How to regain lost E? (F4U)

[Guppy35]

this is something I never considered, but then again I don't "think" when I fight I just react.

Isn't that the truth.  My eyes glaze over when folks start talking about the ins and outs of ACM.  I react.  After all these years, I think I react the right way for the most part, but I couldn't tell you what I did or why, just whether it worked or not

[ink]

Isn't that the truth.  My eyes glaze over when folks start talking about the ins and outs of ACM.  I react.  After all these years, I think I react the right way for the most part, but I couldn't tell you what I did or why, just whether it worked or not

yup..but by now you know what works, and when it works

[Big Rat]

Isn't that the truth.  My eyes glaze over when folks start talking about the ins and outs of ACM.  I react.  After all these years, I think I react the right way for the most part, but I couldn't tell you what I did or why, just whether it worked or not

That's the trick to teaching BFM/ACM. You have to look back at what you did and then explain why or why it didn't work.  When I first started training, I had to think about all the things I did automatically and never thought about, and figure out why it worked.

 
BigRat   

 

[dstrip2]

slightly off topic, but...

[hijack]

ive been lurking and reading posts on the forum for a few months, and i'm very glad that the guys that know what they're talking about consistently show up to help players out and to logically work their way through disagreements. i soak up that kind of reading. its great to have people on here with real experience in varied fields that apply to this game share what they know.
<S> to you guys that help out us n00bs and spoon-feed us complicated aerodynamic principles, even when we are dense and slightly belligerent. y'all know who you are.


would it be possible perhaps to get one master kick-butt aerodynamics thread started with links to threads/posts/information like dtango, stoney, and others have posted here? ive seen many many great diagrams and links... there has been a wealth of information divulged here on the BBS that im sure has been great for the community that has seen it; but unfortunately some threads and links seem to get buried and i'd hate for the community to 'forget' the stuff that has taken great effort and patience to present. just a thought. heck, it may already exist and ive just been blind.

i might not be the right one to decide what is accurate and worthy of such a thread, but still...
just throwing the idea out there.


[/hijack]


to the OP: soda's aircraft evaluation pages are a great place to find out plane specific stuff. loads of good and useful info, reminds me slightly of how an auto magazine might read if it were reviewing airplanes instead of cars. also, "fighter combat" is a really good book if you're serious about flight sims in general. i have referenced it for anything from AH2 to LOMAC, and some consider it the 'bible of combat flight sims'. i believe there is a free .pdf file floating around on the web someplace but cant seem to find it

<S>
Dstrip2

[SIK1]

That's the trick to teaching BFM/ACM. You have to look back at what you did and then explain why or why it didn't work.  When I first started training, I had to think about all the things I did automatically and never thought about, and figure out why it worked.

 
BigRat   

 

See I have a hard time defining exactly what I do. Sometime after watching film I realize that I'm not doing quite the same thing as I thought I was doing. When some one asks me how I did something first thing that comes to my mind is. I moved the stick around, probably pressed on the rudder pedals a little, and more than likely the throttle was moved around some. If I think about something like a rolling scissors it screws me all up. So as those that now me I try not to think to much when I'm flying.

That's why I have the up most respect for the Trainer Corp. A selfless group that volunteer their time trying to pass along their knowledge. 


to you all

[morfiend]

Isn't that the truth.  My eyes glaze over when folks start talking about the ins and outs of ACM.  I react.  After all these years, I think I react the right way for the most part, but I couldn't tell you what I did or why, just whether it worked or not

  These are some words to ponder!   I cant count the number of times a player has come into the TA and ask to work on ACM. When I try to break it down for them,immelman,splitEss,pitchback,sliceback,breakturn and of course the barrel roll,they just dont believe it. "There's got to be more to it than that". But those are the basics and you must learn them and then what??

   It's the choreography of those simple moves,putting them together to form a dance,hopefully with a bitter ending!

  That takes time and you know you put the time in when it's instinctive and you dont have to think about what to do and when.





   

[flatiron1]

zoom climb test p47d vs p47n


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p-47n-zoom.pdf

[Stoney]

zoom climb test p47d vs p47n


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p-47n-zoom.pdf

Its amazing what extra horsepower and 10% more wing area will do...  This is one of those comparisons where you'd have to compute excess power in order to illustrate the difference.

[FLS]

It is also true that, if all else is equal the heavier aircraft will zoom better. 
All I have to do is adjust zoom length and climb angle to get desirable sin value.

So you just adjust the climb angle to a negative value?

[Guppy35]

That's the trick to teaching BFM/ACM. You have to look back at what you did and then explain why or why it didn't work.  When I first started training, I had to think about all the things I did automatically and never thought about, and figure out why it worked.

 
BigRat   

 

I wish I could explain it better.  It's a bit like when folks start talking about the specifics of particular planes.  I can tell you about the pilots, who flew what, where, what the markings were etc.  But start with the technical stuff on engine performance, wing loadings etc.  and it loses me.  Guess that's why I'm a history/English guy, not math/engineering

[Noah17]

I scanned through this post quickly and one thing I didn't see mentioned (I hope I didn't miss it) was the beauty of Lag Pursuit. Something that I think is not discussed much even though it is mentioned a lot at the same time....Weird statement I know....

Often Lag Pursuit is mentioned in the process of catching a faster plane by using angles; however in the F4U (or any plane) it is best used for gaining and maintaining an E advantage over your opponent. Knowing where to point the nose of your aircraft would seem like an easy/instinctive thing to do but, it goes against the emotion of wanting to kill your opponent as quickly as possible and pointing right at him. It's something that can only be learned with patience and (IMO) is the most important ability/understanding to have if your fighting as an "E" attacker rather than fighting as a "TNB" attacker. This is why "E" fighting is more difficult to master. Newer sticks don't have or don't understand the importance of patience in pursuit combined with angles. I'm not a patient person and this still causes me problems today. While trying to fight to maintain/gain "E" it is important to understand that you should not expect to kill the bad guy in the first pass/merge. It is the second, third or, even fourth that will give you the shot you want for the kill....He'll be hanging on his prop waiting for the axe to fall......

Knowing when to abandon Lead and, Pure Pursuit to opt for Lag Pursuit is important. If you don't have the ability to turn  or dive on your opponent and kill him in the first pass it is best to angle in the way that is most likely to allow you to kill him in the second pass. The most common example would be: In your F4U you get on the "6" of  an early Spit. He brakes hard in a flat turn or even an obleak split S of sorts, you then allow your nose to stay behind him and go in to a Yo Yo and come down on his tail......That's an obvious maneuver....... However; many times in a fight you won't "drop" on to the "6" of a Spit. You'll be co-alt and co-E with him at his 3 O'clock with 90 degrees deflection. If you point your nose right at him or go for lead pursuit ahead of him he'll most likely turn in to you for the HO. Not what you want here....In order to gain E and bleed his you should probably point your nose slightly behind and below his tail (just a little) make him turn hard in to you and, pass him while he's still turning to get guns on you. You then pull up and to the right in a Yo Yo. This forces him to turn 360 degrees, adds energy to you and bleeds his. If he tries to follow you up, you corkscrew around him then gun him down when he stalls. The slightly nose down in your pass behind his tail is important as you're gaining/maintaining E while he's destroying his. He does not have time to gain it back and you're above him; just like that the fight is over. I will mention here that judging your opponents E correctly is obviously important and, the separation you use (being just behind him) is important. You don't want to be on the line of his turn radius as he may be able to hold just enough E to go vertical and shoot you.

There are other ways to use Lag Pursuit that would be helpful in the situation you described. This is just one and I hope it was helpful.

Salute!
 

[mtnman]

thanks all for the posts and info trying to learn the corsairs a bit atm and this is really useful

would be great to see some film of an f4u demonstrating this  

This is a fairly old film, and not terribly exciting, but it's interesting in its application of E.  I posted this film in a thread a while back in response to the other pilot being upset that I was able to steal his energy/alt advantage, and turn it against him.  It's also interesting because it's an "uphill" fight.

He was also confused/upset that I was able to keep up with or surpass his climb at the end, in a plane match-up where he "knew" his Spit16 should have been able to out-climb my F4U.

There's nothing fancy at work here, no fancy ACM's, and some pretty poor gunnery, but it does illustrate how easy it can be to take away an energy advantage if you understand the concepts at work.  In his defense, this pilot knew it was me he was fighting with.  I'd killed him a few times already and he'd come from a different base with an alt advantage.  He was leery of diving right in on me because he'd tried that already, so was "playing it safe", which is what allowed me to draw him into a casual tail chase, match our E, and then take the advantage.

The F4U trumps the Spit16 in a tail chase, and in a high-speed shallow-angle climb...

http://www.4shared.com/file/UspKQb5x/Dazy_Spit16_long_0405.html

[2bighorn]

Its amazing what extra horsepower and 10% more wing area will do...  This is one of those comparisons where you'd have to compute excess power in order to illustrate the difference.

P-47C v. Spitfire IX

Performance – In level speed the Spitfire always accelerated away from the P-47, but the P-47 showed itself slightly the faster at 20,000 feet and at 28,000; there was, however, very little to choose in actual performance at these heights. Above this height the Spitfire becomes slightly the faster.

Climb – The rate of climb if the Spitfire is much higher at these heights than that of the P-47C. Climbing together from 25,000 to 30,000 feet, the P-47 took about ½ minute longer than the Spitfire. The difference, however, is not nearly so marked in zoom climbs, and if the P-47 dives slightly and then pulls up in the climb, its performance is similar to that of the Spitfire over limited intervals.

Dive – The P-47 is able to out-dive the Spitfire quite easily.

[2bighorn]

Its amazing what extra horsepower and 10% more wing area will do...  This is one of those comparisons where you'd have to compute excess power in order to illustrate the difference.

What excess power? HP/lb? Wing area? How about wing loading?

[dtango]

P-47C v. Spitfire IX.............

Climb – The rate of climb if the Spitfire is much higher at these heights than that of the P-47C. .............. The difference, however, is not nearly so marked in zoom climbs, and if the P-47 dives slightly and then pulls up in the climb, its performance is similar to that of the Spitfire over limited intervals.

Dive – The P-47 is able to out-dive the Spitfire quite easily.

Do you mean to infer these tests show weight helps the P-47C zoom and dive better?  It would be a mistake to make that inference. 

Thrust, drag, and velocity in accelerated flight (e.g. zoom climb, dive) varies dramatically as the aircraft accelerates/decelerates.  Understanding why the P-47C & Spit IX behave as reported means accounting for weight AND thrust, drag, and velocity simultaneously & as they change dynamically.  The reported differences don't give us enough detail to appropriately assess all variables to demonstrate what's really going on.

And we have such a relationship that combines them all simultaneously to help us understood, specific excess power (P_s) - of which Stoney is referring too:

P_s = (thrust - drag) * velocity / weight

It's an innocent looking equation but be very careful, that thing is DYNAMIC meaning in accelerated flight the only variable that is constant in that equation is weight (assuming 0 mass change).  It's well known aerodynamically that the airplane with the greatest time average P_s in a zoom climb will out zoom one with a lower P_s.  If you look at that relationship you can see that all else being equal (thrust, drag, velocity) increasing weight ALWAYS reduces P_s.



Yes, it's more complicated than all that if you want to understand the effect of mass in it all (please see my provided links for details) but the bottom line is P_s is reduced by increased weight which reduces zoom over the duration of a zoom climb.