Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: dtango on December 08, 2008, 11:24:15 AM
-
I posted the following on the 412th training forums more than a year ago. I thought I would start the same thread with some improvements here in hopes that it helps folks.
Air Combat is all about making decisions for which way you're going to maneuver. In an engagement one of the most fundamental decisions that a pilot faces is simply "Which direction should I turn?"
The direction we turn has a dramatic impact upon the outcome of an engagement.
It may be surprising to people that the simple choice of whether you turn right or left, up or down could be so important. Because it can have such a big impact on a dogfight, we should take some time to review some of the critical factors for making better choices in the direction of our turns.
REVIEW OF TWO CLASSES OF TURNS:
First we should spend some time reviewing nose-to-nose and nose-to-tail turns. During a dogfight, as two aircraft's flight paths cross or merge, each pilot has a choice to make. They can continue flying straight along their flight path, or they can choose to turn and change direction. This change in direction or turn can be of short or long duration. If the pilots choose to turn, we can categorize the turn into two categories:
(1) One Circle or Nose-to-Nose Turn
(2) Two Circle or Nose-to-Tail Turn
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/turntypes.jpg)
For the sake of the discussion we’ll call the attacker in black and defender in red in the diagram above.
NOSE-TO-NOSE TURN
At the merge the attacker turns left in attempt to reverse his direction and get angles and position on the defender. In a nose-to-nose turn, the defender responds by making a right-hand turn BACK INTO the attacker. Both airplanes are effectively turning back into each other's nose, thus a nose-to-nose turn. The nose-to-nose turn is referred to as a "one circle" turn because the geometry of the flight paths make it appear as if the aircraft are creating a single circle more of less.
NOSE-TO-TAIL TURN
A nose-to-tail turn on the other hand is different. In the diagram above the attacker again decides to make a left-hand turn into the defender at the merge. The defender however in this case decides to also make a left-hand turn AWAY from the attacker. Both airplanes noses are now effectively turning toward the other's tail, hence a "nose-to-tail" turn. The nose-to-tail turn is referred to as a "two circle" turn because the geometry of the flight paths appear as if the airplanes are creating two circles in the sky.
CRITICAL FACTORS THAT DECIDE ADVANTAGE:
In either case of nose-to-nose or nose-to-tail turns one or both aircraft are making the turn to try and gain a position/angles advantage on the other aircraft. Depending on the type of turn different factors decide which aircraft has the advantage. Understanding these factors is fundamental in making good decisions about which way we should turn in a fight. I’ve seen many pilots who make that turn at the merge without regard for these factors not realizing that the simple choice of their turn was the key decider in their loss.
For a nose-to-nose turn, turn radius is what dominates and the aircraft with the SMALLER turn radius gains the advantage.
The following diagram demonstrates this principle.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/one_circle_ex.jpg)
In the diagram, the fighter with the smaller turn radius is able to use geometry to his advantage in a nose-to-nose one circle fight. The point is this: If you’re in a fighter that can turn with a smaller radius then in an angles fight you’re hoping for your opponent to make a nose-to-nose turn. If you’re in the aircraft with the relative larger turn radius then making a nose-to-nose turn automatically puts you at a positional disadvantage. Bear in mind that the better turning aircraft is relative and not always decided by the aircraft with the lower wing-loading.
For a nose-to-tail turn, turn rate is what dominates and the aircraft that has the HIGHER turn rate and can get around the circle more quickly gains the advantage.
The following diagrams illustrate this principle.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/two_circle_equal.jpg)
In this first diagram the fighters are in a two circle nose-to-tail fight. One fighter has a smaller turn radius but both fighters have the same turn rate. Even though one fighter has a smaller turn radius, because the turn rates are equal neither fighter is able to gain an angles advantage on the other. Replace the situation with one fighter having a turn rate advantage and the following illustrates what occurs:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/two_circle_ex2.jpg)
As demonstrated in the above diagram the fighter with the higher sustained turn rate is able to gain angles on the fighter with the lower sustained turn rate. Rate dominates the nose-to-tail two circle fight.
So far it appears that the better turning aircraft gains the advantage in either one cirle or two circle turns. However take note of the two circle case. Even though the fighter with the lower turn rate is at a disadvantage the nose-to-tail turn reduces the amount of angular gain in the nose-to-nose case. In the right situation this can be used to force a flight path overshoot of the fighter with the higher turn rate. Also the nose-to-tail turn gives the slower turning fighter room to maneuver as well compared to the nose-to-nose case. Finally nose-to-tail turns take a lot more time to complete compared to nose-to-nose turns. The energy tactician may use this as a method to turn bleed off the energy of the better turning fighter in order to setup an energy fight.
Summarizing:
In a nose-to-nose one circle fight, the fighter with smaller turn radius gains the advantage.
In a nose-to-tail two circle fight, the fighter with the higher turn rate gains the advantage.
Understanding these two factors should guide our decision making in which way to turn against an opponent.
Everything in air combat is relative. Instead of treating the above as a maxim I’ll use specific examples instead. To illustrate the principles of decision making in direction of turn we’ll examine various situational examples to demonstrate the concepts of deciding which way to turn and the resulting consequences good and bad. I’ll reply with subsequent follow up posts with the situational examples to explore the concepts when I clean them up a bit.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Very nice, thanks for posting it! :aok
-
The 2 circle fight is the most underused aspect of ACM in the game IMO. It's also extremely effective as a -E defensive fight regardless of relative turn rate or in a scenario where your at a functional disadvantage since its not seen as often....great post :aok :salute
-
and that last picture is *not* a HO. Just because the other guy is watching is impending death from up/fwd or up view doesn't make it a HO. :aok
This is the most common "HO" vs. "front quarter aspect" complaint that doesn't involve straight up jousting.
-
Ok, say i'm in a pony and merge with a spit head on and spit goes up. Does this mean I should pull a split S?It would seem to me to be the worst thing to do in that situation. :salute
Also, in the 2nd from the bottom diagram, the plane on the bottom should delay or lag the loop some to avoid getting in the position that the aircraft in last diagram is in? Am I understanding that correctly? :salute
-
It's a question of timing and relative position. You dont need to be fully in plane for a 2 circle fight. I like to get the con set off of 1 win or the other and then roll back into plane...here are a couple of SBD clips from yesterday, In both you can see the use of a two circle strategy from a neg E state...
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/film78.ahf
Here at roughly 34 sec you can see me convert from 1 circle to 2 circle and at 1:35 or so you'll see after my missed shot a vertical 2 circle again...
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/film79.ahf
This starts with a 2 circle merge...and I try and force the 2 circle fight as best as I can. Obviously when your dealing with a better stick in a better plane your pissing in the wind a bit but you can see what I was trying to set up at the end. I got off the gas and then on...so obviously my touch was off...but I was trying to set up a canopy shot there at the end and blew it....
-
Ok, say i'm in a pony and merge with a spit head on and spit goes up. Does this mean I should pull a split S?It would seem to me to be the worst thing to do in that situation. :salute
You are correct. This is a special case. I'll deal with it in a future example. The diagrams above are showing you the paths generally in the lateral direction (looking down from above) not vertical. If it was vertical you have to account for the impact of gravity on your turns which changes rate and radius depending on the orientation of lift vector with respect to gravity.
Also, in the 2nd from the bottom diagram, the plane on the bottom should delay or lag the loop some to avoid getting in the position that the aircraft in last diagram is in? Am I understanding that correctly? :salute
I think you mean this diagram:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/two_circle_equal.jpg)
This diagram just shows you that if both airplanes have the same turn rate that in a nose-to-tail turn neither would have an advantage. They are both getting around the circle at the same rate even though one has a smaller turn radius. If you are the plane with the larger turn radius then you probably want this to be the case. You wouldn't want to delay or lag the turn if it reduced your turn rate because if you did you would end up just like the last diagram.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
The 2 circle fight is the most underused aspect of ACM in the game IMO. It's also extremely effective as a -E defensive fight regardless of relative turn rate or in a scenario where your at a functional disadvantage since its not seen as often....great post :aok :salute
100% agreed :aok
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Great information! However, I was wondering if there was a resource available on turn rates somewhere? I know the AH fighter comparison site shows radius but it doesn't show rate. Any way to get a hold of such information would be great. Thanks!
Qrsu
-
Hi Orsu, if you want to take matters into your own hands..... What you can do to roughly test turn rate is take up your prefered aircraft offline. Start a wide flat turnwhilst keeping an eye on your speed. Decrease the turn radius untill your speed is holding constant. If you are stilll losing speed you are pulling too tight. When you find a constant speed/turn rate that matches effective turning circle with optimum speed and angle of attack you are in the right area. Refining these values with hands on testing you will find the optimum turning rate of any aircraft.
I just made that all up on the spot, so appologies if im wrong.
S!
-
Great information! However, I was wondering if there was a resource available on turn rates somewhere? I know the AH fighter comparison site shows radius but it doesn't show rate. Any way to get a hold of such information would be great. Thanks!
Qrsu
I'm assuming turn rate all depends on speed or energy.So turn rates change as speed increases or decreases.
-
cool post keep it up!
-
Wow, thanks! Great post!
Great information! However, I was wondering if there was a resource available on turn rates somewhere? I know the AH fighter comparison site shows radius but it doesn't show rate. Any way to get a hold of such information would be great. Thanks!
Qrsu
http://www.my2cents.co.nz/AKUAG/Resources_Files/PerfComp.aspx (http://www.my2cents.co.nz/AKUAG/Resources_Files/PerfComp.aspx)
-
Ahh, I sort of thought it had to do with optimal corner velocity and how fast you're actually going but I wasn't sure. I guess I'll have to learn as I go. Thanks guys. :salute
-
Wow, thanks! Great post!
http://www.my2cents.co.nz/AKUAG/Resources_Files/PerfComp.aspx (http://www.my2cents.co.nz/AKUAG/Resources_Files/PerfComp.aspx)
Geez, I even had this program already but forgot about it. :rofl
Thanks Bubi. :aok
-
So... I've been flying 109s lately and I'm trying to figure out the best way to approach each encounter. If I merged with an a6m2 in a 109F I know he'll have a tighter turning radius thus a nose-to-nose turn is to my disadvantage... however, referencing this graph it also shows that it's turn rate is also higher so a nose-to-tail turn is also to my disadvantage. Obviously the 109F has a greater speed and climbing advantage - so after merging should I be extending, maybe get a bit of altitude on the zero and stick to the BnZ?
Would love to read your thoughts. :salute
(http://www.slybirds.com/Images/a6m2vs109f.bmp)
-
Yep, when you're flying a 109 against a Spitfire or A6M or other such aircraft with a tighter turning radius you want to use your climb rate to your advantage. I generally do an Immelman after the merge.
(braces for someone telling me this is the wrong thing to do :O )
-
Yep, when you're flying a 109 against a Spitfire or A6M or other such aircraft with a tighter turning radius you want to use your climb rate to your advantage. I generally do an Immelman after the merge.
(braces for someone telling me this is the wrong thing to do :O )
Hey, sounds good to me :lol :salute
-
Alright, now I'm confused. I compared two of the match-ups I find most difficult (actually, not quite, but there is no turn data for the F4U1A so I subbed in the D).
(http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/AK_Comrade/lolwut-2.jpg)
Ok. So here, the both the Dora, and, surprisingly (to me at least), the Anton have a higher sustained turn speed the Spitfire and the Corsair. But... the Spitfire and Corsair have a higher degrees per second rate and they finish a 360 degree turn faster... what is the most relevant information here?
-
Turn rate bubi, turn rate.
Tango, XO
412th FS braunco Mustangs
-
Turn rate bubi, turn rate.
Tango, XO
412th FS braunco Mustangs
OK, that's what I thought (well, hoped :D )
The fact that the Fw190 has a higher turn rate yet completes a 360 degree turn more slowly than a Spitfire or a Corsair seems contradictory to me, but to me aerodynamics is just confusing, period, so I just won't worry about it :lol
-
So... I've been flying 109s lately and I'm trying to figure out the best way to approach each encounter. If I merged with an a6m2 in a 109F I know he'll have a tighter turning radius thus a nose-to-nose turn is to my disadvantage... however, referencing this graph it also shows that it's turn rate is also higher so a nose-to-tail turn is also to my disadvantage. Obviously the 109F has a greater speed and climbing advantage - so after merging should I be extending, maybe get a bit of altitude on the zero and stick to the BnZ?
Would love to read your thoughts. :salute
Someone else may answer but you have options. Firstly it's all relative. The higher wing-loaded plane (A6M2 for instance) doesn't always have a turn rate & radius advantage. It depends on the relative speeds of the aircraft and where they are at in their performance envelope. Secondly if you happen to be the energy fighter in your situation you can use direction of turn to set up a possible energy fight as well. I'll address this in a specific example.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
OK, that's what I thought (well, hoped :D )
The fact that the Fw190 has a higher turn rate yet completes a 360 degree turn more slowly than a Spitfire or a Corsair seems contradictory to me, but to me aerodynamics is just confusing, period, so I just won't worry about it :lol
No no, Fw 190 doesn't have a higher turn rate. That's measured in degrees per second. A higher sustained turn speed isn't the turn rate.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Oh, ok. Thanks.
Well, at least the 190 is closer in turn rate than turn radius... :\
-
OK, that's what I thought (well, hoped :D )
The fact that the Fw190 has a higher turn rate yet completes a 360 degree turn more slowly than a Spitfire or a Corsair seems contradictory to me, but to me aerodynamics is just confusing, period, so I just won't worry about it :lol
I would think that a high yo-yo would work well to cut the corner on the zeke. But I'd test him first to see how good he is before I got too fancy. :lol
-
EXAMPLE 1
The choice of which direction to turn at the merge can be crucial. Here’s an example with an old squaddie of mine.
At about the 30 sec mark, PDM in a P-51 and a Spitfire close for a head-to-head merge.
FRAME 1 shows what happens just a few seconds after the merge.
FRAME 1
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/pdm_frame1.jpg)
Just after the Spitfire and P-51 pass each other they both decide to turn. The Spitfire turns to his left while P-51 turns toward his right. As described above this is the classic opening of a nose-to-nose turn with both aircraft turning into each other. The merge is the first critical decision point in this engagement in deciding which way to turn. Let's analyze this situation with our knowledge of the determining factors of who wins a nose-to-nose contest.
The Spitfire at this point is travelling at 186mph while P-51 is at 265mph. The Spitfire and the P-51 at these velocities are actually both below but near their respective corner velocities. This means that both aircraft are near the envelope for maximum performance turns for their respective aircraft. Of course the Spitfire has much lower wing-loading compared to the P-51 which means it's max performance turn it has a much higher turn rate and much smaller turn radius compared to the Mustang.
RECALL THAT FOR A NOSE-TO-NOSE TURN THE SMALLER TURN RADIUS DETERMINES THE AIRCRAFT WHO WILL GAIN THE ADVANTAGE.
In our situation here at the first critical decision point the Mustang deciding to stay in a nose-to-nose turn has now put themselves in a disadvantage after the merge because in this case the Spitfire has a much smaller turn radius than the P-51.
If you are going to commit to a nose-to-nose turn then you want to be confident that your turn radius will be equal to or smaller than your opponent's. In a P-51 who is an average turner this means you have to really judge your enemy's energy state correctly, especially against planes that are better turners to ascertain if you think you have a turn radius advantage against them or not.
Because of the difficulty of gauging this, when fighting a better turning aircraft it often makes a lot of sense to use a nose-to-tail turn instead. A nose-to-tail turn has the effect of stretching out the time it takes to turn which an energy fighter can take advantage of. We will discuss this in later examples.
FRAME 2
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/pdm_frame2.jpg)
FRAME 2 shows the fight developing 40 seconds into the film. As we can see here the effects of the nose-to-nose turn just after the merge are apparent. The Spitfire has gained an angles and positional advantage on P-51, the direct result of the turn radius advantage the Spitfire has compounded by the P-51 making a lazy nose-to-nose turn.
This is the 2nd critical decision point in this engagement. Though at a disadvantage the P-51 still has choices he can make to equalize or neutralize the Spitfire's angles advantage. One effective way to neutralize the situation would have been to continue the nose-to-nose turn into the Spitfire. The maneuver would need to be a maximum performance turn into the nose of the Spitfire. To accomplish this P-51 could have rolled his wing right some more so that his lift vector was pointed at or just below the nose of the Spitfire followed by a continued hard pull on the stick to turn it hard into the nose of the Spitfire.
In continuing a nose-to-nose turn the P-51 would have been essentially re-merging with the Spitfire, albeit probably slightly in front of the Spitfire. There would have been a slight risk of the Spitfire making a snapshot but at these speeds as well has having a little bit of altitude to jink or roll out of plane it would be difficult for the Spitfire to make that shot count.
In our situation, in Frame 3 instead of continuing a max performance nose-to-nose turn into the Spitfire, the P-51 stopped the turn, barrel rolled into a split-s that put the Mustang square in front of the Spitfire.
FRAME 3
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/pdm_frame4.jpg)
Once this occurs the Spitfire is now in a position for a killing shot and though the fight evolved to P-51 extending, the Spit is close enough to get a lucky shot to take off his tail.
Choosing different directions of turn at critical junctures in this fight would have changed the entire outcome of the engagement. Which way you turn may seem like a simple, trivial choice, but it has dramatic consequences.
Link for the film:
[can't load it from where I'm at currently. Will do so when I'm able.]
More examples to follow.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
OK, that's what I thought (well, hoped :D )
The fact that the Fw190 has a higher turn rate yet completes a 360 degree turn more slowly than a Spitfire or a Corsair seems contradictory to me, but to me aerodynamics is just confusing, period, so I just won't worry about it :lol
higher speed in MPH needed for effective sustained turning, is what you are thinkng of. The FW has a higher listed speed as it needs to be faster to make an effective sustained turn which will be wider than those of spit or f4u.
-
higher speed in MPH needed for effective sustained turning, is what you are thinkng of. The FW has a higher listed speed as it needs to be faster to make an effective sustained turn which will be wider than those of spit or f4u.
Thanks for clearing that up for me :aok
-
no problem, most of those charts make my head spin, i tend to ignore them :lol
-
Without hijacking the thread, those charts give sustained turn rates - e.g. the turn rate it can manage in a sustained turn. They aren't good at answering your questions about who will have the best turn rate at any given moment due to the potentially different speeds the two aircraft are travelling, and other factors. Don't take them as gospel that if it says one has a better sustained turn rate, then it will always win a nose-to-tail fight, cause there's more to the situation than just that.
oh, and nice write up tango.
-
EXAMPLE 2
On the 412th training forum I show a sequence where I make bad choices with regard to direction of turn demonstrating again the importance of those choices but it doesn’t illustrate the impact of good choices.
In the interest of keeping the topic moving I’ll skip to an example where the choice of direction of turn dictates the fight.
Here's the full AH film for the following example:
http://brauncomustangs.org/films/film103_p38_geaux.ahf
Frame 1
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/tango-p38-frame1.jpg)
At the opening of the fight I spot a P-38J trying to close on myself and SkatSr. Given the ample separation between the P-38 and me, I reverse into him using an immelman. Over the top of the immel, I'm doing about 185mph TAS which is not a very good maneuver speed for a Mustang fighting an enemy with much higher E. And in this case I notice that the P-38 is closing terribly fast (film shows around 380mph).
In Frame 1 we merge with me diving slightly while the P-38 is climbing slightly into me. At the merge, I have a choice of choosing to turn or not. As we pass before initiating any other kind of maneuver I watch which way the P-38J goes and notice that he decides to turn back into me by going to his right. At this point because he is so much faster than me, going straight is not an option so I must turn to avoid giving him position and angles advantage. Which way should I go?
Frame 2
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/tango-p38-frame2.jpg)
I could have chosen to either chosen a nose-to-nose turn back into him or a nose-to-tail turn away from his turn. As you can see in Frame 2 I choose a nose-to-tail turn. This is a very critical decision at this juncture and you will see how it plays itself out.
I didn't make the decision to go nose-to-tail at random. It was calculated.
- I'm low on energy and need time and separation to build up energy in order to be effective in maneuver.
- I know that he's faster than me so in going nose-to-tail I'm trying to bleed off his E by making him turn hard and through many more angles to get pointed back at me.
- Since it's hard to judge the turn capability of the bogey, the nose-to-tail turn is the lowest risk option to give me time to size up the opponent to see what his plane and the pilot is capable of.
Let's see what happens next!
Frame 3
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/tango-p38-frame3.jpg)
In frame 3 you can see that the nose-to-tail turn has allowed me to gain both speed and separation from the P-38 without giving up too much angles. Somewhere mid Frame 3 I could have chosen to stop the turn and disengage by extending straight if energy states permitted.
In this case I realize that the nose-to-tail turn has given me both speed to now be effective in maneuvering and separation that I can continue my nose-to-tail turn back into the P-38 to begin turning the tables on him. Recall that if both planes continue a nose-to-tail turn they will eventually end-up in a re-merge as partially depicted in our nose-to-tail diagram here:
NOSE-TO-TAIL TURN:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/two_circle_ex2.jpg)
This example is interesting because just like in the diagram above I've used a nose-to-tail turn but ended up giving some angles advantage. I've lost the fight right? Actually I'm able to use that as a way to bait and I'm now in a position to re-engage the P-38J with the ability to influence the fight the way I want it more readily.
Frame 4
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/tango-p38-frame4.jpg)
Frame 4 shows the outcome of using the nose-to-tail turn to give me more control and options. The P-38 takes the angles bait and presses in for the attack. I use the separation and speed gained by the nose-to-tail turn and translate them into maneuvering room to create a "Hi-Lo" Overshoot and into a barrel-roll defense and ensuing rolling scissors. What is a Hi-Lo Overshoot???. I’ll address it more completely in another example, but in short I'm using relative differences in altitude, airspeed and lift vector orientation to equalize or gain the advantage.
Suffice it to say I'm able to force the P-38 out infront of me. The fight goes on a little bit more with us in a rolling scissor a bit and fortunately for me ends up with the P-38 crashing.
But as you can see, the outcome of the fight was dramatically influenced by me purposefully choosing to use a nose-to-tail turn instead of a nose-to-nose turn after the initial merge in order to give me the ability to dictate more of the outcome of the engagement later on! A simple and seemingly trivial choice of which way I turned at the merge made all the difference in the world!
More to come.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
SOOOO.....
please pardon if this sounds stupid......
but in the p38..either the J or the G, vs a spit, 109, or la, i would be better off to turn away from my opponent, just after the merge? i generally try to go up, and from then on, i try to keep my lift vector on my opponent. it works in the f6f for me, and sometimes in the 38. i'm fairly new to it, so i'm still learning.
thanks
<<S>>
-
SOOOO.....in the p38..either the J or the G, vs a spit, 109, or la, i would be better off to turn away from my opponent, just after the merge? i generally try to go up, and from then on, i try to keep my lift vector on my opponent. it works in the f6f for me, and sometimes in the 38. i'm fairly new to it, so i'm still learning.
The principles apply in the vertical as well. In a nose-to-nose turn the aircraft with the smaller turn radius will have the advantage. Just to re-illustrate here's a nose-to-nose turn with the turn circles overlaid to demonstrate.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/one_circle_ex3.jpg)
I'd liked to address a few things in addition:
First in the vertical gravity effects your turn rate and radius. Assuming a constant g pull-up if your lift vector is > 90 degrees oriented with the direction of gravity then your radius increases and rate decreases. If your lift vector is < 90 oriented with the direction of gravity then your radius decreases and rate increases. The net result is flight path that looks like this vs. a pure circle.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/gravturn1.jpg)
Second turn performance is relative to a lot of things. For instance if you're in a P-38J and the bandit is an Spit, 109, or La-7 and both your aircraft are at your respective corner velocities when you start your turn into the vertical then most likely the Spit, 109, and La-7 will have the angles advantage. However if the P-38J is at corner and Spit, 109, or La-7 is booking at speeds above the corner speed of the P-38J then it's likely the P-38J is going to have the angles advantage in a nose-to-nose vertical turn. The lower wing-loaded aircraft isn't always the best turner. It depends on the situation.
Third the "worse" turner might want to go ahead and make a nose-to-nose turn in the vertical for an energy fight. If the differences in energy are great than it might make sense to go into the vertical like the following even if you're giving up angles initially.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/zoom_pitch.jpg)
This is the classic zoom or rope-a-dope attempt. The energy fighter is ceding angles to the bandit to hang'em up but than turn the angles and positional tables around by out zooming the bandit.
It's really important to remember that air combat is relative to a lot of things.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
CAP:
One more thing. All the above I've posted so far assume that lateral or vertical separation isn't really a factor meaning any lateral or vertical separation at the merge between opponents isn't enough to make a difference. You have to take that into account as well. I was going to introduce the concept via other examples but your's and others questions about a nose-to-nose merge in the vertical leads into the discussion.
Here's a pic from the AH Trainers website on the topic of merges:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/acm-merge/merges2.jpg)
Here we have two airplanes with essentially the same turn radius and turn rate. Nose-to-nose, radius is the key factor right? Therefore no one has the advantage then. Well throw in vertical or lateral separation. The vertical separation is enough between the aircraft to become a factor now as depicted in the picture. The airplane that started lower in the merge gains the advantage despite both aircraft having the same turn radius and rate.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
CAP:
One more thing. All the above I've posted so far assume that lateral or vertical separation isn't really a factor meaning any lateral or vertical separation at the merge between opponents isn't enough to make a difference. You have to take that into account as well. I was going to introduce the concept via other examples but your's and others questions about a nose-to-nose merge in the vertical leads into the discussion.
Here's a pic from the AH Trainers website on the topic of merges:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/acm-merge/merges2.jpg)
Here we have two airplanes with essentially the same turn radius and turn rate. Nose-to-nose, radius is the key factor right? Therefore no one has the advantage then. Well throw in vertical or lateral separation. The vertical separation is enough between the aircraft to become a factor now as depicted in the picture. The airplane that started lower in the merge gains the advantage despite both aircraft having the same turn radius and rate.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
aaahhhhh.......
ok...i usually dive for some speed. i see others going out of their way to dive UNDERR me. this makes that make sense. they can then do their veritcle maneuver a bit more relaxed? thus letting them hold more energy, but still get inside me/?
-
aaahhhhh.......
ok...i usually dive for some speed. i see others going out of their way to dive UNDERR me. this makes that make sense. they can then do their veritcle maneuver a bit more relaxed? thus letting them hold more energy, but still get inside me/?
Correct.
-
Correct.
the light's finally commin on. THIS has to be one of the best threads i've seen in here.
now i only need to learn to put it to use. :aok
-
the light's finally commin on. THIS has to be one of the best threads i've seen in here.
now i only need to learn to put it to use. :aok
I've really been enjoying this as well, somehow despite myself I've managed to gain some small measure of success in the MA without really knowing HOW or WHY something worked. Learning a lot in this thread to answer those primary questions, thanks for taking the time to put this together Tango.
-
no problem, most of those charts make my head spin, i tend to ignore them :lol
bat your a man after my own heart! i guess we graduated from the same school of flying and dying just in different games :D
-
the good old English method of ignoring the instruction manual and trying to get the job done on pure stiff-upper-lip-ness :D
-
the good old English method of ignoring the instruction manual and trying to get the job done on pure stiff-upper-lip-ness :D
Also known as O.J.T. very effective learning concept for those of us that use the "manual" for other daily activities :)
-
The Effect of Flight Path Separation in Nose-to-Nose Turns
As mentioned recently above flight path separation is an important factor in nose-to-nose turns. We’ll take a closer look at the topic. Consider the following diagram:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/one_circle_fps1.jpg)
Red and blue aircraft are approaching each other from opposite directions. In our example we assume they both have the same turn performance in terms of radius and turn rate. In this example, there is initial flight path separation between red and blue. In a nose-to-nose turn this initial flight path separation results in red turning behind the 3/9 line of the blue aircraft. That’s why in head to head merges some pilots will dive first before the merge. The idea is to create vertical flight path separation by diving.
Flight path separation applies not only in the vertical but lateral/horizontal as well. Inside of purely diving, an aircraft can initially turn away and then turn back into the approaching bandit to attempt to create flight path separation. The classic example is described by Bob Shaw in “Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering”. One approach to this merge is to unload and make a shallow oblique nose low turn away from the bandit, then reverse the direction of turn back into the bandit while transitioning back into a climb to reduce airspeed to corner and making a hard turn into the bandit.
Of course one counter to the vertical or lateral flight path separation is to take away that turning room by continuing to point your nose at the bandit and pass a close to head-to-head as possible. This has the effect of taking away the flight path separation.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/fps_counter.jpg)
Aircraft with the relative smaller turn radius can make nose-to-nose turns at a flight path separation disadvantage as demonstrated in the following diagram.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/one_circle_ex.jpg)
The aircraft with the smaller turn radius is able to get an angles advantage despite the lateral offset. This is possible if the bogey’s turn diameter is larger than the flight path separation and the turn diameter of the aircraft with the smaller turn radius.
The fighter with the smaller turn radius must be careful not to disregard the flight path separation that might exist. Attached is a film snippet of a P-51D and F4U1-A merge in the MA I had. Here’s an image demonstrating the critical juncture of the fight:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/vert_n2n3.jpg)
I dive in my Mustang as we approach the merge and turn in the vertical. The F4U1-A responds with a nose-to-nose turn in the vertical. Even though the F4U1-A has a smaller turn radius the flight path separation proves to be too great to offset allowing me to saddle up on the six of the F4U1-A.
Attached film:
http://thetongsweb.net/412th/film125_f4u_p47_h36t_0001.ahf
Impact of Airspeed on Nose-to-Nose Turns
Separation distances between aircraft impacts nose-to-nose engagements in other ways as well. Turn radius is actually not the only factor that determines advantage in one-circle engagements.
In certain nose-to-nose situations turn radius doesn’t determine angular and positional advantage. Instead it’s determined by airspeed instead. How much advantage depends on the separation distances between airplanes. Consider the following diagram:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/one_circle_sep2.jpg)
In the illustration we have red and blue abeam of each other with circular flight path overlays to visualize the turn circles. Red has a smaller turn radius but greater airspeed while Blue has a larger turn radius but is travelling slower than Red. Blue is able to get the angles advantage because it is travelling slower than Red despite it’s larger turn radius and lower turn rate!
In a nose-to-nose turn when aircraft are abeam of each other and the separation distance between the two is less than the turn radius of the larger turn circle the aircraft with the slower airspeed gains the advantage.
This is one of the ways planes like the P-51 will catch better turners by surprise. For instance when I’m flying a P-51 against a Spitfire XVI and I recognize that we’re in this situation I’ll yank throttle to idle and deploy as much flaps as I can in an effort to slow down and force the Spitfire out front.
If the separation is greater than the larger of the two turn radii then turn radius becomes the dominant factor once again.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
The 2 circle fight offers a lot of potential advantages, one of the biggest hurdles to overcome is the "when". Thats a complex question with a lot of variables so it defies easy classification. As a general rule my thoughts are as follows...
1) The higher you are the more universally valuable the 2 circle fight is since it requires the availability of space to mirror your opponent.
2) If your in a negative position the two circle fight wont make things worse and often will maximize any available gain. As an example if your -E/-@ then a nose to nose turn will equalize angles with minimal impact on relative E state.
3) A two circle fight can often take an opponent off "his game" and force him/her to improvise on the fly.
If your interested in the concepts my advice would be to employ it initially as a defense of last resort. Any time you feel a fight going the wrong way look for a chance to throw a 2 circle move in to equalize things. As you progress then look to incorporate it in your +E moves as a change of pace. It's also viable as a merge change up vs the plane you hate the most/have the most trouble with...
I happened to film this earlier today, its basically flown just about entirely as a neg E 2 circle fight. When employed from this position the 2 circle (regardless of plane match up) creates some interesting offensive possibilities from negative positions. Obviously the SBD has exceptional nimbleness but suffers a very limited powerband. A 202/Fm2/A6M/109E*F/P40B offers enough of the former and a much improved vertical pop...
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/2circlefight.ahf
-
sorry for just bumping this thread back up, but i couldn't find it. there is a TON of good stuff in this one. i almost wonder if it should be stickied.
thanks guys!
-
http://www.bss214.com/tactics/tacticsguide.html (http://www.bss214.com/tactics/tacticsguide.html) Here's a site with some basic and advanced merges and tactics. :salute
-
http://www.bss214.com/tactics/tacticsguide.html (http://www.bss214.com/tactics/tacticsguide.html) Here's a site with some basic and advanced merges and tactics. :salute
cool sight Uptown thanx
FLOTSOM
-
i don't really know if i've managed to apply some of htis information to my fights yet or not.
what i have tried, though, was when fighting a spit(i think, i'll try to find film) i have a tendency to try to keep my lift vector pointed towards my bandit. that works pretty well for me in spits, hurris, zeeks, and even the hellkitty. not so much in the 38, although out of habit, i try it.
last night, i was fighting this guy, and i started the same way. then i hesitated for a split second, and rolled AWAY from him, came round, and ended up with a quick snapshot, which i think i missed. i still died, but i think i lasted longer than i would have had i continued following him.
this thread is what went through my head, causing me to decide to try that.
keep em comming sir!!
<<S>>
-
I REALLY like this thread. Been following it not long after it started and it has some very good information.
I took a simpler approach, (if he comes at me from the left I turn right as he pases. From the right I'd turn left, always trying to meet him in his turn) but this thread has helped expanded that particular thought process.
Thanks guys ..you :rock
-
I REALLY like this thread. Been following it not long after it started and it has some very good information.
I took a simpler approach, (if he comes at me from the left I turn right as he pases. From the right I'd turn left, always trying to meet him in his turn) but this thread has helped expanded that particular thought process.
Thanks guys ..you :rock
that's why i bumped it the other day. this is probably oneof the best and most informative threads i've seen on these forums. it needs to not die or get buried.
thanks DT!!
<<S>>
-
Hi folks, glad some of you all are enjoying this thread. I have more examples to post but it takes time to get it all together. Here's the next one for folks to chew on!
EXAMPLE 3
Here's another example of applying some of these principles in action.
Attached Film:
http://thetongsweb.net/412th/film1_412th+lazer_0001.ahf
In this particular example we'll visit the concept of decision making in a out-numbered, defensive situation. The fight itself evolved from a 1 v 2 to a 2 v many but we'll focus on the initial 1 v 2 situation to illustrate turning principles.
This is also an interesting fight in the sense that there are more enemies than good guys and I'm not above the bogies which means it presents a lot of challenges from an energy management stand point.
FRAME 1
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/tango-p38-2-frame1.jpg)
In this example I found myself at an energy / altitude disadvantage with two P-38's in my P-51D. The P-38's established in a high six a clock position and started to dive in. As they do so I have a decision to make. Frame 1 depicts how I respond which is to try and turn back into the attacking P-38's.
In the turn back into the P-38's, I'm trying to accomplish two things. First I'm trying to create an geometry problem by increasing the P-38's angle-off-tail (AOT) on my Mustang. Second the increase in AOT can result in a flight path overshoot by the P-38's if they continue to press the attack.
Several key factors play a role in my decision making in this turn back into the P-38's. Assessing the relative energy states I know I'm near or just above corner velocity in my Mustang and that the P-38's are probably even faster than me. Second they are above me which means I can use gravity against them as well (more on this concept later). All this means that my turn radius will be less and turn rate greater than the P-38's allowing me to create more angles than than can gain on me.
In making the turn back into the P-38's, as I see them committed to the diving attack I also make a portion of the turn with my lift vector pointed below the horizon.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/grav_ast_turn.jpg)
As mentioned above in this thread gravity is a factor to consider turns with vertical components. This allows gravity to work with my turn and not against it further increasing my turn performance. Here's another diagram to reinforce the concept:
(http://www.brauncomustangs.org/images/vertical-turn.jpg)
This images depicts an aircraft making a contant 4-g turn in the vertical. Radial acceleration represents the acceleration due to lift while normal acceleration is the total acceleration experienced by the aircraft including gravitational acceleration. Essentially normal acceleration is the absolute acceleration experienced by the aircraft while radial acceleration is what we read on the accelerometer (g-load meter) in the plane.
Notice that at the bottom of the "loop" that gravity works directly opposite that of lift. This results in an absolute acceleration of 3 g's instead of 4. The net result is that the turn radius is increased and turn rate decreased. This is gravity working against a turn. At the top of the loop the effect is exactly opposite. Notice that the absolute normal acceleration is 5 g's instead of 4. This is because gravity is working in the same direction as lift and the net effect is reduced turn radius and increased turn rate.
Okay let's see what happens next.
Frame 2
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/tango-p38-2-frame2.jpg)
In Frame 2 one P-38 presses the attack while the other holds high. As can be seen the turn back into the P-38's and the increased AOT causes the attacking P-38 to overshoot. This is another decision point. What should I do in the Mustang? Should I keep turning to my left? Should I straighten out? Should I turn back into the P-38?
Two factors are key in my decision making:
A)I haven't blown a bunch of energy in my turn and am still near corner velocity. Things that helped this - It was made with a slight climb to trade some speed for altitude before going oblique nose low and reefing it in. Also I have WEP on to counter the energy-bleed in a max performance turn.
B)The P-38 has a bunch of smash (374 mph) and well above my corner velocity but also now moving into a lag pursuit position on my P-51.
So it appears I'm at my max turning potential while the P-38 will turn worse. However the P-38 is now moving into lag pursuit which means that if I continue my turn in the direction I have been he can use a lag pursuit curve to negate any angles I can generate more than the P-38 and get into a advantageous position.
When these factors in mind I thus make a nose-to-nose turn back into the P-38 which is depicted in Frame 3.
Frame 3
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/tango-p38-2-frame3.jpg)
The P-38 continues to press the attack in a nose-to-nose direction and is able to get a brief snapshot which I risk. Note that my reversal back into the P-38 is again with lift vector pointed below the horizon to get a gravity assist in the turn. Since I'm near corner and the P-38 is faster than me I know that overall I can create angles without having to blow a lot of energy in the nose-to-nose. This is important because I know that I have to bank up as much maneuvering potential because having the P-38's wingman just on top as well as having plenty of other bad guys close by.
The nose-to-nose forces another decision point. The P-38 and I cross paths. Which way do I turn now?
Frame 4
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/tango-p38-2-frame4.jpg)
Frame 4 shows the choice I make. This time instead of making a nose-to-nose back into the P-38, I stay in the right hand turn which means I'm now in a nose-to-tail turn instead. Key factors in making this decision:
A) I've created enough angles between the first P-38 and am picking up some energy in the process. Because of the high threat environment I'm now trying to get him to expend energy while I gain it to give me options. The nose-to-tail turn increases my separation and also causes the first P-38 to have to go through a lot more angles to get pointed at me. I'm hoping that he does that to start changing the energy margin. As can be seen that's starting to happen with me now at 335 mph and him 288 mph.
B) 2ndly all the while I've kept an eye on his buddy and am trying to increase AOT for the 2nd P-38 that is now pressing his attack on me too.
Frame 5
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/tango-p38-2-frame5.jpg)
In Frame 5 the first P-38 is essentially no longer a factor thanks to the nose-to-tail turn, however the 2nd P-38 is diving in now for the attack. Which way should I turn now?
I respond to the 2nd P-38 by turning back into him in the pure vertical. Key in my thinking is exploiting gravity so that I'm using it for me while simultaneously using it against him.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/tango-p38-2-lift.jpg)
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/tango-p38-2-lift2.jpg)
Remember that in the vertical if your lift vector is oriented below the horizon then your turn performance increases while having your lift vector oriented above the horizon decreases your turn performance. In a pure vertical turn / loop, the bottom half of the loop between the points where an aircraft's lift vector is 90 degrees to the horizon and the aircraft going straight down or straight up, gravity is working against you.
Frame 6 depicts what happens next.
Frame 6
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/tango-p38-2-frame6.jpg)
Upon the merge with the 2nd P-38 I continue the direction of my turn creating a nose-to-tail turn with the 2nd P-38. I'm doing this again to gain separation and energy from the 2nd P-38 as well as actually setting up a merge with the 1st P-38 trying to get back into the game.
With the 1st P-38 I point my nose at him and merge as close to head-to-head I dare possible without getting hit from a face shot demonstrating the principle of trying to counter any vertical separation room that he has to use to create a lead turn into me.
The fight eventually leads to me and Lazer conducting a fighting egress against the bad guys bagging some kills in the process. In the direction of turns made it possible for me to take away the initial energy and angles advantages the P-38's had eventually allow the fight to be dictated on the good guys' terms :).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
tango... you rock :aok
S!
-
Remember that in the vertical if your lift vector is oriented below the horizon then your turn performance increases while having your lift vector oriented above the horizon decreases your turn performance. In a pure vertical turn / loop, the bottom half of the loop between the points where an aircraft's lift vector is 90 degrees to the horizon and the aircraft going straight down or straight up, gravity is working against you.
in this example, would it all be based on the speed at which your aircraft enters into the vertical loop or hi-yoyo, or pitch back? I can easily see and understand your concept / theory...but their are those "out of the normal box of thinking" times that when you enter a fight and go vertical or per say have your lift vector pointed above the horizon that it is in fact going to be increasing your turn performance until you bleed enough energy that it begins to decrease turn performance? did I explain that correctly......all this deals with variables....ie....the constant speed/G load/loop diagram is shown as being"constant"........
if you enter a fight merging at a high rate of speed, then pointing that lift vector above the horizon is actually helping you to a certian limit, before it goes toward a negative performance factor......
btw.....very excellent post/lecture dtango......I would appreciate it if you could clarify more thoroughly on what I have just questioned in this post/reply
-
is there any possibility of getting this thread stickied? it'd be nice to see this stay up top.
on a seperat note.......my head hurts from all the information. the only possible way to improve on this format, would be to "narrarate" what you're doing as you're fighting.
unfortunatly, some of us cannot post films due to the poopoo that comes outta our mouths in a fight. :D :noid
please!! keep the info comming sir!! as your ime allows!
<S>> and happy holidays!
-
in this example, would it all be based on the speed at which your aircraft enters into the vertical loop or hi-yoyo, or pitch back? I can easily see and understand your concept / theory...but their are those "out of the normal box of thinking" times that when you enter a fight and go vertical or per say have your lift vector pointed above the horizon that it is in fact going to be increasing your turn performance until you bleed enough energy that it begins to decrease turn performance? did I explain that correctly......all this deals with variables....ie....the constant speed/G load/loop diagram is shown as being"constant"........
if you enter a fight merging at a high rate of speed, then pointing that lift vector above the horizon is actually helping you to a certian limit, before it goes toward a negative performance factor......
TC:
You're absolutely right, I need to clarify. Turn performance is definitely a function of airspeed. Lord know's I preached enough times on the BBS over the years to try and constantly clear up misconceptions about thinking turn performance increases below corner velocity :).
You've pointed out a key point of the "tactical egg" diagram above and that it assumes constant AIRSPEED and constant G. Of course in reality this situation isn't realistic because our airspeed is usually decreasing or increasing in a turn like this. The following diagram compares the constant airspeed/G vs. the more realistic example for a jet fighter of constant thrust/G.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/vert_turn_compare.jpg)
So certainly factoring airspeed into the equation in relative terms the bottom half of a vertical turn it's conceivable that turn performance is better at the bottom half of the loop because we're turning at corner there vs. slower airspeeds at the upper part of the loop. Turning at or near corner is still where we optimize turn performance lift vector pointed above horizon not-withstanding.
Regardless, gravity is working against an airplane in the bottom half of a vertical turn. This means even if we're bleeding down and turning near corner in the bottom half of the vertical turn, the turn performance is still degraded compared to what it would be with lift vector pointed below the horizon at the same airspeed. The implication here is that folks that don't undertand this may expect a certain turn performance they are used to and can't understand why they aren't getting around as quickly as they are used not realizing that it's because gravity is working against the radial acceleration of lift reducing the absolute g-load of the turn.
Hope that helps to clarify!
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
on a seperat note.......my head hurts from all the information. the only possible way to improve on this format, would be to "narrarate" what you're doing as you're fighting.
I don't think I could narrate this real time in a fight! The OODA loop is operating way too fast! What I have thought about is to go through the examples in more of a video narrative format instead of just flashing images and text like the above but that takes a heck of a lot more work!
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Thanks dtango, that's what I was looking for..for others to see anyways......great clarification! :aok
now on a nother note:
We classify turns as being Instantaneous Turn/turn rate & Sustained Turn/turn rate....... yet on the 1st page of this Very Informative thread they are listed as One Turn & or Two Turn ( fights )
Both you and I, as well as most vets understand the difference, but to explain a bit further.....
One should combine the two (2) different types of turns ( Instantaneeous & Sustained ) in conjunction with the two different types of combat engagement turns? pardon me if I have mucked this up, just don't want to have a student say:
well I read on the AH BBS that the 2 types of turns is 1 turn circle & 2 turn circle! ...... ?
and yes I agree the 2 Circle fight is the most under estimated/used in the game........as well as people not understanding the 3 dimensional aspect of geometery, where even in a one circle fight, if you move your turn(circle) offset of your oponents turn (circle) you can manipulate his flight path to obtain a shooting solution...
dtango, really have enjoyed this thread, Sir :salute
EDITED:
I must back-up a few steps, from my 1st posting of this reply. dtango has already in a sense described sustained turn performance turn rates to a degree.....I should have refreshed my memory of this thread before posting this reply! Also in reference to my mentioning of " 3 dimensional geometery thinking, dtango touched on this briefly in Reply#33:
One more thing. All the above I've posted so far assume that lateral or vertical separation isn't really a factor meaning any lateral or vertical separation at the merge between opponents isn't enough to make a difference. You have to take that into account as well. I was going to introduce the concept via other examples but your's and others questions about a nose-to-nose merge in the vertical leads into the discussion.
Here's a pic from the AH Trainers website on the topic of merges:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/acm-merge/merges2.jpg)
Here we have two airplanes with essentially the same turn radius and turn rate. Nose-to-nose, radius is the key factor right? Therefore no one has the advantage then. Well throw in vertical or lateral separation. The vertical separation is enough between the aircraft to become a factor now as depicted in the picture. The airplane that started lower in the merge gains the advantage despite both aircraft having the same turn radius and rate.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
I just wanted to go a step further in mentioning offseting your position/seperation all be it vertical, horizontal or lateral well into a fight engagement will offer or can offer you an opportunity to obtain a firing solution....
one last thought I continouly have, is probably 99% of the people in the game are always worried about best sustained turn rate / sustained turn performance.......if you shy away from or throw out any thoughts toward a planes Instantaneous Turn Performance/Instantaneous Turn Rate, the wolf in sheeps clothing will tear you up!........ one of the advantages of flying a P51 series vs a spitfire for example......my apologies for the oversight from the 1st page, dtango, I replyed without refreshing my memory......
-
Yeah TC,
I assume that people already know the difference between an instantaneous turn vs. a sustained turn. The concept is embedded in the discussion when rate and radius is mentioned. I also assume folks recognize that rate and radius vary throughout maneuvering.
This gives rise to what is referred in BFM to the "fish-hook" shape of a turn which represents an airplane starting a max performance turn above corner speed and then bleeding down in the turn to about corner. The shape of the turn (viewed from above) looks like a fish-hook as depicted in the following diagram:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/fishhook1.jpg)
Of course the above diagram only shows the bleed down to corner. If we include the time history of the turn to include not only bleed down to corner but also continued bleed it gives us a more complete view and understanding of variation of rate and radius. The following diagram shows a P-51D making a max performance turn in AH starting above corner and holding that turn into the Mustang's best sustained turn.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/fishhook.jpg)
As depicted in the diagram, with visual inspection the radius decreases until it reaches a minimum but then increasing after that. This demonstrates the turn radius decreasing above corner, reaching a minimum at corner, and then growing again below corner. It's harder to visualize the change in rate but rate does the similar thing increasing until it reaches corner and then decreasing belong corner.
Here's the same picture with overlays of different turn circles to help visualize the changing radii more clearly.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/fishhook2.jpg)
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
The corner velocity (max turn rate) for any airplane is the lowest speed at which you're still able to pull maximum G's (in AH this would be to blackout) - easy way to think about it and find that speed for various a/c.
-
I don't think I could narrate this real time in a fight! The OODA loop is operating way too fast! What I have thought about is to go through the examples in more of a video narrative format instead of just flashing images and text like the above but that takes a heck of a lot more work!
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
yaknow what's funny? i suggested that, right? whelp...the other night, just for giggles, i decided to try "narrating" a buff attack. well.......that lasted till the second pass, then i think i slipped a couple expletives, as his gunners removed parts from me p38 o deth.
your way sounds much much better. even the way you're doing it is good. for a little bit there, i thought i was putting some of it to work. now, though,i feel like i'm missing something somewhwere again. gonna print this entire thread when i get home, to make it easier to re-read.
-
The corner velocity (max turn rate) for any airplane is the lowest speed at which you're still able to pull maximum G's (in AH this would be to blackout) - easy way to think about it and find that speed for various a/c.
and you are absolutely sure about your quoted post above? or you just guessing?
-
and you are absolutely sure about your quoted post above? or you just guessing?
even if he is sure, isn't corner velocity, nearly impossible to maintain in any fihgt?
-
and you are absolutely sure about your quoted post above? or you just guessing?
Yes sir, that's the rule of thumb and it seems to be pretty accurate based on my experience in game.
Corner velocity (or trying to maintain any speed under a max G load) is nearly impossible to maintain unless you have a massive amount of excess thrust available. The instant you snatch on the G's you're going to bleed that E as a result of substantial induced drag. It'll make for a heck of an instantaneous turn rate though - for a few seconds. The slower your speed at the onset of those G's, the more thrust you're going to need to maintain that energy state/airspeed/G.
If you're traveling at a high speed it's easier to maintain that speed under high G loads compared to maintaining speed under a G load at a low speed. The reason is that the higher the speed, a given onset of G's results in less induced drag. The higher the speed, the less angle of attack is needed to pull X amount of G's.
Maneuvering so that gravity assists you (keeping that airspeed up downhill) you'll be able to maintain a speed close to corner velocity for a bit longer. However, although maneuvering downhill works to keep that rate up, the radius on a downhill pull will be greater than uphill which will have a slower rate but tighter radius.
Another way to figure corner velocity is to take the level, clean stalling speed of the airplane, then take the square root of the max G load that the pilot can handle (is it ~7 G's in game?) and multiply that by the stall speed. Angle of attack would be a better measure since stall speeds change with aircraft weight but the wing will alway stall at the same AOA, am not sure how the equation would end up though - but it doesn't need to be that scientific to get the corner velocity.
The P-51's stall speed is ~102 MPH at 75% fuel - square root of 7(G's) multiplied by 102 = 269 MPH CV - in the sim that speed and max G pull snaps me to near full blackout and stall buffet.
Remember that your stall speed changes with different aircraft weights and center of gravity loadings, you need a higher airspeed (because you're trying to lift more) for a given angle of attack to stay in the air, but the angle of attack at which the wing stalls is always the same. An aircraft loaded with aft CG will stall at a lower airspeed, and a forward CG will stall at a higher speed. The reason has to do with the amount of downforce on the tail (pitch input). With a forward CG you're holding / trimmed nose up, more force pushing that tail down, this increases the angle of attack (result of increase in pitch) because of the extra weight (tail downforce) that the wing has to lift - take the opposite for a forward CG.
Kind of got carried away, just thought I'd post some aerodynamics stuff, most people probably know all of that already - even if you don't, I'm sure you apply it in game without even thinking about it.
-
this is why fighter pilots need to pass maths and physics! :O
-
EXAMPLE 4
Greetings gang and Happy New Year! I've been away on vacation and have recently gotten back home.
Here's another situation demonstrating application of various principles laid out already.
Here is the link to the AH Film snippet:
http://thetongsweb.net/412th/film45_spit_slower_spd1.ahf
The situation was me trying to chase down a Yak in my P-51B near the deck at moderate speeds. The Yak leads me to a waiting Seafire who tries to jump me. The film snippet starts at this point.
Frame 1
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/slower_speed_merge.jpg)
In Frame 1 the Seafire is above me. I have a choice to make in my pursuit of the Yak. If I continue in my current flight path the vertical separation between myself and the Seafire gives the Seafire turning room to make a lead turn which he starts to take advantage of. To take away that turning room, I pull up and point my nose at his which initiates a merge.
Frame 2
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/slower_speed_2.jpg)
At the merge I have choices to make. I notice that the Seafire driver is savvy. Instead of continuing a diving turn the Seafire reverses and pulls up in a vertical turn which is a sign to me that the pilot might realize the effect of gravity on stretching out a turn if the Seafire would have continued downhill. Recognizing that I'm low on airspeed and that I'm probably in a performance envelope where the Seafire will easily out turn me and remembering the maxim that in a nose-to-nose turn the smaller radius dominates I reverse my direction and dive away with WEP on. As you can see by the image this has the effect of creating more a less a nose-to-tail turn.
The Seafire is still on my tail while the Yak is turning somewhere ahead of me. With bandits in different directions and recognizing that I don't have the energy to maneuver against both in series I judiciously make use of my Runstang's speed to extend :). Essentially I judge that I don't have options to be effective against both aircraft at once and need to build energy quickly to regain options.
The extension results in the Seafire staying on my tail and closing slowly while the Yak loops around. This puts both aircraft on my six which actually now reduces my problem. More on this concept some other time in a different thread regarding Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) - 2 or more aircraft working in unison. With them both on my 6 and not separated by much distance between them I can essentially treat them as if I'm working one aircraft.
About near the 50 second mark I decide it's time to gamble and try and create some massive closure and angles problems for the bandits by initiating a series of violent, max-g barrel rolls.
Lucky for me the Yak breaks off but the Seafire hangs on and is able to take out my oil in a snapshot. All is not lost however as I able to get the Seafire slightly out of phase with me with his fuselage not aligned with mine.
I then try the next trick up my sleeve which is to gamble on reducing airspeed by chopping throttle. Remember that in a nose-to-nose situation turn rate and radius aren't always the deciders of advantage. If separation distances permit then speed becomes a factor. Recall the following diagram:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/one_circle_sep2.jpg)
When two aircraft are abeam and are separated by less than the turn radius of the greater turn radii then the aircraft with the least airspeed gains the advantage. (This is infact a specific case of the objectives in a flat or rolling scissors which is the aircraft with slowest forward relative velocity forces the other aircraft out in front. More on the scissors case later.)
I chop throttle and use propeller drag and dump full flaps to reduce airspeed as much as possible. The situation is not quite the textbook abeam situation but I recognize that it is close enough. At around 1:22 mark the picture looks like this however:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/slower_speed_pic.jpg)
As can be seen above the fight has now pretty much evolved to the text book setup where the slower forward velocity gains the advantage. To demonstrate how this whole sequence plays out the following is an animated GIF from about the 50 second mark onward (done just for you CAP1 ;) )
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/slower_speed2.gif)
This is almost an extreme case because I'm going so slow in the P-51B that I'm barely even flying and not able to do anything but the slightest level of bank so that I seem to be more or less flying straight ahead. However the Seafire still spurts out in front of me because of the separation distance and nose-to-nose principle. I'm unable to convert it for a shot but the Seafire in attempt to force me out ahead of his 3/9 line cuts so much airspeed that he's not able to recover from his snapshot attempt and proceeds to lawn dart it.
I'll put some more examples up as I get the time to do so.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Sorry gang. I'm having some problems with my animated gif for some reason. I'm attempting to repair.
EDIT: animated GIF fixed. Be advised, the animated GIF is 8.6 MB.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Excellent work. I love these animations along with the explanation. :aok
The film gives me a Page not found error. :(
-
dam....i'm at work, and for some reason, the moving stuff doesn't show right on the monitor here.
now i gotts hurry yup n get home so i can see this. from what i can see on this monitor, it looks great though!
-
Excellent work. I love these animations along with the explanation. :aok
The film gives me a Page not found error. :(
My apologies :). Here's the right link! I missed an underscore.
EDIT: I just noticed that for some reason my website doesn't recognize a single left click to download and save the film. You can still do it with a right-click and making sure you save it as .AHF file.
However to make it easier I've uploaded the film onto the 412th website which allows the single click download. The URL is now modified for the 412th url.
http://brauncomustangs.org/films/film45_spit_slower_spd_1.ahf
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
FYI AHF film text and voice can be edited in using AHFilm. Including removing any undesired original text/voice and adding new text/voice dialogue.This page (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/films/main.htm) has some examples (my films). It's difficult to cover all the finer points with voice alone, as the subject matter seems to happen in 2 seconds and takes 20 seconds to explain :) I've found parallel voice and text as a good way to cover everything.
-
FYI AHF film text and voice can be edited in using AHFilm. Including removing any undesired original text/voice and adding new text/voice dialogue.This page (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/films/main.htm) has some examples (my films). It's difficult to cover all the finer points with voice alone, as the subject matter seems to happen in 2 seconds and takes 20 seconds to explain :) I've found parallel voice and text as a good way to cover everything.
"A demonstration of BnZ tactics & E managment in practice"
this film is extremely lame, and should not be used for training.
people will get the wrong idea after watching this.
JMO
-
Do tell? What exactly is the "wrong idea"?
-
Do tell? What exactly is the "wrong idea"?
well for starters you are "teaching" that its OK to jump on cons that have 3 or 4 nme already on him, you mostly stay in the Hourde, and "pick" , heck, you dropped on a con that is being fired upon by a friendly, but completely ignore the nme on the friendly that is firing at the con you attack, at one point I saw a bunch of red guys, (mind you all well lower then you) I think to myself " finally some action!" and you run the other way.
I don't mean to disrespect you, if you take it that way I am sorry, but I hear all the time complains about the "hourde mentality" and films like this from a Vet such as yourself, only encourages this type of flying.
I have no doubt that you could use these same Tactics on that NME cloud that was below you, and have had pretty much the same results, you have great aim and for sure know that plane, but it would have been harder, maybe you would not have gotten as many kills, but it would show noobs and others, what is possible using the correct tactics against a nme "hourde", and encourage more to fly away from the hourde, and look for better fights.
JETSOM
-
First of all, I'm pretty sure that Murdr is more than capable of defending himself on this topic but I feel I could lay some groundwork.
Second of all, I don't understand why you had to bring drama to a most informative thread which doesn't deserve this type of crap.
I only had to watch five minutes of the film in question before I was ready to respond -- Murdr is doing it the right way, the way people SHOULD fly in those situations. You're arguing that he goes for the "pick" while all I see is a massive furball where tracking targets for more than 30secs is a surefire way of dying. And as such, disengaging to maintain SA and regaining energy is probably the smartest thing to do. This is not a "Horde" mentality because there are two "Hordes" duking it out. How he's teaching newer players the wrong idea is really not apparent to me.
Flying the P-38, he's using it's ability to use the vertical and stay fast to choose his fights and fight to his advantage rather than falling into the trap of playing to the low/slow turn and burn fest that everyone else is involved in. If you truly believe that unless you engage in the merry-go-round on the deck it's considered dishonorable play then you may want to rethink YOUR mentality. And I'm sure no-one here is trying to force their flying methods on anyone - so to go after how someone choses to engage a furball is overplayed and at this point a senseless argument.
I'd like the thread to get back on track. Thanks.
-
well for starters you are "teaching" that its OK to jump on cons that have 3 or 4 nme already on him, you mostly stay in the Hourde, and "pick" , heck, you dropped on a con that is being fired upon by a friendly, but completely ignore the nme on the friendly that is firing at the con you attack, at one point I saw a bunch of red guys, (mind you all well lower then you) I think to myself " finally some action!" and you run the other way.
I don't mean to disrespect you, if you take it that way I am sorry, but I hear all the time complains about the "hourde mentality" and films like this from a Vet such as yourself, only encourages this type of flying.
I have no doubt that you could use these same Tactics on that NME cloud that was below you, and have had pretty much the same results, you have great aim and for sure know that plane, but it would have been harder, maybe you would not have gotten as many kills, but it would show noobs and others, what is possible using the correct tactics against a nme "hourde", and encourage more to fly away from the hourde, and look for better fights.
JETSOM
You must be watching a completely different flim than I am. Many of the kills were not truely engaged unless you consider pursuing a con from outside of gun range as "engaged". A number of kills were due to simple bad SA on the victims part. I did take the opportunity to pull the trigger a couple of times on enemies where my help was not really required (a p38 sandwitched between two friendlies for instance). I actually did approach a 4 on 1, but then flew on by.
I'll have to honestly say that you have no clue what you are talking about.
"jump on cons that have 3 or 4 nme already on him" as visualized by the average reader is simply not in the film. I suppose one could spin it to count every tom, dick, and harry that looked at the bogie in the 30 seconds previous to my attack. However you are clearly either are watching a different film, or do not know what you're talking about.
"heck, you dropped on a con that is being fired upon by a friendly, but completely ignore the nme on the friendly that is firing at the con you attack" You'll have to point this out for me, as I didn't see it. What I did see was kill #10 where my help was obviously not needed, and a subsequent vox check to the friendly regarding the inbound 109 the instant I had view of its presence.
"you mostly stay in the Hourde, and "pick" " This is the most cluless statment of the post. The film location, as many players would instantly recognize is Mindano A1-A22, which was historically consistant furball hotspot. Furballs could be sustained for hours between those two fields during which time the advantages and location would shift back and forth. Characterizing a 18 minute snapshot of a multi-hour furball as horde flying is complete and utter non-sense.
" I don't mean to disrespect you, if you take it that way I am sorry," That is BS. You intentionally mean to disrespect. Why else would you hijack an informative thread in Help & Training to categorize a film posted by a Trainer on the Trainer's Site as "extremely lame"? [paraphrasing]"I'm going to act like an bellybutton to you, but take no offense" doesn't cut it JETSOM. The tone of your initial post is very clear, and it was your choice to pose your comments in a less than cordial and diplomatic way. It's way too late to assume the role of victim.
"but I hear all the time complains about the "hourde mentality" and films like this from a Vet such as yourself, only encourages this type of flying...and encourage more to fly away from the hourde, and look for better fights." This is where things are truely flawed with misconception. Please read the following quote and review what other types of information is available from the Trainers Site. Rather than cherry picking (ironic isn't it?) one film out of the entire site content to raise a fuss about.
The role of the trainer is to provide aid and assistance to the player who wishes to improve thier flight skills.
Then there is the role of gameplay. Gameplay is chosen by the player and not taught by the trainer. Trainers cannot alter human behavior. They only impart information to those who are looking to improve the quality of thier gameplay.
You cannot mix these two fundamentally different ideas in a conversation without stepping on toes. Anyone attempting to coerce other players into thier style of gameplay is wrong to do so. It is one thing to offer up the different styles, but it is an entirely different matter when one attempts to force other players to play 'thier' game.
However, if you must know when the thread Tips To Being Successful In Complex Engagements (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,193895.0) was a fresh topic. I happened to film this flight, and thought it might help visualize the points that the OP was attempting to describe. So I posted it. That would fall under "imparting information". Making a spectical like you're doing here by cherry picking select information that does not fit your prefered style of gameplay would be more along the lines of "coerce other players". Especially in light of the fact of the wide range of other information offered.
-
I thought while watching it that this is whats wrong with the MA,as you did engage nme that were already engaged, one was being put on fire and you still shot him and got the kill, one of the things I cant stand is when I am firing upon a nme and some green guys swoops in and kills him, that's why I try to avoid green guys as much as possible.
I should have watched the film a second time, I re-watched it and and I am sorry that I spoke so harshly, there was less of the "hourd" then I first thought, and yes I do acknowledge the fact that most of your killz where due to poor SA on there part. and the fact that you are a great shot.
I still do not agree with the jumpin on a con already being attacked or on fire.
I truly did not mean disrespect, sorry you took it that way,
I will leave you to your informative thread.
-
I thought while watching it that this is whats wrong with the MA,as you did engage nme that were already engaged, one was being put on fire and you still shot him and got the kill, one of the things I cant stand is when I am firing upon a nme and some green guys swoops in and kills him, that's why I try to avoid green guys as much as possible.
Just for clarification, I reversed and trailed a P-38, lined up and shot while simultaneously a friendly swoops in and scores a hit that starts a fire. At some point, I saw the fire and continued to shoot anyways. Your entitled to disagree with that, but I already invested 15+ seconds in reversing for guns. I do not arbitrarily attack planes after they are on fire. But I also do not concede "dibs" on fully functional and maneuverable fighters once I'm saddled up. I've gotten multiple kills while on fire. I've watched bogies on fire left go, who continue to shoot friendlies down. Bomber BBQs are the other hand are not a maneuvering threat, and I consider them "dead" the instant a fire breaks out.
I re-watched it and and I am sorry that I spoke so harshly, there was less of the "hourd" then I first thought
I am satisfied that any mischaracterizations were corrected.
[/hijack]
-
Bumping for someone who was asking to see this thread. Hope I'm not violating a rule here...
-
Bumping for someone who was asking to see this thread. Hope I'm not violating a rule here...
You are, but I'd be breaking a Rule by pointing out which one. Or did I already break a Rule by pointing out a Rule was broken? :headscratch:
-
You are BOTH soooo screwed !!! :devil
Next time you could just make a link to the page in question and post it in the thread that it pertains too. :aok
-
:D
Couldn't resist. Usually if you have to ask if something you do is wrong, it almost always is. ;)
-
Good help and training threads should be immune to bump violations imo. This thread is great.
-
I just bookmark them and keep them in an AH folder on ff :)
very nice info gents
-
Good help and training threads should be immune to bump violations imo. This thread is great.
+1, this is just the sort of thing I've been looking for, but haven't been able to turn up using the search function.
-
Badboy or any of the other trainers with the tools to make the nice looking turn graphs, could you please post a graph comparing the turn rates of some of the more popular rides in AH. To simplify thing you could use x axis as speed and y axis as dps.
Thanks
-
You guys have given me food for thought. hmmm...
-
i have no time to study turns n thingy ma jigs. i just fly :t
-
Good help and training threads should be immune to bump violations imo. This thread is great.
I agree 100% Grizz....in fact, I think the best should have a special place on the AH board for review. There are some that go back as far as 99 that could be placed in a folder like that.
-
These posts have been some of my all time favorite readings in the forums. Well thaught out and highly informative. Thank you for the hard work, I look forward to the day that another example might be posted :cheers:
-
Indeed. Until this thread was posted the best answer I could come up with for the topic was "away from the bullets."