Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests

[thorsim]

well then why would the pilot choose that approach?  far more often than not i see E+ planes abandoning their energy advantage for a park and squat turn fight.  in ACM the slower fighter almost always has the advantage in that fight in the first place.  that is the relationship energy/maneuver if you got the speed keep it because the slower plane has the turn advantage. 

very rarely does a plane have both and even more rarely when they are as similar as the planes were in WW-2.

if the relationship held true the way physics says it most often should they why are guys swimming up stream and getting away with it?

especially the boom and zoomers?

it goes against Shaw and Boyd and every other expert all the way back to Boelcke.

anyway this is going round and round if you guys can't understand this then you are too far behind for me to try and catch you up here.

once again, until next time.

+S+

t     

You're all sorts of wrong with this statement.

A- "unsuspecting spit" implies what?  If I can drop onto an "unsuspecting spit" in almost any plane I shouldn't have to worry about him flying circles around me...  If he's unsuspecting because he's not paying attention, he may not even turn, and if he does, why would I expect him to out-turn me (in an F4U, in this argument)?  If he's unsuspecting because I can surprise him with a brief turning advantage in the right situation, I also don't need to worry about him flying circles around me then either...

Now, if I saddle up, and don't make a quick kill, then guess what?  He can fly around the circle quicker, and I'm going to die if I allow that.  No amount of flaps will save me in that situation, and actually, the incorrect or overuse of flaps is probably what got me in that situation to begin with...  Low, slow, flat turning, and flaps out will favor the spit (or a multitude of other AC) over the F4U.  Regardless of the turn radius, the turn rates will come into effect, big time.

For that matter, the F4U (or any other flap-using American plane) that drops flaps and gets slow is fairly easy pickings for a whole lot of planes (even the German ones).  Possibly not easy pickings for a whole lot of pilots, but that's not the fault of the plane or the FM.

[Chalenge]

Lol... so its us that are behind the curve. 

[Lusche]

well then why would the pilot choose that approach?  far more often than not i see E+ planes abandoning their energy advantage for a park and squat turn fight. 

You should take into account that the vast majority of players in AH has not much knowledge about ACM, or do have the "nerves" patience to apply their rudimentary knowledge all the time. The average player is indeed more like a point & shoot guy.

Also, many of the "better" cartoon pilots find going in and trying to dogfight even with a more maneuverable enemy way more fun than winning all fights by careful BnZming their opposition. After all, like said before: Planes are free.


Your own stats may give some hint in the same direction: Your K/D is very above-average, your K/H is quite...uhm... low. It seems like you really trying to fly "smart" & stay alive. Many, if not most players do find that boring or can't  do that - see above. That's why their K/D is way lower, but K/H is much higher.

it goes against Shaw and Boyd and every other expert all the way back to Boelcke.

Those guys were flying or training for a real war. And how many of our sqeakin'  5000+ players have ever read what those experts wrote... or even heard about them?


Players are not using the planes "wrong" because they have to - they do it because they want to, or can't do at all.

[thorsim]

See Rule #4

[thorsim]

yes i am familiar with the OODA loop, are you familiar with E/M and AAS?  then you know how unlikely it should be that a decent spit pilot would loose to a boston III.  

so clearly the game is it's own reality.

as far as the we are better at our make believe planes than the real guys were at their real ones.  
i have heard that argument before and it still sounds the same.  

i suggest that if you can do something in your fake Boston III that the real guys couldn't in the real ones the reason lies in the relative situations and not the relative talents.
(BTW you can apply that to any FM/real aircraft relationship IMO)

regards back,

t  

The game is its own reality... You need to grasp that.

I can take a Boston III into a dogfight (dueling as well) against a Spit8, and win more than 90% of the time. That's a reality. Can a Boston out-turn a Spitfire Mk.8? Not even close... For example a typical difference could be that I can fly that Boston to the absolute edge of its flight envelope, while 90% of the players in the game can't even come close to attaining the limits of their Spitfire. Adding to their dilemma is being freaked-out that they have to fight for their life against a medium bomber in the first place. That psychological edge should not be underestimated. That's part of the game reality too. Getting inside the other guy's head is part of the reality. Are you familiar with John Boyd's OODA loop?

BFM and ACM skills, rock solid SA, complete knowledge and understanding of all aircraft capabilities and good tactical sense... Add to this aggressiveness. These are the things that enable pilots/players to fight and win engagements in a manner counter-intuitive to accepted norms.

Another factor touched on is experience. A player who logs 100 hours a month for 5 years will have 6,000 hours of combat experience and probably more than 20,000 engagements. Some players have been in this game much longer than that. Compare that to the typical WWII pilot with 300 total hours in fighters and a tiny number of actual engagements. This difference in experience is mind boggling. That difference is seen in how they are able to do things a WWII pilot would think impossible. Now, add in the fact that being shot down is without the slightest penalty and you have the reality that is Aces High.


My regards,

Widewing

[Lusche]

then you know how unlikely it should be that a decent spit pilot would loose to a boston III.

In AH, a decent Spit pilot doesn't loose to a Boston III, unless being very handicapped by other factors.

Most players are not decent. The quote of decent pilots in spits even lower. Other way round, it's often the better players that do try to fly a Boston in a A2A role, just because way more difficult.
If you see a Boston III aggressively attacking you, the chances are quite high it's a good virtual pilot. But still, if you are the same, you will win.


BTW, last tour Spits got 55 kills on Boston III's and were killed 6 times by then...

[thorsim]

that was wildewings example take it up with him as i am as confused about that as you are.

+S+

t

In AH, a decent Spit pilot doesn't loose to a Boston III, unless being very handicapped by other factors.

Most players are not decent. The quote of decent pilots in spits even lower. Other way round, it's often the better players that do try to fly a Boston in a A2A role, just because way more difficult.
If you see a Boston III aggressively attacking you, the chances are quite high it's a good virtual pilot. But still, if you are the same, you will win.


BTW, last tour Spits got 55 kills on Boston III's and were killed 6 times by then...

[Murdr]

It's funny how it's never a case of superior knowledge of fight geometry, or siezing a brief opportunity...It's always "you cheated" or "the FM is porked" when someone pulls off a victory that shouldn't have happened in theory.  Then when a few get good at that, everybody want to try their hand at it...then it's definately the FM.

[Lusche]

that was wildewings example take it up with him as i am as confused about that as you are.

Where do you see me confused?

[boomerlu]

What's the problem here? Planes being able to win in situations that they shouldn't be able to in real life?

I still remember when I first started AH - the one phrase that stuck out in my mind was "It's the pilot not the plane."

There any number of explanations for why a Spit8 would lose to e.g. a Boston III in AH
1) The Spit8 pilot isn't flying the plane to its limits.
2) The Boston III got a clean shot and got the kill before the Spit's turn advantage could even come into play.
3) The Spit8 pilot does fly his plane to the limits, but the Boston III uses superior ACM (turning in the vertical, energy management, etc) to get a few clean shots to get the kill.

There are any number of explanations for why a Boston III would lose in real life
1) The Boston pilot is not at all trained in ACM.
2) The Boston pilot is scared to even engage.
3) The Boston pilot can't sustain as many Gs as the Spit pilot because he never has to train for them.
4) Maybe the Boston had no flight harness so it could not pull most BFM maneuvers (else the pilot would be thrown out of his chair). This could apply to the rest of the flightcrew as well.
5) From what I've seen in AH, the Boston uses a ring and bead sight, making good gunnery under hard maneuvering exceeindgly difficult in real life.

So here we have 8 reasonable explanations for why AH deviates from what you expect in real life. But I invite you to look closer: if any of the 3 explanations for why the AH Boston wins were actually true in real life, the RL Boston would still win. Likewise, if any of the explanations for why the RL Boston loses were actually true in AH, then the AH Boston would also lose. Furthermore, not ONE of these explanations invalidates the flight model.

Remember, when we say "it's the pilot not the plane", you have to consider the whole brain->flight stick signal path. AH's signal path is a lot cleaner and more reliable than the one pilots had in real life.

[Chalenge]

Where do you see me confused?

Its always going to be the same story with this guy. Its your fault its your job to do more research and its not his job to show you anything. You are too far behind the curve to catch on anyway! 

Instant thread killer now all he has to do is show up and post and its game over man! 

[mtnman]

well then why would the pilot choose that approach?  far more often than not i see E+ planes abandoning their energy advantage for a park and squat turn fight.  in ACM the slower fighter almost always has the advantage in that fight in the first place.  that is the relationship energy/maneuver if you got the speed keep it because the slower plane has the turn advantage. 

Maybe for the challenge of it?

Anyone can hover for hours above the crowd, zip in and pick someone who's in a fight...

Where's the challenge there?  Even if it's in an A8...

[mtnman]

apparently in reading comprehension as well ...

Sheesh, resorting to that now???

Sad.

[Angus]

LOL, Widewing and his Boston.
Last time I flew the A-26, which at least has a proper Gunpack, I got killed. By a Spitfire.
But I did get kills in a Boston some whiles back.
Once I also outmaneuvered and killed a Spit and a P47, 2 vs 1, - with a TBM.
Anything can happen, and what happened there was that I met completely unskilled pilots.
Don't think Widewing can kill me in a Spit VIII though 

[Ack-Ack]

yes i am familiar with the OODA loop, are you familiar with E/M and AAS?  then you know how unlikely it should be that a decent spit pilot would loose to a boston III.

so clearly the game is it's own reality. 

You really can't comment on someone's reading comprehension when you lack that basic skill yourself.  Since you obviously didn't understand Widewing's reply the first time, here it is again.  It answers the statement in your reply that I've bolded.  I suggest reading it slowly, aloud if it helps you to understand.

I can take a Boston III into a dogfight (dueling as well) against a Spit8, and win more than 90% of the time. That's a reality. Can a Boston out-turn a Spitfire Mk.8? Not even close... For example a typical difference could be that I can fly that Boston to the absolute edge of its flight envelope, while 90% of the players in the game can't even come close to attaining the limits of their Spitfire. Adding to their dilemma is being freaked-out that they have to fight for their life against a medium bomber in the first place. That psychological edge should not be underestimated. That's part of the game reality too. Getting inside the other guy's head is part of the reality. Are you familiar with John Boyd's OODA loop?

BFM and ACM skills, rock solid SA, complete knowledge and understanding of all aircraft capabilities and good tactical sense... Add to this aggressiveness. These are the things that enable pilots/players to fight and win engagements in a manner counter-intuitive to accepted norms.

Another factor touched on is experience. A player who logs 100 hours a month for 5 years will have 6,000 hours of combat experience and probably more than 20,000 engagements. Some players have been in this game much longer than that. Compare that to the typical WWII pilot with 300 total hours in fighters and a tiny number of actual engagements. This difference in experience is mind boggling. That difference is seen in how they are able to do things a WWII pilot would think impossible. Now, add in the fact that being shot down is without the slightest penalty and you have the reality that is Aces High.

My regards,

Widewing

as far as the we are better at our make believe planes than the real guys were at their real ones.  
i have heard that argument before and it still sounds the same.

i suggest that if you can do something in your fake Boston III that the real guys couldn't in the real ones the reason lies in the relative situations and not the relative talents.
(BTW you can apply that to any FM/real aircraft relationship IMO)

regards back,

t  

Read Widewing's previous post again.  He didn't do anything that the Boston III was incapable of, he encountered a pilot of lesser skill that just happened to be flying a good fighter.  Now, we all know that the majority of the time, it's the pilot and not the plane that is the deciding factor and this is a classic example of such a case.  There was nothing wrong in the flight model that allowed Widewing to come out on top over a Spitfire in a Boston.  The problem was the Spitfire pilot wasn't very good and paid the price by being shot down.

This evening in the MW arena, I was bounced by two Ki-61s that had both altitude and energy advantage while I was on the deck in a P-38J.  A 5 minute angles fight ensued with me coming out on top, downing both Ki-61s.  How could a P-38J beat two Tonys on the deck in an angles fight?  Easy, the P-38J pilot was better than the two Ki-61 pilots and I was able to exploit the strengths of my plane while at the same time exploiting the weaknesses of theirs and negating their strengths.  According to you, this would only be possible if there was something wrong in the flight model and not due to lack of skill and/or inexperience.

Now, lets say I was to encounter you in a FW190A-8 co-altitude and energy in my P-38J.  After I shot you down, would you immediately claim it was due to bad flight modeling or chalk it up that you just ran into a better and more experienced player?


ack-ack