Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[humble]

Hmmmm....

The basic premise that you don't argue with a moron still holds true...so why do you bother to argue HT? It's not like you have magic moron begone pixie dust...or do you:)?

[hitech]

Hmmmm....

The basic premise that you don't argue with a moron still holds true...so why do you bother to argue HT? It's not like you have magic moron begone pixie dust...or do you:)?

Simply because it is some what true that if you repeat a false hood enough times with out being contradicted, some people will believe the false hood is true.
So in time the rep of the moron is shown, the next step is they normally they keep digging the hole deep enough where the pixie begone dust works it's magic. It needs the heat of the earth core (around 1,000,000 ) to work.

HiTech

[thorsim]

Thor you again post that a lighter plane should slow down less and turn better.

We gave you all the numbers to show that weight alone means nothing in flight performance. I will give you all the math again if you wish, but we have before and it still will not make any difference. You refuse to believe basic physics.

And hence why the debate about performance is completely over, because it is YOU who no longer has any valid argument that people agree with.

With you is like I make the statement If x = y and y = z, then x = z. You state clearly that you believe x does not = z.

Hence why try discuss anything with you.

So again what do you believe is wrong with any model? But be precise please and only make 1 claim at a time. If you try simply state that plane X should preform better because it is lighter, sorry it will not be worth answering.


HiTech

gentlemen where have i said that weight is the only factor?  
my argument all along on the weight issue has been that weight is a factor in itself.
your arguments are valid, however i am not the ones questioning the validity of peoples arguments.

my point has been that weight is a factor in and of itself and i suspect that you can find no pertinent real world examples to support your math that you say proves weight is not a factor by itself because of the real world engineering scaling problems.

that is why you will never find a real world pilot/expert that will side with the original arguments i find fault with in this case the preference for a maneuver fight for the f4u over a 109 ...

your isolated math arguments although effective for these discussions just do not translate to the real world.

that is why weight is so important to the racers, and that is why you can not post an expert real world opinion that differs from mine or the experts in the videos i have posted even after 4 months.

hitech these are general discussions, i have not addressed a flight model here. i have on a side bar disagreed with those who feel that extreme size and weight disadvantages can be effectively be compensated for within the limits of WW2 aircraft.

as far as what i feel is wrong with any particular FMs i disagree with the efficiency of your flaps in the game and the consequences of that.  as you well know the documented testing of these things are not easy to find for all the planes or even enough of them to make comparisons ...

i did also point out that your criteria for who can use their flaps when was IMO flawed because they are not purely engineering sources.  you have been shown some data and accounts that support using force loads is a better way to determine those limits for the game.  

in the process of these discussions i have been repeatedly insulted and censored here, so as i posted before if you really want to have a discussion about this start a discussion in AGW where we can express ourselves on even terms.

you all can think whatever you want about me but what i am is a MMOL WW2 ACM Game fan, new here but a 12 year veteran of the genere.  well respected by many other well respected members of the Genre.  one who expresses his opinions and known to be well informed and if stubborn in perception also known for recognizing his own mistakes openly and publicly.  on the current issues ...

nobody has produced a convincing enough case for WW2 planes twice as heavy or more having the advantage in maneuver fights as so many claim here for me to retract my public suspicions about these things.

nobody has shown any real reason for the flap speed situation other than what IMO are obvious policy decisions by the respective operating air-forces and IMO should be able to be ignored by us players the same way they were ignored by the pilots historically.

if and when those things come to light i will amaze you with the grace that i make my retractions,
however until then i will defend my points with the same ferocity that others attack them with,
without the personal attacks and limited sarcasm as they are not tolerated here from me.

thank you for indulging my review ...

+S+

t      

Plane A weighs 5000lbs and has 200 square feet of wing to carry that weight. Wingloading=25lbs foot. Abit on the light side for a WWII fighter, but let's roll with it for simplicity.

Plane B weighs 10,000lbs and has 400 square feet of wing. Again, wingloading=25 lbs/foot.

Plane A is in a 5g turn...we could say that it effectively "weighs" 25,000 lbs. now. 25,000/200=125lbs that every foot of wing must support.

Plane B is in that same 5g turn. 50,000/400=125.

I said you needed to acquaint yourself with some basic aerodynamics. Apparently you need an introduction to grade-school level math as well.

[thorsim]

People have been disagreeing with you because you've shown to be rather clueless and has yet provide any data to back up your claims.


ack-ack

i asked what, not why sir

[hitech]

Ok thor I will try one last time, but I will only debate one at a time. So I will start with.

my point has been that weight is a factor in and of itself and i suspect that you can find no pertinent real world examples to support your math that you say proves weight is not a factor by itself because of the real world engineering scaling problems.

Now quite frankly your statement is very ambiguous, so please indulge me by not debating but simply asking you to clarify/ specifies your terms. If evade the questions I ask or if you try change a definition after the fact you will have proved the point that debating with you is useless.

So to begin with.

The term "In and By its self", Most people would take this to mean a heaver planes always have a performance difference.

Is this is your definition?

HiTech

[Karnak]

From a technical standpoint...you see a bandit, you approach unseen, and blow him out the sky. 80% of the real "dogfights" you read about went that way. Similar things happen everyday in the MA.

Not really true.  You see that comment bandied about a lot, but the original statement doesn't really say what you just claimed.  People on this forum use it to claim that 80%, or whatever number they choose to use, of fighters that got shot down were flying straight and level, probably on cruise settings, when they were shot down without warning.  After all, the guy never saw the one that got him, so that is what it must mean, no?   Well, actually, no.  If you have a 12 Spitfires in a melee with 12 Bf109s  And Franz is focused on Thomas, trying to get the lead he needs to put some 20mm rounds in Thomas' Spitfire, when Robert rolls in and puts a burst of 20mm rounds into Franz's Bf109 that criteria was just met as Franz never saw Robert's Spitfire.  Franz was most definitely not flying straight and level, nor on cruise settings.



Thorsim,

In terms of turn radius mass does not matter in and of itself, and as that is what you constantly discuss you constantly get told mass does not matter in and of itself.  If you broaden the discussion to include acceleration/climb in as much as there are limits to the power offered by engines, then mass does play a role.  You are referencing the Redbull Air Races as a source in this thread, but you are taking generic comments and trying to apply them to the specific issue of turn radius and you simply cannot do that.  If this were a court trial the hostile lawyer would rip you apart on the stand for that kind of sloppiness.

[thorsim]

Ok thor I will try one last time, but I will only debate one at a time. So I will start with.

Now quite frankly your statement is very ambiguous, so please indulge me by not debating but simply asking you to clarify/ specifies your terms. If evade the questions I ask or if you try change a definition after the fact you will have proved the point that debating with you is useless.

So to begin with.

The term "In and By its self", Most people would take this to mean a heaver planes always have a performance difference.

Is this is your definition?

HiTech

no ...

in this case i expressed my doubts that weight was inconsequential in and of itself and was presented with the premise that a plane with the same loadings with 2x the size weight and power would maneuver just as well as a plane that shared those loadings with 1/2 the values.  

i once again expressed my doubts and the discussion deteriorated because we could not find any real world pertinent examples.  you pointed out the b17 i assume jokingly and as i recall BnZ tried to use the f-104 and F-15 as examples neither of which are very pertinent to the discussions for obvious reasons.  

essentially my stand is that size and weight are stand alone factors in maneuverability and that even if you could find an exact match on the loadings the maneuver advantage would still go to the smaller lighter aircraft.

as i stated before a good example without extreme advantages in one of the loadings or another was unable to be found.  

i remain rather doubtful about the ability for the heavier fighters to have hight rates of success vs. their lighter opponents in maneuver fights as some argue should be the case.  the lack of any real world expert opinions supporting the heavy fighters case in those situations reinforces my doubts in this matter.

i hope my answer helped to clarify my points and did not do harm to your intent to discuss things in parts.

[thorsim]

sir terms such as rate and radius are interjected by others.  i very much stick to the term maneuver as imo in real world ACM very few pure turns are made, in the sense that some roll and climb/dive all combine to result in a maneuver.  i am sorry if i just or ever have expressed that poorly.  i expect that absolute limits and neat turns are a rarity in ACM so that also tends to skew results.  still hoping not to be unclear and feeling i have not been successful, apologies.

Not really true.  You see that comment bandied about a lot, but the original statement doesn't really say what you just claimed.  People on this forum use it to claim that 80%, or whatever number they choose to use, of fighters that got shot down were flying straight and level, probably on cruise settings, when they were shot down without warning.  After all, the guy never saw the one that got him, so that is what it must mean, no?   Well, actually, no.  If you have a 12 Spitfires in a melee with 12 Bf109s  And Franz is focused on Thomas, trying to get the lead he needs to put some 20mm rounds in Thomas' Spitfire, when Robert rolls in and puts a burst of 20mm rounds into Franz's Bf109 that criteria was just met as Franz never saw Robert's Spitfire.  Franz was most definitely not flying straight and level, nor on cruise settings.



Thorsim,

In terms of turn radius mass does not matter in and of itself, and as that is what you constantly discuss you constantly get told mass does not matter in and of itself.  If you broaden the discussion to include acceleration/climb in as much as there are limits to the power offered by engines, then mass does play a role.  You are referencing the Redbull Air Races as a source in this thread, but you are taking generic comments and trying to apply them to the specific issue of turn radius and you simply cannot do that.  If this were a court trial the hostile lawyer would rip you apart on the stand for that kind of sloppiness.

[fudgums]

thor, do you like to make yourself look like a complete idiot?

[hitech]

no ...

in this case i expressed my doubts that weight was inconsequential in and of itself and was presented with the premise that a plane with the same loadings with 2x the size weight and power would maneuver just as well as a plane that shared those loadings with 1/2 the values.  

i once again expressed my doubts and the discussion deteriorated because we could not find any real world pertinent examples.  you pointed out the b17 i assume jokingly and as i recall BnZ tried to use the f-104 and F-15 as examples neither of which are very pertinent to the discussions for obvious reasons.  

essentially my stand is that size and weight are stand alone factors in maneuverability and that even if you could find an exact match on the loadings the maneuver advantage would still go to the smaller lighter aircraft.

as i stated before a good example without extreme advantages in one of the loadings or another was unable to be found.  

i remain rather doubtful about the ability for the heavier fighters to have hight rates of success vs. their lighter opponents in maneuver fights as some argue should be the case.  the lack of any real world expert opinions supporting the heavy fighters case in those situations reinforces my doubts in this matter.

i hope my answer helped to clarify my points and did not do harm to your intent to discuss things in parts.

I have read this 3 times, no where did you answer my question other than statement, No.

But forget the past I really do not care what happened before , we are talking your statement in this thread.
I Asked one simple question

PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self", with out you doing that I can not begin to debate, you now are using the term stand alone. Please do not bring all other bogus stuff like F15's into this example.

Maneuverability as defined by Shaw is the ability to change the direction of your Velocity vector.  

The force that changes the direction of your VEL vector is LIFT, yes Slip can do a little for you but we are not talking about minutia here.

So the simple math.

What you are trying to calculate to determine rate of tern is acceleration in the direction of the lift vector, (or perpendicular to the Vel vector);

Given the same an air foil with twice the area Lift will double at a give speed.

To be specific Lift = Ro/2 * V*V * LCO * Area.
LCO = LIft coef.
Ro = Air Density.
V = Speed.

Now simply the air foil shape and Angle of attack determine the LCO. Since we are looking at max here we in all cases we are dealing with MaxLCO which will remain the same with all airfoils.

Per the test V is not changing and we are not changing alt so Ro is not changing.

Hence since we doubled the Area.
Lift = Area in 1 case.
and Lift = Area * 2 in the 2nd case.
Hence with 2 times wing area we have 2 times the Lift.

next Acceration (I.E the turning force) is given by the simple equation.

F = M * A.
F = Force
M = Mass
A = Acceleration.

In this example the Force is our lift. So in this example and yours 1 plane has 2 times the Mass.

So Substituing for the above.

Plane 1 Lift1 = Mass1 * A or A = Lift1 / Mass1
Plane 2 Lift1 * 2 = (Mass1 * 2) * A or A = (Lift1 * 2) / (Mass1 * 2) or Can-cling the 2s A = Lift1 / Mass1.

Plane 1 A = Plane 2 A I.E. The both turn 100% the same rate.

I.E. x = y and y = z hence x = z.

So now which definition do you wish to change to fit your statement? Or do you wish to argue simple physics and math.

HiTech
For the purpose of expediency, I will assume you Mean that "In and By its self" is that adding weight will always make a plane less maneuverable.

[Sol75]

The only time weight comes into being a factor in "maneuver" is if you reference thrust to weight ratio, or inertia.  A lighter airframe, all other things being equal (t/w ratio, wing loading etc) WILL change direction faster, due to inertia.  This is well modeled in AH, reference a spit changing it's flight path, vs a hog or even more so, a 38.  However, after that initial change of flight path, the weight of the aircraft has no bearing on it's turn rate/radius, outside of it's thrust/weight ratio.

If I fly my Edge at 1700lbs, 24 foot wing, 98 sq ft wing area, 340hp engine... and I fly a double sized edge, (48 foot wing, 3400 lbs, 116 sq foot qing area, with 680 hp, if you discount prop efficiencies, airspeed differences etc, the planes will perform IDENTICALLY in terms of maneuverability etc, the only difference would be the larger edge would have more momentum, thus would lag behind the smaller in ability to change directions.

One way to think of this is to consider RC aircraft sizes.  2 planes of given model, (such as a 40 size extra, vs a 33% extra) if weight scales directly with airframe size,  will perform near IDENTICAL at the same airspeeds.  the only difference is the smaller plane is more able to change it's flightpath more quickly.  Again, after that INITIAL change of direction, they will be identical. 

[Karnak]

sir terms such as rate and radius are interjected by others.  i very much stick to the term maneuver as imo in real world ACM very few pure turns are made, in the sense that some roll and climb/dive all combine to result in a maneuver.  i am sorry if i just or ever have expressed that poorly.  i expect that absolute limits and neat turns are a rarity in ACM so that also tends to skew results.  still hoping not to be unclear and feeling i have not been successful, apologies.

You can't do that though.  It is completely useless to talk in such vague terms.  It is the equivalent of the businesspeak crap like "We are utilizing our core proficiencies to synergize our business plan."  It is a lot of meaningless words unless we refer to specifics.  There is no such thing as a generic "maneuver" term to which anything can be applied or tested.  You are essentially using your own term, which you won't define, and declaring yourself the winner.

Different maneuvers have different physic equations, and different performance aspects involved in them.  If you aren't specific, you aren't saying anything at all.

[WMLute]

Who needs links from the RedBull Air Races website when we have a player that flys the same planes as they do (the Edge540) and is trained as an acrobatic pilot.

(I meant to point you to this thread earlier today Sol.  I thought you'd get a chuckle out of it)

[thorsim]

The only time weight comes into being a factor in "maneuver" is if you reference thrust to weight ratio, or inertia.  A lighter airframe, all other things being equal (t/w ratio, wing loading etc) WILL change direction faster, due to inertia.  This is well modeled in AH, reference a spit changing it's flight path, vs a hog or even more so, a 38.  However, after that initial change of flight path, the weight of the aircraft has no bearing on it's turn rate/radius, outside of it's thrust/weight ratio.

If I fly my Edge at 1700lbs, 24 foot wing, 98 sq ft wing area, 340hp engine... and I fly a double sized edge, (48 foot wing, 3400 lbs, 116 sq foot qing area, with 680 hp, if you discount prop efficiencies, airspeed differences etc, the planes will perform IDENTICALLY in terms of maneuverability etc, the only difference would be the larger edge would have more momentum, thus would lag behind the smaller in ability to change directions.

One way to think of this is to consider RC aircraft sizes.  2 planes of given model, (such as a 40 size extra, vs a 33% extra) if weight scales directly with airframe size,  will perform near IDENTICAL at the same airspeeds.  the only difference is the smaller plane is more able to change it's flightpath more quickly.  Again, after that INITIAL change of direction, they will be identical.  

can i assume this advantage in the process of maneuvering would show up every time one executed a maneuver? so in a maneuver contest that was continuous series of one maneuver after another, could i conclude that this advantage should have some real effect on the outcome of the contest?

[thorsim]

For the purpose of expediency, I will assume you Mean that "In and By its self" is that adding weight will always make a plane less maneuverable.

that depends on what the weight is from.  adding a engine modification that weighs 100lbs but doubles your horsepower may not make a plane less maneuverable it may make it more maneuverable.

however adding a fuel tank with 2000lbs more fuel likely will make it less maneuverable.

however this is not exactly what i am talking about as you made no allowances for adjusting the wing size lift and power in proportion.

sol is on the same track as i am i think.

I have read this 3 times, no where did you answer my question other than statement, No.

But forget the past I really do not care what happened before , we are talking your statement in this thread.
I Asked one simple question

PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self", with out you doing that I can not begin to debate, you now are using the term stand alone. Please do not bring all other bogus stuff like F15's into this example.

Maneuverability as defined by Shaw is the ability to change the direction of your Velocity vector. 

The force that changes the direction of your VEL vector is LIFT, yes Slip can do a little for you but we are not talking about minutia here.

So the simple math.

What you are trying to calculate to determine rate of tern is acceleration in the direction of the lift vector, (or perpendicular to the Vel vector);

Given the same an air foil with twice the area Lift will double at a give speed.

To be specific Lift = Ro/2 * V*V * LCO * Area.
LCO = LIft coef.
Ro = Air Density.
V = Speed.

Now simply the air foil shape and Angle of attack determine the LCO. Since we are looking at max here we in all cases we are dealing with MaxLCO which will remain the same with all airfoils.

Per the test V is not changing and we are not changing alt so Ro is not changing.

Hence since we doubled the Area.
Lift = Area in 1 case.
and Lift = Area * 2 in the 2nd case.
Hence with 2 times wing area we have 2 times the Lift.

next Acceration (I.E the turning force) is given by the simple equation.

F = M * A.
F = Force
M = Mass
A = Acceleration.

In this example the Force is our lift. So in this example and yours 1 plane has 2 times the Mass.

So Substituing for the above.

Plane 1 Lift1 = Mass1 * A or A = Lift1 / Mass1
Plane 2 Lift1 * 2 = (Mass1 * 2) * A or A = (Lift1 * 2) / (Mass1 * 2) or Can-cling the 2s A = Lift1 / Mass1.

Plane 1 A = Plane 2 A I.E. The both turn 100% the same rate.

I.E. x = y and y = z hence x = z.

So now which definition do you wish to change to fit your statement? Or do you wish to argue simple physics and math.

HiTech
For the purpose of expediency, I will assume you Mean that "In and By its self" is that adding weight will always make a plane less maneuverable.

your proposal above reduces the maneuver fight to a single sustained maneuver.  part of maneuverability evaluation should include the efficiency that an aircraft has in the process of changing its velocity vector shouldn't it?  mass and the energy required to over come it's inertia must be taken into account each time the process of changing ones velocity vector is done, and often maneuver fights are a constant series of changes from one maneuver to another.  that is where i believe the size and weight advantages come into play for the smaller lighter aircraft.

an advantage that is not taken into account when just discussing the maximums of rate and radius etc. as tends to happen in these discussions.