rate" data is inherently counter-intuitive in a luftberry discussion. Luftberry is sustained. Turn rate is instantaneous.

Uh, no...planes do have a maximum possible turn rate we call "instantaneous", which they cannot sustain. But they will also have a lower best rate of turn which they can sustain. And turn rate is a bigger factor in a nose-to-tail chase (of which, two fellows chasing each oter in a left Luftberry in an example) than turn radius.

[BnZs]

Steve, if you can restrain yourself from accusing me of being mistaken when I am not, and from calling a post of mine which any high school graduate can understand over-complicated, then I can restrain myself from tediously explaining, using small words and pictures, why I am neither mistaken nor over-complicating the issue. If not, then my compulsion will tend to get the best of me.

The fact is, he asked how to defeat a lufberry.  He did not ask hot to regain angles and E after he chopped throttle so the low yo yo does not apply. You are arguing for arguments sake, which is your MO.  Waste someone else's time, you'll get no more of mine. Ignored.

[trotter]

Uh, no...planes do have a maximum possible turn rate we call "instantaneous", which they cannot sustain. But they will also have a lower best rate of turn which they can sustain. And turn rate is a bigger factor in a nose-to-tail chase (of which, two fellows chasing each oter in a left Luftberry in an example) than turn radius.

Unless I am grossly misinformed (which actually is quite possible), "turn rate" cannot be two things at once. As you explained, yes, "turn rate" is instantaneous turn rate. To explain the sustained turning ability of an aircraft, we call it "turn radius". Am I wrong? Again, I could be, I'm honestly asking.

Does not make sense to me that the term "turn rate" would be instantaneous turn rate in one case, and then it would also be sustained turn rate whenever it fits BnZs' argument.

Think about two fellows chasing each other in a Luftberry. What's more important...turn rate and getting around for a "one pull of the trigger" shot, or turn radius and winning the nose over advantage for multiple pulls of the trigger? Again, I still believe that radius trumps rate in Luftberry. But perhaps I am wrong.

[BnZs]

Unless I am grossly misinformed (which actually is quite possible), "turn rate" cannot be two things at once. As you explained, yes, "turn rate" is instantaneous turn rate. To explain the sustained turning ability of an aircraft, we call it "turn radius". Am I wrong? Again, I could be, I'm honestly asking.

Turn rate refers to how quickly the airplane is turning, usually given in degrees per second. According to Mosq's data, the Spit16 seems to have the slight edge over the FM2 here. Turn radius refers to how small a circle it is making while doing so.

Think about two fellows chasing each other in a Luftberry. What's more important...turn rate and getting around for a "one pull of the trigger" shot, or turn radius and winning the nose over advantage for multiple pulls of the trigger? Again, I still believe that radius trumps rate in Luftberry. But perhaps I am wrong.

Two planes in a sustained nose-to-tail chase like this, the airplane with the better sustained rate is slowly gaining angles, even if the other has somewhat better radius.

[trotter]

Ok, I guess I am mistakenly substituting the term "turn radius" for "sustained turn rate". I suppose I had the terminology wrong. But I'd still like to see MOSQ's data on this (not that I'm saying you're being untruthful, just curious). Because I can't imagine a Spit16 beating an FM2 in sustained turn rate, unless the calculation in question takes into account horsepower relative to weight/climb rate/pilot skill. With these factors it's possible, even likely, for a Spit 16 to win against an FM2 once a luftberry is initiated. But with equal pilots in a straight luftberry, I just can't see at all how the Spit16 has a chance.

[Saxman]

Two planes in a sustained nose-to-tail chase like this, the airplane with the better sustained rate is slowly gaining angles, even if the other has somewhat better radius.

Doesn't there come a point where the turn rate advantage is so marginal that the tighter turning radius takes over?

[Masherbrum]

The fact is, he asked how to defeat a lufberry.  He did not ask hot to regain angles and E after he chopped throttle so the low yo yo does not apply. You are arguing for arguments sake, which is your MO.  Waste someone else's time, you'll get no more of mine. Ignored.

Yep.

[Anaxogoras]

My excel sheet shows the SpitXVI and FM2 very close in turn rate.

Time to complete a sustained-turn 360 on the deck with 75% fuel:

FM2: 16.63s
XVI:  15.77s

By the numbers, the XVI out turns the FM-2.  Remember that the vast majority of XVI pilots you run into don't have a clue, but when you run into one that does the XVI's perkability really shines through.

----------

Edit: watched the film.  That XVI pilot is one of those guys who always flies the XVI, but is still not very good.  If I had been in his shoes I would've used my superior climbrate right from the beginning.

If I were the FM-2 pilot I would be careful about using flaps.  With such a poor thrust/drag ratio split flaps somtimes do more harm than good.

[caldera]

Thank you all for your replies.   Maybe I was thinking that the FM2 was was such a superior turner - that made me keep slowing down. I just kept going slower, figuring I'd be around on him soon. I can see now how dumb that was. Good advice to keep on the gas. I do keep the stall limiter on. I've only flown without it twice and I dropped like a rock. I'm not sure I want to relearn to fly just to get a slight turn advantage. I think tactics (or lack thereof as displayed in the film) are a much bigger determinant of the fight. I think I lose many more fights because of bad decisions rather than aircraft performance.

[Lusche]

Thank you all for your replies.   Maybe I was thinking that the FM2 was was such a superior turner - that made me keep slowing down. I just kept going slower, figuring I'd be around on him soon. I can see now how dumb that was. Good advice to keep on the gas. I do keep the stall limiter on. I've only flown without it twice and I dropped like a rock. I'm not sure I want to relearn to fly just to get a slight turn advantage.

It may seem only as a slight advantage at first glance, but in many turnfights, having stall limiter on or off makes all the difference between cartoon life & cartoon death.
Disable it. Give yourself a week or two of getting used to it. Come to the TA to practice flying at the limits of your plane.

[Anaxogoras]

Holy smokes!  Turn that stall limiter off!

[PFactorDave]

Holy smokes!  Turn that stall limiter off!

+eleventy billion

Really, just give yourself time to get used to having it off and you'll never want to turn it back on.

[MajWoody]

You are severely limiting your planes capabilities by flying with the stall limiter on. I flew with it on for the first 6 months when I started. It was on by default & I didn't even know about it. I was advised to turn it off & try it. I did so & crashed a lot for a week or two but once I learned to listen to the stall horn it reduced the auger factor considerably. The longer you fly with it on the harder it will be to make the adjustment to flying without it.