Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Badboy on October 06, 2022, 07:46:10 PM
-
In this dissimilar aircraft comparison the advantage swings at different times and is small and it is not easy to see the impact without detailed analysis. Overall the advantage goes to the Ki84. The Ki84 has the edge in a couple of important ways which depend on factors that I haven't seen mentioned in similar discussions. Allow me to explain.
In the Ki84 v Spit8 engagement the early stages of the fight yields a small advantage to the Spit8. That is because the Spitfire has a slighter higher instantaneous turn rate at corner. We are talking 33.4dps for the Spit8 and 32.1 for the Ki84. That's only a 1.3dps advantage for the Spit8, but the problem is that both aircraft bleed speed quickly in this high G phase of the fight so the advantage only lasts long enough to result in a very small angular advantage to the Spit, which would be almost unnoticeable to most pilots.
After that, as both aircraft begin to stall fight at their respective sustained turn rates the edge remains with the Spit8 because the best sustained turn rate for the Spit8 is 24.3dps and for the Ki84 23.3dps so the advantage drops to 1dps. However, to achieve that the Ki84 must use flaps and in that situation the Ki84 has a slightly smaller radius which means that it would take at least 3 minutes for the spit to move onto the Ki84s tail but because of the Ki84s smaller radius the Spit can't pull lead for the shot. There is a BFM technique that can create that lead, but it needs to be repeated and takes time and can easily extend the duration of the fight to the point where the Spit loses it's WEP. At that point the advantage swings back to the Ki84.
The Ki84 has shorter WEP time than the spit8, but gets it back much more quickly. Once the Spit8 loses its WEP it is effectively gone for the rest of the fight. Without WEP the Spit's sustained turn rate drops to 22.3dps while the Ki84 still has access to its 23.3dps for a 1dps advantage. During the brief periods when the Ki84 loses WEP it drops back to an almost identical rate to the Spit8, and then oscillates between a 1dps advantage and neutral for the rest of the fight. In effect, if the Ki84 is still in the fight when the Spit8 runs out of WEP, the Spit8 will eventually be out turned. The 1dps is actually worth more to the Ki84 because as mentioned earlier, it has a slightly smaller turn radius and will not have any difficulty getting lead for a shot. But it gets worse! Because this all takes time and the Spit's fuel burns off far more quickly than the Ki84, the Ki84 can hang in the fight longer and has time to utilize its advantage.
So, here are the factors I mentioned earlier. The first factor is that from the perspective of the Spitfire pilot, staying in the fight after losing WEP is bad because not only is he going to be out turned by an aircraft with a smaller radius and no difficulty getting lead for a shot, he may also run out of fuel before the Ki84 has time to bring his guns to bear. The second factor is that given that the Spit8 is entirely defensive and needs to break off the engagement, at this point his escape window has slammed shut, and hard. The Spitfire simply can't can't break off, the Ki84 accelerates better and is faster so any attempt to extend or reset could only depend on a degree of good luck for its success. Such as the proximity of friendlies, ACK or a mistake by the Ki84 pilot.
In summary, the Spit8 has a small advantage while it's WEP holds out, but it is far from decisive. Any real advantage at this point will come from mistakes by the Ki84 pilot if he doesn't know how to use flaps and achieve a maximum sustained turn. Otherwise, once the Spit loses WEP, the advantage swings to the Ki84 and is now a more decisive advantage because the turn rate is combined with the smaller radius and the Ki84 has time on his side. The Spit can't stay in, and can't get out.
In my experience the main reason the Spit wins engagements with the Ki84 is because Ki84 pilots often lack this knowledge and don't fly with the same confidence and aggression as the Spits who just assume (quite wrongly) that they are flying the superior aircraft. In many ways aggressive Spitfire pilots are bluffing, they just don't have the advantage they think they do and if enough Ki84 pilots read this and fly more confidently, the tables will turn.
Knowing these things, when I fight a Ki84 I'm cautious with my WEP and if I see I'm fighting a Ki84 who knows what he's doing I know I'm in for a long tough fight. I will press for an advantage, but won't persist until it is too late. I look forward to Ki84 v Spit8 fights because they can be great fights and I've been in many that have gone exactly as I have described here because there are some very good Ki84 drivers in the game.
Hope that helps
Badboy
Reference document:
(https://i.imgur.com/EbT0tzx.jpeg)
-
Thanks for this explanation, Badz. We did this in the AvA some years ago, back when the BKs were still here. We ran Spit 8s v Franks for a full week, BKs v the AvA regulars. Halfway through the week, we switched sides. In both instances the Frank was clearly superior. Appreciate the analysis of why.
Oops. Just saw that you found my old post about this in the general discussion forum.
- oldman
-
Excellent post.
-
Great explanation Badboy! :salute
-
Badboy -
At what altitude is that chart derived?
Increasing altitude will increase the true airspeed for any given indicated airspeed, causing turn radius to increase and turn rate to decrease at corner velocity (or any velocity for that matter). Altitude also affects engine power and thrust, affecting sustained performance numbers more significantly than the corner velocity data. Instantaneous performance effects of altitude will generally relate to all aircraft equally, though sustained performance will be affected differently by different aircraft, as the effects of altitude on power are different for every engine/supercharger installation.
Mike
-
Badboy -
At what altitude is that chart derived?
Increasing altitude will increase the true airspeed for any given indicated airspeed, causing turn radius to increase and turn rate to decrease at corner velocity (or any velocity for that matter). Altitude also affects engine power and thrust, affecting sustained performance numbers more significantly than the corner velocity data. Instantaneous performance effects of altitude will generally relate to all aircraft equally, though sustained performance will be affected differently by different aircraft, as the effects of altitude on power are different for every engine/supercharger installation.
Mike
Hi Mike
Some very good points.
Sorry, that chart gives the sea level performance only.
For performance comparison between aircraft at a range of altitudes, weights and weapon configurations, I think it is more appropriate to use Energy Maneuverability (EM) diagrams.
I've done that over the years for many of the AH aircraft, and was often motivated to carry out the analysis for scenarios or to address specific performance questions.
When I produce EM diagrams they do of course take everything into account, including the effect of atmospheric changes and engine/supercharger differences for the weight or configuration being considered. I've attached a couple of examples below.
(https://i.imgur.com/W1tVWWf.jpg)
You will notice that the diagrams confirm your previous points. For example, the comparison of the P47D11 v Fw190A5 shows that at SL the 190 has a significant sustained turn rate advantage, but by 15k the two aircraft are almost equal in that respect and by 30k the tables are turned and the P47 dominates in sustained performance across the envelope. Your other points can be confirmed by comparing differences in the Ps curves in contrast to those for the lift and g limit curves at various altitudes.
I started doing EM analysis in Air Warrior back in 1990 and started doing them for Aces High as soon as I migrated over in 2000. I've found them very helpful for training purposes as a trainer in both Sim's and find them invaluable for dissimilar air combat. I know many of the AH players don't like them, or are happy to do without them, but to be honest I simply can't imagine flying without the information they provide. Almost everything I do in a fighter in the game is informed by EM analysis.
Unfortunately, these days I find myself referring back to them more and more often as my memory fades with age :)
Kind regards
Badboy
-
Is there a way to make sure nrshida never reads this analysis? He's obnoxious enough in the Frank already!
Excellent write-up, badboy. Thanks for posting! :aok
-
Is there a way to make sure nrshida never reads this analysis? He's obnoxious enough in the Frank already!
Hmmm I have been aware but refraining from posting here and in the associated thread because they omit the important variable of the virtual-pilot driving the virtual-aircraft and their philosophies and effect when blended together.
There's the pre-2012 shida and the post-2012 shida. Although the latter is far more knowledgeable in ACM the former is actually the more lethal incarnation. Have only knowingly fought you in the later incarnation so you've only seen shadows of the former self. Much to my chagrin I never was able to resolve the divergent forms of ACM. The counterintuitivity of more knowledge equating to diminished performance is an ongoing source of irritation.
So depending on which version of me asked I do and don't agree with some of the content of these threads. :salute
-
The counterintuitivity of more knowledge equating to diminished performance is an ongoing source of irritation.
Great point.
It may be counterintuitive, but it is exactly what one should expect.
Our performance is not just related to knowledge, although that is the most important thing in most circumstances.
Our performance in anything we want to be good at is a function of three things, in order of importance they are: Knowledge, practice and natural talent. You can control the last one to some extent in the real world during selection, but for training and improvement you only focus on the first two.
Practice without knowledge can lead to much wasted effort, so knowledge is foremost. Once you know a thing, you need to deliberately practice it, as distinct from simple mindless repetition. Deliberate practice is when you do a thing, analyse it afterwards, fix faults and improve, then rinse and repeat.
Here is the catch.
Suppose you enjoy fighting a certain way, but you know it is not optimal and you need to change. You know this because while you can beat 90% of pilots doing it, the other 10% punish you for it, so you know you need to do something different.
You figure it out by acquiring new knowledge. Problem is the thing you need to do needs practice so when you try it you find you are now getting punished by the original 10% along with another 20% who are still doing the wrong thing, but they are doing it way better than you are doing the right thing.
I frequently see examples of this in A2A combat. I see pilots do the wrong thing in terms of BFM/ACM/Energy management and they have been doing those things wrong for so long they do it so well it can be quite difficult to punish them for their mistakes. I won't name names, but I still always try to point those things out when I see them done by friendly adversaries.
Learning something by yourself is difficult because it isn't easy to tell if good results are due to doing the wrong thing well against someone doing the right thing badly, or if bad results are due to doing the right thing badly against someone doing the wrong thing well. Very often people will stop doing the right things because they aren't working when they just need more deliberate practice. That's why in most cases a coach or trainer is so important to help fine tune your knowledge and help analyse the faults and fix them. That's why a coach or trainer will get you to keep doing a thing even when it doesn't seem to be working because they know if you persevere it will pay off big time.
Bottom line is that new knowledge can often result in diminished performance until it has been sufficiently well practiced, particularly if you stop doing the bad stuff you were well practiced at and replace it with new good stuff you haven't practiced enough yet.
The scary thing is, how much practice we are talking about? It can be a lot. Learning something new in AH can take 5 minutes, doing it well enough to beat 90% of the other players at it could take 3 years or more. That's where the talent can help, natural talent has a big impact on the time required. If you aren't naturally gifted, it just means you need to work harder and longer to see the same results. And of course old habits die hard, and most of us just want quick results.
I was excited and surprised recently to learn something new in the DA from someone during friendly fights in a particular aircraft, not my best ride. I didn't do well. I was lucky because the new knowledge mostly required existing skills so a week or so later a return visit with the same pilot went the other way entirely. Shortly afterwards I shared that knowledge with another good pilot in this thread and no doubt that will come back to bite me in due course. For me that is just part of the fun. It's ongoing, and the hits you need to take are just part of the learning process.
Hopefully I've said something to help with any minor irritation... If not embrace it, all good things take time ;)
Badboy
-
It may be counterintuitive, but it is exactly what one should expect.
Potentially interesting and esoteric conversation. I do recognise your points having arrived at them independently and gone even farther. I'd be interested in going deeper with the conversation but note we may have ideological differences which could be a conversation-stopper.
I inferred I'd encountered you in the first third of 2022 somewhere? I won't disclose the callsign publicly. If so I might have a relevant and interesting film to discuss and exchange ideas about.
-
Love your charts and analytics! Someone get this man a PowerBI license lol.
-
I frequently see examples of this in A2A combat. I see pilots do the wrong thing in terms of BFM/ACM/Energy management and they have been doing those things wrong for so long they do it so well it can be quite difficult to punish them for their mistakes. I won't name names, but I still always try to point those things out when I see them done by friendly adversaries.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Glad you don't like TheJudge either. :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Glad you don't like TheJudge either. :rofl :rofl :rofl
I know that's just a joke, but it couldn't be farther from the truth.
I've flown both with him and against him on an almost daily basis and understand exactly what he's doing and there is absolutely nothing there to dislike. On the contrary, I tend to respect players who do whatever it is they do, if they do it with some skill and success.
He predominantly flys one aircraft, recently that is the Fw190D9 and is very familiar with its performance and weapons. When you fly the same aircraft a lot, it is amazing how good your gunnery and aircraft handling become. That's pretty much true for anyone.
He also understands something about air combat that has always been true, that is that the appropriate BFM is strongly influenced by weapon systems. The guns on the Fw190D9 combined with the aircraft's handling characteristics, make it a formidable high aspect weapon. If you understand that you can fly the appropriate high aspect BFM. Many don't do that and then get frustrated when what they do doesn't work.
To succeed you need an advantage in one of two things:
The first option is just to do the same thing as your opponent, but do it better. That is to compete directly using the same aircraft, same BFM and skill set. The catch is to do the same thing better than someone else usually means you need to practice it at least as much if not more than they do. In this specific case, for someone with little prior experience in the aircraft, that would require that they fly it long enough to achieve at least a thousand kills every tour in the D9 for several tours to begin to compete at the same level.
The second option would be if you had a deeper and broader knowledge of the entire plane set and used that to gain a performance advantage in dissimilar air combat using the appropriate BFM/ACM and win by taking advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft. The catch is that might take even longer to achieve than the first option if you don't already have the knowledge base, and of course you still need to be as familiar with your aircraft as they are with theirs.
My personal preference for the two methods depends on the location of the fights. I like to use the first Method in the DA, and the second method in the MA. I can confirm both methods work well because I use both frequently and with equal success.
I have always found that when you compete against someone enough, without exception it has never ended in dislike, and has always ended in various degrees of respect.
Regards
Badboy
-
Potentially interesting and esoteric conversation. I do recognise your points having arrived at them independently and gone even farther. I'd be interested in going deeper with the conversation but note we may have ideological differences which could be a conversation-stopper.
I inferred I'd encountered you in the first third of 2022 somewhere? I won't disclose the callsign publicly. If so I might have a relevant and interesting film to discuss and exchange ideas about.
If we are just discussing aircraft performance and its impact on the air combat, it should be completely irrelevant who the individual pilots involved are?
If you want a more personal conversation I'm always happy to take it to PM.
Regards
Badboy
-
Easily one of the best fights in AH is the Ki84 vs Spit8 1v1. Great analysis there Badboy. I think you are correct about Ki84s not being aggressive enough early on, infact I see that with a lot of players in the MA in any ride. For the Ki, it can be tough to get slow enough quickly to lower flaps. Its really beneficial to get the flaps out quickly in the Ki84 if you know its going to be a stall fight. However, I almost think its better to fly the spit8 without using flaps until you need them at the top in the rolling scissors. One thing is for sure, generally this fight comes down to pilot skill and knowledge of both aircraft in any given situation. I like both planes but the spit8 is better for training and learning while the ki84 is a little more advanced given its poor diving abilities.
-
If we are just discussing aircraft performance and its impact on the air combat, it should be completely irrelevant who the individual pilots involved are?
No I don't really agree with that premise. I don't think it's ever just the aircraft's performance. The only way that would be the dominant consideration is under the hypothesis that there is one correct method and any failures are the result of lack of knowledge or poor execution of that method in that fight. I know the Russian airforce was accused of belabouring under that doctrine for a long time but let's face it: we all have done considerably more combat flying than they have :rofl
The EM diagrams that you present are useful but also omit a lot of useful data and I think many people misinterpret those as a sustained turning guide. Your description of the Spit8 vs Ki-84 matchup pretty well focuses on that aspect only. You do mention radius but that also seems to be when locked into the context of a two-circle fight. Best sticks in the Army of Muppets didn't fight that way. Redbul1 didn't fight that way, nor Kazaa, StepSis, Violator, Shane, etc. the list is pretty long amongst AH's best past and present.
Thoughts?
-
No I don't really agree with that premise. I don't think it's ever just the aircraft's performance.
I agree, of course it's never just about one thing. I'm pretty sure I would never have said otherwise because the outcome of an engagement could be influenced by a number of factors.
Here is a quick list, anyone of which could be the dominant factor depending on the circumstances.
- The relative aircraft performance
- The initial conditions, in terms of the initial orientation of the two aircraft relative to each other and their relative energy states
- The weapons in terms of how easy they are to aim and hit with and the lethality
- The fuel and ammunition status in terms of amount remaining
- The pilots, in terms of physical ability training and experience
- The location of the fight in terms of proximity to friendly aircraft and air defences
However, in the aircraft and vehicles forum I try to stay on topic and discuss the relative performance of the aircraft (as modelled in the game) as far as possible while considering some of the other factors equal. It would be almost impossible to do otherwise, it's just sensible when considering complex issues to break it down into chunks. Trying to considering every factor at the same time might be possible, but where would you draw the line, even two similarly skilled pilots will perform differently on any given day.
Of course you could argue that you can never ignore the pilots in the equation and we have all seen good pilots do amazing things in otherwise poorly performing aircraft against lesser pilots in superior aircraft. However, when that good pilot meets an equally good pilot, wouldn't each of them want to know how the other factors stack up? I think some of them do and that's why I've been addressing one of them here.
The only way that would be the dominant consideration is under the hypothesis that there is one correct method and any failures are the result of lack of knowledge or poor execution of that method in that fight. I know the Russian airforce was accused of belabouring under that doctrine for a long time but let's face it: we all have done considerably more combat flying than they have :rofl
That reminds me of this quote from Shaw:
It has been my experience that nations, and even separate air arms within a given nation, differ in air combat tactics as widely as they do in other areas. In fact, they often disagree even on what constitutes a "tactical doctrine." For example, I have found that asking two U.S. pilots for their tactics in a given situation elicits three different answers. By contrast, it is my understanding that three Russian fighter pilots will all give the same answer. Probably neither of these extremes is optimum. Obviously, if you have only one tactic, it had better be the correct one; however, even if this is the case, there are disadvantages to inflexibility. Almost any tactic can be defeated if it is totally predictable, and dogma stifles innovation. Total flexibility is not ideal either, as it is difficult for the fighter pilot to become proficient if he is constantly changing his style and technique.
However, the simple fact is that there is a body of knowledge that is taught to fighter pilots that is considered to encompass all of their tactical options. When it comes to making decisions about what to do next at any point in an engagement, Shaw breaks aircraft into two main groups, angles fighters and energy fighters and describes the appropriate BFM in those terms. Essentially that's just fuzzy EM theory :)
The EM diagrams that you present are useful but also omit a lot of useful data and I think many people misinterpret those as a sustained turning guide. Your description of the Spit8 vs Ki-84 matchup pretty well focuses on that aspect only.
Enemy intelligence and relative aircraft performance is highly prized information. Normally presented to fighter pilots in the form of EM diagrams they are the gold standard, only exceeded by similar data and diagrams for weapons performance. They were originally invented and used in WWII by the RAF and again in the USA after Boyd gave them a new lease of life and they are considered invaluable, I don't think that would be the case if they omitted a lot of data. When I use them in AH I don't use them to their full extent and often just focus on enabling pilots to do the otherwise difficult task of determining when his aircraft is the angles or energy fighter and highlight regions of the envelope that favor either aircraft. However they can be used for much more than I often discuss here, but would be happy to do if requested.
For example, if you consider a fight between the Spit8 and the better turning Zeke, the A6M2 you might look at the data or EM diagram in a cursory manner and conclude that the A6M2 should win when engaged with a Spit8. After all the Zeke has a significantly better sustained and instantaneous turn rate and a tighter turn circle. But those data points don't tell the whole story. If you assume that the fight begins with both aircraft outside of guns range, as they normally do and in any orientation but with equal E states, with the only other condition being that the Zeke driver is determined to press the attack using either one or two circle fights, energy or angles tactics as they wish and with the pilots and other factors being equal, say me flying against myself. In that situation I think most people looking at a data table like the one in this thread would conclude the Zeke should win. However, if you examine an EM diagram for that engagement it reveals that the Spitfire should win, and I've applied that myself in practice many times. I used to teach it as a trainer and I've demonstrated it to others as often as they were willing to listen including several of the pilots on the list you posted. My point is that EM diagrams contain enough data to be essential reading for real fighter pilots and they contain more information than is often appreciated in our circles, not to mention that the ones I post here are not always complete, I often omit many of the Ps curves for clarity.
I admit I do focus heavily on sustained turning because it is how most fights are won, in a two circle fight mostly because of maximum sustained turn rate, but radius is still important of course and in a one circle fight mostly because of minimum turn radius, which also occurs at the best sustained turn. I'll expand on that later.
You do mention radius but that also seems to be when locked into the context of a two-circle fight.
I wouldn't say locked into, but I do think that one and two circle fights are better treated separately. I discuss two circle fights first because if you consider the duration of each phase of the fight, the rapid loss of speed ensures that against two roughly equal pilots, stall fighting has the potential to form by far the longest phase of the engagement. It's called sustained because you can stay there for as long as it takes and it can sometimes take minutes rather than seconds. One circle fights are often over relatively quickly. So it makes sense to learn to be good at the thing you are likely to spend the most time doing. Secondly it is probably the more difficult of the two to master. Thirdly because two circle fights tend to occur more frequently, possibly because most players don't like being shot in the face, so the conclusion is: I deal with two circle fights because I've found that they occur more frequently, last longer and are more difficult to master.
Of course we all see many fights that go one circle with the potential for a quick kill, but even then success will go to the pilot who knows if his minimum turn radius is smaller than his opponents and the minimum radius for any fighter is achieved at a point where it can continuously pull the most g at the least speed and that's the best sustained turn data point I provide in the tables and on EM diagrams so it helps there also. True, in that kind of fight, it is a race to dump energy to reach that point quickly, and involves other factors favoring pilots with fast reflexes, good hand eye coordination, timing and gunnery. That contrasts with the relatively slower gains made in a two circle fight as you work to the six, pursue easier gunnery solutions and conserve energy. The fighting style is smoother, less demanding in terms of pilot reflexes but more demanding in other ways, for example it requires higher SA if you don't want to get picked.
Best sticks in the Army of Muppets didn't fight that way.
I don't want to make this about individuals but that pretty much explains why they were so spectacularly unsuccessful when they engaged pilots who knew better :rofl
Seriously though I do understand why in the MA it isn't always correct to fly optimal BFM. Sometimes it is better do whatever has the potential to end the fight in the shortest time possible. If you are competing with countrymen or squadmates to get the kill before they do, or just want to avoid being picked, it can be better to fly in the way that is most likely to end the fight the quickest and for some pilots that's all that makes sense to them. However in fights where the priority is a higher probability of kill rather than just a quick kill, then it is important to know what optimal BFM looks like and quite frankly, the things I've seen players do in the quest for a quick kill are sometimes more comical than optimal.
I have tried over the years to help players to at least know the difference, so that they are well enough informed to make whatever tactical decisions they deem to be best at the time. I try not to deal in absolutes, or claim any method is always better than another, things are always more complicated than that and checking the list of factors at the start of post, it would be almost impossible to cover all the bases in every discussion. However, there is always more than one way, often one is better than the others in the circumstances and thus optimal and there are always many wrong ways and an abundance of blatant BFM blunders. I'm just doing my bit here to help folk to tell the difference and still learning as I go :)
The Bottom line is that this game is about having fun and if someone has more fun if they can get kills in the poor performance aircraft using suboptimal BFM then more power to them. I've seen enough great pilots doing just that just for the challenge of it, who am I to argue :rolleyes:
Regards
Badboy
-
Enjoyed the read, thanks Badboy
-
This seemingly has the complexion of a lecture and not a discussion so I’ll confine myself to the traditional questions-based approach in this framework. If I may:-
I admit I do focus heavily on sustained turning because it is how most fights are won, in a two circle fight mostly because of maximum sustained turn rate, but radius is still important of course and in a one circle fight mostly because of minimum turn radius, which also occurs at the best sustained turn. I'll expand on that later
Does that not necessitate the fight essentially remains two-and-a-half-dimensional, the vertical component utilised largely for the exchange of potential and kinetic energy in order to pursue the one-circle fight? How do you reconcile that with the often heard: “fight in the vert” recommendation by some of our more effective sticks?
In your original sketch of the Ki-84 matchup you don’t address this but imply flat turning by both parties. In my experience the Spit8 stick has the very attractive option to slightly descend while turning, holding 3G at a speed where the Ki-84 is both unable to reach anything like 3G or flaps (indeed as indicated by the relative EM Diagrams). The Ki-84 stick has the choices of reducing throttle to access flaps and therefore reducing the relative energy states in the Spitfire’s favour, or effectively descend farther to not get out-rated putting the Spit above. Neither particularly good options. Ascending is also not favourable as the Spitfire’s appears to have superior retention (and indeed specifically more airspeed here) and may always pull nose-high for either a shot or an ascension retaining the energy for further out-rating especially if the opponent slows. The first notch of flaps being only available to the Ki-84 pilot at 164-m.p.h. (is it?) and full flaps only below 151-m.p.h. The Spit 8 can pull 3G sustained at what, something like 176-m.p.h. depending on mass and WEP?
Best sticks in the Army of Muppets didn't fight that way.
I don't want to make this about individuals but that pretty much explains why they were so spectacularly unsuccessful when they engaged pilots who knew better :rofl
You will pardon me for pointing this out but it is a rather extraordinary claim to make without evidencing. They also duelled extensively and successfully in similar airframes outside of the MA. Building on that point can you explain why you choose to fly the MA most often as a shade callsign. Wouldn’t the most convincing argument to be to always fly as Badboy and evidence your expertise or at least the validity of what you propose?
You mention initially there are some great Ki-84 sticks in-game. Who? I should like to know who you particularly find challenging when flying the Spit8. It would not be the same as 'making it about individuals' in a critical way but surely a compliment.
-
Does that not necessitate the fight essentially remains two-and-a-half-dimensional, the vertical component utilised largely for the exchange of potential and kinetic energy in order to pursue the one-circle fight? How do you reconcile that with the often heard: “fight in the vert” recommendation by some of our more effective sticks?
No, of course not. Air combat takes place in three dimensions, and I’ve never seen one that doesn’t make use of all three at some point. It doesn’t make sense to recommend one or the other out of context because inappropriate use of the vertical can do more harm than good. I see players making poor use of the vertical all the time, they seem to know the maneuvers but lack any real understanding of when, why or how they should be doing it. They probably shouldn’t pay so much attention to often heard sound bites.
Horizontal and vertical aspects of a fight are often treated separately but they aren’t mutually exclusive and the ideas don’t need to be reconciled, they are just different parts of a larger body of knowledge that almost always overlap and combine continuously in practice. The devil is in the details.
In my experience the Spit8 stick has the very attractive option to slightly descend while turning, holding 3G at a speed where the Ki-84 is both unable to reach anything like 3G or flaps (indeed as indicated by the relative EM Diagrams). The Ki-84 stick has the choices of reducing throttle to access flaps and therefore reducing the relative energy states in the Spitfire’s favour, or effectively descend farther to not get out-rated putting the Spit above. Neither particularly good options. Ascending is also not favourable as the Spitfire’s appears to have superior retention (and indeed specifically more airspeed here) and may always pull nose-high for either a shot or an ascension retaining the energy for further out-rating especially if the opponent slows. The first notch of flaps being only available to the Ki-84 pilot at 164-m.p.h. (is it?) and full flaps only below 151-m.p.h. The Spit 8 can pull 3G sustained at what, something like 176-m.p.h. depending on mass and WEP?
That passage of text was difficult to read because it appears to be entirely wrong. I’ll try to explain on a point by point basis.
Firstly, you describe the tactic of descending while turning as a very attractive option but in fact it is a very common BFM error. It might make sense defensively as in a defensive spiral or at the beginning of a low yo-yo, but otherwise I’m always delighted to see an opponent do it because I know that it is going to cost them. I believe the main reason we see it so often is that it often works, because there aren’t many pilots who know how to respond to it correctly. It is a good example of a maneuver people know but don't fully understand and thus use it to their own detriment, it is what I call “Hope BFM”, because when pilots use it, they just hope your clue bag is as empty as theirs. I’ll save a detailed explanation of why it is a mistake and how it should be countered for another post.
Secondly, you support that with reference to the 3G available to the Spitfire, but just referring to the G value doesn't help your case. Just because an aircraft can pull more G doesn’t mean it will turn better. An aircraft pulling lower G can still have a better turn rate and a smaller radius. For example if one aircraft can pull 3G at 160mph its turn rate will be 22dps with a 605ft radius, Another aircraft may only be able to pull 2.5G at 120mph but its turn rate will be 24dps with a 420ft radius. It pulls less G but has a significant advantage in both rate and radius. You claim to be referencing an EM diagram, but the whole point of EM diagrams is that you can read the rate and radius directly for the entire envelope of both aircraft. I assume you are using an overlay for the Spitfire v Ki-84 that I’ve posted in the past, so I think you must know that referring to a G value by itself is meaningless.
Thirdly, you discuss the Ki-84s options to access flaps describing them in depth and dismissing each one as unfavourable. However, you should find that the speed of the Ki-84 at its best sustained turn with WEP at the edge of the stall, is very close to the flap speed and within about 2 mph of it. So if you are performing an optimal turn the flaps should be very easy to access without the efforts described.
I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make in that passage of text. It sounds as though you think flap usage isn't beneficial to the Ki-84 and that the Spitfire is vastly superior because it can pull more G. Unfortunately I can't be sure because none of the points you have made appear to be valid.
You mention initially there are some great Ki-84 sticks in-game. Who? I should like to know who you particularly find challenging when flying the Spit8. It would not be the same as 'making it about individuals' in a critical way but surely a compliment.
I disagree, this is a discussion of the relative merits of two aircraft in the aircraft and vehicles forum. The merits of the pilots, complimentary or otherwise, have no bearing on the relative performance of the aircraft. So I won’t be able to help you with that request. I’ll restrict my comments to the aircraft and related air combat. However if you insist on knowing the names of some good Ki-84 drivers, I’m sure there are others who would be willing to help you find them.
Building on that point can you explain why you choose to fly the MA most often as a shade callsign. Wouldn’t the most convincing argument to be to always fly as Badboy and evidence your expertise or at least the validity of what you propose?
If you have any concerns regarding the validity of anything I’ve said here, it should be fairly easy for you to validate it yourself, as many others have done. If you have any difficulty understanding or applying any of it I’d be happy to help you in the TA. However if any of my advice simply doesn’t work for you, I’d be equally happy to refund you double what you paid for it. :aok
Regards
Badboy
-
Just popping in for a bit, I just got a simple question.
You seem to really know your stuff Badboy, do you have a background in aircraft IRL? Perhaps even some fighter jet experience?
-
Secondly, you support that with reference to the 3G available to the Spitfire, but just referring to the G value doesn't help your case. Just because an aircraft can pull more G doesn’t mean it will turn better.
Well now I'm really confused. Because I thought I got this directly from an EM Diagram years ago regarding our Ki-84 (I think I wouldn't have got that from anywhere else). The vertical column which is d.p.s. always degrades as the G force decreases. I've never seen a kinky diagram - if you see what I mean - showing a bulge to contradict that. And yet at the same time I originally in my pre-2012 incarnation knew what you stated above, without any technical knowledge at all and only through feeling.
I can't find the original images on the forum. Looks like they were pre PhotoShack subscription day. Surely you would have never have posted an EM-diagram for the Ki-84 slick? No one would ever fight that way and that would be an omission to the point of misleading. Obviously taking into account what you mention about your fees.