Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: Duckwing6 on July 05, 2000, 05:30:00 AM
-
Hyas .. as for the other post regarding scissors .. 99% of all ladder duells i have fought so far opened up with a CO-E merge followed by a low G immelman merge move.
How to beat the Low G immel ??
What i did:
a) tried a climbing turn -> and got busted being a LOT lower on E and alt than my opponent who is on top of the Loop and hs the option to counter any of my turn with just rolling in the vertical.
b) Low G immel myselfe. Usually i tried to lead the pull up so i was having my nose on the opponent when he comes over the top of his loop .. this ends up usually with a HO merge and then a stall speed scissor (which i tend to loose -> see other thread)
c)High G immel. Pull around at higher G than your opponent, (try to) accelerate and pull into your oppoent again who is now hanging low speed low E but with a bit of alt above ya. Dunno LOL the pull up thing never quite worked as propsed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) what happened a lot was that my oppoenent did that move on me while i did a low G immel and i ended up dropping on his 6 (for a few seconds) just to end up lower and slower in a stall speed scissors / spiral climb fight (which i tend to loose again (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
Please post your ways to do the CO-E (duell) Merge (i'm not trying to gather info here on ladder opponents folks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) just seeking the ultimate merge wisdom .. i'm easy meat for most of ya anyways (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
Thnaks !!
DW6
-
Originally posted by Duckwing6:
How to beat the Low G immel ??
Hmm....theres alot of variables here that come into play such as the types of planes each pilot is flying. I assume you are referring to a duel type of scenario where each player is flying the same sort of plane.
In this instance, the vague answer is the best pilot wins. The only way to beat a low G immelman (which is the best E conserving reversal available), the only defense is to reverse with your own E conserving Immelman. At this point, the victor goes to the pilot who is able to ride the edge of the flight envelope without stalling and get guns on target.
It also helps if you know a bit about your opponents flight style...is he an aggressive pilot and willing to go for the HO or is he more conservative and willing to expend a bit more E to avoid them.
I'd be interested in seeing what others have to say since I dont have any real answer myself (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-Ding
-
Any of the above merge types can win in the right situation. Trick is to know when to use what, and that takes experience.
Learn at least 3 or 4 merges and be prepared going in to use any of them!
Then sneak a peek over your shoulder to see what the other guy is doing. Done right you should have time to counter almost anything.
If he pulls tight, you go low G & get alt.
If he pulls lo gee match him or throw in a twist. Remember one thing, each time you unload gee's for a shot, your giveing him a chance to pull harder & gain angles. Hence the shot better be worth it.
If your going for angles remember to pull hardest when your planes nose down. Gravity will help you through the turn & you'll lose less speed & E. That coupled with a roll into the right plane should put you in a good position.
Last, it never hurts to be able to shoot as well inverted as right side up. Too many guys roll back vert to shoot, then roll inverted again to follow the loop.
Best to stay inverted, shoot, then pull hard onto his 6. Halfway around if he crosses below you might have a snapshot opp. Or another chance to roll & pull hard for angles.
Last, combine practise with someone who's better than you (this is where you'll learn the most) with someone who has more equal skills. (This is were you practise & perfect new moves)
Little things that all eventually add up to makeing a big difference.
[This message has been edited by Ghosth (edited 07-05-2000).]
-
There are no easy right answers here Duckwing. In the end I think dingy said it all, the better plot should win...however...you do have two basic merge philosophy's E and angles. A number of factors come into play. Are you "early" or "late" on your lead turn. A "late" 3 G opener will force the other plane to fly further around the circle and can result in an E advantage.
Lateral seperation is especially important in an "angles" merge in order to create an angular advantage via an early lead turn. The general rule is close in on the nose for E fighting and hor/vert seperation for angles.
One last thing to look at is the type of merge, "nose to nose (1 circle)" or "nose to tail (2 circle)"...a nose to tail opener is an E fight and a nose to nose indicates an angles opener.
-
Well how can i force in similar aircraft doing a Co-E merge a nose to tail without putting me into a serious disadvantage in therms of position right away?
in regards of timing... is it better to lead turn e.g. giving the oponent something to rect to, or waiting till the opponent starts his move, so you know what he is up to ?
-
I was always told the first to make his move wins, well most the time. But timing is key. If you go too soon the enema will counter easier if you go too late you lose.
I fight angles better than E still. And I do much better if I don't think about the fight while it happens just go with the flow. So I can't really tell ya how/when to go. I do know you have to commit yourself to E or angles from the start and make it a full commitment. IF you half-ass the merge not sure which way to go you will be dead sooner than later. I showed ya that today in the duels. I was thinking about it and didn't commit to one or the other.
Only lotsa practice will get ya better. Talk ghosth into working angles with ya. He taught me a sh*tload a couple of years ago and it sticks with me today.
S!
Rocket
-
RE: HO after low G merge
I find it's quite difficult to avoid the HO in this situation. I used to try to avoid it, but I'd be so slow I get shot doing it everytime. I'd be interested to hear what people do in this situation.
RE: Counter low G merge
I had one guy do this to me in my WB days. Instead of an immel, he did a flat turn! - a low G one of course. He just pulled up nicely onto my 6 while I was doing my low G immel. Although I was above him, his speed on the low G flat turn put him nicely on my 6!
What could I have done?
Rope..he was too close.
Reverse on him? He was too close to get a gun solution.
Spiral climb?..for similar planes, I think this is just prolonging the inevitable, coz he'll be on my 6.
I'd be interested to see how people counteract this move too..
Ex.
-
190A5(A) vs 190A5(B), 10k merge. Suppose they merge at 250mph, (B) starts a typical lo g immelman while (A) keeps level accelerating to 275. At this point (A) switch on autoangle with 25-30 degrees nose up. When (A) speed drops below 190, (A) switch ON autospeed 190 and keeps in substained climb. At some point, (B) will end its semiloop and will be a bit higher than (A), but much slower, and separation has increased to more than d5. (A) keeps the substained 190mph climb while (B) aproaches it gaining some speed but loosing the alt advantage. At some point, (B) will be efectively at (A) six but a bit lower and with only a slight speed advantage, the distance has decreased to d3. (A) starts to decrease the autospeed to 170-150 and then dissengange autospeed. If well timed, (A) will be in vertical climb with (B) at d1.5 or d2. At the top of the hammerhead (A) will be about 600 yards higher than (B) and the E battle is won.
-
Duckwing...both exile and Mandoble are illustrating "nose to tail" openers...Mandoble's is the extreme end of a late E opener that forces opponent for fly the "long" way. I've only fought the 1 ladder duel so far...and dogftr hosed me fair and square. 1 fight (1st) ended on post merge HO. 3 went down to the deck and were edge of envelope fights. I won the nikki and dogftr both 109 and 190(a8)...last was a go thru motion gift from me. reason I brought it up is that dogftr beat me in both 109 and 190 on two circle openers. As far as i'm concerned at the time i thought I beat him on both merges and lost cause he a better 109/190 driver BUT...reviewing it he gave angles for E on opener (never letting me get to much edge) and nuetralized position thru midgame and won both when I "flipped out" on the end game. Text book shaw by a guy who can obviously fly the edge mentally as well as physically. Dangerous if you mess it up..but truthfully pretty safe if you really can hit the sweet spot.
This all comes down to levels of experience and time. This game evens things up pretty well...but when an angles flier meets a "E" fighting expert, the angle flier is going to get hurt most of the time.
-
Well, There are several options going into this merge. I use a low G immel alot but not always. Depends on the AC and my "perception" of the pilot. I always watch the other guy and NEVER lose sight of him. My goal is not to gain angles on my opponent--but to get above him and gain a superior E state. Once I am above him, i dictate the fight. My opponent is forced to capitolize on a mistake, which hopefully i will not make. 95% of these duels are decided on the initial merge. After this its all about making the right decision/maneuver, being aggressive and not making mistakes.
DW--if you like I would be glad to be a sparring partner for you ane evening, or feel free to email me if you have any questions.
ammo
-
What is a 'low G Immelmann'?
Many of the AH a/c seem to bleed knots like a stuck pig when going vertical...in some, getting over on your back is an accomplishment on its own...so the idea of pulling up with 'low Gs' with the expectation of making it over the top is worth a discussion.
Since the folks that read these references to such maneuvers may well go out and try it themselves, perhaps you guys can include some suggested airspeeds and recommended G schedules.
How about some more info?
Andy
-
This thread can be a good deal for newbies, but only if folks remember that instruction is not telling the 'what' so much as it is telling the 'how' and the 'why'. In a sim like AH where the choice of views is limited, this becomes even more important.
Why? Because, the 1v1 is a visual exercise...the pilot that manages his views most effectively will usually gain the victory. So, if tips are to be passed along...and that is the way most of us learn...then those tips and techniques need to be explained in language that is transferrable to the sim. Some examples...
>>the victor goes to the pilot who is able to ride the edge of the flight envelope without stalling<<
How do you do this? What does the buzzing sound at high AOA mean and how is this feature of the sim used to best advantage?
>>Learn at least 3 or 4 merges and be prepared going in to use any of them!<<
Sounds good to me. What are they?
>>Then sneak a peek over your shoulder to see what the other guy is doing.<<
How do you do this? What view were you in and what view are you going to? Then...what are you looking for?
>>a nose to tail opener is an E fight and a nose to nose indicates an angles opener.<<
Wrong. The one circle and two circle are both angles fights...unless you define an Immelmann opener as a 'nose to tail'. It's not...the one circle/two circle concepts are meant to be seen as in-plane maneuvers.
>>Are you "early" or "late" on your lead turn. A "late" 3 G opener will force the other plane to fly further around the circle and can result in an E advantage.<<
An 'E advantage' for whom? What is the point of this comment?
>>Text book shaw by a guy who can obviously fly the edge mentally as well as physically<<
Now, what is a newbie supposed to get from this? How does this improve his BFM skills?
>>both exile and Mandoble are illustrating "nose to tail" openers...Mandoble's is the extreme end of a late E opener that forces opponent for fly the "long" way.<<
Nope...again. Mandoble described a blow thru and subsequent climbing extension. Given the geometry, the opponent actually flew the 'short' way, ie an in-plane Immelmann against the extending adversary.
>>I always watch the other guy and NEVER lose sight of him.<<
Great advice. But how is the newbie supposed to do this? What view(s) do you use?
As a young Lt, I always looked forward to Friday nights at the O'Club bar. There was always going to be an 'old head' that would be more than willing (as long as we kept buying the beers) to regale us with tales of derring-do. Our job was to separate the bar talk and BS from the genuine nuggets of info that he could pass along. It's always been that way in fighters...and I don't see things changing anytime soon.
Things aren't much different here. You folks that are really good need to keep the faith with the new guys. Let's not play 'I've Got A Secret'! Spread the wealth around...we'll all be better for it.
Andy
-
Andy:
ouch, ouch, ouch (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I don't want this post misunderstood, I mess with this for fun...you did it for a living. So i'm looking for clarification...not argueing.
>>a nose to tail opener is an E fight and a nose to nose indicates an angles opener.<<...
Wrong. The one circle and two circle are both angles fights...unless you define an Immelmann opener as a 'nose to tail'. It's not...the one circle/two circle concepts are meant to be seen as in-plane maneuvers...
Everything i've learned says 1 circle is an angles opener and 2 circle is an E opener..and yes they can be out of plane far as I've learned.
>>Are you "early" or "late" on your lead turn. A "late" 3 G opener will force the other plane to fly further around the circle and can result in an E advantage.<<
...An 'E advantage' for whom? What is the point of this comment?...
This is an attempt to convey the merits of early vs late lead turns on a merge..a part of the 3-4 different merges.
>>Text book shaw by a guy who can obviously fly the edge mentally as well as physically<<
...Now, what is a newbie supposed to get from this? How does this improve his BFM skills?...
Taken in context it was ment to illustrate that how we think impacts how we learn...often newbies focus on one aspect at the expense of another. By using a personal experience I was attempting to illustrate that planning & execution are equally important in a dogfight.
>>both exile and Mandoble are illustrating "nose to tail" openers...Mandoble's is the extreme end of a late E opener that forces opponent for fly the "long" way.<<
Nope...again. Mandoble described a blow thru and subsequent climbing extension. Given the geometry, the opponent actually flew the 'short' way, ie an in-plane Immelmann against the extending adversary....
To me your wrong on this one...mandoble is flying a straight zoom on the merge...the con has to rev and follow...and mandoble saddles up in the vertical at the end...a classic 2 circle merge..in the vertical.
Again, I'm always looking to learn, just curious bout your mindset on this one post.
respectfully
humble
...
-
>>the victor goes to the pilot who is able to ride the edge of the flight envelope without stalling<<
Well, IMHO, riding the stall efficiently means you MUST be regularly retrimming your aircraft to the current flight conditions. Having your trims mapped to stick keys makes this considerably easier. If you're in a edge-of-the-stall turnfight the victor will almost invariably be the person who manages his trim better than his opponent. Watch the slip indicator at all times, and keep it centred up using trim if at all possible. Are you holding a heap of back pressure to keep the plane in the turn? Maybe you need some up elevator trim. Plane trying to roll to one side? Counterract with aileron trim. Anything you can do to decrease drag in the turnfight will help you manage your energy better, and being out of trim can bleed your airspeed and energy substantially.
>>Learn at least 3 or 4 merges and be prepared going in to use any of them!<<
OK. Just off the top of my head, I'd say to learn the pure vertical zoom merge, oblique immelman, barrel roll attack and flat turn merge (not that I recommend flat turns (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
[QUOTE}>>Then sneak a peek over your shoulder to see what the other guy is doing.<<[/QUOTE]
No hard and fast solutions to this question. But Andy, if you're flying a merge in RL you don't say to yourself "I must check my back-rear view" after the merge. You do it automatically I would expect. If the con shows signs of blowing straight through on the merge, I'd be checking my dead 6 or up/6 view. If he was in a left hand turn prior to a HO merge I'd be checking my dead 6, up/6 and back right views. No hard and fast rules I'm afraid.
>>I always watch the other guy and NEVER lose sight of him.<<
And here is the heart of the matter. Practice using ALL your views, ALL the time. Cycle between them regularly during combat. Fly offline aerobatics at 50 feet while cycling through your views and trying not to crash. Practice flat scissors while only looking out of your 6 and up/6 views. Practice hard break turns and barrel rolls while only looking out of your 6 and up views.
PRACTICE YOUR VIEWS!!!!!!!!!! Get used to the hat positions on your stick (assuming you have views mapped to a hat). If not, get used to having your fingers dancing around the numpad whilst in flight.
Err.. did I remember to say PRACTICE YOUR VIEWS!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
'feel the heat .......'
-
Humble
No reason for the 'ouch'! I deliberately did not include names with the examples because my intent was not to focus on an individual but to look at the instructional value of the post. We all do this hobby for the best of reasons...mine is to pass along some 33 years now of real world flight experience.
To answer your specific questions...
>>Everything i've learned says 1 circle is an angles opener and 2 circle is an E opener..and yes they can be out of plane far as I've learned.<<
This raises the ever-present issue of terminology and definitions. BFM has been around forever and not much new has happened to the basics...but nevertheless, we see new names sometimes replacing old. On top of that is the fact that some organizations use different definitions and terms than others (USN vs USAF, for example).
Because of this, I tend to follow traditional USAF BFM terminology. In this, the one circle/two circle option is only discussed in relation to in-plane maneuvering...and in basic instruction is referred to as being level with the horizon. The reason is to remove any additional considerations that may get in the way of the primary objective - the advantages/disadvantages of either option.
So, I must disagree with you! As a general statement, the one/two circle option is seen as an in-plane angles situation.
>>I was attempting to illustrate that planning & execution are equally important in a dogfight.<<
Ahhh!! 'Planning and execution' are much better than 'mentally and physically'. Actually, I agreed with your inital statement as far as the real world goes...G effect is a major factor to be overcome in a hard fight and has a definite impact on physical performance and mental stamina...but we don't have to deal with G in our sims (other than to quit pulling when the screen turns dark...and even then we can continue to pull. Try that in RL and you'll get the chance to take a nap!)
>>To me your wrong on this one...mandoble is flying a straight zoom on the merge...a classic 2 circle merge..in the vertical.<<
Hmmm...that's not how I read the description. Mandoble goes straight thru, then climbs. The opponent pulls up into an Immelmann. They are both flying in or close to the same plane, ie the vertical, and, essentially, in the same circle. See Shaw, page 81, figure 2-15. BTW, read Shaw's discussion of the one/two circle fight and you will see little reference to energy but lots of talk about turn performance.
As to my mindset on these posts...I strongly endorse folks passing along tips and techniques. I think your enthusiasm is great and I'd like to see it be contagious. I don't want to play the role of 'know-it-all', but at the same time, I won't let incorrect info pass without comment. It's a lousy job but someone has to do it!!
Jekyll
>>and being out of trim can bleed your airspeed and energy substantially.<<
Good comments on the issue of trimming, but we need to differentiate between trimming off control pressures and an out-of trim flight control surface. If you fly around with your rudder trimmed out of alignment, it will tend to produce unnecessary drag.
But...if you are holding back stick pressure to maintain a desired attitude, the fact that the stick is not trimmed has no effect on airspeed. The elevator is going to be deflected whether you have it trimmed or not. It's not the out of trim that produces the extra drag, it's the control surface deflection to begin with.
>>OK. Just off the top of my head, I'd say to learn the pure vertical zoom merge, oblique immelman, barrel roll attack and flat turn merge<<
Fair enough. Let's get the terminology right. The 'oblique Immelmann' is called a pitchback...a descending similar maneuver is the slice. A 'barrel roll attack' has absolutely nothing to do with a merge...it is a BFM maneuver intended to solve an excessive aspect angle and is usually performed behind the bandit's wingline.
I see only two merge options...you either turn or you don't. Everything else is a subset of those two.
>>Err.. did I remember to say PRACTICE YOUR VIEWS!!!<<
There's no better advice.
Here is what I emphasize when using snap views...(1) the importance of maintaining SA with your nose position, (2) Configuring your snap views to get the best possible advantageous perspective...AH is outstanding in this regard,(3) maintaining an awareness of the lift vector when changing views,(4) understanding how to maneuver out of plane using snap views...in other words, avoiding the 'G for brains' syndrome.
Lastly...and well into the FWIW dept...compared to what RL BFM looks like, snap views are an aberration. They have a certain usefulness for maintaing a good bogey scan, but that's about it. I realize that this is a no-win issue...but I can tell you this. I have yet to meet a snap view advocate that has ever done this for real...they may be out there..I just haven't run across them!
Andy
-
Thanx for quick response...the ouch stuff was mostly tonque in cheek...but I'm always looking to learn/understand more about my addiction (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). One of the biggest challenges for me is translating 3rd party realworld expertise ( having none of my own ) to a flight sim setting. Only point i'll try and clarify further is 'mental vs physical'. I was referring to the mental (tactic's and planning) vs "flying" the plane on the edge (in sim of course), which to me is a learned motor skill. 90% of the folks I work with fly much better than they think they do. Most are tactically clueless in the beginning. They think they're being "outflown" when in reality they don't have a clear mental image of what they want to accomplish. Once they get that part figured out...then they are being outflown..but by a much narrower margin then they would have guessed initially.
-
A 'barrel roll attack' has absolutely nothing to do with a merge...it is a BFM maneuver intended to solve an excessive aspect angle and is usually performed behind the bandit's wingline.
When is a merge, not a merge? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) OK Andy, I'll bow to your superior experience on that one, but I regard a merge as any situation in which you are coming into contact with an opponent. May not be the textbook definition but hey, it works for me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
That said, a BRA qualifies as a 'merge' in my book. Then again, so too does a split S or vertical lead roll in some circumstances. The purpose of the merge IMHO is to obtain a superior position in either energy or angle over the opponent, and a BRA will do that just fine for me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It's not the out of trim that produces the extra drag, it's the control surface deflection to begin with.
OK, and while control surface deflection is undoubtedly the major cause of drag in this situation, what I was trying to talk about was this: You're in a turnfight, pulling on the pole to stay with your opponent. You had previously been motoring along in autolevel at 300kts or so, and your horizontal stab is trimmed for 300kt level flight. Therefore, since you are out of trim in your, say 160kt turn, will you not need MORE back stick to maintain that turn and speed, than if you were trimmed for 160 kts? More back stick = more elevator deflection = more drag. But the extra drag is caused by being out of trim initially, not just by the control surface deflection.
As an aside, anyone know whether AH followed the WB route and modelled stabliser trim rather than the use of trim tabs on control surfaces? I'm assuming that it did.
Sorry about the confusion.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix (http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 07-09-2000).]
-
Just a note, Andy Bush.
In my description, plane (A) initiates an agressive separation from (B), plane (B) do not make a pure vertical climb, it makes a semi-loop, that implies even more separation from (A). In fact, when (B) ends the loop, (A) has gained more than enough separation, and YES, (A) forces (B) to make the LONG way.
And a final note, do not try it against a HogC, its guns will hit and kill you at d900 (absurd).
-
Jekyll
>>May not be the textbook definition but hey, it works for me<<
But that is exactly the point I'm trying to make! I'm not being critical of your flying skills...but I am saying that you need to observe standard terminology when talking BFM. Otherwise, when someone reads your words, they may get an incorrect perception of what you are describing.
A Barrel Roll Attack is a specific maneuver designed for a specific purpose. If you want to enter the merge doing a barrel roll, fine. But the barrel roll maneuver (as in an aerobatic sense) is not the textbook Barrel Roll Attack. (The use of upper and lower case is deliberate and significant.)
The point here is that the newbie will read the words of an experienced flyer and will accept it in its entirety. He then goes to his copy of Shaw and looks up the terms used. If Shaw's description is at odds with the post, then we have a confused newbie on our hands.
On the trim issue...I don't know whether AH models stabilizer trim vs trim tabs...but for our purposes, the question is irrelevant. When you are pulling on the pole at 160mph and want 'x' G, a certain amount of downforce is required of the stabilizer/elevator. Trim will not change that. Trim will only change the stick feel. Trim does not reduce drag...it reduces pilot work load.
Now the work load idea is significant to your point. Pilot work load can have an impact on BFM. The heavier the stick, the harder it becomes to hold the desired pitch attitude...the more the pilot has to think about stick pressure requirements, the less he can devote to other aspects of the engagement. The situation is analogous to a landing approach. One pilot configures and trims his a/c for a 'hands off' stick 'feel'. Another is content to leave the trim set for cruise conditions and chooses to hold the 'heavy' nose stick feel during his approach. Does the airplane know the difference? No. Trimming is great technique, but not a necessity.
Mandoble
I think we are talking about different things. My intent was to note that you two were flying in the same plane...you went up, he went up...in a different manner, for sure, but you both went up in the same plane of motion (ie, your lift vectors were in the same plane).
As such, the only factors that affected your separation were your extension speed, your extension flight path, and his G load in his Immelmann.
It's the old 'straight line is the shortest distance' thing...as long as you two are turning in the same plane, that is the 'straight line' minimum distance. Any turning on his part that is out of plane is by definition lag pursuit, and therefore a longer flight path.
Consequently, for a given G load, B will achieve the minimum separation by turning in plane with A as was originally described. Any attempt to turn in a plane other than the one defined by A will produce additional lateral and vertical separation.
In any case, all of this nit-picking is of little importance in the grand scheme of things. We do this to have fun. If we want to encourage others to do the same, all I suggest is that we not confuse them in the process.
Andy
-
Whoooaaa .. this thread is getting a BIT of topic .. i didn't really ask for a discussion about therminology .. but rather for a way to beat peoples going High with low G force after the merge
Oh and Andy you can do a 1.5g Immelman (low G that is according to MY experience with aerobatics) with the F4U easy in AH with an entry speed of around 300 to 350 mph..
most people will pull harder tho 3g and more.
BUT folks all of this is great stuff keep it coming (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
DW
Regards your 1.5 g Immelmann...I find that a bit on the optimistic side of things.
I have tried the F4U in AH at 300-400mph and 1.5 G. It is possible to get over the top...in a manner of speaking...but I wouldn't call it pretty...and it requires a serious crosscheck of the G meter since there is no tactile feel for this type of maneuver.
One and a half gs is practically nothing...the pilot is only using 1/2 G to rotate the nose...to be able to do a vertical maneuver at that g load will require close to a 1:1 thrust capability. Not many WW2 a/c had that kind of performance.
Your desire to describe a zooming climb where you trade airspeed for altitude is just fine...but be careful when you start describing specific flight parameters. When you do that you should be ready to back it up with specifics...type of a/c, fuel load, etc. Otherwise some newbie is going to try it and end up wondering why he is emulating a falling leaf.
Andy
-
WOW, this thread sure has grown. Andy, sure is glad to have a real fighter pilot in here! You USAF? Navy? MArine?
Ok, this is what I think. Even in Low wing loaded AC, I believe that in AH it is always better to go for and E advantage rather than an angles advantage after a merge, this is just for 1 on 1 really, as a multi con enviroment changes the way you should fly constantly. Personally a 30 degree zoom after the merge, in plane manuever is a bread and butter move for me. It works well. I will go into the climb immediately at merge and keep 30 degree aspect till my IAS drops to 200 MPH or so. I then will gradually pull up on the stick ( if in a P-51, or P38 give it a notch of flaps when your aspect is true vertical nose up). Up and over I go and I am now reversed. Mostly I will find my opponent at this point closing on me but slow, I am slow too however but will have a significant altitude advantage. Depending on AC, an AC with a good climb rate I will continue to climb and go into a luiftberry circle and wait till hes too slow and he must break off to gain E. Now a good pilot that saw this coming has done 1 of 2 things, 1) he extended and got his speed up to a point where his AC manuevers well, this will put his me nose to tail with him and into a chase which i will eventually win because of my alt advantage. 2)he saw my initial zoom and matched it conserving his energy, now we will merge again under the same conditions as the intial merge. We both did the long zoom and now we are probably seperated out of icon range or at least enuff that when we merge again we will both be at a high E state. Guys, I dont believe that a good turner will win the fight over a good E fighter. Now this works in our ladder duels, what about dissimilar AC? You have to know the strengths of all the AC in the AH plane set. This tactic still works well too, especially if you are in a good zoomer/climber. It can be effective in low wing loaded AC like a spit or zero, depending on your adversaries manuver after merge.
You must be able to watch your adversary all the time, judging his E state coimes with practice, lots of it. AH has a great view system, to utilize it you should practice activating them till you do it intinctively. I have a CH setup, throttle, pedals, and Stick. Total of 7 hats which I have alot of views mapped to. I keep the most used views mapped to my throttle, I dont won't to interfere with my manuevering in the heat of battle. If you have the same equipment as I, I would be glad to email the template to anyone who asks.
If any more questions i'll be glad to share my meager thoughts about them. There are others in this game that are much better than me and hopefully they will step in and give us their view (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Ok can someone clarify for me just for a moment?
Angles are Angles and that is the end game of any attack. If you don't gain angles then you lose plain and simple.
The idea of using Energy is to wear your opponant into a lesser Energy state so that you can gain angles for a firing solution.
The other idea is to use superior turning capibilities to gain pure angles to finish the game with a shooting solution.
Am I way off base here with this?
We have turn fighting, the angles game using a better turning radii to win the fight.
or
We have Energy fighting, the angles game using superior energy to wear the opponant down and win.
So the way I think, which is usually WAY off base,
I believe that in AH it is always better to go for and E advantage rather than an angles advantage after a merge
is that the only thing we are trying to do in combat is gain angles either by turning or using Energy very wisely?
Am I just really confused or am I gaining ground?
<This is why I am better to stick to basic flight manuevers> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
S!
Rocket
-
Andy:
Well i backed it up and you confirmed it even .. sure it's not pretty , sure a judge at an aerobatics contest won't give me 0 failure for it .. BUT the point is i got the nose around with the maximum altitude gain..
I use first flap setting in the F4U as soon as i'm past the vertical.. and i will be way below Stall speed and unloaded to 0 G when coming inverted.. and yes you need to constantly recheck G meter during the pull up this requires a lot of work with the views. And you are right i rotate up till about 30° Pitch up with 2 - 2.5 G then on with 1.5G
You have yet to describe what YOUR suggestion for a Merge with similar A/C in a Co E situation (same alt, same speed) is.
Would you lead turn, will you extend your pull up, will you flat turn for angles ?
DW6
-
Rocket: re the energy fight-v-angle fight. Its always helped me to think of it this way. All fighting involves a tradeoff between energy state and nose position. You want to change nose position in a hurry? Well that's going to involve an expenditure of energy to achieve it. Conversely, if you fly the energy fight, you'll often be gaining energy at the expense of nose position (angles) on the bandit. The energy fighter seeks to build that energy advantage in such a way that, when the time is right, he can cash in all that energy for a massive improvement in nose position and gain the kill.
OK, on to Andy's comments.
If you want to enter the merge doing a barrel roll, fine. But the barrel roll maneuver (as in an aerobatic sense) is not the textbook Barrel Roll Attack. (The use of upper and lower case is deliberate and significant.)
Whoa! Hold on there Andy. I never said anything, ANYTHING, about doing a barrel roll to merge. I was talking about the specific Barrel Roll Attack maneuver. Perhaps I forgot to capitalise it when explaining it earlier (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) That’s why I asked “When is a merge, not a merge?”. I’ve never seen anything in Shaw which provides a definition of the merge, so here’s my dweebish attempt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
“A merge occurs when two (or more) combatant aircraft enter an area of space in which at least one aircraft has a reasonable opportunity of shooting the other”.
A HO situation therefore would not constitute a merge until firing parameters are met: if two aircraft approach headon, but are separated by a 5000 feet altitude difference, there would be no merge until either the low fighter climbed or the high fighter dove down.
Trimming is great technique, but not a necessity.
Sorry, but I disagree with this statement 1000%. OK, lets take two identical aircraft in a turnfight at say, 160 mph.
Aircraft A is trimmed for 160 mph. Aircraft B has just dived in from a high speed cruise and is trimmed for 300 mph. I will assume that AH follows the same model as WB and achieves trim by use of stabiliser changes, but even if it doesn’t, the following still applies IMHO.
Now on aircraft B, part of the aircraft (the horizontal stabiliser or trim tab) is exerting a lifting force on the tail section, while the pilot is using elevator to generate the downforce required to turn circles with his opponent. Will not the pilot of aircraft B have to pull MORE up elevator than the pilot of aircraft A in order to turn the same turn radius? And if the pilot of aircraft B does have to pull more on the pole, will that not therefore generate more drag?
If you fly around with your rudder trimmed out of alignment, it will tend to produce unnecessary drag.
Exactly the point I was trying to make, however your above comment confused me a little when you followed up with ...
Trim will only change the stick feel. Trim does not reduce drag...it reduces pilot work load.
Sorry, you lost me there. So are you saying that being out of trim will, or will not, induce extra drag?
I’ve never flown a RL Spitfire, Mustang or Fw190. I wish I had (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But I can tell you that at least as simulated by Warbirds and Aces High, being out of trim DOES have a dramatic effect on a pilot’s ability to ride the edge of the stall, and get as much out of his aircraft as is possible.
Try this as a test: go offline in a Spit 9. Set your trim to 160 mph autoclimb then enter a level constant speed turn at 160mph. Time your turn for 360 degrees. Now take that same Spitfire and trim it for 300 mph. Try to enter a 360 degree turn at 160 mph and do one of the following:
1. Try to hold the constant-speed turn at 160mph and time the turn. (You’ll find your turn rate has suffered)
2. Try to turn the 360 in exactly the same amount of time it took to do the initial 360 when trimmed for 160 mph (you'll find you cannot maintain 160mph all the way around).
Now, this may not be the case in real life, but then again, our new guys are not getting shot at in real life (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But this is certainly true for our sim, and that’s why I still maintain that proper trimming of the aircraft is mandatory if you are considering a ‘riding the edge of the stall’-type fight.
I would imagine that in a modern jet fighter, trim drag would probably be almost irrelevant. A 10mph disparity between a Mig-29 and an FA-18 probably means nothing at all. But in a piston-engined WW2 fighter as simulated in AH, improper trimming can easily cost you as much as 10mph in a turnfight. And in a WW2 fighter, 10 mph is an enormous difference between aircraft.
Aircraft A maintains 160mph in a constant 800’ radius turn. Aircraft B, being out of trim, can only hold a constant 150mph around that same 800’ radius turn. Aircraft A will complete one 360 in about 21 seconds, compared to 22.8 seconds for aircraft B. Aircraft B is slower, so it cannot easily disengage, and aircraft A has a turn rate advantage, so it will eventually reach a firing position on Aircraft B’s tail.
The pilot of aircraft B checks his chute straps are tight, and awaits the inevitable (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Oh, one other thing. New guys might not necessarily have items like rudder pedals or twisty sticks for rudder control. In fact, they probably won’t. For new guys therefore, being in trim is even more important than for those of us who’ve got a full hotas setup, and can therefore easily step on the ball to keep the pointy end going in the right direction (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Regards.. Jekyll
-
Film you fight when you use scissors (go to TA if you want it fast and many time) and analize it. Film recorder is the best way to improve your technic in almost anything, it helps to see your mistakes.
I hate scissors myself, if I scissor it mean that I am in a real bad situation. I do everything to avoid it.
------------------
Fariz Alikishibekov,
Legate of XII legion
Festina Lente!
-
I'll strike while the iron is hot:
What is "in-plane" vs "out-of-plane" manuvers?
I never understood that. Thanks... great thread.
(http://www.ropescourse.org/cgunthr.jpg)
332nd Flying Mongrels
-
Gunthr
Here is diagram that shows an out of plane situation.
Imagine the plane of turn as a flat sheet of glass. As an aircraft turns, its velocity vector (picture it as pointing out the nose) and its lift vector (picture it as pointing out of the top of the canopy) will move along that sheet.
Anytime two aircraft are maneuvering together and their planes are not the same, then they are 'out of plane' with each other.
Out of plane maneuvering is the bread and butter of BFM, primarily for the purpose of using radial G to improve relative turn performance (increased turn rate, decreased turn radius).
For more basic info on this, please see my series, 'Its All A Matter Of Perspective' in the Air Combat Corner at www.simhq.com. (http://www.simhq.com.)
(http://www.doitnow.com/~alfakilo/TurnPlanes.jpg)
Andy
-
Jekyll
For starters, I'm not in this thread to argue with you or demean your ideas.
I comment when I think it will improve the passing of knowledge...or to clarify a specific point.
Here's the deal on trim. It's a secondary flight control device meant to reduce stick and rudder loads (and therefore pilot work load).
The rudder is 'trimmed' to a specific setting to offset the rudder as a counter, usually, to the yaw produced by engine torque. If rudder trim was not used, then the pilot would have to physically push the rudder pedal in to get the desired offset.
The ailerons are trimmed to hold a desired bank angle, usually wings level.
And the elevator is trimmed to hold a specific pitch attitude...this may be level flight/one G or it may be a specific G load resulting in a turn (for example, the aircraft elevator would be trimmed for 2 Gs to hold a 60 degree bank level turn.
The horizontal stabilizer/elevator is a 'mini-wing' that produces lift depending on its airspeed and angle of attack. Generally speaking, for a given deflection, the lift produced increases with speed. Therefore, 2 Gs at 150mph requires more deflection than does 2 Gs at 300mph.
There are several ways to trim the 'elevator'. Some aircraft (the F4U, for example) have trim 'tabs' on the trailing edge of the elevator. The pilot moves these tabs when trimming (see diagram). The trim tabs move opposite the movement of the elevator.
Other trim arrangements have the entire horizontal stabilizer moving when the pilot trims (this is the case with most modern fighters...see diagram). The result is the same...a downforce that assists the pilot in maintaining a pitch attitude.
Other trim systems use an adjustable horizontal stabilizer. When the pilot trims, he moves a jack screw that moves the leading edge of the horiz. stab. up or down. This produces a small lifting force that again reduces the amount of elevator movement needed to hold a desired pitch attitude.
OK...so much for a/c design. The aerodynamic consequences of trim design are way beyond this discussion. What newbies need to know is that trim reduces stick forces and therefore pilot work load. End of story. I've instructed in everything from USAF T-37s to F-4s, F-104s and A-10s to Boeing 727 and DC-9s...and at no time has airspeed or energy been mentioned as a consequence of trimming.
If in fact the AH flight model is programmed such that an out of trim situation as you mention produces a 1.8 dps difference in turn rate, so be it. In the grand scheme of BFM, this is relatively insignificant. Anyone that would stay in a turn and let someone else out turn him at that rate is a dolt.
(http://www.doitnow.com/~alfakilo/trim.jpg)
As for the question on my military background, see my bio in the staff section at www.simhq.com. (http://www.simhq.com.)
Andy
-
thanx for the link Andy, will always look forward to your opinion when you give it.
You fly the F-4G? in the pic it looked like one. When I first joined my first assignment was with the 31st TFW at Homestead and they were near the tail end of the transition to the F-16.
-
All this ACM talk has me ready to get back in the Aces High H2H Ladder. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Lots of great discussion here. I think we can try our best to explain to the newbies what they need to know to do well in a co-altitude merge situation, but unfortunately a small number of them are going to "get it".
For myself, I knew zero about ACM when I downloaded WB's in November of '98. What I have learned since then has come from thousands of sorties in WB's and AH and evaluating what in the heck I did to die that last time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The best possible way to show a newbie how to merge is have the guy ride with you, as you explain on RW (typing is too difficult) the ACM maneuvers, and why you are doing them.
Actually the best way is to have him sitting next to your PC, but thats obviously not possible here. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BTW, Nice site Andy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
-ammo-
It's a D model from the 497th TFS, Ubon RTAFB, Thailand...picture taken during the war so I'm not nearly as sleek and svelte as in the picture...or have as much hair anymore!!
Never flew the Gs...only Cs, Ds, and Es in CONUS, SEA, and USAFE.
Andy
-
RGR that Andy. A big snappy salute from ammo. You guys didnt get near what you deserved. When I got back from DS, people were falling all over us to give us free stuff, from beer, haircuts, tickets to Texas Rangers Games....etc....
I am an enlisted guy. and I am an "ammo" troop or munitions troop.
-
-ammo-
Many thanks. If you guys didn't hang it or load it, I couldn't puke it on the gomers.
Good luck out there and make sure those weenies keep their hands on the canopy rails!
Andy
-
Andy, don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to argue the point with you re drag effects of out-of-trim conditions, far from it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Like just about all the other purely 'virtual' pilots here, I just wanna learn more about the hobby I love so much.
P.S. I still think your series at simhq is the best thing I've ever read (including Shaw). Your article "It's all a matter of perspective" is brilliant!
Keep up the good work (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Jekyll