Rope-A-Dopes And Reality

[funkedup]

Do I remember some people in here saying rope-a-dope killing technique was not realistic?  I was watching Wings last night and "Bud" Anderson told the story of his first kill in the Mustang, using his hands as airplanes to describe the fight.  He described a perfect rope-a-dope with which he killed an ME-109G in his P-51B.  

[Pongo]

How could it not be realistic?
I have never seen it contested...

[funkedup]

I don't know Pongo.  I thought I remembered it being contested.  Hell there are guys here who contest the fact that WW2 fighters can do consecutive loops!  

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I think it was just Artlaws who made an issue about it.

He had big time trouble in his personal life at that moment which no doubt lead to posting stuff without thinking clearly.

[AKDejaVu]

Yep... artlaws maintained it was a no-skill maneuver and would let you know every time he fell for it.

AKDejaVu

[Biggles]

Originally posted by funkedup
I don't know Pongo.  I thought I remembered it being contested.  Hell there are guys here who contest the fact that WW2 fighters can do consecutive loops!  

oNE would think that as you exit a loop (level out) you should be at the same altitude, heading and airspeed as you were when you started it, and you should be able to immediately begin another loop.

[streakeagle]

Originally posted by Biggles


oNE would think that as you exit a loop (level out) you should be at the same altitude, heading and airspeed as you were when you started it, and you should be able to immediately begin another loop.

That would be true if there was no such thing as lift induced drag or gravity

Unfortunately, WWII aircraft do not have the power to weight ratio to make a big low-g circle. Pulling enough g's to complete the loop without stalling may also slow the aircraft down enough to stall anyways. So WWII aircraft had a minimum speed to enter a loop. At the completion of the loop, their speed would definitely be lower than the entry speed, normally too low to enter another loop depending on the g's pulled and the power-to-weight of the aircraft in question. Only aircraft which have enough thrust to compensate for both the induced drag and gravity can continuously pull loops without losing speed and/or altitude.

An aircraft like the Zero is pretty much ideal for low speed loops: good power to weight, very little drag, and a small turn radius. High speed loops are actually performed more efficiently by energy fighters that use their low parasitic drag-to-weight ratio to zoom through the loop with minimal speed losses (induced drag for a given g-loading is inherently lower at higher speeds, so parasitic drag becomes more important). A clean, heavy (high-wing loaded) fighter with a high power-to-weight ratio always steals the show in terms of vertical performance (enter the F-4 Phantom and F-15 Eagle).

[funkedup]

See???

[Daff]

Crap..I've broken the laws of physics then!

Daff

[SKurj]

in the probable furballs seen in ww2 i would imagine goin for the rope would be a risky maneuever and likely discouraged.  

Not only is the con going slow but you are too.. in a multi bogie engagement...


SKurj

[Toad]

So Streakeagle a maneuver like a Lazy Eight would also be impossible to perform consecutively, right?

Dive to entry speed, do the rolling pull up (right or left) so as to be at 90 degrees of bank at 90 degrees of turn and a few mph above stall speed, continue in a diving turn so as to roll out 180 degrees off your original heading, at your entry speed and at your entry altitude.

That would be impossible right? To keep going on and on like that, just continuing the maneuver until you got tired of it?

[Tac]

Rope a dope would be far more effective if AH modelled sun glare and its icons didnt give distance past d500.

[Toad]

Well in "Real Life" Tac, we (well, those of us with 20/20) could tell we were at 325 yards because that's where we could distinguish 10 inch high numerals as numerals and not letters.

10 inch x 2 inch numerals. At 1000 feet.

If we could see like that in here we wouldn't need icons at all.

But we can't.

And I'm so sorry to say this but your comments about visual cues in various threads around here have convinced me you have never really done much flying and looking at other aircraft while doing so. Particularly in the upper altitudes where the air is much, much more clear and visual ranges increase dramatically.

In fact, your comments about visual cues here remind me of your comments about "buff guns" being different and more powerful than fighter guns of the same caliber.  

[Pongo]

skurj?
where there air combat enviroments in ww2 more densely poplulated then the main? I doubt it.
If getting wailed on while hung up yourself by an unengaged bogey is what makes the rope ineffective in ww2. then it makes it more ineffective in the game. Because the game is (I contend) more densley populated with fighters then any airspace in ww2 was.

[Toad]

..and as for sun glare......

Last night I pursued a 110 that went up and over into the sun. I momentarily lost him till he came out of the bright white light.

Would that be like "sun glare"?

It's there.. it's just obviously not modeled to your satisfaction. Sort of different than "not modeled", right?