P51 Question/Controversy

[Skyyr]

Consider the same two planes but flying head on, the looper will meet the leveler with more "energy" despite the fact that the leveler has traveled farther in the same time span.

But they won't, unless one of the planes lead-turns a decent distance before the merge. If the looper ONLY loops at/after the merge, he won't catch the straight and level aircraft.

What you're confusing is if the chasing plane (the looper) manages to get within guns range before losing his small boost in airspeed - that's not an "E" advantage. Unless the other plane can catch up to the same point as the plane that went straight (0 horizontal distance between them), the looping plane has lost energy. The looping plane has traded energy for a positional advantage. Sure, he did it in a very conservational manner, but he still lost some energy. In air combat, we don't care about perfect energy conservation, because we want to shoot the other guy down, so loosing some energy in trade for advantage is acceptable. That being said, the looper will never catch back up to the plane that went straight. He might get within 200, 400, 800yds, X-distance and stay there, but he'll never completely close the distance.

This concept, again, is fundamental to the energy fighting aspect of ACM. Without this, you could continue looping infinitely to catch someone in front of you.

What I would like to understand better is how to decide whether tis better to climb or accelerate upon spotting a con.

PM'd you.

[FLS]

What I would like to understand better is how to decide whether tis better to climb or accelerate upon spotting a con.

Of course you know the answer is "it depends". Assuming a hostile threat and imminent merge, the first consideration is where you are in your maneuvering speed range, are you too fast or too slow for good turn performance.

Sadly most bandits will not cooperate with a plan to minimize energy loss in maneuvers.

[pembquist]

But they won't, unless one of the planes lead-turns a decent distance before the merge. If the looper ONLY loops at/after the merge, he won't catch the straight and level aircraft.

What you're confusing is if the chasing plane (the looper) manages to get within guns range before losing his small boost in airspeed - that's not an "E" advantage. Unless the other plane can catch up to the same point as the plane that went straight (0 horizontal distance between them), the looping plane has lost energy. The looping plane has traded energy for a positional advantage. Sure, he did it in a very conservational manner, but he still lost some energy. In air combat, we don't care about perfect energy conservation, because we want to shoot the other guy down, so loosing some energy in trade for advantage is acceptable. That being said, the looper will never catch back up to the plane that went straight. He might get within 200, 400, 800yds, X-distance and stay there, but he'll never completely close the distance.

This concept, again, is fundamental to the energy fighting aspect of ACM. Without this, you could continue looping infinitely to catch someone in front of you.

PM'd you.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, everything you have written is correct and helpful but you misunderstand what I meant by the sentence of mine that you quoted. By the phrase "head on" I mean that the looping plane and the other plane are traveling in opposite converging directions long a straight line and at the time the maneuvering plane completes its maneuver they have not yet converged. The point is that if you are going to use the phrase "energy state" as defined as the combination of altitude and speed than if you have two identical planes flying towards each other at identical altitudes than the faster one has more "energy" regardless how much energy was used to get to that state. As the planes are now going to converge the faster higher "energy" plane has the advantage.

In the original example of the faster aircraft being in pursuit but unable to catch up, the faster aircraft still has a higher "energy state" but has no advantage.

Its all semantics, the problem is the temptation to use the phrases "higher energy state" and "energy advantage" as synonyms which they clearly are not.

[Skyyr]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, everything you have written is correct and helpful but you misunderstand what I meant by the sentence of mine that you quoted. By the phrase "head on" I mean that the looping plane and the other plane are traveling in opposite converging directions long a straight line and at the time the maneuvering plane completes its maneuver they have not yet converged. The point is that if you are going to use the phrase "energy state" as defined as the combination of altitude and speed than if you have two identical planes flying towards each other at identical altitudes than the faster one has more "energy" regardless how much energy was used to get to that state. As the planes are now going to converge the faster higher "energy" plane has the advantage.

You would be correct, yes. And I don't take you as being argumentative at all.

In the original example of the faster aircraft being in pursuit but unable to catch up, the faster aircraft still has a higher "energy state" but has no advantage.

Yes and no. The faster aircraft, at the point in time that it is faster, has a higher energy state. However, it actually used/bled energy to get to that position. That is what sparked this whole side discussion - the loss of energy when going vertical.

Its all semantics, the problem is the temptation to use the phrases "higher energy state" and "energy advantage" as synonyms which they clearly are not.

It might appear that way, but that is not the case, at least on my behalf. There are very real implications from energy loss at various phases in flight, including when going vertical.

[pembquist]

It might appear that way, but that is not the case, at least on my behalf. There are very real implications from energy loss at various phases in flight, including when going vertical.

Well then to make sure this horse is completely dead, I think we will have to agree to disagree as i can't see how to discern the difference in "energy state", (as defined above) between any two aircraft at any instant except by their airspeeds and altitudes within their own frames of reference. I mean, in terms of reducto ad absurdium you could have two aircraft one with ten times the energy of the other but far enough apart that they would run out of gas before coming in sight of each other, vastly different "energy states" no energy advantage.

I take your meaning to be that if you have 2 identical aircraft converging with the same "energy states" that neither can build an advantage over the other by adding energy, only by losing less.

[Skyyr]

I take your meaning to be that if you have 2 identical aircraft converging with the same "energy states" that neither can build an advantage over the other by adding energy, only by losing less.

As far as an "energy advantage" goes, and ignoring acceleration and thrust over time, yes - that's exactly my point (at least with aircraft with a thrust-to-weight ratio of less than 1.0, and other minutia not applicable to this environment).

[lunatic1]

well i was gonna say something about this topic---but after see first page here i said forgetta bout it