How to avoid the HO shot.

[Kingpin]

Except what I said actually made some amount of sense, following the actual meaning of the words.

Regardless of what any trainer says, I was not entirely incoherent, and I'd thank you not to make a molehill into Mt. Everest

Nobody is calling you "incoherent", Jager.  The problem is that words don't always have "actual meanings" -- sometimes the same word means different things (just like you pointed out in your definition of "inverted").  

That is why ACM terms exist.  ACM is a language of well-defined and widely-accepted terms, so that someone can say "Barrel Roll" and people will know precisely what they are describing.  In that sense, ACM terms are not just "words".  When you string a bunch of words together to sound like an ACM term, you can expect some confusion and possible backlash over it.

In fact, the confusion still remains about what you said you were doing, hence the discussion on negative-G barrel rolls.  

I'm curious too and looking forward to seeing your film showing how a barrel roll is done completely neg-G.

<S>
Ryno

[Arlo]

I'll post film when I'm done with lectures. It'll be fun to prove Arlo wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about? I didn't say you couldn't push your stick forward before a barrel-roll
or after one. But if you're executing a barrel-roll then you aren't pushing your stick forward at that point.
You are doing something else, entirely, if you are pushing your stick forward while rolling your craft.

 

[Tank-Ace]

its a negative-G barrel roll. The basic movement is the same, just oriented differently for you, perhaps bleeds a bit more E and needs some rudder to help kick you around.

[Arlo]

its a negative-G barrel roll. The basic movement is the same, just oriented differently for you, perhaps bleeds a bit more E and needs some rudder to help kick you around.

I understand your description (after a few incarnations). It doesn't fit the description of a barrel-roll, however.

"A barrel roll is an aerial maneuver in which an aeroplane makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while following a helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction. It is sometimes described as "a combination of a loop and a roll". The g-force is kept positive (but not constant) on the object throughout the maneuver, commonly between 2–3 g, and no less than 0.5 g."

You're inventing something different, even if based on the actual maneuver you claim it represents. Also, there is no equivalent in real life (and I suspect it's for good reason since even modern day g-suits could not keep you from experiencing a severe red-out in the maneuver you describe).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobatic_maneuver

Anyway, having understood what you are doing to avoid damage from a head-on attack .... why invert your 'barrel roll?'

[FLS]

Arlo you are wrong. It's still a barrel roll. It doesn't matter if you pull or push, it's still a loop and roll completed together.

[Kingpin]

its a negative-G barrel roll. The basic movement is the same, just oriented differently for you, perhaps bleeds a bit more E and needs some rudder to help kick you around.

I'll post film when I'm done with lectures. It'll be fun to prove Arlo wrong.

Cool.  Can't wait to see the film.  

Will it be a combat film, or something you are doing offline?

<S>
Ryno

[Arlo]

Arlo you are wrong. It's still a barrel roll. It doesn't matter if you pull or push, it's still a loop and roll completed together.

Well thanks for setting me straight. Dunno why military fighter pilots don't practice this maneuver more.

[Tank-Ace]

Cool.  Can't wait to see the film.  

Will it be a combat film, or something you are doing offline?

<S>
Ryno

Depends; there has been a severe dearth of fighting during the hours I've been on.

[Kingpin]

Depends; there has been a severe dearth of fighting during the hours I've been on.

I'm certain you can find at least one person who will try to HO you, so you can use this maneuver.  There never seems to be a dearth of HO-attempts, even when there's nobody who wants to fight.

If you fly around a base in enemy radar, there's a good chance the first guy who lifts will try to HO you on the first merge (80% if it's a Bish base).  

<S>
Ryno

[Badboy]

Well thanks for setting me straight. Dunno why military fighter pilots don't practice this maneuver more.

Because they have way more sense

Not to mention that pilots with blood shot eyes don't look cool, so they don't have much luck with the ladies

Now the serious response for anyone reading this who might think negative g is a good idea.

Human tolerance to negative g is much less than positive g so any maneuver you try under negative g will be very much less effective than its positive g counterpart. So much so that nobody ever spends much time experimenting with negative g maneuvers before realizing there is no advantage to be gained from it. I can't imagine any situation in combat when attempting to execute a barrel roll under negative g would be advantageous.

The simple fact is that anything you do with positive g will be more effective.

Situations where negative g might be appropriate include a simple push over, which has numerous applications, a negative g guns defensive and the early stages of a spin recovery.

I suggest that anyone who thinks negative g maneuvers can be used to win fights, needs to spend some time with a trainer, the misconception will be short lived.

Regards

Badboy 

[Fulcrum]

Im no expert....but I can say I've never run into an cartoon combat situation where I'd do a negative G dive over, say, a split-S. 

Gotta agree with Badboy on this one.

[Tank-Ace]

To be clear, there's only a few minor reasons I do this negative g.

1) cocpit out means less chance of a pilot wound (been a bit of a problem for me).

2) people seem to have a bit more trouble precisely judging lead in the negative g realm.

This means that if they get a guns solution, they're less likely to hit, and if they do hit, I'm less likely to be kicked back to the tower.

[BaldEagl]

A simple barrel roll is quite effective, keeps you just as safe and burns far less E than what you keep trying (and keep changing) to describe.  A high deflection barrel roll (i.e. wider helix) might be even more effective in certain circumstances.  In either case the best option is to retain your original flight path and execute around it, or at least start to.

Nosing down neg G prior to merge is also an effective tactic however the end game is generally a hard loop burning off excess E to gain manouvering ability on your higher E opponent, assuming he stays to fight.

Now, if we were to combine these you'd nose down then use an E retaining barrel role without reversing on your opponent, presumably to disengage.  Even at that beginning the barrel role might negate the advantage you gained in nosing down as you might put yourself right in the enemy gunsights as you begin the roll.

So if I have this right now you're saying you do all this "inverted" with the cockpit out in the roll?  In ACM inverted means upside down.  If you knew this why did you initially try to redefine inverted to mean negative G then switch back to a definition of cockpit-out?  At what point do you invert (in it's true ACM meaning) in this manouver?

I really do want to see this film.  On the other hand you could just come clean and tell us what you really do instead of chasing yourself deeper into the rabbit hole (even though I find it entertaining).

[Kingpin]

Comment withdrawn.

[Muzzy]

Before deciding to take a hiatus due to extreme frustration, I was running into the problem of my attempts to evade a bounce turning into a HO shot. When an enemy dove down on my six, I turned towards him as I'd been instructed, but he inevitably got a HO shot on me. How do you achieve separation in this instance? Is it better to simply do a quick evasion without turning directly into the con's attack, or is there something else that I was missing.

Contemplating a return, provided I can find a way to mellow out a bit....

-Muzzy.