Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: sullie363 on January 07, 2008, 05:55:59 AM
-
So I was just thinking about an episode of Dogfights from this season, I think the one titled "P-51 Mustang." Anyway a P-51D is being chased by a 109 in a slightly descending right turn, at what speed they were at they didn't say. What he did to evade I have been unable to duplicate in the game but he described it as this - pull the stick into your gut to stall the aircraft, kick full right rudder, then the engine torque will pull her back into something flyable and you recover a couple thousand feet later. I'm just gonna assume somebody else saw this episode and remembers what I'm talking about and have tried to pull it off themselves. So far all my attempts have resulted in the plane wiggling a little, but nothing like what the pilot described. Easily attained to the left, just not to the right.
I believe the same episode also had a pilot in the same situation, being chased in a descending right turn, and the pilot snapped the mustang up and to the left, did an insta 360 spin and managed to land rounds on his pursuer.
-
Check out the thread started by WideWing in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum.
-
Sullie...I watched that episode. I also haven't been able to replicate it.:( Also, in that episode (and please correct me if i'm wrong) that they said a p51 would "easily outturn a 109" ?!?! I have it DVR'd and will watch it again when I get home but I'm sure that is what I heard.
-
That's the problem with interviewing somebody 60 years after the fact. They remember they pulled a move, but perhaps they're getting confused on what they did. Or perhaps the way "Dogfights" portrays it isn't historical (*gasp*! that'd be a first! -- no, wait, it wouldn't!)
Don't get me wrong, sometimes the show is interesting, but I wouldn't take it as gospel truth.
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
t they said a p51 would "easily outturn a 109" ?!?!
There's your first clue.
:noid
-
You mean you saw that on the Propoganda Channel?:lol
Ok, ok, that's an exaggeration. But I do find their war documentaries to be full of gross over-generalizations and sensationalism, and wouldn't believe everything I see there.
If you want to learn an interesting maneuver that you can do in AH, but would likely blind a pilot in real life, check out the P51 instability thread in the aircraft and vehicles forum.
-
So, just to clarify......We hound people endlessly when they say that the modelling of some of the planes in Aces is not accurate and claim they know nothing about these planes because they have never actually flown them. Then when they interview ACTUAL PILOTS of these planes we don't believe them?!?
makes sense........................ ............
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rofl :rofl
-
So, let me get this straight....
You believe everything the Discovery Channel tells you?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rofl :rofl
-
There are pilots who have flown both the P-51 and the 109:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
:)
-
Originally posted by Viking
There are pilots who have flown both the P-51 and the 109:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
:)
My thoughts exactly, Viking.
-
it really does not matter at all what an airplane does in the real world. What matters is what the Flight Model does in the game.
The young man in that video seems to get all wet and excited like he has just been blessed with some sacred data from reality that proves some unmentioned point.
Bottom line: Its what happens in game that counts. Learn the game, discard reality, because the two are mutually exclusive.
-
I love the series , it is great viewing.
Halfway through an episode , I cant help but log on to AH , and fly a couple sorties.
One thing though , those planes /pilots always SEEM to have more engine power than I ever do!
-
Oh yeah, the interviewers were clearly 109 enthusiasts, but that doesn't change what the real pilots said ... or what the real aircraft do.
-
i hate to say this but i use this move alot.
someones on my six....i do a slow flat turn..letting them close,
about 400'to 600' i chop throttle, full rudder to slow down..nose on a 45 degree angle..half pulling up half right turn.
all the time eyes on overshooting target in my 6 view..
wings rolling over for s turn throttle up..begin firing.
this a very typical reversal move. or at least i thought so..
some ones on my 6 i do flat turns to burn thier E..if i dive to escape, they retain thier momentum for another BnZ.
happy flying.
-
Yeager, the entire point of the game is that it is intended to mimic the reality of flying these planes. Otherwise we'd be in space with rail guns (oh wait, they did that too!).
HTC has put the bulk of all of their effort into making the planes fly as realistically as they can, from using war-time power vs post-war 150-octane on the Ki-84, to adjusting the plane balancing (removing weapons options from certain planes).
Despite this, there are still many areas where HTC might have taken the best guess they could and still got things wrong. For a while (all of AH1 and much of AH2) the P-51D in Aces High was a tight-turning flap-popping stall fighter.
I agree that the guys in the video almost piss themselves with glee, but there are many resources (people) that have flown both planes. Even Chuck Yeager got to fly several german birds at the end of the war.
I totally disagree with your "ignore reality, accept the abstract machinations of this game as-is" mentality -- because then when its broke nobody will fix it in your philosophy.
I'm not saying anything's wrong right now, I'm just saying if it WERE you'd never bother fixing it unless you looked into it.
-
It's a wonder there are any p51 pilots still alive after battling the 109's:rofl
-
The move is possible and done every day in Aces High, probably by folks who don't even realize it. Chop throttle, pull up, kick rudder, bring nose over and down and to the side.
Dogfights did not accurately represent the move properly and hence the confusion. They had the 51 "spin" around far too quickly. I think the actual real move in question was completed a little slower but with the same effect – I also agree, the chap describing it probably knows what he’s talking about, old or not.
-
Originally posted by Bucky73
It's a wonder there are any p51 pilots still alive after battling the 109's:rofl
The Luftwaffe had orders to avoid combat with fighters if possible, and to only go after the bombers. One of the great mistakes of the Luftwaffe IMHO. The Germans had jet fighters too from the summer of 1944 ... didn't win the war for them ... didn't kill all P-51's either ... still there is no denying the Me 262 was far superior to the P-51 and anything else the Allies had at the time.
-
I totally disagree with your "ignore reality, accept the abstract machinations of this game as-is" mentality -- because then when its broke nobody will fix it in your philosophy.
====
Krusty,
I dont bother myself with how the FM2 or Hurrc2 performed in reality during world war two, I only concern myself with how they perform "in game". I dont concern myself with LW tactics during a world war 60 years ago, I only concern myself with how the good 109 sticks tend to use that aeroplane "in game".
Of course if you think you have found a technical deficiency about any of these things I wholeheartedly support you in your quest to straighten HTC out!~
Now for me, back to "the game" :aok
-
Originally posted by Spiffing
The move is possible and done every day in Aces High, probably by folks who don't even realize it. Chop throttle, pull up, kick rudder, bring nose over and down and to the side.
Dogfights did not accurately represent the move properly and hence the confusion. They had the 51 "spin" around far too quickly. I think the actual real move in question was completed a little slower but with the same effect – I also agree, the chap describing it probably knows what he’s talking about, old or not.
I too think that Candelaria's move was described correctly and accurately by him, and I also think that the representation of that move, by Dogfights, was accurately portrayed as he described.
-
In this case? Sure, maybe. In other cases? Some are less likely.
Like I said, can't take that show as gospel truth.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Like I said, can't take that show as gospel truth.
Understandable ... I think they chalk some of it up to ... "creative license".
-
I think they chalk some of it up to ... "creative license".
====
Most anyone who trys to convince you that they know better than you do will use creative license to make their point. Its part of the illustrative process.......
I went ahead and purchased season one Dogfights on DVD because I enjoy it so much. I especially enjoy the way veterans whined when they were attacked Head On......
-
I enjoyed the Mustang episode as they were talking to Don Bryan of the 352nd and it was specific to his 5 kill mission on November 2, 1944. That was the date the DGS scenario was designed around.
As for the moves shown and thier validity. I'm not going to challenge the memory of a guy who at the moment he made the move was basically choosing between getting shot with a cannon round, and potentially breaking his airplane to try to avoid it.
I'm guessing that his memory might be quite good of a life or death moment like that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I went ahead and purchased season one Dogfights on DVD because I enjoy it so much. I especially enjoy the way veterans whined when they were attacked Head On......
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Krusty
So, let me get this straight....
You believe everything the Discovery Channel tells you?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rofl :rofl
History channel:noid
-
zomg, viper!
-
;) long time no see lol
-
Originally posted by viper215
History channel:noid
Same entity.
-
It's pretty complex to accurately represent flight characteristics WITHIN the normal flight envelope, given all the variables involved coupled with the fact that much of the data that you'd ideally want either doesn't exist or is contradictory.
It's much Much MUCH harder to accurately predict the results when you cross over the EDGE of the flight envelope (which is what is being described).
FWIW, I think HTC has done a pretty good job of representing departure characteristics, given that it's a very chaotic and non-linear event.
I have noticed however that the aircraft in AH seem to "float" in some pretty bizarre ways when they depart. Attempt a vertical tailslide or a hammerhead in an F4U-1A for example, and you'll see what I mean.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
As for the moves shown and thier validity. I'm not going to challenge the memory of a guy who at the moment he made the move was basically choosing between getting shot with a cannon round, and potentially breaking his airplane to try to avoid it.
I'm guessing that his memory might be quite good of a life or death moment like that.
:aok
And Krusty....NO I don't believe everything the history or military channel says but...I'll damn sure believe someone who was actually there and part of the event ALWAYS before I believe some "armchair quarterbacks" that have no clue what they are talking about.
I swear these WWII pilots could say something like "my plane was silver and red" and you guys would find a reason to argue that it was black.
priceless:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I'm not going to challenge the memory of a guy who at the moment he made the move was basically choosing between getting shot with a cannon round, and potentially breaking his airplane to try to avoid it.
Well, I will... there is no doubt that a 12 year old kid who has read one book from the library has alot more information than any WWII Aviator would have.
:rolleyes:
-
You won't challenge the memory of an actual pilot? Hrm.. sure...
Like the one US pilot that would go around to meetings (conventions?) after the war and boisterously claim to have shot down famous german pilots that he never met in battle, ever?
Watch where you put your blind devotion. It usually leads you into a wall. Or off a cliff. Better to use a little logic, judgement, and crack an eyelid now and then to see where you're going.
-
Originally posted by Geary420
Check out the thread started by WideWing in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum.
Try this one. (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=222522)
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Well, I will... there is no doubt that a 12 year old kid who has read one book from the library has alot more information than any WWII Aviator would have.
:rolleyes:
Exactly:rofl :rofl
Apparently Krusty has read that book.
Is this guy for real?!?!:rofl :eek:
-
Originally posted by Viking
Oh yeah, the interviewers were clearly 109 enthusiasts, but that doesn't change what the real pilots said ... or what the real aircraft do.
Interesting that Gunther Rahl who flew the P-51 for the luftwaffe during the war as commander of the luftwaffe equivelent to an "aggressor" squadron has stated repeatedly that he clearly prefered the pony over the 109. Chuck Yeager had alot of time after the war in verious german birds and reached the same conclusion.
It's funny listening to these guys however. The 1st guy tells us about the 109 and how much better it flies but then says he has a total of 1 hour in the 109. Then skip says the spitIX is basically the same plane as the spitV.
Which would be like saying the 109F4 is the same as the 109G6. At one time the 1st guy is saying the 109G will handily out turn the pony, but then saying the pony bleeds E significantly faster?
The 109G6 is actually slower then the G-2 by a noticable amount. The P-51 is significantly faster then the G6. No question the 109G-6 out turns the pony both IRL and in the game...it wasnt even really close.
Now if we look at the spitIX vs the 109G6 its a pretty even match up with a slight edge to the spitty but the spitV will turn circles around both the 109 and the IX...again clueless comments from a guy who should know better.
I couldnt tell if these guys were just pulling the reporters chain or actually that misinformed about what they fly...or maybe they just dont fly them all that well.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You won't challenge the memory of an actual pilot? Hrm.. sure...
Like the one US pilot that would go around to meetings (conventions?) after the war and boisterously claim to have shot down famous german pilots that he never met in battle, ever?
Watch where you put your blind devotion. It usually leads you into a wall. Or off a cliff. Better to use a little logic, judgement, and crack an eyelid now and then to see where you're going.
I can understand wondering if an 85 year-old man's (Bryan) memory may be a bit hazy... However, what he stated on the TV show is backed up by his combat report, taken down during the mission debrief. Surely his memory of events two hours prior (along with testimony of witnesses) would be accurate, right?
Here's his combat report:
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-bryan-2nov44.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
It depends on altitude, energy states, fuel loads, ect of the opposing fighters, as to which might out turn the other and force another fighter on the defensive first, just as in AH. Maybe one pilot initiated a hard break turn first?, or pulled more G?, or was more aggressive?, you have dozens, hundreds? of factors involved. One combat will not be a "carbon copy" of another, ever. Add to that that "aces" by their nature were competent, aggressive flyers, often "out muscling" (or out thinking) the opposition in a supposedly "equal" fight.
You can't take one combat, and then demand a "cut and paste" result that matches it exactly, not when its a contest of people, as well as machines.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Oh yeah, the interviewers were clearly 109 enthusiasts, but that doesn't change what the real pilots said ... or what the real aircraft do.
Let's quote Mark Hanna who logged more 109, Spitfire and P-51 time than many WWII combat pilots. Certainly more in the 109 and Spitfire than either Skip Holm or his friend in the video can dream of.
"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time-particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are much better. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor.
At higher speeds, the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept its energy up and refused to dogfight, it would be relatively safe against the 109."
You can find Hanna's article on the 109 in the December 1999 issue of Flight Journal, or you can read it online, without the photos and sidebar notes, here. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199912/ai_n8870616/pg_1)
My regards,
Widewing
-
WW I've read that article about 100 times over the years. Probably one of (if not the best) the best contemporary accounts on flying a warbird.
Given that the poor guy died pooching a landing in a 109 in Spain I've always found this comment particularly prophetic...
To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots
I think thats the thing that Gunther Rahls comments on the 109 vs P-51 bring home...just how much work the 109 was to fly vs the pony (and other allied planes) he flew as head of the luftwaffe's special unit that flew familiarization "aggressor" type flights vs other luftwaffe units. He said it was easier to fly the P-51 for 5 hours then the 109 for 1 hour.
-
WW, in this case yes. But there's a certain cadre of folks in this community, with no distinction other than they latch on to anything told to them, and never question it.
In THIS case there's other evidence, but that's not what he said. He said he'd blindly obey anything said by an ex-pilot as testament from God, basically. With such an absurd blanket statement, it begged the question.
The personal insults notwithstanding, those just go hand-in-hand with narrow minded folks that don't like their religion (?) questioned.
"Hallowed History Channel, who art in cable, never doubt we yet, thy season comes, our minds we give, to you and stop using them for ourselves..."
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by humble
Interesting that Gunther Rahl who flew the P-51 for the luftwaffe during the war as commander of the luftwaffe equivelent to an "aggressor" squadron has stated repeatedly that he clearly prefered the pony over the 109. Chuck Yeager had alot of time after the war in verious german birds and reached the same conclusion.
Why is this interesting? I would chose the P-51 as well. Has nothing to do with the turning performance of the planes. You comment is irrelevant.
Originally posted by humble
It's funny listening to these guys however. The 1st guy tells us about the 109 and how much better it flies but then says he has a total of 1 hour in the 109. Then skip says the spitIX is basically the same plane as the spitV.
I'd take the word of a pilot with one hour in the 109 over a pilot or kid with zero hours in the 109. The Spit IX is basically the same plane as the Spit V. The IX got a bigger engine, that's all.
Originally posted by humble
Which would be like saying the 109F4 is the same as the 109G6. At one time the 1st guy is saying the 109G will handily out turn the pony, but then saying the pony bleeds E significantly faster?
No, there were a lot more modifications to the G series than a simple engine upgrade. The Pony bleeds E significantly faster at high angles of attack due to its laminar flow wings. What did you not understand?
Originally posted by humble
No question the 109G-6 out turns the pony both IRL and in the game...it wasnt even really close.
That is the only part of your post that is actually relevant to mine. Some kid posted that the P-51 supposedly out turned the 109. I disagree, and obviously so do you.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You won't challenge the memory of an actual pilot? Hrm.. sure...
Like the one US pilot that would go around to meetings (conventions?) after the war and boisterously claim to have shot down famous german pilots that he never met in battle, ever?
Watch where you put your blind devotion. It usually leads you into a wall. Or off a cliff. Better to use a little logic, judgement, and crack an eyelid now and then to see where you're going.
Careful Krusty. I'd think you'd know better in terms of the time I've spent dealing with vets, and the history of this stuff.
My point was, Bryan was in a life and death situation. He wasn't hand flying at some airshow. My point was I'd believe his memory of a moment where his life was on the line.
I didn't say that all WW2 vets memories were infallable. I sat in a room of Spit XII pilots back in 85 as they talked about their experiences. I'd been immersed in it for 5 years almost daily at that point and it was further back for them. They'd ask me if they're memories were correct on a lot of things.
It was not the combat stuff however. Those memories were way to vivid and stuff they had a hard time talking about. That was true for the bomber guys i dealt with too.
Are there WW2 vets who've lived off their stories? Sure. Any number of them have done so. Tom Lanphier of the Yammamoto mission essentially alienated his squad mates by trying to capitalize on the story. Ben Drew has bounced around at airshows selling photos etc for years. Galland's stories were often suspect. Pierre Clostermann.
I don't believe Don Bryan fits that category however, and yeah I'll take his word for it.
But please Krusty don't preach at me about this stuff. It's the wrong place for you to go.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Let's quote Mark Hanna who logged more 109, Spitfire and P-51 time than many WWII combat pilots. Certainly more in the 109 and Spitfire than either Skip Holm or his friend in the video can dream of.
"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time-particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are much better. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor.
At higher speeds, the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept its energy up and refused to dogfight, it would be relatively safe against the 109."
You can find Hanna's article on the 109 in the December 1999 issue of Flight Journal, or you can read it online, without the photos and sidebar notes, here. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199912/ai_n8870616/pg_1)
My regards,
Widewing
Mark Hanna flew the Hispano Aviacion Buchon, which is a 109G-2 with a Merlin bolted to the front. However Hanna's Buchon was modified to look like a 109E which ruined some of the plane's performance. It is interesting that Hanna says the Buchon rolls faster than the P-51. It is also interesting that he says the P-51 will be "safe" from the 109 if the p-51 keeps his speed up and refuse to fight... Clearly Hanna considers the 109 the hunter in such a match up. In any case ... Hanna's Film star Buchon can't hope to match the speeds of late mark 109G's and as such it is no surprise that he found it wanting in the speed department compared to the P-51. Truth be told the 109's always fell short in speed compared to contemporary P-51's ... not as much as Hanna's Buchon, but still...
-
Originally posted by Krusty
In THIS case there's other evidence, but that's not what he said. He said he'd blindly obey anything said by an ex-pilot as testament from God, basically. With such an absurd blanket statement, it begged the question.
"Hallowed History Channel, who art in cable, never doubt we yet, thy season comes, our minds we give, to you and stop using them for ourselves..."
:rolleyes:
"blindly obeyed"? ummm what???? I sure hope your not talking about me because I NEVER said that.....
I said "I will believe an ACTUAL PILOT always before an armchair quarterback" (such as yourself)
So, please stop making stuff up for the sake of arguing.
Btw Krusty....why should we believe YOU over these guys? Do you have any reference for your blubber or do you just pull it our your ***? Anything can be debated as I said before. I think we owe them the benefit of the doubt unless you in your infinite wisdom can prove them wrong.
How are things in the peanut gallery?:rolleyes:
-
What 109 flow Mark Hanna?. The spanish built 109 aka Buchon (109 G2 airframe + Rolls-Royce Merlin 500-45 ) = death trap and very poor performance vs late german 109s.
-
krusty has fallen off the deep end :rolleyes:
its a game krusty.......a game
-
What's missing from this conversation is deep skepticism toward first-person reports of aircraft performance, nearly all of which is anecdotal. This kind of stuff just isn't reliable; that follows from the nature of human psychology. We are not infallable reporting machines, purely rational and free of bias... which goes double, triple, or even more when it's a war vet speaking about what happened 50-60 years ago.
Any kind of performance data must be garnered from someone who is trained to test and record that kind of data, under controlled conditions.
As for the feel of an aircraft, no data can reflect it, and that's where pilot experience is valuable.
-
just a reminder: you are not a world war two fighter pilot. you are not killing people or shooting down airplanes. You are playing a computer game.
-
I have pulled this off in a 51 D and it does work , but you need high speed and be very hard and fast on your stick , except I use left rudder . You fall like a stone and you can pull out anytime you want to . i do have witnesses to this event . The only thing is its awfully hard on your joystick and you have to be fast when you do it . I did it on a guy in LWOrange once and even got a shot off as he passed on by . Try it out at about 10,000 AGL as fast as your pony goes . and have done it in a spitty too !!!
As Always a Nutte
-
Bucky, keep the insults to yourself. Same for you, Yeager.
You claim you'd believe whatever an ex-pilot tells you. You already said that. That's a slippery slope and there's no defense when you start saying "except in this case" or "not when its this pilot" -- you either mean it or you don't. It's such a broad blanket statement that it borders on fanaticism to make it.
Aside from your asinine insults, Bucky, I've only been trying to get you to use your own god-given brain. Apparently it's atrophied, so I won't bother anymore. Al Qaeda was looking for people like you, FYI, they might have a job that requires you never question authority.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Mark Hanna flew the Hispano Aviacion Buchon, which is a 109G-2 with a Merlin bolted to the front. However Hanna's Buchon was modified to look like a 109E which ruined some of the plane's performance. It is interesting that Hanna says the Buchon rolls faster than the P-51. It is also interesting that he says the P-51 will be "safe" from the 109 if the p-51 keeps his speed up and refuse to fight... Clearly Hanna considers the 109 the hunter in such a match up. In any case ... Hanna's Film star Buchon can't hope to match the speeds of late mark 109G's and as such it is no surprise that he found it wanting in the speed department compared to the P-51. Truth be told the 109's always fell short in speed compared to contemporary P-51's ... not as much as Hanna's Buchon, but still...
Incorrect per the Buchon in this case... Hanna's piece was written about his experience flying a 109G-10... Read the article for the details.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Viking
There are pilots who have flown both the P-51 and the 109:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
:)
Unpork the 109. Thx.
-
Krusty...I guess me and my 17years of military service tell me to respect those who came before me. Not to bash them making "false accusations" such as yourself.
Believe me sir you DON'T have the right to question them without merit or group them in as whole just because of one instance which is in itself questionable.
People like you make me sick.
Move to France please:aok
-
OMG Krusty you are clueless, a snap roll, what is described in the original post and Dogfights, is an accelerated stall and spin along longitudinal axis while maintaining its general horizontal direction. It has everything to do with the angle of attack and the angle the wing stalls at. Every airplane is capable of spinning as well as snap rolling.
Pulling back abruptly on the stick increases the wings angle of attack to the point where the wing stalls.
Kicking the rudder induces yaw which sends the plane spinning on the horizontal, torque and gyroscopic precession also contribute or negate the affect depending on which way your propeller is turning and what rudder you hit.
Pushing the stick forward unloads the airplane and reduces the drag from the elevator essentially accelerating the aircraft spin.
A snap roll is one of the basic Aerobatic maneuvers. If you watch any Aerobatic videos you will see many snap rolls. I am amazed at how few know this maneuver on here.
When a snap roll is judged in Aerobatic competition the judges look for the nose being displaced up or down ( up = positive snap, down = negative snap) before the roll is initiated. IF they don't see the nose displacement then they will zero the snap roll figure and claim all the pilot did was an aileron roll.
I have to admit the depiction of the snap roll in dogfights was just plain bad. What they portrayed graphically was nothing short of garbage and looked nothing like a snap roll.
-
you be nice to Bucky and me, krusty.........you dont want this to get ugly pard......(pssst...bucky, move round behind him).
-
Move to France please
Hey, I thought we were friends with the French again!:p
-
This thread is funny. The show "Dogfights" might as well be war department propaganda films from the war. :lol I saw an episode where 2 p38s flew into a gaggle of 109s and after going engines dead killed one 109 then restarted his engines and proceeded to down 109 after 109. Meanwhile the Germans apearently just flew around like docile little target drones. I understand that people embelish their deeds in memory as most humas do (just try to recall your last fishing trip and tell me I'm wrong) but just think about it for a minute logically before you take the Propaganda....I mean "History" Channel (and yes with them more often than not they take the term history loosly) to be 100% gospel truth. The show "Dogfights" in most of it's episodes makes the axis pilots look like nothing more than drones to be shot at, but hey its got to be tru right? the History Channel said so......
:noid
-
Dogfights, based on veterans or not, also claimed that the P-47 had a better climb rate than the Bf. 109, which is just impossible. Id take anything with a grain of salt.
Also remember that Luftwaffe pilots, by the time the Americans arrived, were poorly experienced and may not have been able to push their 109's 'to the edge' like American pilots could their 51's and 47's, which could have made it seem like the 51 was a more capable plane in the horizontal than the 109.
-
There are a couple of points to remember....
1) Air combat in WW2 was significantly different then what we have here. The average pilot on either side had minimal experience in actual combat with a majority on either side never actually registering strikes on an enemy plane let alone a kill.
2) The average 2 month AH vet has equal or better ACM skills then the average RL WW2 pilot did and more actual "combats". A very seasoned Ace may have had had 5 kills and 100 "combats in his entire tour (US side). If you read the post action report WW posted the P-51 ace in question had excellent SA and made 15+ passes while dodging an equal number in just recording his 1st two kills. His combat action took him from 28,000 to under 5k...he did not turn with a single 109 for any significant time at all or make more then a single pass on any target.
3) all combat type claims on all sides are generally supported by both gun cam footage and confirmation from a 3rd party. Although the action might be embellished to a degree it's historically correct from the persective of the side telling it (doesnt mean all claims are accurate).
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Dogfights, based on veterans or not, also claimed that the P-47 had a better climb rate than the Bf. 109, which is just impossible. Id take anything with a grain of salt.
Also remember that Luftwaffe pilots, by the time the Americans arrived, were poorly experienced and may not have been able to push their 109's 'to the edge' like American pilots could their 51's and 47's, which could have made it seem like the 51 was a more capable plane in the horizontal than the 109.
Climb rate is very dependent upon altitude. In WWII, most combat centered on the bombers, and the bombers were usually well above 20,000 feet. Indeed, a typical B-17 mission was as high as 28,000 feet. This meant that the escorts were usually higher, between 30k and 35k. Up there, the P-47 outclasses the 109, any 109. The P-47 was engineered to perform at high altitudes, and it certainly does. When WWII P-47 pilots talk about combat, they are generally talking about high altitude, where the P-47 was supreme. Even the most zealous P-51 pilots grudgingly admit the Jug was the better fighter up high.
Here's a challenge. Meet me at 25k in a 109K. I'll take a P-47D-40. Starting at 300 mph TAS level, we will both pull into a climb (use auto-climb for best rate). You will see that the P-47 beats the 109K to 30k by several seconds and to 35k by considerably more. Initially, the Jug zooms a bit better. When both stabilize, their climb rates at 27k are virtually identical. However, as they continue to climb, the P-47 does not suffer a power drop off. The 109K does, and starts to lose ground as altitude increases. Above 30k, the 109k starts to fall off quickly and the P-47 simply checks out. So, at the altitude where the Jug was designed to fight, yeah it does out-climb the 109s.
Another thing to consider is that the P-47's great mass allows it an advantage in a zoom climb, where momentum is a significant factor. As an example, testing shows the A-20G will chase down a Co-E 109K in a vertical zoom climb. Obviously, at best steady state climb speeds/angles, the 109K will leave the A-20G behind quickly. Not so in a pure vertical zoom climb, where mass is a considerable portion of the energy equation. Many 109 drivers have been surprised when a big A-20 actually closes on them in a vertical climb. I've seen enough exclamations of "BS" in the text buffer to know that the 109 pilot had no clue about what had actually happened.
So, it's important to understand the context of a WWII pilot's remarks. Down low, the 109 out-climbs the P-47 without drama. The higher up you go, the less the difference becomes, until finally the P-47 has the advantage. Since little combat occurs at high alts in the game, most pilots don't encounter Jugs way up in the thin air. So, your belief is quite common.
Also, you are correct that Luftwaffe quality degraded significantly as the war progressed into middle 1944. However, the Luftwaffe suffered badly even when the quality of pilots was much higher. This was simply due to having to fight at high altitudes in planes generally engineered for middle altitude combat. The common 109 variants flying in late 1943 were badly outclassed at 30k by the P-47D and and P-51B, both engineered for precisely that purpose. Even the P-38s were very capable at high altitudes, although their relatively low critical Mach prevented them from chasing after diving 109s and 190s.
Check out this thread. (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=203836&highlight=High+Altitude)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
This thread is funny. The show "Dogfights" might as well be war department propaganda films from the war. :lol I saw an episode where 2 p38s flew into a gaggle of 109s and after going engines dead killed one 109 then restarted his engines and proceeded to down 109 after 109. Meanwhile the Germans apearently just flew around like docile little target drones. I understand that people embelish their deeds in memory as most humas do (just try to recall your last fishing trip and tell me I'm wrong) but just think about it for a minute logically before you take the Propaganda....I mean "History" Channel (and yes with them more often than not they take the term history loosly) to be 100% gospel truth. The show "Dogfights" in most of it's episodes makes the axis pilots look like nothing more than drones to be shot at, but hey its got to be tru right? the History Channel said so......
:noid
Now you want to attack the credibility of Robin Olds? You are kidding, right? You need to read up on who you're talking about before you go too far. Because you evidently have absolutely no idea who you are talking about.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You won't challenge the memory of an actual pilot? Hrm.. sure...
Like the one US pilot that would go around to meetings (conventions?) after the war and boisterously claim to have shot down famous german pilots that he never met in battle, ever?
Watch where you put your blind devotion. It usually leads you into a wall. Or off a cliff. Better to use a little logic, judgement, and crack an eyelid now and then to see where you're going.
what war were you in ? who did you shoot down?
I missed your episode on history channel, what were you flying?
Living thru combat is tough enough,your mind slows time to a crawl when it gets close to dying and you remember everything! twenty years ago was the last time, and i can still remember every thought i had at that time,every last detail ! so give the pilot a brake i doubt he would be lying just to mess you up in some game!
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
This thread is funny. The show "Dogfights" might as well be war department propaganda films from the war. :lol I saw an episode where 2 p38s flew into a gaggle of 109s and after going engines dead killed one 109 then restarted his engines and proceeded to down 109 after 109. Meanwhile the Germans apearently just flew around like docile little target drones. I understand that people embelish their deeds in memory as most humas do (just try to recall your last fishing trip and tell me I'm wrong) but just think about it for a minute logically before you take the Propaganda....I mean "History" Channel (and yes with them more often than not they take the term history loosly) to be 100% gospel truth. The show "Dogfights" in most of it's episodes makes the axis pilots look like nothing more than drones to be shot at, but hey its got to be tru right? the History Channel said so......
:noid
What's funny is your lack of knowledge on the topic. The P-38 episode (which you can view here) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY) centers on one of the top USAAF/USAF aces, Robin Olds. The combat report filed by Olds and his wingman conforms to the fight shown on the TV show. Olds shot down 4 Migs in Vietnam and one of those fights was on Dogfights as well.
Olds is held in very high regard by fighter pilots world wide (including Luftwaffe veterans). His decorations are stunning...
Silver Star, three oak leaf clusters
Distinguished Flying Cross, five oak leaf clusters.
Distinguished Flying Cross (Britain)
Air Medal, with 39 oak leaf clusters
Legion of Merit
Air Force Distinguished Service Medal
Air Force Cross
Air Force Commendation Medal
Croix de Guerre with Palm
Vietnam Air Gallantry Medal with Gold Wings
Vietnam Air Force Meritorious Service Medal
Vietnam Air Force Distinguished Service Order
World War II Victory Medal
American Defense Service Medal
Plus a host of service ribbons
Olds didn't have to embellish anything....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Ghastly
It's pretty complex to accurately represent flight characteristics WITHIN the normal flight envelope, given all the variables involved coupled with the fact that much of the data that you'd ideally want either doesn't exist or is contradictory.
It's much Much MUCH harder to accurately predict the results when you cross over the EDGE of the flight envelope (which is what is being described).
FWIW, I think HTC has done a pretty good job of representing departure characteristics, given that it's a very chaotic and non-linear event.
I have noticed however that the aircraft in AH seem to "float" in some pretty bizarre ways when they depart. Attempt a vertical tailslide or a hammerhead in an F4U-1A for example, and you'll see what I mean.
Go here to see how it SHOULD be done...interesting concept :)
http://www.x-plane.com/about.html
-
Good call, dentin. No doubt Hitech could learn oodles and oodles from Austin Meyer :lol
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Now you want to attack the credibility of Robin Olds? You are kidding, right? You need to read up on who you're talking about before you go too far. Because you evidently have absolutely no idea who you are talking about.
Yeah! Or else!
-
I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm gonna throw a shout out of support to Krusty.
It's not inconcievable that a pilot's memory of an engagement or situation could be dilluted by time.
That doesn't mean that anyone is lying, but certainly over time what he perceives might have happened and what actually happened might be a bit different- combat or no combat.
-
Originally posted by toonces3
I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm gonna throw a shout out of support to Krusty.
It's not inconcievable that a pilot's memory of an engagement or situation could be dilluted by time.
That doesn't mean that anyone is lying, but certainly over time what he perceives might have happened and what actually happened might be a bit different- combat or no combat.
No it's not inconceivable ... that point has already been conceded to.
The fly in the ointment is throwing dispersions at Combat Pilots who recall exactly what they wrote in their combat reports and the dispersions are chalked up to "old men" embellishing their recollections for sensationalism.
I am 54 and I can recall with exact details certain memorable incidents that I had on the ice over 30 years ago ... and none of my memorable incidents were life threatening. I don't think that is something that one ever forgets.
-
I understood Krusty as addressing the person that said they would always believe the actual pilot rather than the armchair quarterback, or something to that extent. Krusty said that one shouldn't blindly assume the actual pilot is correct- memories deteriorate, get embellished with time (or diminished), memories may be fuzzy from the heat of battle, etc. Other times, the pilot might alter their memory of the engagement to sensationalize.
These things happen.
There's no reason one can't question the validity of a memory of someone that flew a mission 50+ years ago.
I thought that move on that dogfights episode was pretty...unbelievable...in the way it was portrayed, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. It does mean that I didn't necessarily buy it just because the pilot and the History channel 'said so'.
I don't think Krusty has said anything disparaging (sp) here. Just my opinion- I've enjoyed the discussion nevertheless.
-
Krusty was a bit desperate back there..........glad to see things have calmed downa bit here :aok
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Climb rate is very dependent upon altitude. In WWII, most combat centered on the bombers, and the bombers were usually well above 20,000 feet. Indeed, a typical B-17 mission was as high as 28,000 feet. This meant that the escorts were usually higher, between 30k and 35k. Up there, the P-47 outclasses the 109, any 109. The P-47 was engineered to perform at high altitudes, and it certainly does. When WWII P-47 pilots talk about combat, they are generally talking about high altitude, where the P-47 was supreme. Even the most zealous P-51 pilots grudgingly admit the Jug was the better fighter up high.
Here's a challenge. Meet me at 25k in a 109K. I'll take a P-47D-40. Starting at 300 mph TAS level, we will both pull into a climb (use auto-climb for best rate). You will see that the P-47 beats the 109K to 30k by several seconds and to 35k by considerably more. Initially, the Jug zooms a bit better. When both stabilize, their climb rates at 27k are virtually identical. However, as they continue to climb, the P-47 does not suffer a power drop off. The 109K does, and starts to lose ground as altitude increases. Above 30k, the 109k starts to fall off quickly and the P-47 simply checks out. So, at the altitude where the Jug was designed to fight, yeah it does out-climb the 109s.
Another thing to consider is that the P-47's great mass allows it an advantage in a zoom climb, where momentum is a significant factor. As an example, testing shows the A-20G will chase down a Co-E 109K in a vertical zoom climb. Obviously, at best steady state climb speeds/angles, the 109K will leave the A-20G behind quickly. Not so in a pure vertical zoom climb, where mass is a considerable portion of the energy equation. Many 109 drivers have been surprised when a big A-20 actually closes on them in a vertical climb. I've seen enough exclamations of "BS" in the text buffer to know that the 109 pilot had no clue about what had actually happened.
So, it's important to understand the context of a WWII pilot's remarks. Down low, the 109 out-climbs the P-47 without drama. The higher up you go, the less the difference becomes, until finally the P-47 has the advantage. Since little combat occurs at high alts in the game, most pilots don't encounter Jugs way up in the thin air. So, your belief is quite common.
Also, you are correct that Luftwaffe quality degraded significantly as the war progressed into middle 1944. However, the Luftwaffe suffered badly even when the quality of pilots was much higher. This was simply due to having to fight at high altitudes in planes generally engineered for middle altitude combat. The common 109 variants flying in late 1943 were badly outclassed at 30k by the P-47D and and P-51B, both engineered for precisely that purpose. Even the P-38s were very capable at high altitudes, although their relatively low critical Mach prevented them from chasing after diving 109s and 190s.
Check out this thread. (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=203836&highlight=High+Altitude)
My regards,
Widewing
Just looked at the charts again... your right. The 109K's climb performance dropped off drastically after 30K (the P47-D40 and the Kurfuerst are equal as far as climb goes at this altitude). The G6 loses at about 24K and the G14 at about 27K. So + about 3k per version.
(Above figures are for WEP)
-
2) The average 2 month AH vet has equal or better ACM skills then the average RL WW2 pilot did and more actual "combats".
====
Can I quote you on this?
Actual "combats" in AcesHigh? are you serious?
Guys, this is the kind of mentality Im talking about. We are gamers fellas, plain and simple. We "play" make believe world war 2 fighter aces on desktop computers. It is a FANTASY!
This thread is starting to resemble those Iron Eagle movies where some 16 year old punk kid saves the world in his F16......
Voss? Voss...where are you :rofl
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Actual "combats" in AcesHigh? are you serious?
Guys, this is the kind of mentality Im talking about. We are gamers fellas, plain and simple. We "play" make believe world war 2 fighter aces on desktop computers. It is a FANTASY!
This thread is starting to resemble those Iron Eagle movies where some 16 year old punk kid saves the world in his F16......
Voss? Voss...where are you :rofl
Couldn't have said it better myself:aok
-
i have done the 180 in one of the p i forget which one just for fun at like 7k very quick poped nose up ruder hard right and use alerons to stableise the plane
-
Originally posted by toonces3
I understood Krusty as addressing the person that said they would always believe the actual pilot rather than the armchair quarterback, or something to that extent. Krusty said that one shouldn't blindly assume the actual pilot is correct- memories deteriorate, get embellished with time (or diminished), memories may be fuzzy from the heat of battle, etc. Other times, the pilot might alter their memory of the engagement to sensationalize.
These things happen.
There's no reason one can't question the validity of a memory of someone that flew a mission 50+ years ago.
I thought that move on that dogfights episode was pretty...unbelievable...in the way it was portrayed, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. It does mean that I didn't necessarily buy it just because the pilot and the History channel 'said so'.
I don't think Krusty has said anything disparaging (sp) here. Just my opinion- I've enjoyed the discussion nevertheless.
Krusty was challenging my comment regarding Don Bryan of the 352nd, and basically got preachy about 'blind devotion'. I didn't care much for the tone and frankly considering the amount of my life I've spent researching WW2 aviation and dealing with the vets of the conflict, I was hard pressed not telling him to stuff it.
One of the hardest parts of these boards at times is you get folks who get a little knowledge and it becomes the gospel. They find a single source and it's the absolute truth. They hear one theory and it becomes the absolute truth.
My point was originally and still is, I'll take the word and the memory of a guy who was facing the potential of his own death in recalling that event over some guy who sits in front of a computer flying a flight sim claiming he knows better.
-
heres the bottom line many people like to overlook.
AH flight model keeps getting better and better. they research the hell out of the FM's. they labor over the intricacies of the performance of each plane in minute detail so that its perfromance will realistically compare to its real world counterpart.
its to the point now where its a real joy to fly thse planes in low speed stall maneuvers. an area of flight modelling which is hardest to get right.
how many other flight sim developers modelled their rv8 into their sim so they could compare their flight model performance to their real airplane throughout its flight envelope?
name one other than HT. :D
we get to reap the rewards of this in having a flight model system that can make warbirds fly like realistic airplanes.
and like it or not no matter what you fly all the real world tricks work.
the climbing spirals of the 109s. the diving attacks of p47s. the circle jerk spitfires. and yes everybody in the luftwaffe was in disbelief of the la7's performance just like they are in AH.
its all here and no plane flies the same. they don't "feel" the same when you fly them either unlike other games like IL2 which every plane is the same with different top speed and climb rates.
some are very stable and some are very unstable. some fantastic gun platforms others are not. etc etc.
the thing to remember is that all the data from ww2 aircraft tens to conflict and pilot accounts are not quantifyable into "coad".
HTC arrives at the end result flight models through very dilligent research and number crunching to result in planes that overall "feel" correct and are enjoyable to fly.
-
Originally posted by splitatom
i have done the 180 in one of the p i forget which one just for fun at like 7k very quick poped nose up ruder hard right and use alerons to stableise the plane
really? film it and show us.....we'd all like to see it :D
Originally posted by Yeager
(2) The average 2 month AH vet has equal or better ACM skills then the average RL WW2 pilot did and more actual "combats".
====
Can I quote you on this?
Actual "combats" in AcesHigh? are you serious?
Guys, this is the kind of mentality Im talking about. We are gamers fellas, plain and simple. We "play" make believe world war 2 fighter aces on desktop computers. It is a FANTASY!
This thread is starting to resemble those Iron Eagle movies where some 16 year old punk kid saves the world in his F16......
well, with what Fester just posted about Aces High / HTC's coading/modeling.......
I would certianly pick widewing, Fester, kappa, Balsy and other long time flyers over your fresh from the states combat flight jock who has less than a year in flying a fighter plane in WWII......any day of the week.......
yes it is a game...no doubt
but it also is a combat flight simulation.......and just trying to think how many hours I have in these flight simulations , most of them full realism like.......I would not hesitate to think I could know my plane better than the other guy knows his.....
you're talking comparisions like :
WWII Combat Fighter Pilot = 100 hrs or so verses (just aces High alone) longtime Aces High Player = 5,000 hours+ flying in combat/dogfights.......
who would you put your money on?
edit: small little note here, Yeager, I just noticed you called yourself a gamer, fair enough.....if people want to be gamers, or people want to play make believe..is all good.......
I want to learn BFM, ACM, E Management, SA, and all the ins and outs of the individual plane types.......There is a BIG Difference.......
-
Originally posted by Yeager
2) The average 2 month AH vet has equal or better ACM skills then the average RL WW2 pilot did and more actual "combats".
====
Can I quote you on this?
Actual "combats" in AcesHigh? are you serious?
Guys, this is the kind of mentality Im talking about. We are gamers fellas, plain and simple. We "play" make believe world war 2 fighter aces on desktop computers. It is a FANTASY!
This thread is starting to resemble those Iron Eagle movies where some 16 year old punk kid saves the world in his F16......
Voss? Voss...where are you :rofl
Hmmm
Just for your 411 that is almost a verbatim quote from a former USAF fighter pilot who's flown both AH & warbirds and is an expert in combat training.
Lets cover a few points...
The average WW2 pilot had alot of BFM but very little true advanced ACM of any kind. Further he had little autonomy initially and was a often flying #4 slot.
Well over 80% of all casualties in fighter on fighter combat were scored on non manuevering targets. Eyesight and gunnery were the two single most important factors seperating great pilots from good ones and live ones from dead ones.
Less then 5% of all WW2 combat pilots on any side ever recorded a kill. The average life expectency and mortality rate for new pilots on all sides was comparatively very high. Often these pilots never saw the plane that killed them, when they did they froze or made a basic mistake. A single lapse in judgement or mistake ended many pilots lives before they had a chance to learn...
Even after a pilot learned alot combats often consisted of a single or "double" move and a single firing solution. Accounts often tell of an experienced pilot racking up multiple kills in short order vs obviously overmatched opponents.
If we move forward to modern aviation simulator check rides and trainers are highly regarded and utilized by NASA, all major military units (land and air) all airlines and the FAA and widely recognized for saving thousands of lives. AH is just that, a combat simulator. The average 60 day player has significantly more actual combat experience (simulated) then an actual WW2 pilot. He also has a better grasp of the two critical aspects of ACM...angles and E fighting as well as at least some minimum exposure to very advanced ACM.
The simulated combat in AH is every bit as real from a tactical perspective as the real thing.
-
None of us doing it where the stakes are real though snaphook. Gotta believe that would make a huge difference too.
The reason so many of us have so many hours in 'combat' is because we aren't really dying.
Most of us would have been dead in our first day if not first hour :)
-
True but we all would have had some degree of training :)
DF's is a great bit of TV but you can't translate everything you see in that show to any given fight you find yourself in in AH.
The key is to play your selected aircraft into a position reap from it's strength's. AH has made massive efforts to model that.
I haven't been able to do it as of yet but I can name dozens of pilot's that have :)
MGD
-
Originally posted by humble
The simulated combat in AH is every bit as real from a tactical perspective as the real thing.
While there's no doubt that simulators teach valuable lessons that can be applied in the real world, computer technology is not (yet?) to the point where it can duplicate the effects of G forces on our bodies. In my limited experience, that makes a very big difference. I recall one account by an American P-51 pilot who was in an extended turning fight with a German plane. His oxygen mask was slipping down his face, he was getting nauseous, his arm was hurting, and those things nearly forced him to change the tactics he was using (if I remember correctly, the German changed first). It's all well and good for us to repeatedly dive and loop and ride the edge of blackout in our mock combats, but we really shouldn't kid ourselves that we would be able to sustain that for long in a real airplane.
- oldman
-
Oldman. Was reading and hoping someone would point that out. I wouldn't want to pick a random AH player as a wingman as his fitness levels might be terrible lol, did they have McDonalds and donuts back then?
I'd love to see the effects on someone jerking their stick while maneuvering a couple of feet off the ground. Actually I bet half of the stuff I do ingame would black me out in a real situation :D (either by passing out or covering my canopy in vomit)
-
comparing skills of people who sit at computer chairs drinking beer, farting, and bull*****ting their way across the internet to people who actually enlist train and perform their duties as pilots in armed forces is teh ludicris. get real :rolleyes:
1G pilots....its laughable :rofl
Or perhaps what Napoleon said really does matter: Chicks like dudes with computer fighter pilot skillz.....
:aok
somebody post the pic of that grotesquely fat kid all decked out in combat gear telling some army officer "Dont worry Sir, Im from the internet :rofl
And Yes, HTCs flight models are probably the best in the gaming industry.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
None of us doing it where the stakes are real though snaphook. Gotta believe that would make a huge difference too.
The reason so many of us have so many hours in 'combat' is because we aren't really dying.
Most of us would have been dead in our first day if not first hour :)
NO question about it Guppy, and that is why the old truism about the guys replaying the days fights in the bar and the whole "flying elbow" thingie rings so true. you can find literally hundreds of combat accounts where the guy says "I thought I was dead but then remembered old jonesie said if you get pickled like this then your only hope is a hard climbing right hander against his torque"...
This was as close to a "simulator" as these guys could ever get. 1st you need to aquire the knowledge and then apply it, often thru trial and error. If we look at some of the great german aces many were shot down multiple times along the way. Alot of knowlege is paid for with blood, hopefully just not all of it...(blood that is).
Combat of any kind is a crucible but we experience similiar things IRL as well aside from combat. Many accidents occur from highspeed tire blowouts...often with fatal results...yet others have survived multiple such incidents without denting a fender. Beyond that speaking personally there is no simulator for being on a runaway horse, you either can or cant deal with it once it happens and sadly the fatality rate for this type of equestrian accident is suprisingly high, seperate from the Christopher Reeves of the world and other level one trauma's.
As oldman posted below not everyone can withstand the physical stress of aircombat. Actually however that is a relatively trivial issue compared to eye sight. Far beyond any single other issue eyesight played a critical role in combat. Often times the bogies never knew they were under attack till the 1st bullet hit....seeing your enemy first was the biggest hurdle in real combat. Gunnery was second, while not all aces were great shots, most were. The vast majority of guys with great eyesight also had tremendous natural "spatial awareness" or whatever you call that ability to gauge where the bullets are going...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
comparing skills of people who sit at computer chairs drinking beer, farting, and bull*****ting their way across the internet to people who actually enlist train and perform their duties as pilots in armed forces is teh ludicris. get real :rolleyes:
1G pilots....its laughable :rofl
Or perhaps what Napoleon said really does matter: Chicks like dudes with computer fighter pilot skillz.....
:aok
somebody post the pic of that grotesquely fat kid all decked out in combat gear telling some army officer "Dont worry Sir, Im from the internet :rofl
And Yes, HTCs flight models are probably the best in the gaming industry.
Sadly your a bit clueless...
So lets deal with some reality.
1) a large subsection of people who tried washed out from pilot training...accordingly so would a cross section of those from AH. However not only does AH have a % that could handle it, we actually have more then a few who actually did or are pursuing it.
2) alot of people who fly AH for fun actually either work in a capacity, have worked in a capacity or pursue other interests that put them "in harms way". A fireman, paramedic, sheriffs deputy, air traffic controller and hosts of others are often in RL situations that require quick clear decision making very applicable to air combat.
The pyhsical requirements of flying a fighter are the smallest aspect of success, they are simply a binary part of the equation. Douglas Bader flew without legs and others flew with damaged arms (one german ace couldnt even fully extend his right hand and had to use both arms on the stick much of the time). Spatial awareness is a much bigger aspect of unusual attitude flying then the G forces except under the very extremes. Yes high G dogfighting occured, but not really that often. Much of successful combat was vision, positioning and gunnery...very little in the weeds 6G turning occured IRL. By and large thats a AH reality...
As a side note more and more combat functionality is being taken over by UAB's and your "fat kid on the internet" is getting closer and closer to being the next real life ACE btw...
-
Good God Humble man, not that I disagree with you but.........get a LIFE!
This thread is like a washed out corpse...stinks, but its neat to look at :aok
-
I just ask that these AH "pilots" go and do some ACTUAL dogfighting. I went to California about 5 years back and did this in a Italian Marchetti and while I will agree that games and sims will teach you some stuff. It's NOT EVEN close to the real thing.
Btw....I had been flying in RL for a few years when I went out to fly in California and when I left from that experience I was very humble. :furious
:aok
-
Originally posted by humble
2) alot of people who fly AH for fun actually either work in a capacity, have worked in a capacity or pursue other interests that put them "in harms way". A fireman, paramedic, sheriffs deputy, air traffic controller and hosts of others are often in RL situations that require quick clear decision making very applicable to air combat.
Personally I'm a cagefighter but I just had a general feeling that a lot of people playing this game are unfit> Judging from 200 everyone is drunk and having their 10th beer :rofl
-
Originally posted by RumbleB
Personally I'm a cagefighter but I just had a general feeling that a lot of people playing this game are unfit> Judging from 200 everyone is drunk and having their 10th beer :rofl
But....they are ONLY drunk if you had just shot them down.:rofl :rofl
-
Humble, out of curiousity, are you a pilot? Real pilot, I mean, not in a sim.
-
Im a pilot. I fly world war II aeroplanes online at AcesHigh. Not only that, but I am a tank driver and gunner too! I actually gain real life combat experience online killing real human opponents. Well, ......they dont really die...and....I dont really fly a plane or drive a tank.......but...but....its just as real as if I really did, and the combat training I get is even better than the combat training those old geezers got back in teh day. Im a lethal internet combat juggernaut!
:rolleyes: :lol :cry :aok :rofl
-
I can only imagine if those guys in WW2 had computers to practise on it would have been horrendous on all fronts , LOL really different I'd guess .:rolleyes:
As Always A Nutte
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Humble, out of curiousity, are you a pilot? Real pilot, I mean, not in a sim.
I have time in a 152/172 and was actually set to fly harriers for the marine corp (my Dad was 5,000 hr GIB) but my vision went south...I have some unusual attitude procedure/recovery time in a T-28A (obviously not as a PIC:)). I actually went to the 99 AW con in part because I was considering getting involved in acrobatics etc (Moss and I spent some time checking out various planes there). In the end general aviation proved to boring and my wife nixed the other (+ cost was a factor)...so I pilot horses instead:).
I basically grew up at cherry point and willowgrove NAS...
-
So, you are a pilot? Licensed private, military training, something?
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
While there's no doubt that simulators teach valuable lessons that can be applied in the real world, computer technology is not (yet?) to the point where it can duplicate the effects of G forces on our bodies. In my limited experience, that makes a very big difference. I recall one account by an American P-51 pilot who was in an extended turning fight with a German plane. His oxygen mask was slipping down his face, he was getting nauseous, his arm was hurting, and those things nearly forced him to change the tactics he was using (if I remember correctly, the German changed first). It's all well and good for us to repeatedly dive and loop and ride the edge of blackout in our mock combats, but we really shouldn't kid ourselves that we would be able to sustain that for long in a real airplane.
- oldman
Well said. I was just going to point this out but now I don't have to.
I will, however, make another analogy. For a very long time I played racing games. I was very very good... always fast.
One year my brother was visiting. We decided to go karting at the local indoor track. I had never driven a go-kart but I knew I'd be good.
These things were fast... probably 40-45 mph on a large, 11 turn course.
My first laps were dismal at best, and while I did improve, there was a huge difference in going into a 90 degree turn on a slick course in real-life vs. doing it in a game. After 16 minutes I was drenched with sweat, both from the adrenaline as well as the constant throttle/brake/turning/(although minimal) G forces not to mention faster karts bumping me from behind trying to get around me. I never sweat playing the games on my computer. Sure I knew the lines and brake/throttle points but that wasn't enough.
Now, imagine this relative change but moving into a high performance fighter aircraft pulling 7G's inverted.
You might know the ACM but I'd go with the guy who's done it for real. I wouldn't give any of us a chance.
-
Yeager you simply dont understand the realities. To many of the guys who flew and fought in WW2 and Korea true combat ACM was somewhat of a mystery...even to the guys doing it. A very small % of the active combat pilots were really "Stick & rudder" men comfortable with the plane at all attitudes and conditions. Most had little advanced acrobatics or understanding of true "dog fighting".
Most aircombat was decided by initial positioning and who saw who 1st. Many attacks consisted of a single pass thru an enemy formation and home...extended engagements were somewhat rare. Normally an "ace" would "lock on" to a lesser pilot and quickly finish him or planes would make passes and go...many pilots with significant victory totals had 100+ "combats with fewer then 10 kills. Pilots simply kept speed and jousted and then went home.
Remember Shaw wrote the bible on fighter combat for real pilots...the flight sim hadnt even been invented. This was a guy trying to actually put in one place all the wisdom that was accumulated but not systematically recorded. Just having the book would have greatly improved any pilots chances way back when...but to have a simulator where you can put it in practice is unreal.
To a degree you can see this IRL when an AH pilot goes and takes a familiarization flight in a real plane. Almost invariably the instructor will comment on the prospective students coordinated turn and ask how many hours do you have?
your looking at the physical aspect of combat flying not the more important mental ones. Your also confusing what seperated the real aces from the rest....which had nothing to do with ability to withstand G forces...even the guys like Pappy who talked the tense the muscles stuff. All you need to do is ask the guys who flew with him or any ace. They had great vision...
Going back to Robin Olds...who had to fight like hell to get a combat slot in Vietnam. What amazed the guys under him was he was always 1st to visually tally a bandit almost 100% of the time. Even in the jet age with al the advanced avionics etc what made him deadly in the 40's is still what made him deadly almost 30 yrs later.
-
I think you guys are taking this out of context. not one out of a thousand who fly AH could get a real warbird off the ground...even those with 500 hrs of general aviation stick time. Thats not the point I was making at all.
If however you took a bunch of guys in basic and had 1/2 of them fly AH for 3 hours a day and had the other half with 15 hrs additional stick time...then went to advanced trainers and then to a fighter...
you'd have 2 sets of guys...
1 set with 400 hrs in all "real planes" but no real disimiliar plane combat experience
the 2nd set with 300 hrs in real life (but who had passed all standards as the 1st) but had 100 hrs of "combat sim" time vs disimiliar aircraft in variable E states etc (typical AH) and then put them in real combat the 2nd group would decimate the 1st.
Why do you think the army, navy & airforce spend millions on simulator training...it works.
-
You should point that out to the AF, USMC, and Navy. They could save billions by telling their personnel to play AH every day in lieu of actual training or sim time.
-
Im sorry humble. I dont take AH seriously anymore. For me it is pure entertainment. If I am not having fun I simply log off.
I used to be very serious about it, and I recognize that you and alot of other people take it seriously. I hope you can understand how I get a bit of a laugh out of the seriousness of it.
I agree with your points. "Flying" see!........there I go again...."Playing" AH, and alot of other entertainment based computer flight simulations, is definately educational in many regards to the science and art of actual powered flight.
Safe Hunting
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
While there's no doubt that simulators teach valuable lessons that can be applied in the real world, computer technology is not (yet?) to the point where it can duplicate the effects of G forces on our bodies. In my limited experience, that makes a very big difference. I recall one account by an American P-51 pilot who was in an extended turning fight with a German plane. His oxygen mask was slipping down his face, he was getting nauseous, his arm was hurting, and those things nearly forced him to change the tactics he was using (if I remember correctly, the German changed first). It's all well and good for us to repeatedly dive and loop and ride the edge of blackout in our mock combats, but we really shouldn't kid ourselves that we would be able to sustain that for long in a real airplane.
- oldman
I also suspect that my glass of Beaujolais would also likely have spilled, and my snack tray would have also been upset.
Without these things, my flying - well, actually, it would probably be better, but I might not enjoy myself as much!
-
Agree with humble 100%.
You guys are really selling the skills you pick up in this game short.
Playing AH will not make you a fighter pilot. However, there is no question (in my mind) that the skills practiced in AH would absolutely translate to improved fighter skills, and would have improved any fighter pilot's performance in WW2.
For Hub's sake, I will tell you that the Navy has (finally) recognized the value of MS Flight Simulator for training its pilots. This might have come as a surprise to the Navy brass, but for folks like me that have been simming forever this was old news.
In primary flight school I spent literally hundreds of hours flying simulated basic instruments and radio navigation flights at home before the graded event. In advanced, most of the time the instructor would give the student the airports for the next day's events. I'd go home, load up a kingair and fly 50 approaches into San Antonio or Corpus or wherever. There is simply no substitute for going into a flight having shot the approach a hundred times the day before. You're not fighting the approach when the instructor gives you an engine fire on final or calls a deer on the runway for a missed approach- you already have it second nature.
Translate this to fighter skills. How many times did the real P-51 driver go up against a Bf-109G14 before his first engagement? Do you think if he could go 'offline' in a simulator like AH, with a mockup cockpit, a good stick and throttle, and a trackir, and fly about 500 engagements against a simulated Bf109 he wouldn't come away far more experienced when he had to do it in 'real life'?
Of course there are any number of realities that can't be neglected. The sim time doesn't make up for real flight time. But it absolutely is an aid to real flying. If you've learned the basics of ACM online and then go into a fighter, sure you're pulling G's and have all these other real world distractions that make it immeasurably harder, but you're not learning everything from scratch.
FWIW, jet training includes a ton of hours of sim time in formation training and other training (some jet guy would have to give the specifics). For P-3's, I probably have 300 hours or more of sim time flying approaches, doing emergencies and tactical flights, etc. Most airlines train their new pilots on sims exclusively- their first 'real' flight is one with passengers in back. Such is the fidelity of sims that these guys don't touch actual controls until the real deal.
-
MSFS might be useful, but it's not AH, and the things you practiced in it don't even exist in AH. Also, you presumably used it as practice, instead of learning solely from the game. We don't have realistic startup, shutdown, landing, patterns, weather, etc etc, and there's no penalty for any mistakes.
We may acquire a lot of knowledge with regards to planes, relative performance, gunnery, etc, but we're doing that with the experiences of those real pilots, and we're likely picking that up from time with a trainer (some of whom are real pilots themselves), or reading, or watching films, again from people who are often real pilots, or at the very least people with considerable experience in sims. Most importantly, IMO, that occurs outside the game. I could learn those same things without ever flying a single sortie.
Now, I would agree that flying a simulator against trained opponents, in addition to real training, would be a benefit, but AH is not that simulator, and the opponents in AH are not, for the most part, pilots with any experience whatsoever. Saying that you would benefit in a real world situation because you have a few hundred completely unrealistic engagements against completely untrained opponents is just completely bull****.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
... Saying that you would benefit in a real world situation because you have a few hundred completely unrealistic engagements against completely untrained opponents is just completely bull****.
I don't see how you can even make that statement with a straight face, even behind a computer screen - that's why sims are used for training in the first place. And with respect to "learning it without flying it" that's just plain silly - your mind may "think it knows it" but your muscles sure don't. If that was the case they'd simply drill pilots (and other professions requiring significant hand and eye skills) using book knowledge on the ground (where it's both cheaper and safer) and not give them the controls until they were all done learning.
On the other hand, I think you are also 100% correct - some of us are placing MORE (probably way more) emphasis on the importance of what we think we know from our AH experience than is probably warranted.
A good analogy is a very simple one... a great video game marksman is often a much poorer marksman in real life. A real guns kicks, your shoulder hurts, and gun smoke is acrid and stings if it gets in your eyes, and the wind blows and it's HARD to hold the rifle barrel steady - among at least a hundred other little things that make it different.
-
If all of the AH engagements were even moderately realistic, and if all of the pilots were formally trained, it would certainly have some value. In fact, it would be of such value that the armed forces would almost certainly use it. As it stands though, the opposite is true. The fights aren't realistic, and with a few exceptions, no one is formally trained as a combat pilot.
How could this be useful in a real aerial engagement?
-
Hub,
I concur with your last statement.
Flying in an La-7 in the current MA environment probably has little real life value outside of practicing basic ACM skills.
If you were to use AH, as is, in a structured training environment, in 1943, I believe that it would absolutely have value as a training tool for WW2 pilots.
Additionally, I believe that if we were to give you, or any of the other top tier players, a couple hundred hours in an era warbird to learn to 'fly in real life' and then started teaching you ACM, along with Joe Schmo who's never played a flight sim in his life, you'd spank him repeatedly.
It's usefulness as a trainer would probably diminish rapidly after a couple hundred hours of real life time, but the help over the initial learning curve would be enormous.
-
Originally posted by Squire
It depends on altitude, energy states, fuel loads, ect of the opposing fighters, as to which might out turn the other and force another fighter on the defensive first, just as in AH. Maybe one pilot initiated a hard break turn first?, or pulled more G?, or was more aggressive?, you have dozens, hundreds? of factors involved. One combat will not be a "carbon copy" of another, ever. Add to that that "aces" by their nature were competent, aggressive flyers, often "out muscling" (or out thinking) the opposition in a supposedly "equal" fight.
You can't take one combat, and then demand a "cut and paste" result that matches it exactly, not when its a contest of people, as well as machines.
Good points Warloc. Another thing people tend to forget when hearing combat reports from WWII. In AH we get a perfect airplane everytime we take off. Some planes are pigs. You can take two Bf-109G6s from the same unit, put them in the air and there will be a difference in flight performance. A tired engine, flight controls slightly out of rig, an extra coat of paint causing weight and balance issues, you'd be suprised how disimilar two of the same aircraft can be. Especially in a front line unit during a world war.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
How could this be useful in a real aerial engagement?
You learn tactics. You learn far more than ACM theory.
I have a friend, in his mid 60s now, who flew F-105s out of Thailand into Vietnam in the late 1960s. Later he flew the F-4 Phantom II and retired in the mid 1980s with about 300 hours in the F-16. He and his wife stayed at our house for a week a couple of years ago. I let him fly online in the TA and MA for several hours.
His words exactly: "I wish we had a tool like this when I was training. It would have been a very big help."
We have several active and retired Navy and USAF who have flown and currently fly Aces High. I doubt that any of them think that there's no benefit to be gained for actual combat pilots. Anything that can demonstrate tactics and ACM theory will be of value. Getting waxed by a fat-assed teenager playing from his bedroom in Deluth is the only risk they take.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by sullie363
So I was just thinking about an episode of Dogfights from this season, I think the one titled "P-51 Mustang." Anyway a P-51D is being chased by a 109 in a slightly descending right turn, at what speed they were at they didn't say. What he did to evade I have been unable to duplicate in the game but he described it as this - pull the stick into your gut to stall the aircraft, kick full right rudder, then the engine torque will pull her back into something flyable and you recover a couple thousand feet later. I'm just gonna assume somebody else saw this episode and remembers what I'm talking about and have tried to pull it off themselves. So far all my attempts have resulted in the plane wiggling a little, but nothing like what the pilot described. Easily attained to the left, just not to the right.
I believe the same episode also had a pilot in the same situation, being chased in a descending right turn, and the pilot snapped the mustang up and to the left, did an insta 360 spin and managed to land rounds on his pursuer.
It's because he was in an airplane instead of a computer sully............
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You learn tactics. You learn far more than ACM theory.
I have a friend, in his mid 60s now, who flew F-105s out of Thailand into Vietnam in the late 1960s. Later he flew the F-4 Phantom II and retired in the mid 1980s with about 300 hours in the F-16. He and his wife stayed at our house for a week a couple of years ago. I let him fly online in the TA and MA for several hours.
His words exactly: "I wish we had a tool like this when I was training. It would have been a very big help."
We have several active and retired Navy and USAF who have flown and currently fly Aces High. I doubt that any of them think that there's no benefit to be gained for actual combat pilots. Anything that can demonstrate tactics and ACM theory will be of value. Getting waxed by a fat-assed teenager playing from his bedroom in Deluth is the only risk they take.
My regards,
Widewing
I guess I should have clarified that while the game can provide some useful training, it comes from the folks like yourself, Leviathn, Stang, etc and not simply playing the game, or at least that has been the case in my experience.
All that being said, if some folks who have been there, done that think it would give them a pronounced edge, well, I'm in no position to dispute that. Maybe I'm just a special kind of idiot, despite 7 years or so of cartoon dweebery. This wouldn't be a huge surprise, even to me.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Getting waxed by a fat-assed teenager playing from his bedroom in Deluth is the only risk they take.
Ouch, my secret is out :)
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Widewing
We have several active and retired Navy and USAF who have flown and currently fly Aces High. I doubt that any of them think that there's no benefit to be gained for actual combat pilots. Anything that can demonstrate tactics and ACM theory will be of value.
No question about that. Most of this dialog has been directed to the contention that AH virtual pilots would be superior to real WWII pilots if put in the same aircraft.
- oldman
-
A life-long friend of mine is in the air force, and I have never been able to get him into online air-combat simulators like AH. What am I doing wrong?;)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Now you want to attack the credibility of Robin Olds? You are kidding, right? You need to read up on who you're talking about before you go too far. Because you evidently have absolutely no idea who you are talking about.
Wow I like it the way everyone else can post an opinion on something but I can not (as evidently I have absolutely no idea who I am talking about :rolleyes: ). I was not trying to discredit the fighting men who put their lives on the line in the air, as I was trying to point out the obvious bias that that channel has in reguards to the axis airmen according to my opinion. I was trying to say that in most episodes I have seen the axis just fly around begging to be shot at. I am familiar with the American aces as well as those from the Luftwaffe and its allies, and I know of their deeds. My post earlier was not meant to imply any sort of disrespect to Robin Olds or any other person that they have interviewed. It was an opinion about the STATION that produced and aired such episodes that portray the Axis as a gaggle of un organized flying targets and rarely as agressive military aviators. Why has there not been (and correct me if I am wrong, and I know y'all will :p ) an episode on Hans-Joachim Marseille, Erich Alfred Hartmann, Adolf Galland, or Adriano Visconti? So any how, I am sorry if any toes were stepped on, that was not my intent. I just do not like "Dogfights" the tv show, it is possible to like the Aces that are portrayed therein but still hold the show in distain. :aok
Ok y'all may commence my flogging.
:noid
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
Hey, I thought we were friends with the French again!:p
Hope not, although their wine is pretty good. (need to keep that coming).:D
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
Why has there not been (and correct me if I am wrong, and I know y'all will :p ) an episode on Hans-Joachim Marseille, Erich Alfred Hartmann, Adolf Galland, or Adriano Visconti?
Probably too hard to interview them for the show.
-
I'm still wondering why they haven't done an episode involving maybe the battle of britain, or perhaps the Australians, or the Russians......
-
They seem overly fascinated with the actual living pilots. There are so many great "Dogfights" out there that actually involve aircraft in lieu of Kamikazes or Battleships that it is disheartening.
I heard that the show has been canceled anyway.
-
Even if it was cancelled, Battle 360 seems to basically be the same show just expanded to anything they want involving, well, battles.
-
Originally posted by Citabria
how many other flight sim developers modelled their rv8 into their sim so they could compare their flight model performance to their real airplane throughout its flight envelope?
name one other than HT. :D
Austin Meyer. But he used his SR22.
Sorry Fester.... you asked :)
The X-Plane engine is so good many aircraft engineers and designers use it as a tool to check out their designs and get confirmation of some performance estimates.
Aircraft manufacturers use it to demonstrate some of their airframes to potential customers before scheduling actual RL test flights.
X-Plane however is NOT a combat simulator, and never will be.
-
I love this thread :cool: