Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Latrobe on September 11, 2009, 04:23:13 AM
-
What plane do you not know how to fight with very well, but wish you could learn how too?
For me it's the P-47. I always hear and see the storys of P-47's taking on German 109's and 190's piloted by Veteran Aces and the fights they have, and I always wonder "How did they do that with such a large heavy plane!?" If you can get an enemy plane in your gunsights on a P-47, then your 8 .50cals will make short work of them, but to get them there takes alot more skill than with any other plane (or that's just my opinion). :)
-
38
-
What plane do you not know how to fight with very well, but wish you could learn how too?
For me it's the P-47. I always hear and see the storys of P-47's taking on German 109's and 190's piloted by Veteran Aces and the fights they have, and I always wonder "How did they do that with such a large heavy plane!?" If you can get an enemy plane in your gunsights on a P-47, then your 8 .50cals will make short work of them, but to get them there takes alot more skill than with any other plane (or that's just my opinion). :)
47 is fun, get alot of explosions with the 50s. I want to learn the spit 5 and 38J. 38s are just fast but they are the "Honda" of Aces High, Spit 5 I wanna use as an ubber perk farmer, at a 25 eny it can fight against any plane in late war especially other spits :salute
-
The fact is the 56th FG in the ETO had more A to A kills then any P51 squadron in that theater of ops.
-
Mine would be in the Russian set Yak-9u or the LA5. Both of which are extremely capable aircraft in the right hands. ( just not my hands :D )
-
fought off 2 spits and a 51 with an a-20 killed all 3 got three salutes!! but that isn't going to happen again, i like the ta-152 and mossie both have unique capabilities and are deadly if used how the were meant to be used :aok
-
Yak-9T or 190F-8.
As for the P-47, I do alright in it. The N is especially effective. If you're used to winning fights by pointing your lift line at the bandit you'll have trouble with it. I've often wished there was a 20k ft plateau on one of our maps where the P-47 would be "uber." :)
-
Yak-9T or 190F-8.
The Yak 9T is a fun challenge. Very few tater-gun rounds, the 37mm makes the T less nimble than the 9U, but :eek: when you hit someone with even one of those rounds :eek:....
-
I've often wished there was a 20k ft plateau on one of our maps where the P-47 would be "uber." :)
I aggree, a map with this feature would allow all of the high alt planes to get into their element. The old AKpizza map had a large area where the ground was 15k. I allways liked that about the pizza map. It allowed the high-alt birds to shine. Players would be on the deck fighting like usual, but since the deck was higher it made for interesting fights.
Helm ...out
-
38j
-
38
Ya, who doesn't want to learn the P-38 after having their butts handed to them by a SAPP member!? They sure than fly those things! :eek:
-
"The fact is the 56th FG in the ETO had more A to A kills then any P51 squadron in that theater of ops."
Absolutely! :) Gotta love the jug!
Another fact is that way too many AH players think they're "flying" in a simulated WWII air-
combat environment. Then they wonder why they don't get the results they've always read
about in the historical books.
-
I have been working the Spit 14 of late.
-
For me it's the P-47. I always hear and see the storys of P-47's taking on German 109's and 190's piloted by Veteran Aces and the fights they have, and I always wonder "How did they do that with such a large heavy plane!?"
They fought at high alts, where the P-47 was decidedly faster and had a competitive thrust/weight ratio, they fought as teams, and lets face it, most kills in WWII were a matter of "I flew up behind him, he never saw me, I hosed him down." I also strongly suspect the 109G wasn't the near-Spit it is in AHII, albeit it seems like the 190s weren't the dogs they are here either.
-
BnZ what bothers me about this game is that 190s were considered by Allied airmen to be superior to 109s.
Also....I remember reading that most LW Pilots thought the 190 better also then the 109.
In here .....a game environment,is totally different then the evironment of WW2 Europe.
Anyone (and this has occured a lot lately) fighting at 25K or over....(had lightnings at 33K couple nights ago)
not to mention K4s at that altitude. There were 5 of them against 4 of us in P47Ns. It really wasn't a contest.
A K4 I drew a bead on....tried to do the K4 nose up routine.....it didn't work. the N model climbed right up
the K4s six, closing the gap rather quickly I might add and the K4 Pilot was puzzled and questioned how
that could happen.
See! Aces High can be a history teaching tool! Up high Jugs rule!
And, coincidently that is where the majority of fights occured and started in the ETO during WWII.
-
BnZ what bothers me about this game is that 190s were considered by Allied airmen to be superior to 109s.
Depends on which Allied airmen you were talking to. The VVS pilots generally considered the 109 to be better than the 190.
Anyone (and this has occured a lot lately) fighting at 25K or over....(had lightnings at 33K couple nights ago)
not to mention K4s at that altitude. There were 5 of them against 4 of us in P47Ns. It really wasn't a contest.
A K4 I drew a bead on....tried to do the K4 nose up routine.....it didn't work. the N model climbed right up
the K4s six, closing the gap rather quickly I might add and the K4 Pilot was puzzled and questioned how
that could happen.
He misjudged your E-state. The K-4 still outclimbs the N at 25k ft, and continues to outclimb it through 30k ft.
-
I have three airframes I would like to become proficient in. The F4U, the 109, and the 38.
-
The Jeep.
I have not been able to get it much more than a few feet off the ground.
-
The Jeep.
I have not been able to get it much more than a few feet off the ground.
You should go to the level bombng training part of the TA and drive in any direction for about 10 seconds :lol
-
You should go to the level bombng training part of the TA and drive in any direction for about 10 seconds :lol
:rofl wooot.
<edit>
ummm not very responsive to rudder input. Any pointers?
-
:rofl wooot.
<edit>
ummm not very responsive to rudder input. Any pointers?
Lower alts?
Back on topic, the ones in between and including A20-Yak U
-
Workin on 38s now, been wanting to learn it for years. Maybe after the 38 (in a couple of years) I want to learn the 109's. P38 is definitly my favorite ride right now, the beatings evidently worked.
-
Continuing my P-38 training. I have a lot of training and learning to do in the P-38. I'll think i know a lot, fight a fellow SAPP or 80th and get my arse handed too me within 10 seconds so I consider myself a P-38 novice despite knowing it a little bit.
One plane that i think is underestimated truly is the 190A5. My time in JG11 opened my eyes to that beast. A skilled 190A5 pilot or a team of 190a5's will make short work of a gaggle.
-
Gav....take a look at the altitude I posted......33K.
The N Jug outclimbed the K4. I know...I was in the N Jug. :D
-
The Jeep.
I have not been able to get it much more than a few feet off the ground.
Have you tried it since the new updates.....T34's can jump clear over the roads now......my next mission is to jump clear over the supply convoy
-
Ki-61.
-
Depends on which Allied airmen you were talking to. The VVS pilots generally considered the 109 to be better than the 190.
There can be no doubt that the much more lightly loaded 109s would be superior in a sustained turn than a 190, BUT, one wonders if our A-5 should turn better than it does. The wingloading is not all that different from that of a P-47 D-11. And then there is the issue of the our 190s speed at low alt, coupled with the issue of control stiffness in the 109s...if the control stiffness in AHII for the 109s at high speed were modeled more like it is in IL2, then that alone would be a huge edge to the 190s.
-
There can be no doubt that the much more lightly loaded 109s would be superior in a sustained turn than a 190, BUT, one wonders if our A-5 should turn better than it does. The wingloading is not all that different from that of a P-47 D-11. And then there is the issue of the our 190s speed at low alt, coupled with the issue of control stiffness in the 109s...if the control stiffness in AHII for the 109s at high speed were modeled more like it is in IL2, then that alone would be a huge edge to the 190s.
I'm not sure I follow. When you say control stiffness, I'm thinking input/output or the reciprocal.
I note for comparison that the 109 gets very "stiff" at his speed, which is to say the ratio of input to output goes up radically (the Zeke seems to do the same).
I'm not sure if this is a function of control surface movement as a ratio of stick movement (seems like, given the mechanical linkage, it should have sufficient compliance to change MUCH, though cables do stretch under load, etc) or if, e.g. the 109's case, it's because you lose decent flow over the surfaces - i.e., is it a mechanical or aero effect or, if both, how much of each?
I can only deduce that you're saying that we'd get much more control authority at speed in the 190 by adopting the IL2 model, at least w/r the 109. But this seems counterintuitive since we currently get Passed-out Barbie at anything nearing 500 IAS in the 109. I still have a modicum of control in the 190s at those speeds.
-
No PJ, I'm saying that the 109s suffer loss of control authority at slower speeds as modeled in Il2 than AHII, as do all planes in IL2.
In Il2, the elevator authority of the 109 is notably reduced starting at 280 IAS. In AHII you can still pull pilot-limited "into the black" Gs to almost 400mph IAS.
Having a good deal more control authority at 400+mph IAS isn't near the advantage that having significantly more authority at 300mph IAS, because in the case of the former, one must be in a power-dive to reach such high airspeeds in the first place and one will be so severely limited by blackout at those speeds anyway.
I'm not sure I follow. When you say control stiffness, I'm thinking input/output or the reciprocal.
I note for comparison that the 109 gets very "stiff" at his speed, which is to say the ratio of input to output goes up radically (the Zeke seems to do the same).
I'm not sure if this is a function of control surface movement as a ratio of stick movement (seems like, given the mechanical linkage, it should have sufficient compliance to change MUCH, though cables do stretch under load, etc) or if, e.g. the 109's case, it's because you lose decent flow over the surfaces - i.e., is it a mechanical or aero effect or, if both, how much of each?
I can only deduce that you're saying that we'd get much more control authority at speed in the 190 by adopting the IL2 model, at least w/r the 109. But this seems counterintuitive since we currently get Passed-out Barbie at anything nearing 500 IAS in the 109. I still have a modicum of control in the 190s at those speeds.
-
I'm not sure if this is a function of control surface movement as a ratio of stick movement (seems like, given the mechanical linkage, it should have sufficient compliance to change MUCH, though cables do stretch under load, etc) or if, e.g. the 109's case, it's because you lose decent flow over the surfaces - i.e., is it a mechanical or aero effect or, if both, how much of each?
109s did not suffer from compression, i.e. a lack of airflow over the control surfaces at high speed. Rather, they suffered from too much airflow over the control surfaces at high speed.
-
Jug's a great plane but it takes skill !
And Hajo you've got it sir :salute :)
-
109 series, never flew them in WB's and havent gotten around to it here yet either.
-
p38k
-
I'm super amazing in all planes, actually. Hmm...
-
Ill go with the P38 G
-
There can be no doubt that the much more lightly loaded 109s would be superior in a sustained turn than a 190, BUT, one wonders if our A-5 should turn better than it does. The wingloading is not all that different from that of a P-47 D-11.
A5 has better turn rate but larger turn radius than the D11 from the stats I have.
Also, I know what you're talking about - all the stories that the 190 totally outclassed available Allied fighters at the time.
To really assess this claim, you have to consider what its contemporaries were. What exactly were they?
Going off the fact that the 190A5 shows up in the EW perked, its European contemporaries were Spit9 (also perked), P40E (not sure on this one), and P38G.
The 190A5 is as fast or faster than all of them below around 25k. It outclimbs all of them except Spit9 (it outclimbs Spit9 down low but loses advantage above 7k). Its turn rate is competitive with all of them (one or two dps for 40E and 38G, 2-3 dps vs Spit9), though its radius is lacking.
Oh right it also outrolls all of them (horribly, it's not even close) and comes with the option for a 4x20mm gun package.
So when it was new, the A5 was faster than everybody else, could pull its nose in position just as well (though could not sustained turn as well) as anyone, and it could out roll everybody. Oh, and if it got you in its sights, you were pretty much dead because of its massive guns package.
I think that puts it in context better. I also do wonder if it turns better; I love flying 190s and definitely wouldn't mind if they turned better, but given my analysis and the fact that historical anecdotes are subjective and based on incomplete information, I think what we have modeled is reasonable.
-
Oh and to the original topic - I am in the process of learning/mastering the 109K4 and 190D9. I imagine once I am satisfied with my performance, I'll try the P-38. 38s have a mystique about them.
-
We are lurning the P-40 and Boston III. All three of us. Unfortunatly, our skill sets are divided; Me is much better in the P-40, Myself is better in the Boston, and I prefers the SBD-5 over all of them.
-
I want to learn how to fly a Spitfire.
No Really. :noid
-
Anything Soviet.
The Yank Jabos hold a special place in my heart.
The Mossie is dear to me.
The heavy bombers, and the stories behind them, I quite adore.
-
I want to learn the TA-152, I hear that thing is a beast but I can't seem to find said beast :confused:
-
Ta152.
Such a temperamental child. The 5 ENY is grossly misjudged. The only way that plane can shape the engagement is by losing altitude. When you run out of alt, you run out of shape. I wish I could use it's inherent instability better.
Can't climb well. Can't turn well. Can't roll well.
Also, I just can't reliably land this bird. I lock the tailwheel too late almost every time.....and if I do it too early, back up she goes.
I would venture the 152 a vastly more difficult ride than the 25 ENY Yak-9T that i love so much.
-
I want to learn how to fly a Spitfire.
I can dig, I cannot fly a Spitfire to save my life.
-
"The fact is the 56th FG in the ETO had more A to A kills then any P51 squadron in that theater of ops."
Absolutely! :) Gotta love the jug!
Another fact is that way too many AH players think they're "flying" in a simulated WWII air-
combat environment. Then they wonder why they don't get the results they've always read
about in the historical books.
but didn't the p38 produce more american aces than any other aircraft?
-
They fought at high alts, where the P-47 was decidedly faster and had a competitive thrust/weight ratio, they fought as teams, and lets face it, most kills in WWII were a matter of "I flew up behind him, he never saw me, I hosed him down." I also strongly suspect the 109G wasn't the near-Spit it is in AHII, albeit it seems like the 190s weren't the dogs they are here either.
i talked to a german fighter pilot a few years ago. according to him, the 190 could easily outperform the mustang.
there weren't enough skilled pilots left, and there were too many mustangs.
-
The Jeep.
I have not been able to get it much more than a few feet off the ground.
i can't drive a jeep. it keeps flipping on its back.
-
i talked to a german fighter pilot a few years ago. according to him, the 190 could easily outperform the mustang.
there weren't enough skilled pilots left, and there were too many mustangs.
Yeah...you got to take that sort of thing with grain o' salt.
There is a certain amount of "lost causism" like you see with the Confederacy in the American Civil War associated with the Luftwaffe in WWII. "Our planes and pilots were superior but for...".
-
but didn't the p38 produce more american aces than any other aircraft?
Really? What about the F6F? Hellcat was nicknamed the "ace maker".
Edit: "Pilots flying the Hellcat claimed nearly 5000 kills in the Pacific, and over 350 pilots achieved ace status on the type." - Amazon description of "Hellcat Aces of World War 2"
-
Yeah...you got to take that sort of thing with grain o' salt.
There is a certain amount of "lost causism" like you see with the Confederacy in the American Civil War associated with the Luftwaffe in WWII. "Our planes and pilots were superior but for...".
i did. it was just intereting to hear him talk. it's very interesting to hear any of those guys from that generation really....
-
boomerlu all the midwar and latewar planes did well against Japanese Aircraft. The simple fact is it was easier to damage
a Japanese Aircraft. They were generally slower, manufacutered poorly late war and could not in general keep up with US
aircraft in any way but maneurvability. The choice of Combat generally rested with US aircraft. They were faster, and more rugged.
When it was determined not to get into a turnfight with a zero, they were destroyed in great quantity.
Plus...the F6 was a great carrier plane generally fighting inferior aircraft. Same goes with the F4U. The ruggedness of the F4
and training of its' Pilots held the lines until the hellcat and Corsair came along. The P40B did very very well because of the use of tactics.
The F6 would not have fared as well in the ETO. The 38s were sent in large numbers to the PAC also and did well for the same reasons.
P38s squads in the ETO did not fare as well as those in the PAC also for obvious reasons as stated above. The 38 also had great range
and performed outstanding service in both theaters of war....but generally fared much better vs IJN and IJA aircraft then LW aircraft.
Late War in the PAC they had to ship P51s and the NJug to escort long range B29s which flew very high and were more suitable then
any other fighter in theater for that job.
-
Hajo, I am NOT debating the combat effectiveness of the various aircraft - just a particular statistic ;). Historically the F6F had the most ace US pilots. In today's AH environment I'd probably pick the 38 over the F6F.
-
Learn to fly, or fly well. Corsair I wouldn't mind trying to get good in .
(http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m217/rob_williams/boyington.jpg)
-
I want to learn how to fly a Spitfire.
No Really. :noid
if you arent joking I can relate to you on this, I had an awful problem stalling spits after flying KIs and 109s for the longest time but then I jumped in the Spit 9 and love the bird now :salute
-
Yes, i fly them worse than my 38.
-
B5N2!!!!!! Where do I have to shot to get a kill using rear gun? :D
-
Really? What about the F6F? Hellcat was nicknamed the "ace maker".
Edit: "Pilots flying the Hellcat claimed nearly 5000 kills in the Pacific, and over 350 pilots achieved ace status on the type." - Amazon description of "Hellcat Aces of World War 2"
Top 3 PTO American aces were 38 drivers
-
Having too much fun with the Yak-9T don't need anything else... :D
<S>...-Gixer
-
Top 3 PTO American aces were 38 drivers
Ahh but you said MOST aces, not BEST aces - I was just responding to what you said. And again, I'm not debating the merits of the aircraft, just reporting the stats. If you look up higher, I even mentioned I would be interested in learning the 38 after I am satisfied with my flying in the 109 and 190.
-
Ahh but you said MOST aces, not BEST aces - I was just responding to what you said. And again, I'm not debating the merits of the aircraft, just reporting the stats. If you look up higher, I even mentioned I would be interested in learning the 38 after I am satisfied with my flying in the 109 and 190.
I never said anything about "most aces". I was just stating a point. :aok
-
who was americas top ace in ww2?
what did he fly?
who was americas second highest scoring ace in ww2?
what did he fly?
-
but didn't the p38 produce more american aces than any other aircraft?
Yes, but the quality of pilots that the P38 faced where wretched compared to the P51B, Early Spits, P47 in Europe and Africa and the P40, F4F and other early Navy variants of the F4U in the pacific faced.
By the time the 39 became mainstream front line fighter, they where killing 18 year old kids with 20 hours flying time at best.
But it was and still is a BEAST of an aircraft, just the ACE argument does not hold much water.
-
.... just the ACE argument does not hold much water.
Try to tell that to someone who put their life on the line..... just so you could say that. :aok
-
Yes, but the quality of pilots that the P38 faced where wretched compared to the P51B, Early Spits, P47 in Europe and Africa and the P40, F4F and other early Navy variants of the F4U in the pacific faced.
By the time the 39 became mainstream front line fighter, they where killing 18 year old kids with 20 hours flying time at best.
But it was and still is a BEAST of an aircraft, just the ACE argument does not hold much water.
i would differ in the PTO.
-
Well back on topic...
I'm really not much interested in any other fighter in AH. In RL I love the P-38, the Corsair, and the Mustang.
There are a lot of really great planes from that era though, on all sides.
-
Well back on topic...
I'm really not much interested in any other fighter in AH. In RL I love the P-38, the Corsair, and the Mustang.
There are a lot of really great planes from that era though, on all sides.
they have pudgyIII on display at mcguire afb. on one hand, i love seeing her there as i pull in. stunningly beautiful aircraft. on the other hand, it makes me sad, as she should be in the air.
either way, my rl favs
p38, p51, p47. :aok
in ah.......p38 only.
-
Personally I'd love to be better in the P-38 (all models) and the P-39D. In more general terms I'm saying I would just like to get better period, if your core skill set is solid I think any plane or model can be adapted to with a couple weeks worth of flying. While plane versus plane performance does make up a significant part of the equation player/pilot skill is even more significant. I know that if I'm flying my P-39D and I run into a late war plane in a one versus one situation I have to fly better than the other guy because there are probably very few parts of the flight envelope I can count on for an advantage. If my opponent knows what he/she is doing I definitely have my hands full.
-
Yes, but the quality of pilots that the P38 faced where wretched compared to the P51B, Early Spits, P47 in Europe and Africa and the P40, F4F and other early Navy variants of the F4U in the pacific faced.
By the time the 39 became mainstream front line fighter, they where killing 18 year old kids with 20 hours flying time at best.
But it was and still is a BEAST of an aircraft, just the ACE argument does not hold much water.
Not sure what you are referring to in pilot quality that 38 drivers faced. The 38 was in the MTO in combat against the LW long before the 51B. They obviously faced the best the Japanse had alongside the P40s, 39s, F4Fs etc in the Pacific. I'd suggest a review of the history again to get the dates of service accurate.
-
I'd like to learn how to actually handle the Dora...instead of the lossless BnZ tactic.
-
Personally,I'd like to learn the Me 410 or maybe a MossieMk18,then again it would be real nice to learn the 109 g14 as or g6 as.
Oh right we dont have those A/C yet!!!! Hmmm maybe we need to badger HTC with whines about new A/C and updates to existing A/C as it seems they read and respond to these forums. Something unique about AHII is the fact that they do listen and read what the players have to say,wont find that in many other games.....
Of course I was joking about the planes I'd like to learn,what I really need is to learn to shoot with any plane,I cant hit anything unless I see D0 on the distance counter and even then it's a 50/50 chance. :o
:salute
-
For me it's the Spit V & IX.
I prefer the IX over all other Mk's.
Just started messing around w/ the 109 F4 lately.
:D
-
I never said anything about "most aces". I was just stating a point. :aok
Woops. Mistook you for CAP1 - your avatars are so similar :lol.
I'd like to learn how to actually handle the Dora...instead of the lossless BnZ tactic.
I'm just starting to figure this out - developed a rolling reversal I'm going to test out. Before I would simply run and roll to help keep myself alive.
Other options include standard E-fighting techniques like roping. Turn fighting in the Dora is a mistake though. Your best options are the "lossless BnZ tactic" and basic energy fighting.
-
Woops. Mistook you for CAP1 - your avatars are so similar :lol.
I'm just starting to figure this out - developed a rolling reversal I'm going to test out. Before I would simply run and roll to help keep myself alive.
Other options include standard E-fighting techniques like roping. Turn fighting in the Dora is a mistake though. Your best options are the "lossless BnZ tactic" and basic energy fighting.
ya...that was me. what i meant to say, was that the ole 38 o doom produced the top american aces of ww2. :aok
-
They fought at high alts, where the P-47 was decidedly faster and had a competitive thrust/weight ratio, they fought as teams, and lets face it, most kills in WWII were a matter of "I flew up behind him, he never saw me, I hosed him down."
Very true...if we didn't have the big "Look at me I'm a "###" shoot me!" icon over the enemy's heads it'd be much different, many planes would go unseen.
-
Very true...if we didn't have the big "Look at me I'm a "###" shoot me!" icon over the enemy's heads it'd be much different, many planes would go unseen.
Many still do :aok
-
Very true...if we didn't have the big "Look at me I'm a "###" shoot me!" icon over the enemy's heads it'd be much different, many planes would go unseen.
you'd be surprised at how many planes some of us still don't see.....even with the tags. it amazes me when i watch my films. :rofl
-
I'd like to learn how to actually handle the Dora...instead of the lossless BnZ tactic.
I'm working on this. I cannot claim anything like mastery but there is one thing I've learned from attempting to furball the Dora: All turns must be made with a quick nose-up/down to vertical and roll. Doing this requires smash - a slow Dora is an unmaneuverable, therefore DEAD Dora.
Provided you have the KE, though, there are a number of things you can do well with the Dora, given it's high roll rate and good pitch response (anybody got any data on time to pitch vertical for different AC at different speeds?). For example, the Dora can barrel roll or half pipe very well, provided you master the concert of action required to enable a zero-alt loss roll (i.e., elevator transition throughout the roll). It can also perform the high yo-yo with alacrity - and this is critical given that most of your prey will enter a defensive flat turn when they see you diving. The plane climbs well and can be used on the rope or fake rope (see Agent 360's topic on this matter - the fake rope constitutes a feigned stall transitioned to a flat turn at the top) easily.
It's got long belts - and that's good on a B and Z or any lead shot where you can't see the target for the long nose. The dive is pretty good - the plane doesn't start shaking until 500-ish and is easily recoverable - unlike the 109.
In any case, what I'm working on with the 190 right now is some training work to see just how quickly I can go nose-up/roll 90 (or 180, 270, etc...)/nose horizontal. I'm trying to see if I can use such a simple maneuver to proxy a flat turn of any magnitude.
-
Wait... What is the question?
Until I get my license, I'll stick to a 172.
-
I wanna learn to dogfight in a TA-152..... :) fun plane :aok
-
I'm working on this. I cannot claim anything like mastery but there is one thing I've learned from attempting to furball the Dora: All turns must be made with a quick nose-up/down to vertical and roll. Doing this requires smash - a slow Dora is an unmaneuverable, therefore DEAD Dora.
I agree with the smash requirement.
Here are some ideas I've been playing around with:
*The 180 degree phase roll*
Complicated name for a simple idea. Say a con is on your tail and homing in for the kill. Roll and start a turn. It can be in ANY direction, the point is to get your opponent rolling with you. Once they align their wings with yours, roll 180 degrees the opposite direction so that your lift vectors are pointing directly away from each other. Once you've matched your wings to the opposite of theirs, keep rolling to maintain that matched opposite. Combine this with some elevator/throttle work and you've got yourself a recipe for an overshoot.
*The 180 degree Vertical Overshoot*
Requires about 2-3000 feet of altitude, enough that you can credibly Split-S.
Based off the previous idea, but with a very specific application. In this case, you want your chaser to align his wings with yours while you are inverted, i.e. lift vector pointed down into the ground. Then as he's trying to follow you and pull lead his shot, you quickly roll 180 degrees opposite and zoom. He will most likely overshoot. From here you can try to reverse your climb to pull in for a shot or squeeze it for all it's worth and extend away. If you continue the pattern you'll be in a tight rolling scissors (very little horizontal component).
*Wings Level No Planform*
Strict guns evasion technique - when the other guy is coming in screaming for a kill, you do the standard break turn, and just as he enters guns range you roll to point your wingtip at him giving him no planform.
*90 Degree Guns Evasion*
Same basic principle as 180 degree phase roll, only this time you roll your wings perpendicular to him to avoid the shot.
Hmm, maybe we should start a 190 techniques thread.
-
Yes, that'd be a worthy thread.
One idea on which I've been working but cannot execute yet in the Dora is the Hammerhead or Wingover. Lately, I've been practicing the former maneuver in the 109 G-2. Typically, starting from about 250 IAS, you can pull vertical until speed drops to around 100 IAS, kill power, then go hard rudder with full power. That pulls a quick and stunning reversal +/- about 30 degrees. Trying to do this in the higher torque 109s and the Dora, however, is one hell of a lot more difficult.
Likewise with the wingover.
One thing I've noticed with the Dora is that, typically, any attemp at a wingover style maneuver results in a redout, if I compensate to avoid snap rolling. The two are kind of opposite. Striking the right opposite roll balance seems nigh on impossible.
I probably just need to work on it more in the training arena.
Consider the possibilities, though, for both offensive use via a rope or fake rope maneuver (both of which can benfit from a flat rudder turn, or for defensive use via a combined break turn low to wingover to vertical downward maneuver (see "The Last Gunfighter" episode of DogFights for this one - it's a pretty clean way to disappear from your attacker's view quickly).
-
One idea on which I've been working but cannot execute yet in the Dora is the Hammerhead or Wingover. Lately, I've been practicing the former maneuver in the 109 G-2. Typically, starting from about 250 IAS, you can pull vertical until speed drops to around 100 IAS, kill power, then go hard rudder with full power. That pulls a quick and stunning reversal +/- about 30 degrees. Trying to do this in the higher torque 109s and the Dora, however, is one hell of a lot more difficult.
Try the maneuvers suggested in "109 Torque Initiated Rolls" in the Training Forum. The nose down bunt is extremely fast and effective.
One thing I've noticed with the Dora is that, typically, any attemp at a wingover style maneuver results in a redout, if I compensate to avoid snap rolling. The two are kind of opposite. Striking the right opposite roll balance seems nigh on impossible.
I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps you should define wingover? With the D9, I find most kinds of extreme handling at low speed will result in snap rolls. Again, I use a power-off to power-on nose bunt for vertical reversals. At the top of a zoom with nearly no speed, gravity drops your nose faster than control surfaces possibly could.
-
Try the maneuvers suggested in "109 Torque Initiated Rolls" in the Training Forum. The nose down bunt is extremely fast and effective.
I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps you should define wingover? With the D9, I find most kinds of extreme handling at low speed will result in snap rolls. Again, I use a power-off to power-on nose bunt for vertical reversals. At the top of a zoom with nearly no speed, gravity drops your nose faster than control surfaces possibly could.
Yes, I realized the redout ref is ambiguous. A Wingover is well-defined here: http://www.furball.warbirdsiii.com/krod/ACM-wingover.html
It's basically a low speed 180 degree yaw in the vertical plane. What I find with the Dora is that it's hard to keep the wings in a vertical plane at low speed. Typically, at the top of the climb portion, if I apply no/too little torque-countering roll, the fdub will snap roll. Conversely, if I apply to much, it will nose down hard, causing a redout. It's almost like a negative snap roll where the leading edge of the wing "digs in" to the airstream - worst, of course, at the high tip, which is moving fastest.
The 109 torque roll, as described by Agent 360, are what I've been using - the bunt you cite. I note, though, that 360 says it gets much more difficult once you go to the G-14 or K-4. THe same seems to be true of the 190d9. The higher torque makes what is an easy maneuver in the G-2, a tricky one.
I probably just need more time to practice.
BTW, I'll repeat my offer to you: if you need a corporate friend to sponsor you for a Friends and Family discount on any new Ford/L-M/Ford Truck/Volvo product, let me know. I think the AHII clientele is a good one and will willingly sponsor any of my correspondents here. It often comes in handy for a prospective customer to have a corporate friend to call/straighten out the dealer or service manager. Calls from Dearborn tend to make them fly right, if you follow (not to say MOST of them don't).
-
Yes, I realized the redout ref is ambiguous. A Wingover is well-defined here: http://www.furball.warbirdsiii.com/krod/ACM-wingover.html
Ok, Lima Charlie. I went offline and tried it in the Dora - I typically snap stall or mush. What makes a hammerhead different?
The 109 torque roll, as described by Agent 360, are what I've been using - the bunt you cite. I note, though, that 360 says it gets much more difficult once you go to the G-14 or K-4. THe same seems to be true of the 190d9. The higher torque makes what is an easy maneuver in the G-2, a tricky one.
I don't have as much experience trying to actually control my direction down with the engine torque. However, this should be unnecessary in the Dora. Here's my process if say I am trying to rope somebody and need to use the vertical stall turn/bunt.
1) Go vertical (of course).
2) Roll to put my lift vector on them (this is what makes controlling roll direction less necessary).
3) Pull over the top slightly - this way the gravity bunt pulls the nose in the right direction.
4) Stall power off. Thus no actual rolling from the torque. Gravity pulls my nose downwards at this point. Controls are fairly dead, it doesn't matter if I'm pulling back or not.
5) When my nose reaches around horizon level, I power on. This rapidly kicks the nose down. No redout - there's not enough airspeed to create that many negative Gs.
6) Flaps to taste - depends where you need the nose in relation to the horizon.
A little context: I'm using a twisty stick. I abhor fancy rudder work because it's too closely coupled to the rest of my controls (i.e. physically via the stick motion). One can probably the torque roll far better than the process above, but the process does work and does away with some of the risk of snap rolling.
If I'm using this maneuver as an evasive measure, I skip 2 and 3. In that case I do the nose forward bunt in order to drop out of view.
BTW, I'll repeat my offer to you: if you need a corporate friend to sponsor you for a Friends and Family discount on any new Ford/L-M/Ford Truck/Volvo product, let me know. I think the AHII clientele is a good one and will willingly sponsor any of my correspondents here. It often comes in handy for a prospective customer to have a corporate friend to call/straighten out the dealer or service manager. Calls from Dearborn tend to make them fly right, if you follow (not to say MOST of them don't).
Thank you sir :salute. I'm not in the market for a car right now (need a job first) but I'll certainly keep that in mind. If you ever need a physicist, let me know.
-
I would love to learn to fight in the F-4U all models, however I think this plane is under-powered in this game. Maybe Iam wrong. I would love to learn to use properly. :noid
-
Ok, Lima Charlie. I went offline and tried it in the Dora - I typically snap stall or mush. What makes a hammerhead different?
I don't have as much experience trying to actually control my direction down with the engine torque. However, this should be unnecessary in the Dora. Here's my process if say I am trying to rope somebody and need to use the vertical stall turn/bunt.
1) Go vertical (of course).
2) Roll to put my lift vector on them (this is what makes controlling roll direction less necessary).
3) Pull over the top slightly - this way the gravity bunt pulls the nose in the right direction.
4) Stall power off. Thus no actual rolling from the torque. Gravity pulls my nose downwards at this point. Controls are fairly dead, it doesn't matter if I'm pulling back or not.
5) When my nose reaches around horizon level, I power on. This rapidly kicks the nose down. No redout - there's not enough airspeed to create that many negative Gs.
6) Flaps to taste - depends where you need the nose in relation to the horizon.
A little context: I'm using a twisty stick. I abhor fancy rudder work because it's too closely coupled to the rest of my controls (i.e. physically via the stick motion). One can probably the torque roll far better than the process above, but the process does work and does away with some of the risk of snap rolling.
If I'm using this maneuver as an evasive measure, I skip 2 and 3. In that case I do the nose forward bunt in order to drop out of view.
Thank you sir :salute. I'm not in the market for a car right now (need a job first) but I'll certainly keep that in mind. If you ever need a physicist, let me know.
Thanks. I'll try this - though not as an evasive since it seems like, given your attacker has enough smash, you'd die at step 4 - unless you've correctly judged his e-state and are setting up the rope, in which case, steps 2&3 still seem to apply.
In the 109G-2 I was doing:
1. pull vertical from about 250IAS or better.
2. Stay vertical until about 120IAS
3. Kill Power 'til about 100 IAS, just before stall
4. Go full left rudder, full power
From a heading of due north, this would result in a heading of due south +/- 30d QUICKLY, albeit in a difficult-to-control fashion.
Physicist? My condolences. I had to go as high as Modern Physics to get through masters-level Aero Eng. - which I worked in for a number of years before crossing to the dark side with an MBA. Applied physics, imj, is a worthwhile field. Pure physics, it seems, is a harder one in which to work since it's always tied to grants. In any case, keep trying, you will one day find yourself ass-deep in work and insufficient time and it'll even pay. Then, email me and I'll be your corporate guardian angel, protecting you from unsavory dealers and service managers.
And thanks for your info - I'm sure it'll prove pretty useful. I'm looking forward to getting a little TA/MA time tonight.
See how dull life gets when you get your career established? During meetings I'll often scan this bbs from my laptop and dream about being a cartoon fighter pilot.
-
Thanks. I'll try this - though not as an evasive since it seems like, given your attacker has enough smash, you'd die at step 4 - unless you've correctly judged his e-state and are setting up the rope, in which case, steps 2&3 still seem to apply.
Right, with a "proper" rope, there's no problems. If I'm using this as an "evasive" it will probably be as a last ditch effort after realizing I didn't set up my rope properly. Or (as it so happened last night) when I've just finished killing one con in the vertical and JUST spot a second one 400 off my tail. The thing is, this maneuver puts the nose around so quickly that it can be unexpected. As Agent said, it can look like you just "dropped out of view". It's certainly not the standard pull over the top while you stall.
In the 109G-2 I was doing:
1. pull vertical from about 250IAS or better.
2. Stay vertical until about 120IAS
3. Kill Power 'til about 100 IAS, just before stall
4. Go full left rudder, full power
From a heading of due north, this would result in a heading of due south +/- 30d QUICKLY, albeit in a difficult-to-control fashion.
If you have the time and are using the vertical as an offensive maneuver, I'd just do my 2 and 3 because it's easier to change heading in the vertical (i.e. just roll your plane). From there, it doesn't matter HOW you nose down so long as you nose down more or less straight.
If you don't have time to properly set things up and are defensive, then I see the value in using the torque to spin through so much heading as you do in #4.
Physicist? My condolences. I had to go as high as Modern Physics to get through masters-level Aero Eng. - which I worked in for a number of years before crossing to the dark side with an MBA. Applied physics, imj, is a worthwhile field. Pure physics, it seems, is a harder one in which to work since it's always tied to grants. In any case, keep trying, you will one day find yourself ass-deep in work and insufficient time and it'll even pay. Then, email me and I'll be your corporate guardian angel, protecting you from unsavory dealers and service managers.
:lol. I've realized this so I'm looking for a job in finance. The other route physicists take. Still, never hurts to throw out my educational background (BS btw), you never know where it might lead. If I don't find a job soon, I'll probably go back to school for an MS in Mathematical Finance (once again never hurts to throw it out there).
And thanks for your info - I'm sure it'll prove pretty useful. I'm looking forward to getting a little TA/MA time tonight.
No problem. BTW, this is an odd thing, but you can pretty reliably rope the computer AI in offline practice missions. Might give you some targets in case nobody in the arenas takes the bait.
See how dull life gets when you get your career established? During meetings I'll often scan this bbs from my laptop and dream about being a cartoon fighter pilot.
:lol :lol :lol
Maybe that will be me some day.