Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: crutch on January 26, 2010, 10:57:57 AM
-
Warning! Some boring physics stuff.
Turn-fighting is probably the most used form of ACM and the least understood. Any two aircraft, propeller, jet or rocket driven, will have exactly the same turn radius and rate IF they have the same airspeed, bank angle and G-loading.
They can and will have differing capabilities for maintaining those turn factors.
Examine the three tables; Turn radius, Turn rate and Turn time in the Appendix.
The Turn radius table was created using this formula: R = V^2/A.
R = radius of the turn in feet
V = speed of the aircraft in feet per second, squared
A = acceleration in feet per second per second, 1 G = 32.2 feet/sec/sec.
The Turn rate table was created using this formula: w = 360 / (2 * PI * R) / V.
w = Degrees per second
R = radius of the turn in feet
V = speed of the aircraft in feet per second
PI = Mathematical constant = 3.14159.
The Turn time table was created using this formula: T = 360 / w.
T = time for one complete 360 degree turn
w = Degrees per second.
After examining the data in the tables, you can see changing the G-load has more effect than a small speed change. Think of it as changing to an inside lane at on a racetrack. You are now turning a smaller circle but you are also paying a penalty for the smaller circle.
You can see an aircraft’s best turning numbers are unique for a sustained turn. Two aircraft can fly matching turns but one will be able to hold those numbers for a longer period than the other.
This is where the confusion about aircraft ‘A’ being out turned by aircraft ‘B’ comes from. When ‘A’ has a better, by the book, turning rate. The rate was for a very specific set of conditions.
The rate you have to deal with now is the one handed to you by the bandit you are facing in the turn now.
How does this translate to an actual fight?
-
How does this translate to an actual fight?
Example:
Two pilots are fighting a duel, each are flying the same aircraft, Spitfire Mk 9s. Both pilots have the same fuel and ammunition loads. The determining factor here is pilot skill.
Each pilot enters a turn with exactly the same airspeed (250 IAS) and G-load (3 Gs) and they are in full knife edged (90 degree) banks.
Examining the table for their turn factors gives a turn radius of 1,392 feet. They are both turning 15.1 degrees per second, completing a full circle in 24 seconds.
This is just like two kids chasing each other around a table and running at the same speed.
Pilot ‘A’ thinks he can catch up to pilot ‘B’ by increasing his airspeed and he pushes his throttle to the stop, accelerating to 275 IAS. He is starting to black out at 3 Gs and he does not want to pull any more.
Will he catch pilot ‘B’? No
The why is complicated. Unlike the kids, pilot ‘A’ does not have friction with the floor holding him in his turn. Pilot ‘A’ increased his speed by 25 MPH but held his G-load steady. This increased his turn radius by 292 feet to 1,684. He is running in a larger circle, and his increase in speed is not enough to move his nose around faster in the larger circle: It is slower. He is only turning 13.7 degrees per second now taking 26 seconds for a full turn.
Pilot ‘B’ is now gaining on pilot ‘A’ at a rate of 30 degrees per turn.
Pilot ‘A’ made the wrong choice.
-
Pilot ‘B’ slows down to 225 IAS and increases his G-loading to 4 Gs. This changes his turn numbers and he is now in a circle with a radius of 845 feet with a rate of 22.4 degrees per second, completing a circle in 16 seconds.
If pilot ‘A’ had not made any changes, then this would let pilot ‘B’ catch up to him in 1 and a half circles.
Pilot ‘B’ now has another problem - can he sustain the G-load and speed for the time needed to catch his opponent.
This is where the Energy properties of those aircraft become extremely important.
Granted, the previous example was a very ideal one, but it serves to show the relationship of speed and turn rates.
How do you modify a turn without using speed or G-load?
One is offsetting the center of your turn from the center of the bandit’s turn.
Put a penny on top of a quarter. The rim of the quarter is your turn circle and the bandit’s is the rim of the penny. If the penny is centered over the quarter, you both are turning around the same axis, you will never be able to catch the bandit.
If you slide the penny to the side so the rim of the penny touches the rim of the quarter, then for one very brief point your turn will match the bandit’s.
The downside of this is it is much easier for the bandit to adjust his turn center to get himself out of danger.
Another method is to tilt your turn so it is not in the same plane of motion as the bandit’s. Using the quarter analogy again, tilt it at a 30 degree angle and hold the penny flat.
Gravity will change the shape of your turn from a pure circle to an egg shaped oval. The fat part of the oval is on the lower side where you change your dive to a climb.
This will also pull in the sides of your turn.
These changes may be enough for you to match the bandit’s flat turn at a couple of points. This is NOT a stable configuration and will change as energy is lost and one pilot reacts to the other.
The last way to modify your turn is by your bank angle. If you are banked less than 90 degree, relative to the plane of the circle, then you can increase the G-load used in the turn.
If the bandit is banked at 30 degrees and you can fly with a larger bank angle of 60 degrees, you can effectively pull more Gs in the turn. You will suffer a lose in altitude as less of the G-load is used to provide lift.
The absolute guaranteed way to win a turn fight is not to get in one.
sorry, I think I killed the system with my first try.
theis is a sample from "Check Six" without the 'tables' ;)
-
Sorry for the double thread, thought the first one didnt work.
-
Interesting stuff. Where did you get this information?
-
Easy, I wrote it :)
The full text is part of the book Check Six
basic application of physics. real world will not meet those numbers of course because I didnt take drag into account.
-
Great imfo crutch. :aok
Now I have a place to send players to read why they got out turned by Xplane in Yplane.
Hopefully some players will read this and a light will go on.
:salute
-
good stuff :salute
-
Pilot ‘A’ thinks he can catch up to pilot ‘B’ by increasing his airspeed and he pushes his throttle to the stop, accelerating to 275 IAS. He is starting to black out at 3 Gs and he does not want to pull any more.
is that a typo? gots to be
-
Good job Crutch.... :rock
It's not all about riding the blackout and full throttle then?
-
Thank you crutch - :aok
-my understanding is that given a set of changing vaiables you want to attain your "best" Corner Speed : ie the set of variables that let you get around that circle in the quickest time. Nice examples of how to do that by changing some of the angles/orientations. Made it quite clear.
I can remember seeing a list of Corner Speeds some years ago for a variety of AC. - your Check 6??
...cheers eh! :D
-
Just ordered it off amazon and will be able to read it tomorrow
-
If pilot A increases power while holding a 3G turn won't he increase his turn rate instead of speeding up?
-
If pilot A increases power while holding a 3G turn won't he increase his turn rate instead of speeding up?
no, and this is where most die in a turn fight.
at 250IAS and 3Gs he was in a circle of 1392 ft radius, turning at a rate of 15 degrees a second for a complete circle in 24 seconds.
at 275 IAS and 3 Gs the radius is pushed out to 1684 ft and even though his velocity IS faster, he has a much larger distance to travel. it reduces his turn rate to 13 degrees a second and a complete circle in 26 seconds.
if he had slowed down to 225IAS and held the 3 Gs he would hace reduced his circular path to 1127 ft, increased the turn rate and would be turning a circle in 21.5 seconds
the math is real and it might take running the numbers several times to see it but thats the simple but hard truth.
Gs have more effect in a turn than changing speeds.
bottom line is the easiest way to win a turn fight is to not get in one ;)
-
I understand your point and I'm not arguing that. My point is that airplanes typically don't speed up when you add power, they climb. If you consider a turn to be a horizontal climb then you can see where adding power while maintaining G would increase the turn rate not the speed.
-
adding power and causing a climb is a function of lift. moving faster means more air over the wing and increased lift leading to a climb. but it doesnt induce a turn, if it did the plane would not just climb but increase the angle of attack until the nose was pointed straight up. that doesnt happen does it?
A turn is simple, sort of, physics. three things define a turn; velocity, radius and accelleration (Gs). a turn is a unique combination of all three components. change one of them and you change one or both of the other components.
changing the Gs does the most to change the radius and the turn rate. it is much more effective than changing velocity.
-
I understand your point and I'm not arguing that. My point is that airplanes typically don't speed up when you add power, they climb. If you consider a turn to be a horizontal climb then you can see where adding power while maintaining G would increase the turn rate not the speed.
You're confusing a specific example for one flight condition with the more complex relationship between power and overall aircraft performance. The idea that an airplane will climb rather than accelerate when you add power is true but assumes the pilot does nothing but add power and is a bit simplistic. If you're trimmed for straight and level flight and add power with no adjustment to elevator position or trim the airplane accelerates above its trim speed and climbs. You reduce power and it will descend. On the other hand, the airplane will certainly accelerate (or decelerate) rather than climb (or descend) if you simply adjust your trim and elevator position. In both scenarios, what we're really talking about is specific excess power (Ps) and that's what Crutch is talking about.
Ps describes the relationship of available power to the power required to sustain a given flight condition. In trimmed, stabilized, level flight (i.e., a constant airspeed and altitude) Ps=0. Add power and Ps>0 and the aircraft climbs. Reduce power and Ps<0 and the aircraft descends. The same relationship is true for a stabilized level turn but you have to consider G (since level flight assumes a constant 1G.) If an aircraft is stabilized in a level turn and maintaining G, altitude, and airspeed it is at Ps=0. If you increase power at least one of those three factors will have to increase because Ps will be greater than 0 and that extra power has to go somewhere. In Crutch's example if you maintain constant G and altitude then airspeed must increase. If you maintain altitude and airspeed then G must increase. If you maintain airspeed and G then altitude must increase.
-
this is where my no being a real life pilot shows ;)
I only know the things I know now because I have been interrested in flight for 25+ years. only in the last 10 years or so have I truely begun to understand the intracscies of flight. even now just because I understand what is supposed happen doesnt mean I can get out there and fly rings around everyone else, far from that ;)
-
It seems you both just illustrated my point. If you increase power in a turn while maintaining G load then you increase lift which increases the turn rate.
-
lets try this:
C---------------R-----------------P-----A-->
C = center point of the turn
R = Radius
P = the Plane
A = the direction of acceleration (Gs)
if you increase the speed and keep the acceration the same then R stays the same. the formula for this is R=V*V/A
V is feet/sec and A = feet/sec/sec
If R increases, the flight path also increases by this formua = flight path = 2 * R * PI (PI = 3.14159)
generally your speed isnt fast enough to motor around that increased path any faster than the slower speed.
a contradiction but true.
-
Well now you're talking about speed not power but I see the issue. You can't increase lift in a turn and maintain the G load unless you reduce the AOA which is what increases your speed and turn radius. :aok
-
Hi Crutch,
I would like to point out some aspects of your post which I think could be misleading for anyone trying to learn how to win in the situation you describe in the example of an "actual fight" because the conditions you use are a better description of what to do if you want to lose, and not really representative of an actual fight. Also, the conclusion of your post:
The absolute guaranteed way to win a turn fight is not to get in one.
is even more misleading, because you can't win a fight you aren't in, and overlooks the things that really can be done to ensure success in a turn fight.
Allow me to explain:
Example:
Two pilots are fighting a duel, each are flying the same aircraft, Spitfire Mk 9s. Both pilots have the same fuel and ammunition loads. The determining factor here is pilot skill. Each pilot enters a turn with exactly the same airspeed (250 IAS) and G-load (3 Gs) and they are in full knife edged (90 degree) banks.
In your initial post you mention that "You can see an aircraft's best turning numbers are unique for a sustained turn" however, what may be confusing to some is that the figures you have presented are infact instantaneous values, and that if those conditions are sustained, if that is even possible, it implies that the pilot deliberately holds the given speed and g which in your example, is entirely the wrong thing to do, because staying at 3g in a duel is likely to concede a first shot opportunity to a more aggressive opponent.
More realistically, both pilots would attempt to max perform their aircraft in the turn and that implies higher g and loss of speed, at which point the fight will be determined by how each pilot manages his energy in his effort to gain angles.
Even for similar aircraft and equal starting conditions victory will go to the pilot who does that the best. Just because the fight starts equal, in terms of speed, altitude and position, what we call co-E, doesn't mean that the situation will remain equal for long. Everything a pilot does, every control command and every maneuver will involve an exchange of energy for position, each degree of turn has to be paid for, and the pilot who pays the least wins.
So, the best way to win a turn fight isn't to stay out of it, and it isn't just about a simple concept of instantaneous turn radius and rate.
Winning in a turnfight is about learning how to gain the most angles for the least energy, and how the geometry of the fight and the maneuvers used, influences that trade, and knowing how everything you do influences the energy balance relative to your opponent. Then how to convert any incremental energy gains you achieve during the fight into angular gains that build into an eventual kill.
The point is that even in the hardest turning fight where energy is being lost rapidly by both pilots, and where it may appear on the surface that they are both oblivious to the cost in energy, the pilot who wins the rate war will be the pilot who gets the most angles for the least energy. So any discussion of how to win in a turn fight that focuses on instantaneous turning examples, and doesn't consider sustained turning ability, energy, Ps and how various maneuvers influence those things, will always be incomplete and potentialy misleading.
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
Badman, my point about the best way to win a turn fight is not get in one is this;
once a pilot is commited to a turn fight he is more/less fixed in place on the map. if he is in friendly territory he is more likely to recieve aid than the enemy. if the fight is in enemy territory then his foe is more likely to get aid. either way is bad. if the former, someone else is probably going to get the kill of the bandit. if the latter, he is going to be outnumbered while he is low and slow.
the other little nasty secret of turn fights is this, if you are losing a turn fight they are damn hard to get out of. most of the time you are down low and cant dive away to gain speed. the bandit is already in your rear. very not good.
I am NOT saying never turn, you cant do any real BFM without some turns, but be smart about it. fight out of his plane of motion and use your roll rate against his turn rate. hight and lo Yo-yos, barrel rolls to offset your turn center and so on.
-
Badman, my point about the best way to win a turn fight is not get in one is this;
once a pilot is commited to a turn fight he is more/less fixed in place on the map. if he is in friendly territory he is more likely to recieve aid than the enemy. if the fight is in enemy territory then his foe is more likely to get aid. either way is bad. if the former, someone else is probably going to get the kill of the bandit. if the latter, he is going to be outnumbered while he is low and slow.
If that was the point you were trying to make, it may have been better if you had said that in your original post, instead of presenting some unrealistic situations in a simplistic and misleading way.
Badboy
-
If that was the point you were trying to make, it may have been better if you had said that in your original post, instead of presenting some unrealistic situations in a simplistic and misleading way.
Badboy
I for one appreciate the simple fact that you took the time to do the writeup, thank you crutch. There are few that will take the time to lay out information as you have. Of course I am new, so I have no clue if it is misleading or not, but to me it seemed like a sincere attempt provide informative data...
-
Of course I am new, so I have no clue if it is misleading or not, but to me it seemed like a sincere attempt provide informative data...
This is why when something is posted on these boards ( especially here in the Help & Training Forum), it is our duty to follow up on them and present an accurate reason of how or why it is misleading and then offer a more accurate methodology with maybe even examples to correct any misleading information or theorys....
your post is a perfect example of why this is needed..... you yourself posted you did not know if it was misleading or not, and if it is infact misleading then the data is not imformative at all and sends a new player down the wrong road....
The Aces high Community appreciates all Help & Training posts made, that people offer to try and help other community players... and this particular thread is not being scorned for being inaccurate, It is just being corrected so people like you, are not mislead or lead down the wrong path...
with just a bit of re-wording, crutch could have explained the difference between Instantaneous turn rate/turn radius & Sustained Turn Rate / Turn Radius...... and used a little more detail and all would have been possibly ok..... it is all in the wording & the example used.....
my thoughts on the matter anyhow, and I too appreciate any write-ups , Information people post here in the Help & Training Forum, just as long it is the correct information being posted... this is not a arguement / complaint / Flame by any means.......
hope this helps....
-
this was not an attempt to explain sustained turns or instantaneous turns, I do that in another section of my book. it was an attempt to explain the physics of a simple flat turn. the example I gave was overly simplified, intentionally to make the physics easy to understand.
if I have opened any discusion at all I have accomplished my goal.
-
I thought you had some helpful information there crutch, I mainly wanted to point out that simply adding power doesn't increase speed like it does in a car since this isn't generally understood by newbies.
I need to remember that it's ok to read in the middle of the night but I shouldn't post when I'm sleepy. :D
-
this was not an attempt to explain sustained turns or instantaneous turns, I do that in another section of my book. it was an attempt to explain the physics of a simple flat turn.
That's commendable, but unfortunately the the physics you have presented is not the physics of a flat turn, not even a simple one, as you state above. The physics of a flat turn requires that an aircraft maintain at least one G vertically upwards to prevent it from falling out of the sky.
So anyone trying to learn from your calculations might also be misled. To illustrate that point, consider the aircraft in your first example which is doing 250mph IAS at 3g, and lets say it is at 5000ft ASL, based on the way you have done your calculations, the turn would never be completed because the aircraft would hit the ground well before they made it all the way around the first circle. It's actually worse than that, because you have used IAS in your calculations and so your figures would only be correct for sea level, but for the same reason, the type of turn that your calculations describe would be over the moment it began at sea level.
if I have opened any discusion at all I have accomplished my goal
Indeed, I'm sure this discussion may prove helpful. There are also a number of other potentially misleading issues in various messages in this thread that remain unchallenged, and I would simply advise anyone trying to learn from this discussion to seek further clarification before accepting any points that don't seem to fit your current understanding of the topic.
Badboy
-
Let me restate these so I don't mislead anyone.
I understand your point and I'm not arguing that. My point is that airplanes typically don't speed up when you add power, they climb. If you consider a turn to be a horizontal climb then you can see where adding power while maintaining G would increase the turn rate not the speed.
My point is that airplanes typically don't speed up when you just add power, they climb. If you consider a turn to be a horizontal climb then you can see where adding power while maintaining angle of attack would increase the turn rate not the speed. Of course this would increase the G load so your example of maintaining G means you'd have to reduce the AOA which would increase your speed.
It seems you both just illustrated my point. If you increase power in a turn while maintaining G load then you increase lift which increases the turn rate.
If you increase power in a turn while maintaining angle of attack then you increase lift and G load which increases the turn rate as Mace so helpfully pointed out. :D
-
Crutch: The word "fight" implies there will be maneuvering, I.E, turning. Sure, opportunities to dive in at Mach .6 and shoot unaware opposition abound in multiplayer flight sims. However, I think the fact that there are opportunities to do something *else* is what makes these games remain worth playing.
Getting down to the nitty gritty of an actual engagement with another decent pilot will always "anchor you in place" to a certain extent, I.E you will have to actually maneuver and loose energy instead of booming along at 400 plus. As far as new players go, I think the idea that if you fly a hot plane very fast you will be tough to catch is one they grasp easily enough, and more time must be spent opening their minds to the other things they can do in air combat. Encouraging them to "avoid the turn fight" is not a productive turn of phrase IMHO.
-
BnZ, correct every encounter that isnt a quick drive-by shooting in the back will 'fix' you in place.
but you can fight smart and keep your 'escape' window open if the situation goes to pot. by the time you are in a circle fight on the deck you are fixed in place with no escape options at all barring a friendly base full of ack next door.
I just want players to be aware of options beside the full blown circle fight.
-
I just want players to be aware of options beside the full blown circle fight.
But wasn't your entire post about the "full blown circle fight"? I initially thought you were trying to help people manage that type of fight so why in the end say avoid it entirely?
I also have a bone to pick. You say the best way to win a turn fight is to avoid it. You don't actually win that way unless your definition of a win is to not get into a fight at all. Unless of course you call picking, vulching or killing an unaware player a "fight".
-
my initial posts were about what is going on inside of a circle fight. I think I have shown that just slamming the throttle to the wall and motoring through turn after turn isnt going to win a fight. some planes are perfect for circle fights, A6m, Hurricane, 109F. for them to sucker someone else into a turn fight is to their advantage. pure circle fights are for the isolation of a duel not the MA where such a fight is a magnet for someone else to drop in an 'pick' the loser.
I have been in many excellent fights, of 10 mins or more, where I never turned more than 90/180 degrees at a time. these were not running fights but fights that ranged from 10K to 15K to 1K, love that stuff ;)
-
It isn't your aircraft that determines it's suitability for a turn fight, it's your target's aircraft that does.
I've had a lot of good turn fights in the MA, you just have to drag your target away from the furball.
-
my initial posts were about what is going on inside of a circle fight. I think I have shown that just slamming the throttle to the wall and motoring through turn after turn isnt going to win a fight. some planes are perfect for circle fights, A6m, Hurricane, 109F. for them to sucker someone else into a turn fight is to their advantage. pure circle fights are for the isolation of a duel not the MA where such a fight is a magnet for someone else to drop in an 'pick' the loser.
I have been in many excellent fights, of 10 mins or more, where I never turned more than 90/180 degrees at a time. these were not running fights but fights that ranged from 10K to 15K to 1K, love that stuff ;)
WWII airplanes don't have enough power to sustain turns at their best rates. So, after you've bled down to below corner speed and are still turning, there are plenty of reasons to keep your throttle balls-to-the-wall, and even that won't be enough power. Assuming you are trying to gain in the nose-to-tail chase. Nose-to-nose turning may introduce a geometry where forward velocity temporarily becomes more important than any other performance aspect and "hitting the brakes" is the way to go.
Well, if you are defining "turning fights" as a Lufberry, I find even in "duels" in WWII airplanes, someone usually wins before it comes to that. Most of the time guy who may loose a little position on the merge establishes a scissors and you're off.
-
I for one found the initial posts informative in a sense. They explained something I already knew in a different way thus making it all the more clear.
Not every explanation works for every student.
The tittle is misleading though. Which I beleive is the real problem people have with the post.
The later points he made about the environmental dangers of getting into a turn fight really have more to do with why a turn fight gets you killed than the nature of a sustained turn.
Also need to keep in mind that was he's talking about here is only an excerpt from a larger topic. It's not the entire chapter written on that subject, it's just a piece of it. Taken out of context as it has been and posted as a sample of a larger work I suppose it can be misleading.
-
BnZ, correct every encounter that isnt a quick drive-by shooting in the back will 'fix' you in place.
but you can fight smart and keep your 'escape' window open if the situation goes to pot. by the time you are in a circle fight on the deck you are fixed in place with no escape options at all barring a friendly base full of ack next door.
I just want players to be aware of options beside the full blown circle fight.
While I find the initial offering here to be of interest in a clinical sense the simple reality is that position and relative performance determine tactics. This is on it's surface only applicable advice if you are in a superior position and/or plane. As badboy alluded to to it is the combination of correct ACM applied with consideration for circumstance and E state that will enable the better pilot to persevere regardless of initial position or plane performance a majority of the time. Anytime I see advice focused on keeping options open and an escape window I question the source. This is in no way meant as an attack but an observation. If you have an "escape window" that means you have control of the fight. Accordingly your goal is simple, find it, fix it, kill it. Nothing more nothing less. A good pilot operating in a +E environment against an average opponent shouldn't take more then 30-45 seconds to end a fight once he has his opponents measure. The better the opponents plane the more important this consideration is. The threat you let linger is the one that makes things complicated later on.
From my perspective the entire objective of +E ACM is to kill your target as quickly and efficiently as possible. Circumstance will dictate tactics but given a window to vanquish a single con before other enemy planes enter the area that should be your objective. In the event that you are engaged by a plane in superior position and/or superior performance then you need to be able to both fly to your enemies weaknesses and understand how to create opportunities to extend and reset the fight. The single biggest misconception I see is players with a superior E state "extending", the reality is that only a pilot in a negative E state or inferior position looks to maneuver to extend and reengage on more favorable terms.
-
The tittle is misleading though. Which I beleive is the real problem people have with the post.
I agree about the title, but the reason I responded had more to do with factual errors, some of which I have pointed out, and the bad advice.
The later points he made about the environmental dangers of getting into a turn fight really have more to do with why a turn fight gets you killed than the nature of a sustained turn.
True, but players want to turn fight, it can be fun and very rewarding, especially when you know how to win and when you have the skill to win and survive consistently in such fights. It isn't easy to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to prevail in a hard turning engagement, for anyone who wants to learn how, simply avoiding those fights because of the risk is certainly not the best way to go. If you want to be good at turn fighting, you have to do it a lot, and in doing it you won't just get better at it, you will also acquire the situational awareness necessary to judge when the circumstances allow you to fully commit and when they don't. But you won't ever get there if you think the only way to win a turn fight is not to get in one.
Also need to keep in mind that was he's talking about here is only an excerpt from a larger topic. It's not the entire chapter written on that subject, it's just a piece of it. Taken out of context as it has been and posted as a sample of a larger work I suppose it can be misleading.
Forgive me for being blunt, but it isn't just misleading, some of the advice is poor and the concluding statement isn't just bad advice, it is plain wrong. The examples are flawed and there are a number of factual errors. It doesn't get much worse.
Badboy
-
Forgive me for being blunt, but it isn't just misleading, some of the advice is poor and the concluding statement isn't just bad advice, it is plain wrong. The examples are flawed and there are a number of factual errors. It doesn't get much worse.
Badboy - no insult intended but it seems to me you're a wee bit harsh here. I suspect your views for game play (technical/ACMs aside) are bang on for those who follow the "fight" style but there are many who play from a different perspective and crutch makes some valid points.
I believe I got crutch's intent from the 1st - using some physical representations he attempted to show what the end result of furballing/turn fighting leads to - you get low and slow - easy meat for incoming cons. Perhaps he was incorrect in some of his physics/ACM examples but he was dead on in his view of the end result.
Now the issue arises in determining the validity of his suppositions. IMHO as usual it becomes a comparison between those who see this game ONLY as a "fight" environment and those who see it as an "air combat simulation".
I, as many others, have no real interest in this "fight" concept of playing. I view my style of play more as a "hunter/killer" style of play. I enjoy greatly the hunt for the con - always make it a point to attack from a position of superioriy - try to know when to disengage and reset - AND I get a huge charge out of seeing the con explode into many peices - preferably with lots of flames - crys of rage - lamenting of their women..... :lol
But the fight means little to me - I strive towards making a kill preferably in the style as the majority of WWII kills occured - without the enemy pilot even seeing me.
The "fight" people are more than welcome to fly the way they see fit in the stlye of their dueling rules - OTOH many others decide to fly more along the lines that the Main is a combat simulation (many play it as nothing more than practice for the WWII reenactment events and wish to hone the skills used their - much different from dueling rules - in effect there are basically no combat rules in FSO's etc.).
Personally I do not think the seemingly constant negative comments made about those who see the "style of play" differently are one bit benificial. Perhaps those sort of comments aren't meant to be so harsh but once again the failings of the internet easily can misrepresent intent.
To coin a phrase out of context : "Can't we all just learn to get along together?" - both in the virtual air and on the boards.
....cheers eh! :D
-
What if your plane choices don't allow you to fight from a position of superiority?
-
What if your plane choices don't allow you to fight from a position of superiority?
Don't confuse fighting to your planes strengths as being unable to defend it's weaknesses - I fly exclusively the 190A8 in the Main. Except on initial contact I am rarely in a position of superiority - I do OK.
.....cheers eh! :D
-
My question wasn't specific to a given plane type but we'll use your A8. If you have are +E vs a pony or Tiffie are you going to press home an attack or look to preserve a "way out"? If the bogey driver is competent then the odds of you landing are seriously compromised if you let him equalize E state with you. I'm not advocating any type of ACM stupidity but simply recognizing that when your +E your objective is to kill the other guy....this is doubly true if the con has the ability to seize control of the engagement over time. as above.
-
Well in my view it is as important to know your opponents weaknesses as well as strengths. The trick is to balance out the 2 in comparison to your rides attributes.
A couple of "dippsie doodle" moves come in handy too!! <---only known by us Canadians :lol
What I mean by that is there are things that many people are unconfortable with - flying through forested areas below tree level being one ;)
Pulling negative G's and what I've coined as a "roller coaster" <---putting the enemy alternatly into black out/red out/black out in short order till they loose sight of you (better sticks don't fall for it - drat!!)
Knowing how to defeat/survive an opponent when you are cornered is important!
Better through smart flying not to find yourself in that position.
I'd venture that would be the end point/intent of this discussion.
.....just my opinion eh! :D
-
Badboy - no insult intended but it seems to me you're a wee bit harsh here.
No insult taken, and actually I wasn't being harsh. I have been as kind as I possibly could, and probably kinder than I should, because the original post is probably a good deal worse than many realise.
I suspect your views for game play (technical/ACMs aside) are bang on for those who follow the "fight" style but there are many who play from a different perspective and crutch makes some valid points.
On the contrary, I haven't expressed my views for game play, and my comments addressed the significant number of factual errors.
Now the issue arises in determining the validity of his suppositions.
Nope, the factual errors in the original post remain regardless of anyone's "views for game play", and even if the original post had been an exposition on the value of one style of play over another my response regarding the factual errors would have been same. And for the record, I value both styles of play equally.
Personally I do not think the seemingly constant negative comments made about those who see the "style of play" differently are one bit benificial. Perhaps those sort of comments aren't meant to be so harsh but once again the failings of the internet easily can misrepresent intent.
I agree, but once again I should point out that my comments addressed the facts, not "views for game play" as you claim. To illustrate that let me provide another example. Let's just take a closer look at just one of the points made in the original post.
Pilot ‘A’ thinks he can catch up to pilot ‘B’ by increasing his airspeed and he pushes his throttle to the stop, accelerating to 275 IAS. He is starting to black out at 3 Gs and he does not want to pull any more. Will he catch pilot ‘B’? No
Firstly, this example was taken from the highly unlikely situation of two pilots flying Spitfires in a duel and staying at 250mph and 3G, but now we discover they were both also not even at full throttle. But I doubt that anyone would get the impression that you should begin a duel by entering a 3G flat turn while throttled back? After all, that is so unrealistic it is almost absurd. But since it isn't even credible, and since even new players learn fairly quickly that you need to pull more than 3G if you are trying to out turn someone, and your speed won't really stay at 250mph for long, no real harm done... after all it is only an example right?
Wrong! Things just get worse from there, because the post continues by stating that when pilot A increases power, he doesn't tighten his turn because he begins to black out at 3G.
Apart from the obvious fact that 3G is a tad low for blackouts, this leads the original poster to the conclusion that increasing power in a turn won't help, the final sentence is fairly convincing... Will he catch pilot B? No!
Wrong again, if both pilots fly this fight as they should, increasing power will allow them to maintain higher turn rates for longer, and eventually they will both end up in a sustained turn at the lift limit, at which point they may well be only able to pull a little more than 3G, the important point is that increasing power will increase the speed in the turn, it will also increase the G, and it will also increase the turn rate, and all that for very little loss in radius. It is absolutely the right thing to do.
So, by just looking at one tiny part of his post, we see that the example was flawed, both the values used and situation described were unrealistic. The calculations put forward to support the example were wrong, and the conclusions drawn from the example was wrong. Even worse, the conclusion wasn't just wrong, it led to the complete opposite notion of the right thing to do to win in a turn fight.
Does any of that have anything to do with what style of play anyone prefers? Possibly, it looks as though the original poster was projecting his preferences into an aspect of air combat that he doesn't fully understand.
And that's just one small part of the original post, most of the rest falls apart under similar scrutiny.
Badboy
-
Firstly, this example was taken from the highly unlikely situation of two pilots flying Spitfires in a duel and staying at 250mph and 3G, but now we discover they were both also not even at full throttle. But I doubt that anyone would get the impression that you should begin a duel by entering a 3G flat turn while throttled back? After all, that is so unrealistic it is almost absurd. But since it isn't even credible, and since even new players learn fairly quickly that you need to pull more than 3G if you are trying to out turn someone, and your speed won't really stay at 250mph for long, no real harm done... after all it is only an example right?
[/quote]
hmm I thought it was the discription of just one circle or two in the fight. I didnt even get the impresssion that it was a discription of begining a duel.
It seems you have made some assumptions I didnt even think about. You went from something specific to some generalizations. While you might be right about the context of the fight I'm not sure you can apply it to certain specifics of the poster.
I've had many a duel end in the luftberry I think its called or the circle fight. At that point it seems to me that the crutch has a valid point.
Are you saying given that exact senario it would work differently. I always lower throtle to help turn inside the bandits circle. Or go full throtle and try to use speed and offset the circle.
-
I didnt even get the impresssion that it was a discription of begining a duel.
You didn't need to get that impression, take another look at the quote below:
How does this translate to an actual fight?
Example:
Two pilots are fighting a duel,
You see that it was stated explicitly by the original poster.
It seems you have made some assumptions I didnt even think about.
No assumptions were required, the conditions were explicit.
I've had many a duel end in the luftberry I think its called or the circle fight. At that point it seems to me that the crutch has a valid point.
Nope, the original poster's conclusion was wrong, as previously explained in some detail. If you aren't clear about any of the points I've made, feel free to ask a specific question and I'll try to clarify it for you.
Are you saying given that exact senario it would work differently.
Yes, that is exactly what I've already said, and I've explained why in previous posts. If there is anything you didn't understand about any of those points, just ask and I'll try to clarify it for you.
I always lower throtle to help turn inside the bandits circle.
Given the conditions set out in the original posters example, that is of two Spitfires, both at corner velocity in a flat turn trying to out turn each other, reducing throttle would be the wrong thing to do. It won't reduce your turn radius, but it will reduce your turn rate, and allow your opponent to out turn you. Of course there are situations when reducing throttle may be appropriate, but the situation we are discussing isn't one of them. So, if that's what you do under those circumstances then you are making a mistake.
Badboy
-
Hi,
After looking at this old doghouse plot for an Aces High Spitfire comparison, I just wanted to illustrate my previous post in the hope it helps.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/AH2-Spits.jpg)
In the original posters example, the Spit9s are at 250mph, which is actually about 32mph above their corner velocity. However, at 250mph a maximum rate turn at sea level results in negative Ps of -126 ft/s which means that in a flat turn the aircraft would decelerate to corner velocity in under 4 seconds. Reducing throttle would just mean that your opponent would enjoy those high instantaneous turn rates for a little longer than you, during which time he would gain angles. You also notice that once you reach corner velocity and continue to slow down, your turn doesn't tighten, and your turn rate drops, so reducing throttle won't help you "turn inside the bandit's circle" it will just make your situation worse and cost even more angles. So, once again, if your goal is to out turn the bandit, more power really does help.
Is that easier to see?
Badboy
-
not really, since Im not entire sure of the parms of the graph.
verticle is degrees/sec
horizontal is speed
know what the G-lines are
not sure what the radials are (400,500,600, etc)
-
not sure what the radials are (400,500,600, etc)
Turn radius in Ft.
-
and the curved colored lines leaning to the left?
-
and the curved colored lines leaning to the left?
Those are the Ps=0 curves. They indicate the points in the envelope where there is zero specific excess power. Just think of it as the sustained turn line, because this aircraft can just sustain a turn at points along the line. At points below the line it can turn and climb or accelerate at the same time. For points above the line, it will need to descend or decelerate. Where the Ps=0 curve intercepts the lift limit, that is the stall line, indicates the point where the aircraft has its best sustained turn.
The diagram below is for the Spit9 only, so it is a bit clearer and is more uptodate, and includes Ps curve at 25ft/s intervals.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/Spit9.jpg)
As an example, if you look at this diagram, you can see that if you pull a 5g turn at 225mph, you will have a turn rate of 27.4 dps with a radius of 691ft and a negative excess power of -75ft/s which means that if you want to hold that turn you will either need to descend at a rate of 75ft/s or decelerate at just under 9mph/s. The best sustained turn is 23 dps, and the best instantaneous turn is 34 dps at corner velocity where you have a maximum negative excess power of -141ft/s, which means you lose energy most quickly at corner.
You can tell how one aircraft will perform against another by overlaying the diagrams.
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
In my opinion I think Badboy really makes some good points in this discussion! Just like I recognize turnfighting from my own experiences. Even if I am not an expert on the subject..
I like to turnfight alot myself in DA, infact I do it as much as I possibly can. Too much some might say.. Because I tend to put myself in those positions where there is no other way out.
I actually think I heard someone give me a comment on the VOX in DA earlier tonight about me always being in trouble no matter what! :rolleyes: Not sure if it was to me, but it sure sounded alot like me! :D I did not bother to comment on that, but that's the way I want to learn how to get better. By getting myself into trouble so I can learn how to fight my way out of it.. I rarely survive for long, but I learn alot by doing this over and over again.
And I know this for a fact, if I let down on my trottle while in a hard turnfight I will lose the turn for sure! I go down on the trottle if I am too fast to get the plane in the hard angle, or just a tad to get the flaps out.. But when the flaps are fully deployed and you get the plane on the limit of flippin over you really want all the power you can possibly get to gain on you opponent without falling out of the sky! :joystick:
-
Badboy,
I think i understand. I guess it helps to stay real specific.
I dont think I was ever at cornering velocity.
So If we are going faster than corner velocity. Say 250 then i reduced throtle to 220 would it be a smaller circle or out turn him.
Would that be the right situation.
Thanks.
-
If you have the option it would be better to get your nose up to bleed speed faster while holding your 6G turn. You'll lose less E because you're climbing. Drop your nose as your speed drops to 220 to try to maintain corner velocity.
-
If I understand your second graph then this is true;
the 3G line intersects the Ps=0 line at about 270 or so.
If I reduce speed, all the way to stall speed at about 155, while holding 3 Gs, I have excess energy to work with.
this energy, I can use to increase speed, pull more Gs or gain altitude (mainly by using top rudder to point the nose above the horizon), is this correct?
also the formula, I posted at the beginning is within rounding errors of the Gs/Speed/radius points on the graphs.
since there is no altitude component to the graphs, speed is probably IAS instead of TAS.
-
I actually think I heard someone give me a comment on the VOX in DA earlier tonight about me always being in trouble no matter what!
I know that feeling :)
Gunzo
-
So If we are going faster than corner velocity. Say 250 then i reduced throtle to 220 would it be a smaller circle or out turn him.
If you are trying to out turn an opponent in a level turn starting at 250mph and you are turning as hard as you can, reducing throttle is not the right thing to do. Let me explain why. Take a look at the Spitfire diagram again, at 250mph if you pull all the way to the G limit, you can generate a turn rate just under 30dps. Your speed will drop rapidly, but your turn rate will increase up to 34dps when you bleed to corner, and your turn rate won't drop below 30dps until your speed bleeds below 192mph.
Those are incredibly high turn rates that you can only enjoy for a short time, because at corner velocity you are losing speed at the rate of almost 10mph every second. The faster you lose speed, the less time you get to turn at the best turn rates. You are suggesting reducing throttle and spending even less time turning at those high turn rates. If you could get enough engine power to turn at corner velocity without losing speed, in AH you would be able to turn at 34dps as long as you wanted, you would have a better sustained turn rate than any other aircraft in the game.
More power gives you higher sustained turn rates, and allows you to enjoy higher instantaneous turn rates for longer, in a rate war, the more power the better. There are times when reducing throttle may be the right thing to do, but not when you are simply trying to out turn an opponent in a flat turn.
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
Altitude is posted on the EM Chart at the top Right corner 0 ft = ASL ( At Sea Level )
when ever one is looking for a planes performance and comparing plane performance, you should be reading TAS ( True Air Speed )
most every chart or graph in exsistence whether it is for Real Life WWII planes or for different flight sim's planes, are showing TAS........ ( provided the guy making the graph is knowledgable )
for me, and my thoughts, I use IAS speeds when teaching to others, in helping them get a feel of what speed is needed for certian BFM's, maneuvering and so forth...
using top rudder is going to scrub more energy, and is not advised most of the time, because one would be cross controlling....... I am not saying never to use opposite rudder ( in this case Top Rudder as you have described ), but sometimes opposite rudder can be of benefit.....
hope this helps......
-
the 3G line intersects the Ps=0 line at about 270 or so.
Yes, and so at that point you could just hold 3G in a flat turn without losing speed or altitude.
If I reduce speed, all the way to stall speed at about 155, while holding 3 Gs, I have excess energy to work with.
No, if you fly on the Ps=0 curve you have no excess power. The point you are referring to is the point where you have the best sustained turn rate. A very significant point because sustained turning ability is a very important factor in a turn fight. For example, in the previous diagram comparing the three Spitfires, you will notice that the Spit8 has the best sustained turn rate, and has the highest Ps=0 curve of the three, so it will maintain higher turn rates for longer. However, at all points along the Ps=0 curve the aircraft is not losing or gaining energy, no surplus at all.
also the formula, I posted at the beginning is within rounding errors of the Gs/Speed/radius points on the graphs.
Nope, in your calculations you have ignored the effect of gravity. The aircraft in the flat turn you have described "they are in full knife edged (90 degree) banks." would be falling out of the sky like rocks. For example, on the EM diagram a 3G turn at 155mph shows a turn rate of 22dps and a radius of 568ft. Your calculations would give a rate of 24.3dps and a radius of 535ft. That's only a difference of 32ft, not very significant in combat, but certainly not a rounding error. However, the turn rates show a difference of about 1.4dps and in air combat that is a big difference, because a difference of 2dps is normally considered decisive. The difference involved isn't rounding error, it is the difference that arises from the fact that in a flat turn the radial G, that is the G doing the turning, needs to be less than the body axis normal load factor pushing the pilot into his seat, because of the vertical G required to compensate for gravity and prevent the aircraft from falling out of the sky.
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
Probably the biggest point crutch missed is that these are WW2 fighter planes: they do not have enough power to sustain corner velocity turns, and definitely not enough power to increase IAS while turning max-G at corner velocity.
In the case of dueling over-powered jets who can still increase IAS while pulling a max-G turn, he would be right in the conclusion ASSUMING the increased power jet stays in the flat turn rather than using the energy to climb. Increasing power in this case would push IAS past corner velocity, reducing turn rate and increasing turn radius.
-
If I understand your second graph then this is true;
the 3G line intersects the Ps=0 line at about 270 or so.
If I reduce speed, all the way to stall speed at about 155, while holding 3 Gs, I have excess energy to work with.
this energy, I can use to increase speed, pull more Gs or gain altitude (mainly by using top rudder to point the nose above the horizon), is this correct?
also the formula, I posted at the beginning is within rounding errors of the Gs/Speed/radius points on the graphs.
since there is no altitude component to the graphs, speed is probably IAS instead of TAS.
I'm sorry but your making no sense here at all. If you reduce speed to 155 while holding 3G's you have no excess energy. That is the maximum sustainable G load. If you pull more G's you'll scrub E...you can relax your G's and gain speed at the expense of a wider turning circle and less DPS. Recognize that the plane at cornering speed not only has a slightly smaller turning circle but a significant advantage in turn rate picking up roughly a 1/3 of a circle per turn. So even though the faster plane can't sustain its corner velocity in a level turn he can either use a low to high yoyo to maintain extended pressure or he can commit his E advantage in an attempt to pull lead.
One of the biggest mistakes I'd see as a trainer was a concept of linear pursuit where the pilot attempts to fly tighter by reducing speed instead of using out of plane manuvering to increase speed closer to corner velocity. So if your at 270 the best thing to do is to pull G's in a high yoyo scrubbing down closer to best corner speed. The yoyo will give you angular advantage vs a flat turn & store E for future use. As you close to corner velocity you can then establish a rate of decent that will allow you to maintain corner velocity a few seconds more without any net loss of altitude.
So if we are in a flat turn in a neutral position (cockpit to cockpit) and you throttle back looking for a 3G 155 turn and I maintain full power put pull a climbing 6 G turn I will gain angles on the deceleration since I have a 10+ DPS edge as well as a smaller turning circle a majority of the time. Once I hit my corner speed I have alt, E a sustainable (for a period of time) advantage in both turn rate and DPS. I'd catch you in a few revolutions if not sooner...
-
thnks I understand better now.
Does it make sense to chop throtle to get to that cornering speed then push the throtle forward and hit wep to maintain it as long as possible.
I'm just trying to clear up some missconseptions I have. I must not be understanding what im doing in a circle fight to win it. I do deploy flaps as my speed drops and that seems to help.
-
I don't have the ACM nuts and bolts that Mace,WW,Murdr,TC or Badboy do (sure I'm leaving a few out) but I've always encouraged out of plane maneuvering vs a reduction in speed when possible. I know i'm guilty of chopping throttle a lot more then I should at times. Basically what it tends to do is give you unsustainable lead at best. You chop to "gain" angles but then fall into -E lag...sometimes even before you actually can pull enough lead for even a brief shot window. By using a high yoyo and heavy G loading your using the "bent paper plate" illustration you always see as well as reducing speed and storing E...so if you get a 500 ft "pop up" will cutting to corner speed...you then can sustain corner speed for almost 4 seconds going down hill before you get back to your original alt. If we view that vs a bogie that countered with a chopped throttle high G turn...you'd both be pulling 6 G's early but he would fall thru corner speed faster and continue toward the 3 G mark...so assuming you were even in the 1st few seconds...you'd then have 4+ seconds with an advantage of 10+ DPS or more...continuing with the now low yoyo you'd eat up another 40+ degree's of arc. Your sustained turning circle at corner is just under 11 seconds (at 34 DPS) while his is over 15 seconds (at 23DPS)...so in those 8 seconds you'd have covered roughly 3/4 of a circle and be traveling at roughly 215 mph. The Bogey would cover just over 1/2 circle and would be traveling at 155 MPH.
As always any or all of the above please correct me if i'm stating this wrong....but in the end your better to decrease to corner via a high yoyo and then cash back in the E at the appropriate rate of decent to maintain your best cornering speed....