DA madness :)

[humble]

 This is your original post...
...Alot of guys are pressing for a HO with the express purpose of making slower turning aircraft decide if they are going to HO...    

This certainly reads as the faster plane "forcing" a HO to me.

I'm not going to spend anymore time on this one since you obviously consider yourself to be "in the know" after 2 years while guys like me have achieved "slightly above clueless" after a decade or more. However I will point out a couple of misconceptions in your last post. All of your comments point to the lowest common denominator of pilot. An experienced +E pilot will expect a defensive bogey to break back into him at multiple times since this is actually a widely accepted tactic. These defensive moves bleed additional E and actually help the aggressor move from the mid game to the end portion of the fight and are generally inferior to the defender attempting to offer a scissors engagement. As a general rule the aggressor maintains or expands his E advantage during this phase of the fight.

E state is never static but always relative, but a pilot is either co-E or in a +/- position. Correctly gauging relative E state is a bit of an art and goes along way to determining the outcome of the fight IF the correct tactics are chosen. Your broad based descriptions are either completely invalid or misleading.

1) Defensive HO is 100% incorrect unless you no longer have minimum vertical maneuvering speed and the guy is dumb enough to give you a joust. The logic here is simple, the "defensive" (neg E) plane has by definition an angular advantage. Freezing the nose for a HO causes two negative results a) loss of angular advantage b) loss of E due to control inputs to arrest the nose travel. This leaves the defender in a worse position then he started. This is not to be confused with manipulating the lift vector in an attempt to manufacture a front quarter shot at flight path intersection.

2) A defender can not "force an overshoot" since the aggressor can defend against crossing the 3/9 line. The entire goal of this move is not to "force" an overshoot but to entice a shot that will result in a flight path overshoot.

I'm not going to even try to address your comments on angles & E fighting beyond a few simple comments. 1st you've got (IMO) some major misconceptions. In a "MA" environment fights are rarely initiated from a truly co-e posture and  "same on same" fights are relatively uncommon. So tactics are driven by starting position and plane combination. Going to the Hog vs pony fight elsewhere here as an example the Pony has to rely entirely on E fighting concepts even if defensive while the F4U needs to push its angular advantage when possible. Obviously either pilot can elect to commit to the unexpected tactic however as Steve noted he was unable to force an end game on Mtnman. Within reason relative pilot skill decides a fight, however when two excellent pilots meet relative plane strength determines proper tactics for each.

In the artificial structure of a duel pilots either fly a "read and react" or push for either an angular or energy advantage...hence the terms "angles fight" and "E fight" which are really tactical dueling doctrines based on the perception of an even start. An angles flyer will look to trade relative E state for angular gain while an E fighter will attempt to maximize relative E state at the expense of angular loss of position. A "read and react" flyer feels comfortable in gauging the opponent and seizing on his technical deficiencies to exploit an advantage based on how he flies.

Scrolling back up akak's comments read exactly like an experienced pilot flying read and react merges and then trying to help the other guy (you) to understand what they did wrong. From the tone of your posts it sounds like you feel you have all the answers so i'll refrain from any further comments or observations...

[humble]

Stephan,

I think your taking comments meant to help and interrupting them as hostile (which is certainly not my intent). We have a number of folks with an exceptional depth of knowledge who can help/teach/explain in almost any aspect of ACM either specific to 1 on 1/dueling/"MA" game play. Beneath that elite level are many guys like me with a more limited command of the game but reasonable "expertise" is some aspects of ACM/game play. A lot of what your actually discussing happens to fall in an area I feel I have reasonable command of (although certainly not at WW or some others level). That is the role of lift vector management within the overlapping doghouse charts during 1 on 1 combat maneuvering. Basically this is the management of relative E state and position during the part of the fight where the respective flight envelopes are "even" in the sense that neither plane is operating beyond the limit of the others flight envelope.

Basically this all boils down to why an A-20 can fly like a fighter and seem uber yet be dead meat to a seasoned stick like akak. The ability to separate out "pilot stuff" from the limits of the actual flight envelope comes from a recognition of both tactics, relative position and the underlying limitations of the adversaries flight envelope. So the superior pilot looks to move the fight into an area where he can exploit a flight envelope advantage (Steve vs Mtnman) or to seize on mistakes in plane handling. What your attempting to describe all falls into this area of the game. You perceive a tactic to be good since you are successful a % of the time but appear to struggle when the same tactic fails. This is simply a reflection of the differing skill level of your opponent. Very few fights actually reach a point where one player is forced beyond the limits of the plane...90%+ are decided within the overlapping flight envelope. Even pilots at my level are routinely exploited by those with an exceptional grasp of this type of ACM. There is always something new to learn when it comes to the subtleties of this type of ACM.

[stephen]

SLower turning was a reference to a plane that takes more space to complete a 180 degree turn, so a slow turning plane would ba lets say..., a B-24, and a faster turning plane would be a Zero.

Ill be more clear in the future sir!


I reading through a manuever is like discribing an orgasm...you cant really sum it up unless you have done it.
Ty for the help, im over it...., and i've found a trainer...Toodles

[Tr1gg22]

You're falling for a lead turn on the merge, as you go up in the vertical on the merge, the other guy will be on your six.  I explained this to you awhile back after beating you a few times but you were so insistant that I was cheating that you ignored how it's done.  Basically, you're being out flown by someone with a better grasp of ACM, merge tactics and just a better over all grasp of what the planes can do.


ack-ack