Two Scenarios and a Short Quiz

[lunatic1]

if there's an ene plane trying to cap the airfield at 3 to 5k he's more than likely gonna get shot down by auto or manned ack--unless the field is already deacked...and it sounds like your trying to learn the best way to vulch..be ready to get pm'ed by the vulchie--with not so kind words, or phrases...alot of people vulch but cry when they get vulched..so don't get mad when it happens to you..if i get vulched more than 3 times while trying to takeoff i go elsewhere.

[BnZs]

Robert Shaw in his seminal book "Fighter Combat" defines the two most important advantages a fighter may have over the opposition: A lower wing-loading (leading to better turn performance and the ability to fly slower) and a more engine power in relation to weight (leading to a higher ROC, better acceleration, and more vertical maneuvering potential generally)

Note that top speed alone is not mentioned here, and with good reason. A top speed advantage is useful in many ways, but once engaged maneuvering begins, it's usefulness is very limited compared to superiority in turning or power.

The most common dissimilar air combat scenario is one fighter possessing lower wing-loading while the other possesses higher thrust-weight. The classic angles/energy fighter matchup.

 Another possibility is for equivalence in one of these areas and difference in the other. The fighter on the bad end of the stick finds itself in the situation of being what the book defines as single inferior and generally must be the more skillful pilot to win. An even worse situation is when a fighter finds itself in what the book calls double-inferior condition, that is, inferior to the opposition in both turn and power/weight. Shaw, who I think we can all agree possesses some insight into the subject, makes it clear that the double-inferior fighter is at enormous disadvantage and must have either advantage, surprise, or superior pilot skill to win. The double-inferior fighter cannot expect to win an engagement from an even break against a comparable pilot in a double-superior fighter. And even if the double-inferior fighter possesses a top speed advantage, it may not be able to use this advantage to run away if it commits too deeply to an engagement with a fighter that has superior acceleration.

So getting back to the original posters question, the P-51, P-47, and Dora are all, as defined by Shaw, double-inferior to either the 109K4 or the Ki-84. All other things being equal, the Kurt and Hayabusa will have an *easier*, not harder, time maintaining an E-advantage over lower bandits due to superior power/weight ration and will also have an easier time gaining angles on these bandits in engagements due to lighter wing-loading.

[Zerstorer]

Thanks for the replies.... Very interesting responses thus far!

[Randy1]

I always hate to hear on the Vox, "Let's de-ack the field."  If it is part of a base capture scheme it is acceptable but most often I hear it in the context of racking up kills.  Just not copacetic. 

[whiteman]

Both are seal clubbing and who hasn't enjoyed a good seal clubbing at least once.

[Zerstorer]

Both are seal clubbing and who hasn't enjoyed a good seal clubbing at least once.

I agree completely with your assessment and sentiments. 

[waystin2]

1) Either works well enough.
2) Whether it is fair is not important to me. 
3) A Faster plane always has the best opportunity to disnegage and pull back to a safer position.
4) If you have someone who knows their plane well, then either scenario is dangerous for cons climbing up to those on the perch.
5) Honor has no relevance to either situation.
6) Neither will be perceived as more fair.

[kano]

I always hate to hear on the Vox, "Let's de-ack the field."  If it is part of a base capture scheme it is acceptable but most often I hear it in the context of racking up kills.  Just not copacetic. 

 

But you find it acceptable to jump in on a 109 already engaged by 5 of your countrymen.....interesting

In regards to the OP ive done both, had both done to me but i see it as SA starts the minute you decide to up from that field theres nothing to stop you looking out of the tower before you up. If you make the decision to up when there are cons vulching or rope yourself to a lurking con you are as much to blame as the person doing it.

I think Waystins post sums it up well.

EatG

[Zerstorer]

1) Either works well enough.
2) Whether it is fair is not important to me. 
3) A Faster plane always has the best opportunity to disnegage and pull back to a safer position.
4) If you have someone who knows their plane well, then either scenario is dangerous for cons climbing up to those on the perch.
5) Honor has no relevance to either situation.
6) Neither will be perceived as more fair.

Give the man a cigar. 

I disagree only slightly with #3...I think both techniques offer plenty of disengagement opportunities, especially if one is using the planes in question, IMO.

[LilMak]

I play in the MA with a personal code of honor. As a general rule I want a good fight. I want myself and my enemies to have a good time. My code slides based on factors outside of my control. The biggest of those factors is the number of red guys within close proximity of my aircraft. One thing you'll never see me do is kill an aircraft with its wheels on concrete.

[BnZs]

I play in the MA with a personal code of honor.

Actually you play with a personal code of taste. Hitech has made no rule against things like vulching (and much resistance was raised when I suggested there be such rules  ). Also, AFAIK no one has ever signed a "No vulching" agreement or taken such an oath, and inasmuch as this is a flippin' video game where no one really kills and no one really dies, vulching and what have you have no relation whatsoever to honor. You refusal to vulch because you find vulches unsatisfying is ethically identical to someone who vulches because it tickles them to do so, merely a matter of taste.

The various attempts on this board to claim elevated personal character because of the way one fake-kills in a video game or because of a lack of fear of fake-dying in a video game are a phenomenon I find odd in the extreme. It makes me think that maybe some people need to take a step back from this and connect with the real world a little bit more.

[Triton28]

I play in the MA with a personal code of honor. As a general rule I want a good fight. I want myself and my enemies to have a good time. My code slides based on factors outside of my control. The biggest of those factors is the number of red guys within close proximity of my aircraft. One thing you'll never see me do is kill an aircraft with its wheels on concrete.

You should be more pragmatic.  The true measure of an Aces High pilot is not how he gets his kills, but only that he kills. 

[Zerstorer]

You should be more pragmatic.  The true measure of an Aces High pilot is not how he gets his kills, but only that he kills. 

And how he dances too! 

[Triton28]

And how he dances too! 

We don't give a damn about dancing. 

[-ammo-]

You should be more pragmatic.  The true measure of an Aces High pilot is not how he gets his kills, but only that he kills. 

I gotta respectfully disagree with this.  Kills are great, and they come.  However, I personally think the yardstick is how well I fly supporting my squadmates first and team mates second.