Yeager, to see how that describes a lead turn, get a copy of "Fighter Combat" by Robert Shaw. There are some nice diagrams therein, and the one on page 76 is what I am talking about. One guy flies straight, the other uses flight path separation and a well timed 180 to get on the other guy's 6. If the turner has enough speed margin before the turn he can still have enough speed after the turn to close range on his target. And of course during the turn, the range can be closing even if the turner is flying at a lower speed. With netlag, the target might see the turner making this move behind him. But on the turner's FE it's a different story.
My take on this whole "problem":
Niklas' tests of sustained turn speed and rate show that the F4U has a heck of a lot of induced drag at low speeds.
Wells' tests of AH F4U energy retention show it is nothing special compared to the other AH planes, and its performance matches closely what his own physics calculations predict.
I have been doing my own offline tests of 3g zooms from 400 mph at sea level, and the F4U-1C results are, again, nothing special compared to the other planes.
I think this "problem" is one of four things:
1. Hackers
2. An error in the FM in some regime that Wells and others have not been able to cover in testing.
3. Net lag.
4. People are simply getting beat by better pilots, and instead of working on their own ACM skills and knowledge, they take the easy route and try to blame the software.
I suspect it is #3 and #4 in combination, but it could be #1 or #2. It's going to take some film of these supposed UFO maneuvers to narrow the choices down.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-21-2000).]