Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[BiPoLaR]

Voss's F-15 or 16 (cant remember) and Adonai's FA/18  

Throw a scorpion in the mix and you have the best plane vs plane EVER

[warphoenix]

maybe i should use the word inertia rather than momentum but what i am getting at is these ...

when you move the controls the forces on the control surfaces move the aircraft this is not an instant thing i.e. full stick left does not result in full roll left instantly, there is a lag as the mass of the aircraft gains momentum.  reverse the input instantly and there is more lag as there is more opposing inertia to overcome by the forces on the control surfaces.  the more inertia the more time is lost.  

planes skid, throttle changes do not result instantly in increased speed, roll are not reversed instantly even in good rolling aircraft, i think the smaller lighter planes have an easier time with all these things simply because they have less inertia to be moved around by the fluid air and the force it can apply.  

control surfaces, props, and airframes are not 100% efficient, extreme input changes do not result in extreme direction changes instantly and the more inertia or momentum to over come, the more delay there will be while these things over come the inertia of the aircraft.  i think smaller lighter aircraft are "quicker" or more nimble because they are dealing with less inertia, and that has real word consequences for over all maneuverability.  

why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?

get a life!!!!

[CAP1]

maybe i should use the word inertia rather than momentum but what i am getting at is these ...

when you move the controls the forces on the control surfaces move the aircraft this is not an instant thing i.e. full stick left does not result in full roll left instantly, there is a lag as the mass of the aircraft gains momentum.  reverse the input instantly and there is more lag as there is more opposing inertia to overcome by the forces on the control surfaces.  the more inertia the more time is lost.  

planes skid, throttle changes do not result instantly in increased speed, roll are not reversed instantly even in good rolling aircraft, i think the smaller lighter planes have an easier time with all these things simply because they have less inertia to be moved around by the fluid air and the force it can apply.  

control surfaces, props, and airframes are not 100% efficient, extreme input changes do not result in extreme direction changes instantly and the more inertia or momentum to over come, the more delay there will be while these things over come the inertia of the aircraft.  i think smaller lighter aircraft are "quicker" or more nimble because they are dealing with less inertia, and that has real word consequences for over all maneuverability.  

why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?

 i think i understand where you're trying to go.

 you think that because(i'm using these as examples, because i've flown both in here) the p38 is in the ballpark of 11,000 pounds, with a 54' wingspan, that it cannot possibly turn even momentarily with a hurri2c, weighing about 7,000 pounds with a wingspan of about 35'?

 the hurri rolls much more crisply than the 38. it can pull a tigher flat turn.....with ease. but suppose that 38 is 600 on your 6, you're both doing around 300 mph flat and level.  you roll 90 degrees right, and pull hard, into blackout. the 38 driver sees your aielrons deflect, sees your hurri start to roll. he knows without a doubt, that should he try to follow, he will lose.
 so what is he to do? he pulls back slightly on the yoke, as he applies some right aileron, climbing, bleeding speed, keeping you in sight. since he's now tilted the lift vector of his 38 some 30 degrees off of the vertical, he's turning along with you. now, you lighten up your turn, to avoid bleeding too much "E", and the 38 driver kicks a little right rudder, dragging his nose down. now he's accelerating hard, and closing right onto your 6 again. 
 
 now, naturally, since he only gained a few hundred feet, it wasn't very obvious to you, so you think he MUST be doing something gamy. you try it in the other direction, and get the same result.

 this is part of what a lot of people are trying to tell you. you cannot take any single piece, and proclaim something is wrong. we all use all we have to try to win the fight in our cartoon airplanes.

 i've had guys in fw's try a forward slip to force me to overshoot em. it's worked a few times, as it's hard to recognize(to me anyway) before you've already blown by him.

 try thinking in 3 dimensions, not 2. it is much harder than it sounds.

[BnZs]

Roll rate, like everything else, will be defined by the ratio of aerodynamic forces the ailerons can bring to bear vrs. the inertia forces resisting roll.  The same can be said of of pitch or yaw authority. (In the case of pitch authority, *any* fighter with its elevators operating in design speed range will be able to put on Gs faster than the pilot can stand. Or stall the aircraft, depending on how far above/below corner the a/c is.) And again, it is proportional...larger airplanes have larger control surfaces and thus bring more force to bear. Again, across the size range of WWII airplanes there is no indication whatsoever of any phenomenon like you describe. The massive P-47 was a quick roller (could reverse rolls back and forth quick enough to confound a Spit9 with a full-length wing, per Bob Johnson's mock dogfight) and was light in stick forces per G. The 190 was also notably larger than Spitfires, Laggs, etc, and was possibly the fastest roller of WWII.

Acceleration will be defined by thrust-loading...period. Skidding and slipping both refer to uncoordinated turns and has not a thing to do with aircraft size, weight, inertia, or anything of that nature.

Again you see "I think" without the slightest shred of evidence, or reference to aerodynamics/physics, which you show not the slightest sign of ever having studied even slightly. This means absolutely nothing. You could "think" heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones and it would not make it true.

maybe i should use the word inertia rather than momentum but what i am getting at is these ...

when you move the controls the forces on the control surfaces move the aircraft this is not an instant thing i.e. full stick left does not result in full roll left instantly, there is a lag as the mass of the aircraft gains momentum.  reverse the input instantly and there is more lag as there is more opposing inertia to overcome by the forces on the control surfaces.  the more inertia the more time is lost.  

planes skid, throttle changes do not result instantly in increased speed, roll are not reversed instantly even in good rolling aircraft, i think the smaller lighter planes have an easier time with all these things simply because they have less inertia to be moved around by the fluid air and the force it can apply.  

control surfaces, props, and airframes are not 100% efficient, extreme input changes do not result in extreme direction changes instantly and the more inertia or momentum to over come, the more delay there will be while these things over come the inertia of the aircraft.  i think smaller lighter aircraft are "quicker" or more nimble because they are dealing with less inertia, and that has real word consequences for over all maneuverability.  

why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?

Because if you are describing any physical phenomenon that actually exists it can be defined mathematically, and in the case of aerodynamics, HAS been defined mathematically over the last 100 years or so. You do realize you have been disagreeing with students of aerodynamic science, pilots, and in a few cases aeronautical engineers in this thread?

[CAP1]

Roll rate, like everything else, will be defined by the ratio of aerodynamic forces the ailerons can bring to bear vrs. the inertia forces resisting roll.  The same can be said of of pitch or yaw authority. (In the case of pitch authority, *any* fighter with its elevators operating in design speed range will be able to put on Gs faster than the pilot can stand. Or stall the aircraft, depending on how far above/below corner the a/c is.) And again, it is proportional...larger airplanes have larger control surfaces and thus bring more force to bear. Again, across the size range of WWII airplanes there is no indication whatsoever of any phenomenon like you describe. The massive P-47 was a quick roller (could reverse rolls back and forth quick enough to confound a Spit9 with a full-length wing, per Bob Johnson's mock dogfight) and was light in stick forces per G. The 190 was also notably larger than Spitfires, Laggs, etc, and was possibly the fastest roller of WWII.

Acceleration will be defined by thrust-loading...period. Skidding and slipping both refer to uncoordinated turns and has not a thing to do with aircraft size, weight, inertia, or anything of that nature.

Again you see "I think" without the slightest shred of evidence, or reference to aerodynamics/physics, which you show not the slightest sign of ever having studied even slightly. This means absolutely nothing. You could "think" heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones and it would not make it true.

Because if you are describing any physical phenomenon that actually exists it can be defined mathematically, and in the case of aerodynamics, HAS been defined mathematically over the last 100 years or so. You do realize you have been disagreeing with students of aerodynamic science, pilots, and in a few cases aeronautical engineers in this thread?

you mentioned the elevator pulling the aircraft into a stall. this is for thor.......do you know what AoA the wing will stall at? and what causes it to stall?

 this is for the rest of you guys.....i know the AoA for the wing of the average GA aircraft to stall. are our ww2 fighters the same?

[Baumer]

why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?

  Really? 

If only the smaller, lighter ship (with less momentum / inertia / whatever's next) was more maneuverable this could have been avoided.

[thorsim]

you say 2x size weight same loadings same flight character, fine.

i would like to see it.

Roll rate, like everything else, will be defined by the ratio of aerodynamic forces the ailerons can bring to bear vrs. the inertia forces resisting roll.  The same can be said of of pitch or yaw authority. (In the case of pitch authority, *any* fighter with its elevators operating in design speed range will be able to put on Gs faster than the pilot can stand. Or stall the aircraft, depending on how far above/below corner the a/c is.) And again, it is proportional...larger airplanes have larger control surfaces and thus bring more force to bear. Again, across the size range of WWII airplanes there is no indication whatsoever of any phenomenon like you describe. The massive P-47 was a quick roller (could reverse rolls back and forth quick enough to confound a Spit9 with a full-length wing, per Bob Johnson's mock dogfight) and was light in stick forces per G. The 190 was also notably larger than Spitfires, Laggs, etc, and was possibly the fastest roller of WWII.

Acceleration will be defined by thrust-loading...period. Skidding and slipping both refer to uncoordinated turns and has not a thing to do with aircraft size, weight, inertia, or anything of that nature.

Again you see "I think" without the slightest shred of evidence, or reference to aerodynamics/physics, which you show not the slightest sign of ever having studied even slightly. This means absolutely nothing. You could "think" heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones and it would not make it true.

Because if you are describing any physical phenomenon that actually exists it can be defined mathematically, and in the case of aerodynamics, HAS been defined mathematically over the last 100 years or so. You do realize you have been disagreeing with students of aerodynamic science, pilots, and in a few cases aeronautical engineers in this thread?

cap no offense i don't think you get it at all, what we are discussing that is, or i can't see the connection to the discussion and your last post. BTW i understand lag pursuits, and or high yoyos whichever you are trying to describe, but thanks for trying ...

i think i understand where you're trying to go.

 you think that because(i'm using these as examples, because i've flown both in here) the p38 is in the ballpark of 11,000 pounds, with a 54' wingspan, that it cannot possibly turn even momentarily with a hurri2c, weighing about 7,000 pounds with a wingspan of about 35'?

 the hurri rolls much more crisply than the 38. it can pull a tigher flat turn.....with ease. but suppose that 38 is 600 on your 6, you're both doing around 300 mph flat and level.  you roll 90 degrees right, and pull hard, into blackout. the 38 driver sees your aielrons deflect, sees your hurri start to roll. he knows without a doubt, that should he try to follow, he will lose.
 so what is he to do? he pulls back slightly on the yoke, as he applies some right aileron, climbing, bleeding speed, keeping you in sight. since he's now tilted the lift vector of his 38 some 30 degrees off of the vertical, he's turning along with you. now, you lighten up your turn, to avoid bleeding too much "E", and the 38 driver kicks a little right rudder, dragging his nose down. now he's accelerating hard, and closing right onto your 6 again. 
 
 now, naturally, since he only gained a few hundred feet, it wasn't very obvious to you, so you think he MUST be doing something gamy. you try it in the other direction, and get the same result.

 this is part of what a lot of people are trying to tell you. you cannot take any single piece, and proclaim something is wrong. we all use all we have to try to win the fight in our cartoon airplanes.

 i've had guys in fw's try a forward slip to force me to overshoot em. it's worked a few times, as it's hard to recognize(to me anyway) before you've already blown by him.

 try thinking in 3 dimensions, not 2. it is much harder than it sounds.

to the rest of you, i am sorry i just don't think you can scale a plane 2x and get the same performance.

i am tired of this conversation ...

+S+

t

p.s. nice boats baumer, and in the turn fight my money is still on the smaller one,

nice t-bone though i get spitties like that in my a8 all the time.   

 

[BnZs]

you say 2x size weight same loadings same flight character, fine.

i would like to see it.

We know there are planes which turn better than massively lighter planes. IOW, turn rate and radius does not track with size.

We know that roll rates don't track with size.

We know that control forces (on the scale of WWII fighters) don't track with size.

We know acceleration does not track with size.

So again, I wonder what effect you are looking for?


 

[cattb]

We know there are planes which turn better than massively lighter planes. IOW, turn rate and radius does not track with size.

We know that roll rates don't track with size.

We know that control forces (on the scale of WWII fighters) don't track with size.

We know acceleration does not track with size.

So again, I wonder what effect you are looking for?


 

hes looking for attention didn't get enough when he was little 

[CAP1]

you say 2x size weight same loadings same flight character, fine.

i would like to see it.

cap no offense i don't think you get it at all, what we are discussing that is, or i can't see the connection to the discussion and your last post. BTW i understand lag pursuits, and or high yoyos whichever you are trying to describe, but thanks for trying ...

to the rest of you, i am sorry i just don't think you can scale a plane 2x and get the same performance.

i am tired of this conversation ...

+S+

t

p.s. nice boats baumer, and in the turn fight my money is still on the smaller one,

nice t-bone though i get spitties like that in my a8 all the time.   

 

i got the impression that you believe it to be virtually impossible for a larger heavier aircraft to turn with a smaller lighter aircraft.
 what i described allowed the larger aircraft to turn with the smaller one, with ease.

[dedalos]

Hey, I have a question too.

F4U-1D vs NIKI
F4U-1D vs Zero

On the deck going in circles but not full flaps yet.  At what speed do the two planes need to be in order for the F4U to be able to get guns on them?  Lets say the planes are on opposite sides of a circle.  Only flat turns allowed.

[Vinkman]

you say 2x size weight same loadings same flight character, fine.

i would like to see it.
to the rest of you, i am sorry i just don't think you can scale a plane 2x and get the same performance.

 

Thor, Do you accept from expert opinion and everything you've heard that the Fw-190 has the highest roll rate of any warbird by a large margin?  If so, note that an Fw-190-A8 weighs in at 7060 lbs empty and an A6m zero weighs 3704 lbs. The 190 is nearly twice the weight, but has a higher roll rate?
The answer is that the 190 as much larger Aelerons which result in Force-to -nertia ratio (about the roll axis) that is higher than the Zero's. There is no 'lag' or other phantom physical property that is not accounted for that changes the result.

Everyone is running out of ways to teach you about physics, which by the way was invented to describe events in the real world. If it didn't work, they wouldn't call them the LAWs of physics. So what I'm going to do is copy your posts and send them to the guy in the video that you posted about the effects of weight on his race plane and see if he agrees with any of what you state. If he disagrees with you, will you accept his answer?

[warphoenix]

F4U-1D vs NIKI= f4u takes the punishment award for being heavilly armored and also takes dive speed and armament award but niki takes agiltity award and climb rate award=either way
F4U-1D vs Zero=same as last

[dedalos]

F4U-1D vs NIKI= f4u takes the punishment award for being heavilly armored and also takes dive speed and armament award but niki takes agiltity award and climb rate award=either way
F4U-1D vs Zero=same as last

mmmmmk, how about my question though

[Ack-Ack]

Hey, I have a question too.

F4U-1D vs NIKI
F4U-1D vs Zero

On the deck going in circles but not full flaps yet.  At what speed do the two planes need to be in order for the F4U to be able to get guns on them?  Lets say the planes are on opposite sides of a circle.  Only flat turns allowed.

The Corsair could get as slow as it wants but it's never going to be able to gain an angle on a Zeke in a luftberry turn fight at low speeds.  If the fight was a two circle high speed fight (above 300mph IAS) the Corsair might get a fleeting angle on the Zeke but as the speeds decrease, the pendulum swings in the Zekes favor the slower the luftberry turn fight gets.  I would imagine the same for the N1K2 in a flat luftberry turn fight, at medium to low speeds the odds favor the N1K2 with the odds swinging in the Corsair's favor at higher speeds.

I don't know where warphoenix gets the F4U-1D has the edge over the N1K2 in the guns area, the gun package on the N1K2 is better than the .50 cal package of the F4U-1D.


ack-ack