Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: rv6 on December 04, 2009, 08:44:25 AM
-
I've been here for a very long time. Since GEnie Airwarrior network :old:. Too old to really care about scores, bragging rights, trying to "game" the game, etc. I avoid HO's 100% of the time, and if I get tagged by a HO stream, I say "good for you!" no big deal. If I get picked or vulched or ganged or rammed or shotdown for any reason, I say, "good one", my bad SA. There's an endless supply of planes back at base..
To the point, stick stirring?
When I'm low n' slow and on the deck and someone is locked onto my 6, coming in hi-energy I do this:
Flip the right wing straight up, initiate a tight left flat turn, look out rearview to watch attacker. When he/she flips their right wing up and starts the pull up, I chop throttle and push the stick forward into a negative-g push-over, until I Red-Out. Roll wings level, and pull positive-G. Sometimes, the attacker hangs in, and I'll repeat the negative-G push drill.
The veteran pilots kill me every single time, by hanging back, and tickling off short bursts. The non-veterans fly out front and the reversal is complete.
I fly real airplanes (recreationally), and have flown aerobatic rated aircraft. Doing what I just said (above) is absolutely do'able. It is however, one of the most gut-wrenching, sickening feelings that you can imagine. Look at a Sean Tucker video on YOutube, and imaging trying to follow him.
Occaisionally I get a PM calling me a "stick stirring SOB!" In itself, no big deal as I really don't need validation from any armchair ace to tell me how to fly the AH sim.
But, I'm asking for a true (non vulgar) opinion from AH pilots with more than 5 yrs experience what do you think about negative-G pushover evasives? Is it in bad form to do it? Don't the act of trying to use net-lag by true stick-stirring result lockup of the controls? If some of the old hands say it's bad form, I'll stop doing it, and take my lumps, no problemo..
Thanks for your thoughts..
RV6
-
I say its OK, as long as its not followed by the usual flop that is so common with that sorta maneuver. All you're doing is trying to force the overshoot by following an atypical set of maneuvers that a noob (or anyone) might not see as they go to lead shoot you. I say carry on. :airplane:
Also, i'd like to add that if someone wishes to flop around like a dying fish that is their business and 15 bucks, spend it how you will, jut have fun.
:cheers:
Z
-
But, I'm asking for a true (non vulgar) opinion from AH pilots with more than 5 yrs experience what do you think about negative-G pushover evasives? Is it in bad form to do it? Don't the act of trying to use net-lag by true stick-stirring result lockup of the controls? If some of the old hands say it's bad form, I'll stop doing it, and take my lumps, no problemo..
Thanks for your thoughts..
RV6
I use them occasionally, particularily for HO avoidance. What I don't like about them is that they bleed too much E.
A negative G manouver isn't nessesarily stick stirring. You'll know a stick stirrer when you see them. They are easily beaten by cutting throttle, hanging back and firing an occasional burst into the middle of their flopping fish flight pattern.
-
What you are describing is a lot different than the typical 190 flop, flop, wiggle, flop, flop, almost auger, flop, random negative G stir, flop, flop and auger. You are calculating what you are doing and doing it with purpose. IMHO that's not bad form.
-
The maneuver you just descibed is not stick stirring. It is a little gamey in the fact that, as you said, it is gut wrenching and sickining in real life. That feeling would affect your shot when the enemy plane flew by. In the game it does not. The move is doable in real life. I do not consider it stick stirring.
-
It is however, one of the most gut-wrenching, sickening feelings that you can imagine.
RV6
Hey RV, I ve been called names by the Aces for just pushing the stick forward and chopping throttle. The excuse is that it would be impossible in real life because of how sick it can get you.
My response would be that in real life, I can't imagine a more gut-wrenching feeling other than having a bunch of cannons and 50s ready to blow you off the sky, so if the plane could do it, I would take the sickness and the possibility of losing control, over the bullets.
-
Hiya RV... Nothing wrong with doing it....
it works and most will not be able to catch it in time...
Cheers
-
definitely NOT stick stirring :aok
most "stick stirring" I see done is in the 16. but many have no clue to what "stick stirring" is, I have been called a "stick stirrer" cuz the nme cons could not kill me, all I was doing was evasive's (with a lot of negative G's) and avoiding there BnZ passes. :rofl
So keep at it :aok
-
This is stick-stirring coupled with the ping difference between an american and an european player which makes his plane appear to change direction almost instantly.
http://www.4shared.com/file/159830153/50a9c891/breakdancespit.html (http://www.4shared.com/file/159830153/50a9c891/breakdancespit.html)
Rv your stuff isnt stick stirring :aok
-
Pretty comon real life evasive, especially since no one like the "floating feeling", you are less precise on your rudder/sticks inputs when you are being pushed upward. ... plus there's always the chance of the "other" bastard not to have his harness tighly enought and hit the canopy.
Dogfighting in real life is so much more exausting, even for a small time.
-
What you are describing is a lot different than the typical 190 flop, flop, wiggle, flop, flop, almost auger, flop, random negative G stir, flop, flop and auger. You are calculating what you are doing and doing it with purpose. IMHO that's not bad form.
x2
-
I have used the same maneuver.
HiTech
-
Hey RV, I ve been called names by the Aces for just pushing the stick forward and chopping throttle. The excuse is that it would be impossible in real life because of how sick it can get you.
My response would be that in real life, I can't imagine a more gut-wrenching feeling other than having a bunch of cannons and 50s ready to blow you off the sky, so if the plane could do it, I would take the sickness and the possibility of losing control, over the bullets.
:rock
-
The stick stirring ticks me off. The neg G doesnt bother me. I use it myself depending on the situation to force the overshot.
-
Not stirring. I have done it many times (in RL too), mostly not to redout; -3-4G. You can push 3-4 times and roll aft all pushes without any problem. If you push 4g and then pull 6g and roll all the time, you surely are stickstirring :D
-
There is alot of neg G usage in the arena that is gamey. This is just one of them. Its gamey but not stiring or exploiting flight model.
Its gamey because your head wount explode if you over do it. You wount feel excruciating pain as you do it.
Its not a undoable manouver its just one that a pilot wouldnt make very often.
Tex
-
There is nothing bad form about playing a game the way it can be played. :aok
It is bad form only to whine about how others play it.
-
No way is what you described as stick stirring. Nothing wrong with that move.
Drex
-
This move catches me off guard once in a while where no matter how much I chop and get the plane dirty, I can't stay behind my target. Fortunately it is easily countered or at least it's not hard to avoid being reversed and quickly killed. You have to quickly recognize the move and also decide if you can stay behind the target...closure dependent. If you can't stay behind, simply vectoring your plane in a direction of the target's belly is facing, opposite of the way he would be turing if he pulled posituve G's, you can get out of effective gun range before he can get a solution.
I think it's a real nifty move, considering how simple it is. :aok
-
I've been here for a very long time. Since GEnie Airwarrior network :old:. Too old to really care about scores, bragging rights, trying to "game" the game, etc. I avoid HO's 100% of the time, and if I get tagged by a HO stream, I say "good for you!" no big deal. If I get picked or vulched or ganged or rammed or shotdown for any reason, I say, "good one", my bad SA. There's an endless supply of planes back at base..
To the point, stick stirring?
When I'm low n' slow and on the deck and someone is locked onto my 6, coming in hi-energy I do this:
Flip the right wing straight up, initiate a tight left flat turn, look out rearview to watch attacker. When he/she flips their right wing up and starts the pull up, I chop throttle and push the stick forward into a negative-g push-over, until I Red-Out. Roll wings level, and pull positive-G. Sometimes, the attacker hangs in, and I'll repeat the negative-G push drill.
The veteran pilots kill me every single time, by hanging back, and tickling off short bursts. The non-veterans fly out front and the reversal is complete.
I fly real airplanes (recreationally), and have flown aerobatic rated aircraft. Doing what I just said (above) is absolutely do'able. It is however, one of the most gut-wrenching, sickening feelings that you can imagine. Look at a Sean Tucker video on YOutube, and imaging trying to follow him.
Occaisionally I get a PM calling me a "stick stirring SOB!" In itself, no big deal as I really don't need validation from any armchair ace to tell me how to fly the AH sim.
But, I'm asking for a true (non vulgar) opinion from AH pilots with more than 5 yrs experience what do you think about negative-G pushover evasives? Is it in bad form to do it? Don't the act of trying to use net-lag by true stick-stirring result lockup of the controls? If some of the old hands say it's bad form, I'll stop doing it, and take my lumps, no problemo..
Thanks for your thoughts..
RV6
a question on this maneuver? when you push the stick forward, are you still banked, and simply pushing yourself out fo the bank, or do you roll level again, as you push over?
thanks@!
-
The maneuver you just descibed is not stick stirring. It is a little gamey in the fact that, as you said, it is gut wrenching and sickining in real life. That feeling would affect your shot when the enemy plane flew by. In the game it does not. The move is doable in real life. I do not consider it stick stirring.
What he described was no more 'gun wrenching and sickening in real life' then Hartmann's spin he used to do to acheive the same result (spoil aim and cause overshoot). When you've got someone on your six determined to kill you, feeling a little queasy after a maneuver is a small price to pay for being able to get back home safely.
I don't think there is anything gamey about the maneuver rv6 described.
ack-ack
-
Personally I dont think it's stikstiring,but I do have a problem with the way redouts are modeled.
It appears that you recover from a redout rather quickly and there's no extended period of redout as there is with the blackout.
I have never experenced a true redout and therefore I cant comment from first hand experience,only from what I've heard or been told.So I dont take issue with the move itself,but would like to see some longer lasting affect from pushing the neg G's alittle to far or long.
Maybe some blurriness,I'm not sure but I'd think that in RL the affect would hang around for some time and may make shooting rather difficult.
:salute
-
Well sirs, I've just read the concensus of some of the folks who (IMHO) are the very best of the BEST pilots in this game. If YOU guys are OK with what I do, then the thoughts of anyone else means little. The neg-G push will remain a viable last-ditch option in my book.
Thanks for the comments~
RV6
ps.. CAP1
I only do this when absolutely on the deck, out of alt, e, and speed. If I rolled level and pushed? I'd hit the ground/water instantly.. I do as you mentioned, from a 180deg, knife edge (wingtip straight up), push. Instead of banking left, the plane banks to the right, ruining the attcker's gun solution, and disappearing below his dashpanel.
-
Well sirs, I've just read the concensus of some of the folks who (IMHO) are the very best of the BEST pilots in this game. If YOU guys are OK with what I do, then the thoughts of anyone else means little. The neg-G push will remain a viable last-ditch option in my book.
Thanks for the comments~
RV6
ps.. CAP1
I only do this when absolutely on the deck, out of alt, e, and speed. If I rolled level and pushed? I'd hit the ground/water instantly.. I do as you mentioned, from a 180deg, knife edge (wingtip straight up), push. Instead of banking left, the plane banks to the right, ruining the attcker's gun solution, and disappearing below his dashpanel.
aahh....got it. gonna try it too. i'm usually pretty much down on the deck, although lately, i've been finding myself up crazy high....
and btw....i agree with the rest of the guys......and see no reason to not use it.
-
Not stirring... one of those tricks that isnt tricky enough I think and shows desperation. It very well might save you if you have friends around and the attacker is an energy fighter that will not slow down because he wants to avoid the 'gang.'
The thing is... I see people try this against wirbles. :D
-
I believe that Saburo Sakai the Japanese Ace described this same manuever in his book. As I recall he seem to use it pretty regular.
Seems if it was used and worked in RL then it is a valid tactical move.
AC
-
Anything is better than the 190 desperation roll!
-
I flew airshows with my dad for a while, he had an SE5a and I had a replica Triplane. We did WW1 dogfights, I used the negative alot, I did not like it, the quickest way to get Vertigo is to be looking over your shoulder, and go negative, in my opinion. It did work, but it was uncomfortable. if I had the choice of getting lead poisoning or getting vertigo, I will take Vertigo, and uncomfortable
-
I flew airshows with my dad for a while, he had an SE5a and I had a replica Triplane. We did WW1 dogfights, I used the negative alot, I did not like it, the quickest way to get Vertigo is to be looking over your shoulder, and go negative, in my opinion. It did work, but it was uncomfortable. if I had the choice of getting lead poisoning or getting vertigo, I will take Vertigo, and uncomfortable
i would have to wonder though? put yourself in the fighter pilots shoes.
you've just been drug somewhat low by that 109....you eventually killed him, but now you're seperated from your squad, and wingman. you're on the deck, heading back in the general direction of home, looking for landmarks, so you can verify where you are. you're stressed. tired. still have some adrennaline pumping.
you do a quick scan, and catch a glint of something at your 4 high. you focus there. it's another 109 bearing down on you hard. being still low, you've not many options, so you roll into your turn, hoping he follows. he does, and when you think you're under his nose, you push that stick into the dash, and barley see him go barreling past ya as you've successfully forced him to overshoot. as you pull back 'round to try n saddle him up, you can see his wings rock a little as he tries to look rearward, trying to re-acquire you. it's too late, as you're just hitting the fire button, and watch a couple of hit sprites light up, and start a fuel leak. he tries to roll away from your gunfire, but this is the worst thing he could've done, as he's just doubled the size of himself as a target, as you press the fire button harder, as if it will cause your guns to fire more. his oil cooler ignites, and he rolls over into a death spiral.
somehow, i think that the real life guys in that situation wouldn't feel sick, as they were too busy trying to stay alive. :aok
-
Not the same as your maneuver described above, but here is an example of using negative g's by Erich Harmann. The following is a quote from Harmann in the book "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces: The Jagdflieger and their Combat Techniques," by Mike Spick.
Hartmann: "Fly quickly straight ahead and push the rudder so you fly straight ahead skid that will not be recognized by the attacker. IF he opens fire, you push for negative G's down left or right, not forgetting through the whole maneuver to push the rudder. Your attacker will hang with negative G's in his belt, unable to pull the trigger. With that maneuver, I saved my life several times."
As for stick stirring (which is a different thing), I think of it as just a more-enthusiastic version of jinking. In some planes (like the La-5, which I flew in the Red Storm scenario), I have a very hard time hitting folks to employ heavy-duty jinking, so it is frustrating to me. But if it kept them alive, then it was a good move on their part -- that's how I look at it.
-
Just experienced this tonight, and while it might be alright in real life I'm sure they don't have the problem of being connected to the internet its not so much the negative g part as the warping thrown in for good measure when they are snapping the stick forwards and back. I got plenty of hits on the guy and eventually the kill but from my point of view it just looked super gamey and a complete waste of my time regards quality of the fight
-
Sounds like a good maneuver to me :aok ... Ive done this one from time to time, I'll be RTB'n Either no fuel or combo no fuel, ammo Low on the deck and ill see a plane coming in from way high directly to my 6, ill watch him till about 1k-800, and drop flaps, cut throttle, and pull back hard to almost a vertical, then push the nose down hard while throttling up+wep and retracting the flaps back in, its kept me alive quite a few times, and on occasion Ive killed a few.
It almost works like a chute to quickly slow you down and makes his convergence on you even faster causing him to overshot you or gives his plane a dirt nap
-
When certain planes do it, like thw 190s, visually atleast on my end it doesnt look smooth. It comes across as a jerky movement.
-
When certain planes do it, like thw 190s, visually atleast on my end it doesnt look smooth. It comes across as a jerky movement.
Its sad when a player flops a completely capable 190 in the way you just described. :(
BTW I vote stick stir.
-
Pullings Gs is not gamey. What is gamey is rapid oscillations between high + and - Gs. I don't think anybody could stand that, and I seriously think it might damage the plane.
I will say though, I don't think the redout modeling is sufficiently punishing. No matter how many neg Gs you pull, it always seems to dissipate the moment neg Gs are relaxed, you can't get any momentarily disablement from it as with the blackout.
-
That sounds like a possible fix right there BnZ but I dont know Hitech could do it... i.e. gun jams after rapid G changes. :aok
-
I have used the same maneuver.
HiTech
In real life? How was the experience?
-
What he described was no more 'gun wrenching and sickening in real life' then Hartmann's spin he used to do to acheive the same result (spoil aim and cause overshoot). When you've got someone on your six determined to kill you, feeling a little queasy after a maneuver is a small price to pay for being able to get back home safely.
I don't think there is anything gamey about the maneuver rv6 described.
ack-ack
Sickening yourself to the point of not being able to shoot or continue to evade is not conducive to long life either. In game we can do it all day and sip our margaritas.... hence a bit gamey. Not saying it is a bad move, just extremely limited in RL.
-
Sickening yourself to the point of not being able to shoot or continue to evade is not conducive to long life either. In game we can do it all day and sip our margaritas.... hence a bit gamey.
see........i feel that if you're flying for your life, the adrenaline is cranking through your system. you're not gonna feel anything 'cept fear and anxiety, till you're safe.
then you'd probably hurl all over your cockpit. :confused:
-
Serious question
Is there any kind of effect to pulling neg Gs like with pos Gs?
With positive Gs you pass out. Neg Gs you what? (other than vomit and possibly blow the veins in your eyes)
-
Serious question
Is there any kind of effect to pulling neg Gs like with pos Gs?
With positive Gs you pass out. Neg Gs you what? (other than vomit and possibly blow the veins in your eyes)
poss retina damage I think :eek:
-
Serious question
Is there any kind of effect to pulling neg Gs like with pos Gs?
With positive Gs you pass out. Neg Gs you what? (other than vomit and possibly blow the veins in your eyes)
red out. all the blood is forced into your upper body
-
red out. all the blood is forced into your upper body
Does this go away as soon as you start pulling pos Gs or is it for a period of time like when blacking out?
-
Does this go away as soon as you start pulling pos Gs or is it for a period of time like when blacking out?
Stress and simply wearing a pilot out. Not to mention lack of ability to concentrate. Each person would be affected a little differently and to a greater or lessor extent I'd suppose.
-
Does this go away as soon as you start pulling pos Gs or is it for a period of time like when blacking out?
've never experienced it, so i don't know in real life. in the game it does though
-
I can tell you from experience, while I have not had a FULL redout, I have had the beginnings of one, and it is NOT pleasant. Negative G's are VERY uncomfortable. Your head feels like it is going to explode, your vision DOES begin to grow red, although when the forces are relaxed the "red" goes away... (its not a true RED more of a black tinted red).
The other thing that was noted by aviation physicians, and I have confirmed, is a DRASTIC slowing of the heartbeat during and after higher neg G' forces. This has to do witht he rise in blood pressure in the head and abdomen, which triggers the heart to slow down. I have experienced this to the point that after a high neg G maneuver, (such as an outside immelman, or inverted cuban 8), after recovering straight and level, I checked my pulse, jsut to see, and my heart was beating approx 1 every 2 seconds, versus a normal RESTING heartrate for me of around 78BPM. Keep in mind my heartrate would have been elevated even higher than resting due to the stresses of aerobatic flight. You can see that if you continued to SUSTAIN neg G loadings, it could slow your heart enough to cause you to pass out from that as well.
Conclusion:
Short period Neg G's are quite tolerable, though uncomfortable. They do not cause any higher feeling of "sickness" than pos G's, although rapid switching BETWEEN the 2 may, haven't really done htis so I cannot comment. Neg G's cause effects at a much lower G loading than positive, with discomfort occuring at 1.5-2 neg, and redout beginning at 3-4 neg. A neg G push of 3.5 G, for approx 15 seconds, during an inverted (outside) immelman, slowed my heart from (estimated) 120-130beats per min, to around 30 beats per minute. This quickly resolved itself as the G loading was reduced, however it COULD cause some people to loose conciousness, and if G loadings were greater, and/or longer, it could lead to GLOC due to slowed heartrate and blood stagnation. After landing while flying a routine involving neg G loads, my eyes tend to be quite bloodshot, and occasionally I will have various bruises on my face, from ruptured blood vessels.
Theoretically, a high enough Neg G loading, and/or length of Neg G loading, could cause hemmorage in the blood vessels of the brain and eyes, causing perm. or temp. blindness, or possibly even stroke.
The brief periods, and low neg G loading most folks use here in the game as a defensive maeuver, would be quite tolerable, if uncomfortable by RL pilots. However, the other question is, aside from aerobatic aircraft, most aircraft have a MUCH lower neg G tolerance than Pos G's. I am not sure what said tolerances are on the various WW2 aircraft, but Neg G's could EASILY lead to structural failure since most aircraft are built with Pos G's in mind.
Don't think this is modelled in AH though, maybe HTC could chime in on that ?
-
Great post Sol! I think when I go flying I'll skip the neg G stuff. Having given it much thought, I've decided that having a stroke or going blind whould be a bad thing. :aok
-
I can tell you from experience, while I have not had a FULL redout, I have had the beginnings of one, and it is NOT pleasant. Negative G's are VERY uncomfortable. Your head feels like it is going to explode, your vision DOES begin to grow red, although when the forces are relaxed the "red" goes away... (its not a true RED more of a black tinted red).
The other thing that was noted by aviation physicians, and I have confirmed, is a DRASTIC slowing of the heartbeat during and after higher neg G' forces. This has to do witht he rise in blood pressure in the head and abdomen, which triggers the heart to slow down. I have experienced this to the point that after a high neg G maneuver, (such as an outside immelman, or inverted cuban 8), after recovering straight and level, I checked my pulse, jsut to see, and my heart was beating approx 1 every 2 seconds, versus a normal RESTING heartrate for me of around 78BPM. Keep in mind my heartrate would have been elevated even higher than resting due to the stresses of aerobatic flight. You can see that if you continued to SUSTAIN neg G loadings, it could slow your heart enough to cause you to pass out from that as well.
Conclusion:
Short period Neg G's are quite tolerable, though uncomfortable. They do not cause any higher feeling of "sickness" than pos G's, although rapid switching BETWEEN the 2 may, haven't really done htis so I cannot comment. Neg G's cause effects at a much lower G loading than positive, with discomfort occuring at 1.5-2 neg, and redout beginning at 3-4 neg. A neg G push of 3.5 G, for approx 15 seconds, during an inverted (outside) immelman, slowed my heart from (estimated) 120-130beats per min, to around 30 beats per minute. This quickly resolved itself as the G loading was reduced, however it COULD cause some people to loose conciousness, and if G loadings were greater, and/or longer, it could lead to GLOC due to slowed heartrate and blood stagnation. After landing while flying a routine involving neg G loads, my eyes tend to be quite bloodshot, and occasionally I will have various bruises on my face, from ruptured blood vessels.
Theoretically, a high enough Neg G loading, and/or length of Neg G loading, could cause hemmorage in the blood vessels of the brain and eyes, causing perm. or temp. blindness, or possibly even stroke.
The brief periods, and low neg G loading most folks use here in the game as a defensive maeuver, would be quite tolerable, if uncomfortable by RL pilots. However, the other question is, aside from aerobatic aircraft, most aircraft have a MUCH lower neg G tolerance than Pos G's. I am not sure what said tolerances are on the various WW2 aircraft, but Neg G's could EASILY lead to structural failure since most aircraft are built with Pos G's in mind.
Don't think this is modelled in AH though, maybe HTC could chime in on that ?
Nice post Sol and I pretty much agree. The fights I hate are the "911" fights, when you are absolutely convinced the guy you are fighting is having a stroke. ACM somehow becomes more like a SPASM :lol
-
Nice post sol.
I´have only doing neg G flying Pitss S1SS. Mostly -2-4G and +6 flying compete condtions(1km square cubic).Over 100 hours(at least 500 sorties). Never have had any peroblems to stay avake or feeling bad enought to not order beer at club. There must be a big tolerance btw posters of this board(RL experiance)
-
Nice post sol.
I´have only doing neg G flying Pitss S1SS. Mostly -2-4G and +6 flying compete condtions(1km square cubic).Over 100 hours(at least 500 sorties). Never have had any peroblems to stay avake or feeling bad enought to not order beer at club. There must be a big tolerance btw posters of this board(RL experiance)
on that, i've never flown aerobatic.
the most i've pulled was enough to do a 360 degree turn at 55 degrees bank angle. i don't know how much it was.... the first time, i got a feeling in my head i don't know how to explain. it wasn't physical. it was weird. i rolled out the first time, and my cfi asked me why i exited the bank. told him i was feeling "weird" in the head, and felt it best to go level.
he said that was a good decision. when we did the next ones, i was a little more ready, and it was fine....as long as i concentrated.
i
ve never done anything with negative, short of the nose dropping off when the i do stalls.
-
Nice post sol.
I´have only doing neg G flying Pitss S1SS. Mostly -2-4G and +6 flying compete condtions(1km square cubic).Over 100 hours(at least 500 sorties). Never have had any peroblems to stay avake or feeling bad enought to not order beer at club. There must be a big tolerance btw posters of this board(RL experiance)
I do aero in an Edge 540T, and as you said, I also have never experienced anything which makes me feel THAT bad... mostly just basic exhaustion... I have greyed out a few times, but never (thankfully) had a full GLOC...
As I said, those are potential physiologic reactions, not that doing x will cause y....G tolerance is like any physical activity, you can build endurance over time....to a certain point.
-
While it does bother me how the game punishes black-out far more severely than red-out, it's the fault of the game that players exploit it.
I met a guy who got to ride in the back seat of a F-18 when he was in Iraq, and experienced red-out. He claimed his vision was impaired for about 30 seconds, and still affected for minutes afterward.
-
The brief periods, and low neg G loading most folks use here in the game as a defensive maeuver, would be quite tolerable, if uncomfortable by RL pilots. However, the other question is, aside from aerobatic aircraft, most aircraft have a MUCH lower neg G tolerance than Pos G's. I am not sure what said tolerances are on the various WW2 aircraft, but Neg G's could EASILY lead to structural failure since most aircraft are built with Pos G's in mind.
Don't think this is modelled in AH though, maybe HTC could chime in on that ?
Tolerable is about all one can say about negative G's. Negative G's are uncomfortable and disorienting. It is hard to model for a sim pilot, as are the effects of positive G's.
While they may exist, I have never seen a plane with the positive G limits equal to negative G limits. In the T-38, there was a third limit, "rolling G's." These were positive G's pulled while rolling. I am not sure that there is a WW II equivalent. Exceeding a G limit was fatal only to one's grade on a training sortie.
Modeling G induced failure seems like it would be difficult. What yields first? Does one model bent planes that haven't quite failed?
the most i've pulled was enough to do a 360 degree turn at 55 degrees bank angle. i don't know how much it was....
A level turn at 60 degrees of bank is a 2 G turn.
-
I can not give any information based on real life experience. What I can say is that I do fly the FW-190 series most of the time and have used a maneuver described by Eric Hartman many times. Usually it is when I have gotten lazy and I hear his rounds hitting my plane or see them whizzing by my cockpit. Most of the time my immediate reaction is to push nose down left or right. On occasions when I use it and don't have enough E and follow it with an overly aggressive roll into a split S I sometimes stall and my plane goes into an erratic spin which does not help things one bit. Now I have to get nose down, chop throttle and get straitened out and build up some speed. I can imagine it does give the impression of stick stirring but it is unintentional, and puts me in a situation I would much rather not be in. Spinning without any flight control response gives me that oh toejam feeling. You know that feeling? Hey guys big target come and get me.
As for fighting others who use different evasive maneuvers I sometimes wonder how they do it. Some of the maneuvers just look impossible to pull off in real life. Especially true for some of what you call fish tailing. It hard to believe that some of these planes could possibly change direction as quickly as they do.
As for my take on it, sometimes it gets aggravating when you are up against these maneuvers and just can not tag them and waste your ammo. But that is what your squad mates are for. squeak and moan to them or even better my wife. She still listens to me thank God. As for calling someone out, hey its a game. And like real life you only have control over what you do and all the complaining in the world will not change it. There fore Horrido <S> and see you in the friendly skies.
-
While it does bother me how the game punishes black-out far more severely than red-out, it's the fault of the game that players exploit it.
I met a guy who got to ride in the back seat of a F-18 when he was in Iraq, and experienced red-out. He claimed his vision was impaired for about 30 seconds, and still affected for minutes afterward.
The length of the vision impact is proportional to the amount and duration of the neg G loads.
-
Tolerable is about all one can say about negative G's. Negative G's are uncomfortable and disorienting. It is hard to model for a sim pilot, as are the effects of positive G's.
While they may exist, I have never seen a plane with the positive G limits equal to negative G limits. In the T-38, there was a third limit, "rolling G's." These were positive G's pulled while rolling. I am not sure that there is a WW II equivalent. Exceeding a G limit was fatal only to one's grade on a training sortie.
Modeling G induced failure seems like it would be difficult. What yields first? Does one model bent planes that haven't quite failed?
A level turn at 60 degrees of bank is a 2 G turn.
Precisely what I was saying. and yes, G loads are near impossible to model in a sim, whether positive, or negative. Rolling G limit is generally defined as 2/3 of max G limit of the airframe. Has to do with the additional G loads imparted on the wing moving "up" due to the aoa increase from the aileron.
Aerobatic aircraft can be certified under FAR 23 for "flick" maneuvers, including snap-rolls. These aircraft must be able to withstand much higher asymmetric G loadings on all flight surfaces to gain certification. This eliminate the "rolling G limit" on aircraft such as the Edge, Extra, YAK-54, etc etc
As to how to model structural failure, the only way to do so is as AH does presently, if a G load is GURANTEED to break the main spar, or other such structure, fail it, much as AH does now with ripping wings off airplanes during high speed dives/sharp pullouts. My question was more to the point of, does AH model said loads in the negative, since airframes are generally much weaker in the neg G regime, outside of said aerobatic aircraft.
-
i actually tried the maneuver mentioned by the op 2x last night. both times i was treetop, both times being attacked by a much faster red guy. both times, it caused him to overshoot me very seriously, although i wasn't able to immediately able to kill either of them............
just as described........just about blackout g's..........see the red guy pulling lead, push the stick forward....although i added a little top rudder......but they both lost me in that maneuver.
-
Nothing personal but I really despise people who do this. What you described is not stick stirring but in my opinion, it is gaming the game. There is a difference between stick stirring, jinking and doing what you said. I have seen some pretty good AH sticks jink with a neg G push as I scream by thus spoiling my shot. To me, thats ok because in reality, it is and has been done many times.
What I can't stand are the 190 guys doing 400 plus mph, pushing a sustained hard negative g maneuver. I spoke to an USAF flight surgeon once about pulling Gs. He said that sustained negative Gs (more than a few seconds) could cause some pretty serious damage, even strokes. The red out is caused by blood vessels in the eyes exploding. You have those same vessels in your brain too.
Like I said, I think quick neg G push timed correctly can spoil a shot as along as it is done in conjunction with other moves. However, to do this and create a reversal and then try and to react to gain a shot after the reversal in a timely manner is pretty hard to do for most humans.
-
Nothing personal but I really despise people who do this. What you described is not stick stirring but in my opinion, it is gaming the game. There is a difference between stick stirring, jinking and doing what you said. I have seen some pretty good AH sticks jink with a neg G push as I scream by thus spoiling my shot. To me, thats ok because in reality, it is and has been done many times.
What I can't stand are the 190 guys doing 400 plus mph, pushing a sustained hard negative g maneuver. I spoke to an USAF flight surgeon once about pulling Gs. He said that sustained negative Gs (more than a few seconds) could cause some pretty serious damage, even strokes. The red out is caused by blood vessels in the eyes exploding. You have those same vessels in your brain too.
Like I said, I think quick neg G push timed correctly can spoil a shot as along as it is done in conjunction with other moves. However, to do this and create a reversal and then try and to react to gain a shot after the reversal in a timely manner is pretty hard to do for most humans.
in my case, it was followed by a roll to in the direction of top rudder, trying to keep them from gaining seperation, and thus possibly having an easy shot at me.
-
I was refering to the RV, the original poster of this thread.
-
It seems to me, and appears to me, that the difference between high G evasive maneuvers and stick stirring is pretty obvious. If anyone has doubt go up a fighter in the TA, start film, and start jerking the stick all over the place in a manner you know could never be done in an actual aircraft. THAT! is stick stirring.
High G maneuvers may be violent but they aren't short and jerky, and random too. I imagine in real life there was plenty of super high G evasive maneuvers because getting shot at with guns and cannon that could blow your head clear off was a pretty good motivator to ride the edge.
Stick stirring is pretty dweeby. Most of all cause there are other options, legit flight realistic options, that are open to you. 90% of the stick jerking Ive seen has been with run-90s or runstangs. They are both pretty helpless when caught low and slow.
-
IMO, slipping and skidding about with the ailerons and rudders is alot *less* gamey than some of the uses of eye-popping neg Gs you see. There is always the question of course, just how long could a man rapidly reverse any of the control inputs using only his muscle power on the control surfaces? But as far as I know slipping, skidding, and rolling not have the deleterious physical side effects that alternately pushing the stick to firewall and pulling it to belly presumably would.
It seems to me, and appears to me, that the difference between high G evasive maneuvers and stick stirring is pretty obvious. If anyone has doubt go up a fighter in the TA, start film, and start jerking the stick all over the place in a manner you know could never be done in an actual aircraft. THAT! is stick stirring.
High G maneuvers may be violent but they aren't short and jerky, and random too. I imagine in real life there was plenty of super high G evasive maneuvers because getting shot at with guns and cannon that could blow your head clear off was a pretty good motivator to ride the edge.
Stick stirring is pretty dweeby. Most of all cause there are other options, legit flight realistic options, that are open to you. 90% of the stick jerking Ive seen has been with run-90s or runstangs. They are both pretty helpless when caught low and slow.
-
Perfectly legit maneuver. There are four guns defense maneuver taught by TOPGUN. Break turn, barrel-roll over the top, barrel-roll underneath and neg-G pushaway. The neg-G pushaway is exactly as the OP describes it. A hard push forward followed by a hard pull (usually out of plane). The push spoils the attackers gun solution and, if done starting from a high-G turn, will usually cause the attacker to lose sight. The out of plane positive G pull then serves to force an overshoot and yes, planes are perfectly capable of going from +6G to -2G and back to +6G again without damage. I agree with the others though that the neg-G is very uncomfortable and there are other practical limits.
First, most RL pilots never actually get to negative G in a push, they think they do but are actually just hitting 0G and starting to float in their seat but even that will sometimes work. You have really got to stuff the stick to get a true 1-2 negative G and it's very unnatural and uncomfortable at first so it takes practice. I always did a negative G check as part of my combat checklist to "warm up" and also to make sure that nothing would come flying up and hit me in the head. I've never seen anyone able to push and sustain sufficient negative G during a guns defense to cause any damage to themselves, it's too short of a duration.
The biggest problem isn't red-out, it's staying in your seat. For ACM you're supposed to fly with your lapbelts as tight as you can get them but the reality is most of us flew with the lap belts "comfortable". The shoulder restraints are on inertia reels and can be locked or left free so you can turn but the lap restraints are fixed. The problem is that you have to strike a balance between really strapping in and being able to turn around. This is particularly a problem if you're short and the cockpit is large. Lap belts on modern ejection seats don't do a great job of keeping you in your seat during negative G even when fully tightened because they are designed to pull back and down vice straight down. What happens during negative G is that you end up "hanging" upside down from the lap restraints and that lifts your feet off the pedals and makes it hard to keep forward pressure on the stick so the trick is to have your seat restraints tight enough to be able to maintain control without limiting your ability to turn too much. The newer seats now have a neg-G strap which comes up between your legs but I only found it to be a little bit better but it still didn't keep your butt in the seat.
As far as WWII aircraft are concerned, I imagine that there was a broad difference in the quality of their restraint systems. Hartman's stories leads me to believe the Germans must have had a pretty good system but it's hard to say.
-
Wow.. That being said (what Mace just said above). This subject is closed with the answer from one who's been there, done that for real.. very cool.
I suppose the only way to "simulate" this (as described) is to have my wife duc tape my legs and chest to the chair, and delete the "rear-view" hat-switch mode on the joystick, IF, we use the neg-G push. :-)
Again, thanks for the great description Mace. It's clear now, no longer conjecture.
RV6
-
If I'm behind ya its inappropriate, but id I'm not then its ok. Any move is ok with me after all it is a game. I just wish they could limit the not manned cv flaks fire.
-
I always did a negative G check as part of my combat checklist to "warm up" and also to make sure that nothing would come flying up and hit me in the head.
A great scene in the movie "Hot Shots" is when they're inverted and coins, playing cards, etc. all stick to the canopy.
The biggest problem isn't red-out, it's staying in your seat.
Quoted for truth. Spin recovery in a Tweet required a sharp push on the stick. The scuffs on one's helmet were a record of how many times you banged your head on the canopy. Coming out of the seat is another of those things impossible to model.
-
If I'm behind ya its inappropriate, but id I'm not then its ok. Any move is ok with me after all it is a game.
Hitech said something like "it's a simulation used to play a game." That's why there physical limits on what the aircraft can do and what the pilot can sustain. For my part, there's a big asymmetry in how black-outs can cause loss of control input and loss of view, but red-out never causes more than a half-second of inconvenience.
-
Good to see you RV! I'm happy to see you around because I'm still looking for a rematch :joystick:
:neener:
Merry Christmas, Amigo!
-
Wow.. That being said (what Mace just said above). This subject is closed with the answer from one who's been there, done that for real.. very cool.
I suppose the only way to "simulate" this (as described) is to have my wife duc tape my legs and chest to the chair, and delete the "rear-view" hat-switch mode on the joystick, IF, we use the neg-G push. :-)
Again, thanks for the great description Mace. It's clear now, no longer conjecture.
RV6
He didn't post about WWII fighters.... just modern fighters.
-
i drove the ole 38 o doom right into the trees last night, trying to avoid a bnz 190. obviously more caution is needed doing this maneuver.
on another note, when i came back, the very same 190 was now only co-alt......no advantages. he kept running to the vbase, where the flakker couldn't hit me at all. :devil
-
Perfectly legit maneuver. There are four guns defense maneuver taught by TOPGUN. Break turn, barrel-roll over the top, barrel-roll underneath and neg-G pushaway. The neg-G pushaway is exactly as the OP describes it. A hard push forward followed by a hard pull (usually out of plane). The push spoils the attackers gun solution and, if done starting from a high-G turn, will usually cause the attacker to lose sight. The out of plane positive G pull then serves to force an overshoot and yes, planes are perfectly capable of going from +6G to -2G and back to +6G again without damage. I agree with the others though that the neg-G is very uncomfortable and there are other practical limits.
First, most RL pilots never actually get to negative G in a push, they think they do but are actually just hitting 0G and starting to float in their seat but even that will sometimes work. You have really got to stuff the stick to get a true 1-2 negative G and it's very unnatural and uncomfortable at first so it takes practice. I always did a negative G check as part of my combat checklist to "warm up" and also to make sure that nothing would come flying up and hit me in the head. I've never seen anyone able to push and sustain sufficient negative G during a guns defense to cause any damage to themselves, it's too short of a duration.
The biggest problem isn't red-out, it's staying in your seat. For ACM you're supposed to fly with your lapbelts as tight as you can get them but the reality is most of us flew with the lap belts "comfortable". The shoulder restraints are on inertia reels and can be locked or left free so you can turn but the lap restraints are fixed. The problem is that you have to strike a balance between really strapping in and being able to turn around. This is particularly a problem if you're short and the cockpit is large. Lap belts on modern ejection seats don't do a great job of keeping you in your seat during negative G even when fully tightened because they are designed to pull back and down vice straight down. What happens during negative G is that you end up "hanging" upside down from the lap restraints and that lifts your feet off the pedals and makes it hard to keep forward pressure on the stick so the trick is to have your seat restraints tight enough to be able to maintain control without limiting your ability to turn too much. The newer seats now have a neg-G strap which comes up between your legs but I only found it to be a little bit better but it still didn't keep your butt in the seat.
As far as WWII aircraft are concerned, I imagine that there was a broad difference in the quality of their restraint systems. Hartman's stories leads me to believe the Germans must have had a pretty good system but it's hard to say.
I oculd DEFINITELY see this mace... in Aero flying, we cinch those restraints down tight, of course we do not need the freedom of movement you guys do... and even with those belts cinched it is quite uncomfortable, I can imagine it would be even more so with loose straps...
-
The out of plane positive G pull then serves to force an overshoot and yes, planes are perfectly capable of going from +6G to -2G and back to +6G again without damage. I agree with the others though that the neg-G is very uncomfortable and there are other practical limits.
What you see in-game (particularly from Tempests in trouble in the DA lake :devil) is more like +6 or 7, then -4 or more (-Gs pegged on the meter, you can do it, tried it offline) over and over. Red out to black out in rapid succession. That realistic?
-
Hitech said something like "it's a simulation used to play a game." That's why there physical limits on what the aircraft can do and what the pilot can sustain. For my part, there's a big asymmetry in how black-outs can cause loss of control input and loss of view, but red-out never causes more than a half-second of inconvenience.
QFT
-
What you see in-game (particularly from Tempests in trouble in the DA lake :devil) is more like +6 or 7, then -4 or more (-Gs pegged on the meter, you can do it, tried it offline) over and over. Red out to black out in rapid succession. That realistic?
As I said I don't know for certain, since this is not something I do when flying aero, but it is a fact that going pos G right after Neg, increases your susceptibility to GLOC from the pos G's... I would have to assume it works the same in the opposite direction as well, and repeated porpoise moves like this? I would think it could get to be an issue if done repeatedly. That being said, again, the amount and duration of G loads both Pos and Neg would have a large impact on the physiological effects. The other factor is the total amount of time spent at "G loading" as pilot fatigue plays a large role in his ability to withstand G loadings... If you have been in a lengthy sequence of maneuvers, the more times you grey out, or even have high G loadings, the more susceptible you are to GLOC from maneuvers performed soon thereafter. Note Sean D Tucker, during his 20 min performance, takes a 5 minute break in the middle to reset and clear his head a bit. (although this is also to get the engine cooled off some too)
The same would apply to combat I would think (never been in combat, this is all based on my exp flying aerobatics), if you have spent any significant amount of time pulling G loads in a fight, then try to extend and use the "porpoise" move shortly thereafter, your fatigue would play a factor in both the onset, and recovery of GLOC/Redout. I do not believe this fatigue factor is modelled in AH though.
Sol
-
you do whatever it takes remember ...
even negative Gs ...
negative G evasive was standard for the fuel injector planes against their non fuel injected opponents ...
stick stirring is using the "prediction software" to make you nearly impossible to hit and as i understand it has more to do with how rapid the stick movements are than how dramatic they are.
i do see a lot of intentional prediction software manipulation to evade pursuit but it is more like a negative g fade then hard pull resulting in a warp turn more than the traditional up down up down rapid succession of a "stick stir"
both very cartoon and lame imo but what ya gonna do with so many lame cartoon players ;)
-
Sol does not know anything..... every time.... and I do mean every time I fly with him, I have to explain the green side goes down... the blue side is up. Probably why he is so redfaced all the time. Too much time inverted. :D
-
Sol does not know anything..... every time.... and I do mean every time I fly with him, I have to explain the green side goes down... the blue side is up. Probably why he is so redfaced all the time. Too much time inverted. :D
Doing it inverted is fun! and when in a '38, doing it inverted with twins is even better!
-
doing it inverted with twins is even better!
double your pleasure double your fun? :devil
-
Question for the readers. Who is first credited with doing and outside loop and when did they do it?
-
Ernst Kessler during The Great Waldo Pepper. (Couldn't resist -- it is a great movie.)
-
A great scene in the movie "Hot Shots" is when they're inverted and coins, playing cards, etc. all stick to the canopy.
You'd be surprised at what's hiding in the cockpit even when FOD is a huge priority for aviation squadrons. Sometimes it's a good idea to roll inverted and fly along so you can grab all the junk in the top of the canopy. Screws, pens, tools, dirt, approach plates. Once for me my radio control panel came out of the console as one of our maintainers failed to properly latch it in. Luckily the cables weren't long enough to let it fly around but it did get my attention.
-
Hitech said something like "it's a simulation used to play a game." That's why there physical limits on what the aircraft can do and what the pilot can sustain. For my part, there's a big asymmetry in how black-outs can cause loss of control input and loss of view, but red-out never causes more than a half-second of inconvenience.
That's actually pretty accurate. Too much G for too long drains the brain of blood and you pass out. It takes time for your brain to re-oxygenate and begin to think again. Negative G forces blood into the head. It doesn't cause you to black out and you get your vision back quickly, there's no need for your brain to "wake up". Sol has it right though that repeated pos/neg G would quickly exhaust and disorient you but in ACM you seldom do real negative G unlike in an aerobatic performance.
-
What you see in-game (particularly from Tempests in trouble in the DA lake :devil) is more like +6 or 7, then -4 or more (-Gs pegged on the meter, you can do it, tried it offline) over and over. Red out to black out in rapid succession. That realistic?
No, I'd say that -4G is not realistic at all and would probably knock someone out by hitting the canopy especially in WWII when they didn't wear the helmets we wear now. Someone smarter than me can do the math but I'd guess that would be akin to dropping head first from 10 ft. Also, I don't know the specs for WWII fighters but modern fighters are usually limited to about 3 to 3.5 negative G. Alternating from +6 to -2 once or maybe twice would be more realistic.
-
That's actually pretty accurate. Too much G for too long drains the brain of blood and you pass out. It takes time for your brain to re-oxygenate and begin to think again. Negative G forces blood into the head. It doesn't cause you to black out and you get your vision back quickly, there's no need for your brain to "wake up". Sol has it right though that repeated pos/neg G would quickly exhaust and disorient you but in ACM you seldom do real negative G unlike in an aerobatic performance.
The amount of neg-g that we pull in AH is enough to permanently damage vision. Your point about GLOC from positive g's and the lack of something similar from negative g's is correct, but not quite on target to the point I was making.
-
So what would need to be modeled to more closely imitate the neg G effect?
Maybe your head position wouldnt stay in or on the gunsight?
As it is now the head position moves somewhat so after prolonged or max neg G's
your head position would take abit to settle. This would somewhat resemble the disorientation
:salute
-
Question for the readers. Who is first credited with doing and outside loop and when did they do it?
partial answer.......jimmy doolittle. i think it was before ww2, but don't recall the date.....
-
So what would need to be modeled to more closely imitate the neg G effect?
Maybe your head position wouldnt stay in or on the gunsight?
As it is now the head position moves somewhat so after prolonged or max neg G's
your head position would take abit to settle. This would somewhat resemble the disorientation
:salute
As it's been described to me, the visual field should remain reddened for longer duration of time. Additionally, the visual field should also become blurred or distorted.
-
The amount of neg-g that we pull in AH is enough to permanently damage vision. Your point about GLOC from positive g's and the lack of something similar from negative g's is correct, but not quite on target to the point I was making.
Aircraft (both real and cartoon) are capable of pretty high negative G but physical damage is unlikely unless you're bouncing off the interior of the cockpit like a pinball. Typical aerobatic pilots (with good restraint systems) regularly do -3g with spikes over -5g during outside loops and we don't see eyeballs falling from the sky during airshows. It sure as hell isn't comfortable but you get used to G's (both positive and negative).
Actually, let me add to that last sentence. Negative G is never comfortable but once you're used to positive G it can be exilerating and it feels great. Like another physical activity I can think of, you get sweaty, exhausted, and sassified. :D
-
lol Wish I filmed bcadoo... he was in a trainer and jerking all over. Sad to have to do that in a bird like that.
My granddaughter could probably teach him a few things.... but alas from his flying I take it he's never been to the TA. :rofl
-
Aircraft (both real and cartoon) are capable of pretty high negative G but physical damage is unlikely unless you're bouncing of the interior of the cockpit like a pinball. Typical aerobatic pilots (with good restraint systems) regularly do -3g with spikes over -5g during outside loops and we don't see eyeballs falling from the sky during airshows. It sure as hell isn't comfortable but you get used to G's (both positive and negative).
Actually, let me add to that last sentence. Negative G is never comfortable but once you're used to positive G it can be exilerating and it feels great. Like another physical activity I can think of, you get sweaty, exhausted, and sassified. :D
Quite true, ive spiked over -5g easily, and have sustained -3.5 during an inverted cuban 8
As for your last statement, SO true! My wife even complains I look more satisfied after flying sometimes LOL
-
Aircraft (both real and cartoon) are capable of pretty high negative G but physical damage is unlikely unless you're bouncing off the interior of the cockpit like a pinball. Typical aerobatic pilots (with good restraint systems) regularly do -3g with spikes over -5g during outside loops and we don't see eyeballs falling from the sky during airshows. It sure as hell isn't comfortable but you get used to G's (both positive and negative).
Actually, let me add to that last sentence. Negative G is never comfortable but once you're used to positive G it can be exilerating and it feels great. Like another physical activity I can think of, you get sweaty, exhausted, and sassified. :D
All of that is great. Does it mean that you disagree that current red-outs are lenient?
-
All of that is great. Does it mean that you disagree that current red-outs are lenient?
From the physiology stand point related to vision I'd say no, they're not too lenient. The redout is a fairly accurate representation of what happens to vision due to the effects of negative G on blood flow but that's only part of the issue. To be fully accurate, AH would have to simulate the discomfort involved (which means pilots don't really like to do it) and also the physical issues of negative G flight like the inability to keep your feet on the rudder pedals or slamming your head against the canopy in a violent maneuver. I don't really know how you'd simulate these effects in a realistic fashion in a game. The flight models could be changed to limit negative G to something like -2G. Although this would probably be more accurate regarding what a typical pilot will usually do it would not accurately model the aircraft capabilities and wouldn't take into account what a paniced pilot might do. An algorithm similar to the one that keeps you from moving your controls too fast might help, particularly, if it had a time component in it that would prevent you from cycling from extreme positive to negative G 3 or 4 or more times or for an extended period of time. You could get a good solid -G push the first or second attempt but then start reducing control input so that subsequent pushes in a short period of time aren't as effective. Overall, I think it would be difficult to do well and may cause more heartburn that it would fix.
All that said, I'm personally against any such changes. I don't think negative G is overused or unrealistically used all that much to be a problem at all and the redout, to me, works fine. On the other hand, if HT wanted to devote some time to things like this I'd suggest relooking at things like Lancstukas which are by far more prevalent and unrealistic. The big bombers were never designed to be as agile as they are in AH. I'm just guessing but I think that things like stick-force-per-G is way out of wack for the big boys. Dive bombing in a lanc or B17 with a four or five G pullout or even just hard reversals of turns would require lots and lots of muscle I don't think it's correctly modeled but then I never flew a big bomber.
-
All of that is great. Does it mean that you disagree that current red-outs are lenient?
First off - :salute Mace for sharing your real life experience. The panel coming off had to be interesting. Did you press it back on with chewing gum?
Navy and Marine maintenance seemed to be more 'flexible' than the Air Force. I saw an F-14 on static display at an air show. The slab had 'No Step' stenciled on it. There were also boot prints up and down. A high school friend worked on ejection seats in the Marines. He had several anecdotes involving a red 'X' becoming a red '/' as the mission dictated.
Back on topic, my memories of negative G's were that my feet were on the rudder pedals, my hand on the stick, and my head on the canopy. If there is an adverse effect to be modeled, maybe shake the screen, or, as suggested earlier, mess with the head position.
-
I'm dizzy just thinkin of it. :O Cant wait to try it. :rock
-
Ok, thanks for your reply. It was very thoughtful and well argued.
-
lol Wish I filmed bcadoo... he was in a trainer and jerking all over. Sad to have to do that in a bird like that.
My granddaughter could probably teach him a few things.... but alas from his flying I take it he's never been to the TA. :rofl
Looks likes its your lucky day shuffler....I was filming.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/0miymmi4inq/film1.ahf (http://www.mediafire.com/file/0miymmi4inq/film1.ahf)
-
I remember attacking Bcadoo recently He used clean, realistic, non-gamey ACM. I never saw him jerking about in his spixteen, rather he gave the "profile" and jinked (in the positive G by rolling inverted, no less) with impeccable timing. He ended up fighting against greater odds than I intended, :( , yet flew well IMO. :salute
-
You'd be surprised at what's hiding in the cockpit even when FOD is a huge priority for aviation squadrons. Sometimes it's a good idea to roll inverted and fly along so you can grab all the junk in the top of the canopy. Screws, pens, tools, dirt, approach plates. Once for me my radio control panel came out of the console as one of our maintainers failed to properly latch it in. Luckily the cables weren't long enough to let it fly around but it did get my attention.
Once had a seat-shop guy tell me that they'd spilled a sack of washers in the back seat. The plane was going out on a flight so they asked to aircrew to fly inverted for a few minutes and collect the washers off the canopy. :D
Quote from: Anaxogoras on August 17, 2008, 09:38:27 AM
It's the negative G's that need to addressed. Right now, you can go full redout and fully recover in a second.
----------------
I would agree that the current very mild effect of Neg Gs should be toughened up. Maybe after the first second or so you see "stars" for 5 seconds after you recover. Then each time following it gets progressively-exponentially worse.
But it is not an invalid tactic per se.
J.F."Stocky" Edwards - DAF
I look and I see this big red nose and he’s not very far away and he’s just slightly high like that [Stocky again illustrates the relative aircraft positions with his hands]. He probably went up higher. And I saw his nose drop and he wasn’t more than a hundred yards out again. And I felt all this happen and I saw his nose coming down, and I thought beautiful... intercept, so I just jammed the stick forward. When I did that all the dust and sand in the airplane went flying up in my face. I put it right forward and I’m going down more or less spiraling almost out of control because when you push it that hard at that speed you lose control of your aircraft.
Lt. Douglass Golding
I was flying Red 2 down sun when the call "Duck!" came over the R/T. I immediately followed my No 1 round in a sharp left-hand turn, and looking back, I saw an aircraft coming out of the sun dead astern steeply onto my tail. I put the stick left and forward with left rudder which seemed to nonplus the attacking pilot. He banked steeply, trying to get inside me...
Robert Johnson 56th FG
He’s too close. I shove the stick forward down to the right, swerving the Thunderbolt beneath the Focke-Wulf.
Joe Rosbert - AVG
Looking back I saw two of his mates trying to train their sights on me. I pushed the stick forward so hard I almost catapulted through the canopy. As I hurtled downward, I crouched down expecting at any moment the thud of bullets on the armor plate behind.
All the best.
-
a viable last-ditch option
As a last ditch option, it's not something I fret about. But where it definitely crosses the line to gaming the game (IMHO of course) is that there is at least 1 pilot who appears to base his entire ACM on remaining at tree top level, forcing the overshoot through this or a very similar maneuver, and then tailstanding his cannon armed Russian ground attack aircraft to one ping kill his attacker.
It's his fifteen of course, but it doesn't lend much to any kind of a sense of realistic engagements.
<S>
-
As a last ditch option, it's not something I fret about. But where it definitely crosses the line to gaming the game (IMHO of course) is that there is at least 1 pilot who appears to base his entire ACM on remaining at tree top level, forcing the overshoot through this or a very similar maneuver, and then tailstanding his cannon armed Russian ground attack aircraft to one ping kill his attacker.
It's his fifteen of course, but it doesn't lend much to any kind of a sense of realistic engagements.
<S>
Ohhhh, someone got shot an a cherry pick attempt?
-
i've used the maneuver in the op a few times. it has had varied results. the best, was that i actually got into a fihgt, before dying....the worst, was that i hadn't banked far enough, and flew myself right into the trees. that one was funny as hell.....i almost fell outta my chair laughing at myself for that move.
it does seem to confuse some pile-its though. i've had guys go right on by me, and blow their speed, 'cause rather than go back up and look for me, they're rollin back n forth.....i've had others that seemed as if they expected it, and went vertical almost immediatly.
i had one well known stick, missed on two attempts, thanks to this move........but it let another catch up, and he got me. :D :neener:
-
Ohhhh, someone got shot an a cherry pick attempt?
Nope, I killed him at least once if not twice (I'm pretty sure he successfully ditched the second time though), without him getting a shot on me. I was simply responding to the OP with an instance where I do see the maneuver as being gamey.
And with that, I'll return you to any agenda you might have.
<S>
-
And with that, I'll return you to any agenda you might have.
<S>
:rofl I was going to related to global warming but you figured me out :furious
-
As a last ditch option, it's not something I fret about. But where it definitely crosses the line to gaming the game (IMHO of course) is that there is at least 1 pilot who appears to base his entire ACM on remaining at tree top level, forcing the overshoot through this or a very similar maneuver, and then tailstanding his cannon armed Russian ground attack aircraft to one ping kill his attacker.
It's his fifteen of course, but it doesn't lend much to any kind of a sense of realistic engagements.
<S>
sounds more like he's getting you by using a hard, slightly nose down breaking turn into you and then into a vertical barrel roll for the kill as you over shoot rather than 'stick stirring'. Nothing gamey at all about that maneuver.
ack-ack
-
No, he's not. He never turns (except to try to keep trees between himself and an attacker) and never rolls. It appears to be solely max/min elevator deflections. I'll try to remember to get a film of what I'm talking about if I see him up again. <S>
-
I'm seeing people pulling negative gs in a climb these days. I see nothing wrong with it.
-
No, he's not. He never turns (except to try to keep trees between himself and an attacker) and never rolls. It appears to be solely max/min elevator deflections. I'll try to remember to get a film of what I'm talking about if I see him up again. <S>
Who are we talking about? Only to compare notes in case I have fought him.
-
If someone is on your 6 you have the right to do whatever you want to try to shake em. No shame in trying to stay alive. Watch old gun footage and you'll see more than one pilot push over once he started receiving lead. Vulches in a non base capture and spawn camping are about the only unexcusable acts in here. Everything else is just survival.
-
Obviously, a lot of people have read this thread... I'm starting to retract my casual acceptance of the practice as it seems to be going from a last ditch manuever to the evasion of choice - and I'm not talking about a bunt. I'm starting to see a lot more SUSTAINED neg G maneuvering in the MA.
From the film viewer, you can't see what G your opponents pulled, but you can guess based upon the speed and manuever. The Typhie I engaged last evening is starting to feel like the new norm - running out at 450-ish at about 2 K ft, just as I fired from about 400 yds went from level to around 45' degrees nose down in about 2 seconds (had to have been way into red out), pulled level at around 500 ft, and then rolled 90 ' and pulled what looked like a near max G turn to the left.
Had he done this for real, is eyeballs would have exploded - if not his entire head.
About 15 min later, I watched a P38 do a similar (although less abusive) sustained neg G pushover at a bit over 300 to near vertical in about 2 seconds - which would also have made his eyes bleed.
C'Est'Le'Vie. It's a game - and a silly one at times.
<S>
-
Both are gamey and are being exploited beyond the occasional escape attempt, its now the norm to expect a high speed NEG G turn or a fish flopping out of the water stunt when on someones six.
No plane from that era could withstand or even do the ariel acrobatic mini shows that they get away with in this game with no structural damage or pilot injuries accounted for.
Not only that, but a NEG G turning plane could not out turn a POS G turning plane as what most planes are designed to do. So they do what they can get away with.
The plane modeling should take this into account or it will continue to be exploited.
-
What about a Negative-G Barrel Roll? I use this to force an overshoot on planes that are very close to my energy state.
-
stick stirring is as it sounds ...
it is a "game tactic" with no real world applications. essentially what you are doing is making extreme opposing stick inputs to confuse the games ability to predict your position relative to your pursuer so he has very little chance of hitting you because you are "not really where he sees you", and you from his perspective seem to be hopping around or moving someplace other than where you are pointed. basically a bunch of little warps that confuses his solution. sometimes these can be subtle like a negative G fade before a hard pull positive G turn which seems pretty common in here and is also intended to throw off the prediction code and has no real world use.
it is not a jink or a skid or a negative G push over or rudder elevator adjustment during rolls or any other legitimate ACM evasive however desperate or aggressive.
which can look funny depending on the respective connections ...
so the difference is in the intent of the maneuver and it can be hard to ferret out who is trying to game and who is not. although there are some dead giveaways mainly the fade/pull described above, and the repeated hippity hop that you sometimes see.
those are guys messing with your FE and when i see that i consider them lame gamers.
hope that helps clear things up ...