Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: Ack-Ack on February 25, 2010, 07:35:29 PM
-
In another thread, someone gives the advice that the best thing when fighting a Corsair is not to get into a rolling scissors with it. While it may be true in the poster's opinion, it's rather misleading as it implies that nothing can beat the Corsair in such a maneuver when that is a clear false statement. Again, with proper tactics and knowledge of one's plane and his opponents, the rolling scissor (no matter what planes are involved) is a maneuver that can be countered successfully. All one needs to know is what to do in such situations.
Countering the Rolling Scissor
1. Realize that you are overshooting your opponent's turn and can no longer effect a Yo-Yo maneuver.
2. Do not attempt to pull into the target's radius of turn. This will impose high G-loads, and possible buffet or stall will occur. All airspeed advantage will be lost.
3. Relax G, slide around the outside of the turn, and thereby maintain an airspeed advantage.
4. Roll level, and zoom up (wings-level) as your opponent reverses into you. When your opponent reverses, he will be unable to match your zoom, because he will have killed some of his airspeed on the reversal, besides having less airspeed to begin with.
5. Continue to pull up, wings-level, and force your opponent forward and below your line of flight. If he pulls up into a banked attitude, he cannot counter your maneuver, since: (a) His stall speed is higher, and (b) His pull-up is only a component of a straight pull-up. If your opponent pulls up wings-level, he cannot match our rotation, because of your airspeed advantage. In any case, your rotation in the vertical plane will be greater than your opponent's. This will place him below and forward of your line of flight. You will have nose to tail seperation.
6. Roll off - roll in a direction away from your opponent's turn if he is in a banked attitude - and move into his six-o'clock position. The roll-off will provide additional nose-tail seperation and will prevent a possible overshoot.
Source: Aerial Attack Study
Tomorrow, I'll post how to maneuver against a Rolling Scissors Counter.
ack-ack
-
-.-- --- ..- / .- .-. . / - . .... / ... ..- -.-. -.-
-
-.-- --- ..- / .- .-. . / - . .... / ... ..- -.-. -.-
:D
ack-ack
-
Is this while your actually in rolling scissors? Sounds interesting, does this Aerial Attack come with pictures for us normal people? :)
-
Is this while your actually in rolling scissors? Sounds interesting, does this Aerial Attack come with pictures for us normal people? :)
You're the attacker and the opponent tries to force a rolling scissor as a defensive maneuver. No scanner so no image.
ack-ack
-
1st off, what happened to the DELETE option to delete a post in a thread?
anyways.........was posting about ack-ack's Sig Line...... wondering who he was suggesting it toward? or was it meant to be talking in third person? :D
YOU ARE TEH SUCK
hmm?
.. ... / - .... .- - / ... --- -- . / - -.-- .--. . / --- ..-. / .-.. . . - / .-.. .- -. --. ..- .- --. . ..--..
ok, sorry for the hijack...... lets get back on topic.......
-
In another thread, someone gives the advice that the best thing when fighting a Corsair is not to get into a rolling scissors with it. While it may be true in the poster's opinion, it's rather misleading as it implies that nothing can beat the Corsair in such a maneuver when that is a clear false statement. Again, with proper tactics and knowledge of one's plane and his opponents, the rolling scissor (no matter what planes are involved) is a maneuver that can be countered successfully. All one needs to know is what to do in such situations.
Countering the Rolling Scissor
1. Realize that you are overshooting your opponent's turn and can no longer effect a Yo-Yo maneuver.
2. Do not attempt to pull into the target's radius of turn. This will impose high G-loads, and possible buffet or stall will occur. All airspeed advantage will be lost.
3. Relax G, slide around the outside of the turn, and thereby maintain an airspeed advantage.
4. Roll level, and zoom up (wings-level) as your opponent reverses into you. When your opponent reverses, he will be unable to match your zoom, because he will have killed some of his airspeed on the reversal, besides having less airspeed to begin with.
5. Continue to pull up, wings-level, and force your opponent forward and below your line of flight. If he pulls up into a banked attitude, he cannot counter your maneuver, since: (a) His stall speed is higher, and (b) His pull-up is only a component of a straight pull-up. If your opponent pulls up wings-level, he cannot match our rotation, because of your airspeed advantage. In any case, your rotation in the vertical plane will be greater than your opponent's. This will place him below and forward of your line of flight. You will have nose to tail seperation.
6. Roll off - roll in a direction away from your opponent's turn if he is in a banked attitude - and move into his six-o'clock position. The roll-off will provide additional nose-tail seperation and will prevent a possible overshoot.
Source: Aerial Attack Study
Tomorrow, I'll post how to maneuver against a Rolling Scissors Counter.
ack-ack
No aircraft is unbeatable in every situation, but that still doesn't mean that it being better to avoid that situation in the first place isn't damned good advice. If a 109 pilot commits to a rolling scissors against a Corsair (as in: NO attempts to counter or escape, but outright intent ride through the maneuver in hopes of pushing for the shot) as long as the Hog pilot doesn't botch it it's only a matter of time.
What you're describing is essentially just that: Not getting sucked into the rolling scissor at all (which is pretty much the recommendation I made to begin with) but using more of a lag pursuit with a high vertical extension instead of trying to follow him through the roll.
-
1st off, what happened to the DELETE option to delete a post in a thread?
anyways.........was posting about ack-ack's Sig Line...... wondering who he was suggesting it toward? or was it meant to be talking in third person? :D
YOU ARE TEH SUCK
hmm?
.. ... / - .... .- - / ... --- -- . / - -.-- .--. . / --- ..-. / .-.. . . - / .-.. .- -. --. ..- .- --. . ..--..
ok, sorry for the hijack...... lets get back on topic.......
Actually, the morse I have in my signature, "-.. --- --. / ..-. .. --. .... - . .-. ... / -.-. .-.. ..- -..." are the initials of a group I belong to that is made up of like minded individuals, of which you are a member of. Messiah's morse, "-.-- --- ..- / .- .-. . / - . .... / ... ..- -.-. -.-" is just an example of his jealousy because he knows that (a) Chicks get wet for Lightning drivers and (b) I didn't have to take my little sister to the prom like he did.
ack-ack
-
ah rgr, ack ack, I did not realize they were 2 different codes.......thought both were the same, and did not really look at both closely to compare if their were any differences.... :aok
-
Ack-Ack it seems you're quoting Boyd's counter to the scissors not the rolling scissors.
-
You can use the counter for both flat and rolling scissors, but not against the vertical scissors for the obvious reasons.
ack-ack
-
If you lag roll in a rolling scissors aren't you giving the defensive fighter turning room?
-
It's been gone for like 3 years.
1st off, what happened to the DELETE option to delete a post in a thread?
Rolling Scissors? I go vertical. Lately I've been flying more BnZ..... Roll your scissor all you want...... I got E.
-
Ak Ak do you have a vid of this? I can visualize it for the flat scissors but I'm having trouble seeing how it works in the rolling scissors, unless the attacker has a large e discrepancy.
What about this move.... Sometime it works for me...
1) as the plane is diving off your left wing in the rolling scissors, level your wings
2) turn out to the right
3) turn hard to the left and take the snap shot as he pulls up in front of your guns from underneath you.
The effectively forces the rolling scissors into a flat scissors. which you will also loose against if fighting a 'turnier' plane at co-e states.
-
If you lag roll in a rolling scissors aren't you giving the defensive fighter turning room?
thats what I was thinking :headscratch:
-
I can't get past #2...the buffett part. Dang i'm hungry (http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/Bad_performer.gif)
-
You're the attacker and the opponent tries to force a rolling scissor as a defensive maneuver. No scanner so no image.
ack-ack
What do you do if your already in the rolling scissors?
-
What do you do if your already in the rolling scissors?
If you're losing and you have alt you dive out while your opponent is going up.
-
If you lag roll in a rolling scissors aren't you giving the defensive fighter turning room?
In a rolling scissor, you're in a race to "fall behind". So, lag pursuit is your friend. Giving him "room" is giving him room to hang himself. If you don't give him room, but pressure him instead, you'll find yourself out front and getting shot at. Patience...
If you're the attacker, the defender is counting on your greater speed, desire to pressure him, and willingness to join a rolling scissors him to make his rolling scissors work. The rolling scissors isn't an offensive move.
If you're attacking, and are in a rolling scissors, you've already made a mistake. As an attacker, you shouldn't be thinking "I'm gonna rolling scissors him to death". Or, "when we get into a rolling scissors, I need/want to..." You should be thinking "If he tries to draw me into a rolling scissors, I need to be careful, stay out of it, and counter it by..."
The defender is trying to draw you into a rolling scissors, or at least a situation where one can develop. If you allow that (as the attacker), you're allowing him to dictate the terms of the fight. That's poor form... It'll get you kilt!
Countering the rolling scissors is easy- just don't get sucked into it... It's a defensive move (even though it's intended to turn the tables on you). If the defender can "make" you, or "trick" you into joining his scissors, well, I guess you deserve it then...
Personally, I like to (as the attacker), just blow through (staying away from his guns), and go up for a yo-yo and another pass. Avoid allowing the defender any/much horizontal separation. Allowing that will allow the defender to equalize your E-states. You'll lose your advantage...
To "win" the rolling scissors, all you need to do is stay behind your opponent. You do that by adjusting the angle and radius of your rolls, and flying lag pursuit. Viewed from the side, it's just spiral (er, two spirals, inter-meshed). It's not about flying slower than your opponent. It's about flying a longer path, while at the same time making less forward progress than your opponent. Given the option, I'm always trying to start the rolling scissors (as a defender, remember...) as close to equal in speed as possible, and I actually try to exit it (for my shot) faster than my attacker. Once I've forced him out front, I don't want him to get away... In terms of pursuit, I'm initially in lead pursuit (he's behind or beside me), transitioning into lag, and then using lag and lead as needed to get behind, stay behind, finally get my shot...
-
That being said, from a defensive standpoint there's still some aircraft you're treading on thin ice if you try to use a rolling scissors against them. I love it when P-51s, Ki-84s, 109s, etc. try to do it against my F4U. :t
-
That being said, from a defensive standpoint there's still some aircraft you're treading on thin ice if you try to use a rolling scissors against them. I love it when P-51s, Ki-84s, 109s, etc. try to do it against my F4U. :t
I love it as a defensive maneuver, I get gobs of kills by using it. I'm just saying that if you need to counter it, you shouldn't be in it...
-
Mtnman I agree about lag pursuit but Ack-Ack was quoting Boyd's lag displacement roll to the outside of a turn against a flat scissors and Ack-Ack stated that it could be used against a rolling scissors. I believe you're talking about something else.
-
Mtnman I agree about lag pursuit but Ack-Ack was quoting Boyd's lag displacement roll to the outside of a turn against a flat scissors and stated that it could be used against a rolling scissors. I believe you're talking about something else.
It really can't be used against a rolling scissors, because if he's doing the lag displacement roll, he's not doing the rolling scissors. If he's not doing the rolling scissors, the rolling scissors doesn't exist (so there's no need to counter it)... Like I said earlier, countering the rolling scissors is easy- just don't do it, and it's countered. Done. It's hard (and pointless) to counter something that isn't there.
So, he's using the lag displacement roll instead of entering a rolling scissors, not against a rolling scissors. And that's a good option. But again, it isn't being used against a scissors, it's not even going to allow a scissors to occur.
The scissors requires two willing participants; without that, all you have is a guy doing barrel rolls (or horizontal break turns) while being attacked. And if you run into that, it shouldn't take too much fancy flying to come out ahead.
The lag displacement roll is generally used when an opponent does a break turn. He breaks right, you roll left... But, that means no scissors has occurred... You can also use it if you're the attacker, and are drawn into a scissors that you find yourself losing. In that case, you break out of the scissors by doing a lag displacement roll (hence, you're no longer in the scissors).
It's just terminology I guess, but that's where confusion sets in. Are we talking about winning the rolling scissors, or using options other than a rolling scissors? To use an option other than a rolling scissors, and say that allows you to beat or win the rolling scissors is inaccurate, IMO.
-
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. In the Aerial Attack study Boyd describes a lag displacement roll as a counter to a scissors. Ack-Ack quoted this in the OP and stated it was a counter to a rolling scissors, hence the title to this thread. I pointed out that Boyd specified a scissors not a rolling scissors and Ack-Ack stated that "You can use the counter for both flat and rolling scissors". I agree with you and disagree with Ack-Ack. I hope this clears it up. I wasn't saying that Boyd stated it could be used against a rollling scissors but I see how what I wrote could be read that way. At any rate there's lot of helpful information in this thread now. :D
-
Rather than saying it's a tactic of countering a rolling scissors, let's just say it's a tactic to AVOID a rolling scissors.
-
In a rolling scissor, you're in a race to "fall behind". So, lag pursuit is your friend. Giving him "room" is giving him room to hang himself. If you don't give him room, but pressure him instead, you'll find yourself out front and getting shot at. Patience...
Exactly, and I feel this is something a lot of people don't realize. In a dueling situation, if I'm on somebody's 6 (or nearly so) and they try to start a rolling scissors on me, I know it's a trivial matter for me to just stay in lag until I gain enough turning room to pull lead for the shot and kill.
One thing I've always been bad at is trying to force a rolling scissors as a defender. I don't know the visual cues for it.
-
I usually just pull up and flip the plane so I am looking down and look for the deflection from above - if the opponent is rolling, then I will time the dive on the top of his roll, if its a flat, I look for the zoom, the dive, or the turn - either way, having an e- advantage gives me all the options while he is killing all his e avoiding me.
The best rolling scissors is when I am so close and so underpowered that a climb is not possible - in that case I am not afraid of the overshoot and its roll roll fun time (which in Russian planes is a challange since the Yak tends to rock a lot).
maby I missed the point of the post here - but countering a rolling scissors is to avoid the scissor entierly imo.
-
boyd knew when position mattered more than energy and would often get position and just sit there in the rear quarter while his prey squirmed and thrashed all his energy away out in front trying to break free or force a reversal ...
then he would pounce ...
in less then 40 seconds ...
usually fights are struggles over either position or energy but great fighter pilots know that they are the two edges of the same sword, that both are lethal and that you can't really exploit one fully without giving up the other a bit. the pilot who can exert his will, change his goals, and then reassert his dominance where his best advantage lies at that moment, will be difficult to defeat in ACM.
this is where the games fail, as advantages and disadvantages tend to be too great, and limitations to broad to fully explore ACM as they do in the real world ...
imo.
-
The nickname "40 second Boyd" doesn't refer to pouncing after sitting on somebody's 6 for a while. It was one trick he worked on new guys. They'd start on his 6, he'd pull the nose up so fast on his F-100 that the drag from his planeform would slow him up and cause an overshoot. It's not something he could do twice to the same pilot.
-
yea should have added a wink there after the 40 second part ...
The nickname "40 second Boyd" doesn't refer to pouncing after sitting on somebody's 6 for a while. It was one trick he worked on new guys. They'd start on his 6, he'd pull the nose up so fast on his F-100 that the drag from his planeform would slow him up and cause an overshoot. It's not something he could do twice to the same pilot.
-
One must also realize that they need to take into account the fact "Boyd's - Aerial Attack Study" Document is from a time of "Jet Propulsion Fighters" to where we are working with "Prop driven Fighters" in Aces High ( and same for WWII ).......
a Jet has it's Best Thrust/Speed/E when it is closer to it's Corner Velocity area of the Jet's Performance Envelope......
to where as a Prop Driven WWII Fighter will have it's most/Top thrust/Power attained when it is at it's Stall Speed of the Performace Envelope.....
one can use "No Guts No Glory" News Letter from the mid 1940's.......
one can use "Boyd's - Aerial Attack Study" Document from the early/mid 1960's
one can use "Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat Tactics & Maneuvering" Book 1985
all of these will give good information on how to use tactics, counter tactics, etc..... but in doing so you must take note that for especially the last 2 documents mentioned ( Boyd & Shaw ) that they are basing most of their writing off of Jet AirCraft.....
now I, personally, have been able to use and have seen those "internal talked about tactics" used in Aces High, AirWarrior, WarBirds, FighterAce, IL2, Traget Rabual/Target Korea <--by TargetWare, 1942, CombatFighter, Janes Series, etc.....
usually fights are struggles over either position or energy but great fighter pilots know that they are the two edges of the same sword, that both are lethal and that you can't really exploit one fully without giving up the other a bit. the pilot who can exert his will, change his goals, and then reassert his dominance where his best advantage lies at that moment, will be difficult to defeat in ACM.
I agree to this, and this is ever so present in Aces High and in other Flight sims of this genre......
this is where the games fail, as advantages and disadvantages tend to be too great, and limitations to broad to fully explore ACM as they do in the real world ...
imo.
I disagree with this almost completely......., but have to add, this is only partially true to a point, the point being that the only difference in advantages and disadvantages tending to be too great, is in the knowledge and experience of the (2) players flying against each other...... I do not see and have not seen any limitations that keep one from fully exploring ACM as is done in the real world..... I see it exactly the opposite...... One can fully explore the complete realm of BFM & ACM here in these flight sims more so than they could in the Real World..... that is where the game excels and the Real World fails...... for to do so in the real world would be too risky of making a mistake and ending up dead......
after all, is that not why the US Military ( USN, USMC, USAF etc...) have million dollar Flight Simulators built in the first place? so they can fully explore the complete boundarys of BFM/ACM before they ever let a Pilot to even enter the cockpit and take off in a Real Fighter?
my view /opinion anyhows.....
YMMV :salute
-
I agree TC and IIRC Boyd makes the point in the Aerial Attack Study that air combat is an application of physics. This is why it can be modeled so well on a PC. Even with limitations in what can be modeled the limitations are applied equally to all aircraft so the relative strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft remain in play.
-
the problem lies in the difficulty in representing limits that were not tested to the extent that one needs to represent them in the games. so one is left with a mountain of inconsistent and often conflicting data to decide on which too often leaves players wondering why this or that is not "like it was" in TRW ...
in general the vast majority of these planes are far more alike than different and within their performance envelopes should preform almost the same where those envelopes overlap (which is usually far and away the majority of those boxes) there seems to be a lot more variance than the ubiquitous
"performance so close that pilot skill determines the outcome"
is much more rare than those comments suggest.
also i find that some things that the sources attributed above suggest should happen too often do not happen in too many situations.
the last sentiment above is where i find the games can fall short. so as TC says, yes you can explore ACM but when highly unlikely things like the downward moving A/C in any kind of scissor fight being able to improve it's position rearward vs. the upward moving A/C is so unlikely in TRW yet seems so common in the games, that is one of the places where i loose faith in the modeling both general and FM specific.
places like that is where my opinion differs from TC, respectfully.
+S+
t
-
the problem lies in the difficulty in representing limits that were not tested to the extent that one needs to represent them in the games. so one is left with a mountain of inconsistent and often conflicting data to decide on which too often leaves players wondering why this or that is not "like it was" in TRW ...
Which players are you referring to that know what it was like in the real world?
-
Which players are you referring to that know what it was like in the real world?
not players but accounts and tests that do not agree with each other and or the situation in the games ...
this is sort of off topic btw since the examples are numerous lets not totally derail this thread ...
my asides aside, the countering rules for scissors or maybe better stated as the rules of how to succeed in a scissors do not always apply to the game the way the guides to ACM say they should for similar aircraft. that was the point i was trying to make. so i am not trying to derail the thread i was just pointing out that the rules laid out in these guides do not apply absolutely in the games. so as someone stated before they are excellent guidelines but are not necessarily able to be counted on as reliably as they suggest.
that is all ...
Which players are you referring to that know what it was like in the real world?
-
I think you may be confusing how it was in the real world with some players understanding of how it was. I find that ACM works in Aces High. Ack-Ack's example of a lag displacement roll will give you angles and turning room which you wouldn't have if you tried to simply match the turn. Some people try to use a particular move without fully understanding how to apply it. This could lead to the belief that AH does not model air combat correctly and this is where the trainers can help. ACM is not so much basic fighter maneuvers strung together as it is concepts, which can be demonstrated with BFM, that are applied to a fluid constantly changing situation. Your opponent is rarely as cooperative as the bandit in an ACM example.
-
that is quite possible, however there are those "WTF ?!?!?" moments in the games that really can not be equated to anything possible in a world where the physics are real as opposed to modeled. not saying people are doing a bad job, i just think some things are shall we say lost in translation and those things tend to reveal themselves in situations in the games where one plane/pilot does things that the rules of ACM strongly suggest they shouldn't be able to do. a nose down plane being able to decelerate more than a nose up plane is one of the more obvious situations i can think of that leave me scratching my head ...
I think you may be confusing how it was in the real world with some players understanding of how it was. I find that ACM works in Aces High. Ack-Ack's example of a lag displacement roll will give you angles and turning room which you wouldn't have if you tried to simply match the turn. Some people try to use a particular move without fully understanding how to apply it. This could lead to the belief that AH does not model air combat correctly and this is where the trainers can help. ACM is not so much basic fighter maneuvers strung together as it is concepts, which can be demonstrated with BFM, that are applied to a fluid constantly changing situation. Your opponent is rarely as cooperative as the bandit in an ACM example.
-
You have film? Film is a useful tool for understanding things that seemed confusing when they happened.
-
that is quite possible, however there are those "WTF ?!?!?" moments in the games that really can not be equated to anything possible in a world where the physics are real as opposed to modeled. not saying people are doing a bad job, i just think some things are shall we say lost in translation and those things tend to reveal themselves in situations in the games where one plane/pilot does things that the rules of ACM strongly suggest they shouldn't be able to do. a nose down plane being able to decelerate more than a nose up plane is one of the more obvious situations i can think of that leave me scratching my head ...
From what I've seen, the VAST majority of those "WTF" moments are a result of inadequate SA. As my experience and SA built, I've found those have completely gone away. I haven't had one of those (not even close, as a matter of fact) for years...
Sure, someone may catch me by surprise on occasion, but they're far from "WTF" moments. More like "Man, I can't believe I didn't see that!" or "I can't believe I fell for that" moments. Blaming the flight model would be as worth-while (and relevant) as blaming the color of my gravel driveway in those situations. Maybe the model isn't perfect, but I doubt it's as flawed as most players SA.
I'm having trouble with the example you've used twice with the nose-down vs nose-up plane. Do you have any (even one) examples you can share? Film? It sounds like an SA issue to me... I could be wrong...
-
yes i have the files i have yet to sort out the film doofer, i am not ruling out the possibility it is perception or lag issues but i have quite a bit of time in the games and i hear WTF from even more experienced players than myself.
again i am not saying ACM does not relate at all i am just saying that it does not all translate from the books to the games the way the books suggest it should.
-
Specific examples can be explained but generalities are likely to be perceived as false assumptions and suppositions rather than actual problems. If your specific example is off topic just start a new thread.
-
yes i have the files i have yet to sort out the film doofer, i am not ruling out the possibility it is perception or lag issues but i have quite a bit of time in the games and i hear WTF from even more experienced players than myself.
again i am not saying ACM does not relate at all i am just saying that it does not all translate from the books to the games the way the books suggest it should.
Not from an "I want you to post a film" perspective, but from a "Can I help you?" perspective... What questions do you have on the film viewer?
Without analyzing films, I don't see how you can have a prayer at a legitimate analysis of the game, especially the flight dynamics. How do you measure/compare anything? Discrepancies you see as "fact" could just as easily be (and probably are, IMO) a case of mistaken SA.
It's amazing how many "WTF" situations are explained with a film. And then turned into "Oh, I can use that!"
And not just the ACM ideas... It's easy to use the "normal", flawed, SA practices against your opponent. Heck, I spend a fair amount of my time "broadcasting" clues that lead my opponent to make incorrect SA assessments of me, and my relation to him... Incorrect assessment of the situation leads to incorrect ACM usage, which leads to another scalp fluttering on my lodge poles.
-
well the nose up nose down has to do with gravity and the ability to close your turn ...
i.e. in a scissor, as someone stated it is a race to the rear position, the plane that can cross above the other thereby bleeding more e in the climb should be able to use the upward vertical plane to close their turn better than the plane that crosses lower ...
i may be stating it poorly but usually in a scissor you want to try to cross above your opponent. if the scissor is not in the horizontal plane the pilot should know he is better able to work for the rear position when he is climbing relative to his opponent, conversely when he is descending he is better able to address his speed/energy needs. working against gravity is counter productive and you are better off holding off on addressing either position or energy until you have gravity working with you.
i.e.
a similar plane diving should not be able to "gain" rearward on a similar climbing aircraft in a near equal energy state.
conversely a similar plane climbing should not be able to "gain" speed/energy on a similar diving aircraft in a near equal energy state.
i find this happens far to much in the games for me to believe everything is as it all should be.
so, the ability for some aircraft to do these things out of order so to speak often makes me think things are not quite correct.
if these things never happen to you well we have different experiences and i can only evaluate what i see.
+S+
t
-
still sorting out other issues but if i can't get the films to work when i finally get around to setting that up i will ask for help, thanks for the offer though
+S+
t
Not from an "I want you to post a film" perspective, but from a "Can I help you?" perspective... What questions do you have on the film viewer?
Without analyzing films, I don't see how you can have a prayer at a legitimate analysis of the game, especially the flight dynamics. How do you measure/compare anything? Discrepancies you see as "fact" could just as easily be (and probably are, IMO) a case of mistaken SA.
It's amazing how many "WTF" situations are explained with a film. And then turned into "Oh, I can use that!"
And not just the ACM ideas... It's easy to use the "normal", flawed, SA practices against your opponent. Heck, I spend a fair amount of my time "broadcasting" clues that lead my opponent to make incorrect SA assessments of me, and my relation to him... Incorrect assessment of the situation leads to incorrect ACM usage, which leads to another scalp fluttering on my lodge poles.
-
Since you state that this happens often it should be a simple matter to post a film of it happening. When you post a specific example of something that actually happened rather than just posting hypothetical examples to suit your point it will be easier to help you.
Edit: Alt R starts film and Alt R again stops it. Just post it to a file sharing site and link it here or PM me and I'll give you an email address to send it to.
-
well the nose up nose down has to do with gravity and the ability to close your turn ...
i.e. in a scissor, as someone stated it is a race to the rear position, the plane that can cross above the other thereby bleeding more e in the climb should be able to use the upward vertical plane to close their turn better than the plane that crosses lower ...
i may be stating it poorly but usually in a scissor you want to try to cross above your opponent. if the scissor is not in the horizontal plane the pilot should know he is better able to work for the rear position when he is climbing relative to his opponent, conversely when he is descending he is better able to address his speed/energy needs. working against gravity is counter productive and you are better off holding off on addressing either position or energy until you have gravity working with you.
i.e.
a similar plane diving should not be able to "gain" rearward on a similar climbing aircraft in a near equal energy state.
conversely a similar plane climbing should not be able to "gain" speed/energy on a similar diving aircraft in a near equal energy state.
i find this happens far to much in the games for me to believe everything is as it all should be.
so, the ability for some aircraft to do these things out of order so to speak often makes me think things are not quite correct.
if these things never happen to you well we have different experiences and i can only evaluate what i see.
+S+
t
After likely thousands of kills using the rolling scissors, and teaching many people to fly and use the rolling scissors, I think I can confidently say the scissors works like it should.
I'll go out on a limb here, and say that if your results differ, you need to improve your scissors. We could prove that with film, or 1 on 1 work in the TA.
I've never seen an example where the person who lost it, lost it due to an improper flight model. To come in and state in a matter-of-fact way that the flight model is incorrect, or that ACM's don't work as they should, when you don't review film and won't post examples, sure isn't going to help you get people to consider your opinions to be relevant and based on fact...
-
i.e.
a similar plane diving should not be able to "gain" rearward on a similar climbing aircraft in a near equal energy state.
conversely a similar plane climbing should not be able to "gain" speed/energy on a similar diving aircraft in a near equal energy state.
It's not the plane, its the pilot. All other things being equal it's the pilot preforming the maneuvers better than the other that will force the plane out front. It's has nothing to do with the "flight model"
-
yea well you guys are missing the basic point that all things are not equal, one plane is climbing, one is diving, that has consequences.
in the real world there is no way a "down up" plane can close a turn on an "up down" plane that is trying to do the same.
(similar planes similar e states)
it has nothing to do with pilot quality, it should be impossible "."
it is a large part of why high yoyos and lag rolls work, why they must work.
yet it happens a fair amount in the games at least it appears to happen from my POV/FE ...
so, since once again you guys are apparently are not paying attention to my point just forget i said anything and go on thinking everything is perfect here.
i will provide films when i get around to it, feel free to show me how wrong i am until then ...
i really don't care, i know perfectly well what i am seeing, and i am sure you all know perfectly well some things that are possible in the video games are not so possible in TRW, even if you are reluctant to say so.
no offense
t
-
yea well you guys are missing the basic point that all things are not equal, one plane is climbing, one is diving, that has consequences.
in the real world there is no way a "down up" plane can close a turn on an "up down" plane that is trying to do the same.
(similar planes similar e states)
it has nothing to do with pilot quality, it should be impossible "."
it is a large part of why high yoyos and lag rolls work, why they must work.
yet it happens a fair amount in the games at least it appears to happen from my POV/FE ...
so, since once again you guys are apparently are not paying attention to my point just forget i said anything and go on thinking everything is perfect here.
i will provide films when i get around to it, feel free to show me how wrong i am until then ...
i really don't care, i know perfectly well what i am seeing, and i am sure you all know perfectly well some things that are possible in the video games are not so possible in TRW, even if you are reluctant to say so.
no offense
t
No, I'm paying attention to it, but it's hog-wash. It's not worth my time to worry about it, if you can't even be bothered to show us these flaws you think you're seeing.
I have no doubt you think you know what you're seeing. I don't believe you're seeing what you think you're seeing. I have no need or desire to waste my time proving you're wrong, I'm perfectly content to just take you at face value until you show me differently. I've seen enough of your arguments to feel quite sure you'll not post anything of substance- will I be right?
What's the point in posting a bunch of films refuting your point, when A- you can't figure out how to (or be bothered) watch them? And B- even if we posted a million of them, you'd just say "well, it happens a different way to me..." All you need to do, on the other hand, is show us one example...
ACM's work in AH. All you need to do is fly them correctly, at the right time, and at the right speed. That's been shown over, and over, and over, and over...
I think this is a simple case of operator error. I don't think you know how to fly the maneuver correctly. And/or can't read your opponents E and flight attitude well enough. I think you're taking the easy way out by blaming someone else for your own issues.
Show me differently. Show me a film of you flying a proper scissors, where it doesn't work due to an error in the flight model. Show me that as you say "it has nothing to do with pilot quality". Show me the impossible is happening here.
Figuring out the Film Viewer will take you 5 minutes. Another 5 minutes to figure out how to post one... Lemme know, I can explain it if needed... It's not hard. Double-click on your film. Click the Play button. Adjust the views, if you need to. Watch the film. Upload the film to a free host. Link to it here. Explain where you see the impossible occurring. Done.
-
From what I've seen, the VAST majority of those "WTF" moments are a result of inadequate SA. As my experience and SA built, I've found those have completely gone away.
QFT :aok
(although I still have plenty of em, I have alot less than I did because my understanding has improved)
-
It's amazing how many "WTF" situations are explained with a film. And then turned into "Oh, I can use that!"
Hear here! Film viewer is invaluable for reviewing combat situations. It gives so much information (alt, airspeed, trails).
-
yea well you guys are missing the basic point that all things are not equal, one plane is climbing, one is diving, that has consequences.
in the real world there is no way a "down up" plane can close a turn on an "up down" plane that is trying to do the same.
(similar planes similar e states)
it has nothing to do with pilot quality, it should be impossible "."
it is a large part of why high yoyos and lag rolls work, why they must work.
yet it happens a fair amount in the games at least it appears to happen from my POV/FE ...
so, since once again you guys are apparently are not paying attention to my point just forget i said anything and go on thinking everything is perfect here.
i will provide films when i get around to it, feel free to show me how wrong i am until then ...
i really don't care, i know perfectly well what i am seeing, and i am sure you all know perfectly well some things that are possible in the video games are not so possible in TRW, even if you are reluctant to say so.
no offense
t
Why not? If one guy hangs it up over the top a bit longer than the other, or on the low end one guy pulls a little more G as he brings it back around, it is most certainly going to change the dynamics enough over time to push one plane in front of the other. It has too!
-
Why not? If one guy hangs it up over the top a bit longer than the other, or on the low end one guy pulls a little more G as he brings it back around, it is most certainly going to change the dynamics enough over time to push one plane in front of the other. It has too!
You're right Fugitive, but without getting him to look at some films, I don't think he'll get it. I think he's fixating on the idea that the loops will (er, could)appear to be "egg-shaped" if seen from the front or back of the barrel roll "tube", and that's why he can't imagine the plane flying through the bottom being able to "gain" on the other.
Of course, "gaining" isn't the goal of the rolling scissors, so he's a bit off the mark right there... He thinks he's losing because the other guy can gain on him?
He's also apparently not "seeing" all the variations that occur in a given scissors, that give one pilot the edge over the other, even in similar planes, with similar E, and similar goals. Things that immediately spring to mind that can alter what he thinks he's seeing are misjudging someone elses E, someone "hanging" or "loitering" at the top, someone doing a simple roll at the top (without the elevator to make it a barrel roll), and the fact that one plane may be nearer to corner velocity, yielding a better turn rate, while one is slower, with a better turn radius.
And again, the fact he'd complain about someone gaining/closing on another in this maneuver is a telling complaint... If you're trying to close on your opponent in the rolling scissors, you're looking to get shot.
He's read enough to know how the maneuver is "supposed" to work, but when he doesn't see that result he immediately figure's it's the flight model being porked... It couldn't possibly be the pilot, since he can't be doing the maneuver wrong (or just less-good), right? For some, it's too hard to blame yourself for your own failures.
The real shame of it is that it's so easy to fix these problems. A little work with films, maybe some work in the TA, and "poof" the fights get easier, satisfying, and less frustrating.
You can lead a horse to water...
-
I always know the point at which I have lost in a rolling scissors............... normally the point of entry :lol :lol :lol...but seriously..there is not a time that I have wondered (once I learned how to do it with some ability) how I lost it....I like the rolling scissors......I have alot of fun with it and if you are fighting somebody equally as competent it can be fun, watching and adjusting to the different little things you can do.Much like all of the maneuvers once you have learned the basics you can then dress them up.
that's just my tid bit on this post
-
From my short career in flight sims it seems like the rolling scissors is one of the most difficult maneuvers to perform correctly(the quickest way to kill me is if I try to start one :cry); so I'll throw out there that unless you think you're facing a "hot stick" perhaps you do follow someone in to the scissors but not fall for trying to make a shot quickly; wait them out and let them pull for the shot and fly in front of you......My guess is that most can't perform it well and because it's difficult are more likely to screw it up.
I really need to work on this maneuver. Big Rat has offered his help but, I haven't been there at the right time to work with him(I didn't realize you were on Central time and I'm on East Coast time). So being good at initiating the Rolling Scissors, maintaining it and, being patient could be the best counter???
Saxman says the F4U(my favorite ride) is about the best at this maneuver; would Saxman or, anyone else be able to explain why/how this is the case? Maybe I'll be able to learn to do it better as a result.
Excellent post all and, thanks for the help/information.
:salute
-
Saxman says the F4U(my favorite ride) is about the best at this maneuver; would Saxman or, anyone else be able to explain why/how this is the case? Maybe I'll be able to learn to do it better as a result.
Part of it is the combination of the high rate of roll, the flaps, and that massive rudder.
-
I really need to work on this maneuver. Big Rat has offered his help but, I haven't been there at the right time to work with him(I didn't realize you were on Central time and I'm on East Coast time). So being good at initiating the Rolling Scissors, maintaining it and, being patient could be the best counter???
Saxman says the F4U(my favorite ride) is about the best at this maneuver; would Saxman or, anyone else be able to explain why/how this is the case? Maybe I'll be able to learn to do it better as a result.
Excellent post all and, thanks for the help/information.
:salute
Noah17,
Wondered where you were :lol, anyway still there weeknights around 9 central, sometimes a bit before.
As Saxman said the hog is almost built for rolling scissors, and a lot of other reversal moves that require a quick roll rate as well.
:salute
BigRat
-
rolling scissors doesnt require stellar rollrate, although the transition to a decent firing solution when its complete might...
edit: sustained turn rate is the key factor in the rolling scissors, unlike a flat scissors where turn radius and rollrate are the key factors. it can be confusing that they are both called scissors because they each favour completely different aircraft attributes.
-
edit: sustained turn rate is the key factor in the rolling scissors, unlike a flat scissors where turn radius and rollrate are the key factors. it can be confusing that they are both called scissors because they each favour completely different aircraft attributes.
There's something more at work, because the Corsair's sustained turn rate isn't that remarkable. If sustained turn rate alone was the deciding factor the Corsair would be middle of the pack at best, not near the top of the heap.
-
There's something more at work, because the Corsair's sustained turn rate isn't that remarkable. If sustained turn rate alone was the deciding factor the Corsair would be middle of the pack at best, not near the top of the heap.
the ability to maneuver while flying slowly ...
which the hog was not noted for either in TRW ...
-
the ability to maneuver while flying slowly ...
which the hog was not noted for either in TRW ...
Let's not start this again....
-
If you're flying that slowly at any part except the top of the rolling scissors, you're doing it wrong and in fact you're probably screwed. The other plane could then keep its E and outpace the Hog in the vertical while it wallows trying to recover lost E.
So regardless of thor's whole "porked Hog FM argument", the reason given can't be the right one.
-
If you're flying that slowly at any part except the top of the rolling scissors, you're doing it wrong and in fact you're probably screwed. The other plane could then keep its E and outpace the Hog in the vertical while it wallows trying to recover lost E.
So regardless of thor's whole "porked Hog FM argument", the reason given can't be the right one.
Often when I try to keep my speed up, it greatly increases the distance needed to pull my nose up at the bottom, causing me to overshoot. How are you overcoming this problem?
-
Typically when somebody goes through the "bottom" part of the rolling scissors, I might go "less through the bottom". In other words, I follow a flight path that's slightly higher (closer to a flat turn rather than a split-S). This will favor the plane with higher acceleration/climb rate as it keeps the fight at a higher altitude. This makes sense given that I fly 109s a lot.
Also, the two situations we're talking about aren't exactly the same. I'm referring to really really low speeds (100 ish), you're probably referring to something like (150-180). If your E-states are relatively close and speeds are in the mid-range, chopping throttle briefly may be advisable to lose something like 10 mph and get the inside track. This way, your opponent can't outpace you in the vertical.
If you dump too much E, then he can go far more vertical than you and force an overshoot that way (again in the 150+ range). If it's too slow (100 ish), then that extra 10 mph can make the difference as it becomes difficult for your opponent to point the nose up even for a relatively small alt difference.
Regardless, if you're on the offense, you shouldn't be allowing your speed down that low, and that was my point. If your opponent chops throttle, goes flat (or rolling scissors) to try to force an overshoot, the solution is to maintain your speed and go vertical.
And as you can see, if you're on defense and you've done a throttle chopped (or otherwise low speed, 100 mph ish) rolling scissors, your opponent can simply respond by going vertical assuming he was smart enough to recognize it (hence why I say "and you're probably screwed").
The Hog's low speed handling can definitely help in something like a flat scissors... but rolling... I don't see it.
-
If you're flying that slowly at any part except the top of the rolling scissors, you're doing it wrong and in fact you're probably screwed. The other plane could then keep its E and outpace the Hog in the vertical while it wallows trying to recover lost E.
yup its all about throttle control - simply put you should be wepping on the way up and chopped as you go over the top and down, ideally you want the same speed all the way round the barrel roll although thats almost impossible. a proper barrel roll is very hard to do right, requires really good throttle control and precise rudder.
the rolling scissors isnt about dumping your speed and E to achieve superior turn radius like the flar scissors, check out badboys explanation:
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/rollingscissors/rollingscissors.htm (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/rollingscissors/rollingscissors.htm)
-
the ability to maneuver while flying slowly ...
which the hog was not noted for either in TRW ...
The rolling scissors isn't about flying slowly.
The rolling scissors is about creating an overshoot. Getting slow, believe it or not, is a poor way to accomplish that. As a matter of fact, being slower than your opponent is why you're on the defensive anyway. Getting even slower ain't gonna fix the problem. If anything, getting slower practically ensures that you'll remain on the defensive. Getting slower will limit your maneuverability at a time when you need all that you can get. You create the overshoot by maneuvering to create angles and closure.
As a matter of fact, if I'm going to be using a rolling scissors (in an F4U, as that's what I fly) I'm defensive, and trying my best to BUILD and MAINTAIN speed. NOT TO SLOW DOWN. If I get too slow, I can't maneuver the way I need to, and I won't be able to transition to the offensive when I have the opportunity. I'll be dropping flaps in a rolling scissors, and managing throttle too, and slowing down will result from that.
Although it's a result, it isn't the goal.
Maybe someone who flies the hog more than I do can do things differently, but I find once my speed gets below 120mph (again, in the F4U) my ability to maneuver is practically nil. That's what, 50% above stall speed? There are points in my maneuvers where I'll slow down A LOT, but I'm not doing much maneuvering at all at those points...
Can you show us different results?
Here's a film of a rolling scissors. Short, sweet, and to the point. Drag the bad guy away from the crowd. Separate him from his buds if I can. Convince him I want to run, so he'll keep his speed up too (that will help me with the overshoot, as the faster he is, the faster I can be). "Dragging" him will also degrade his speed advantage, if he has one- note how similar we are in speed before I initiate the maneuver?
Speaking of speed- how slow do I go? The slowest I got was 122mph (and only for a second), and while I was slow, I wasn't asking much of my ride... (Note- I consider 120mph to be awful slow, even too slow, in a hog). When I needed maneuverability, I was faster than that. For my final shot, I was what, 165-170mph? Here's the kicker- how do our speeds relate? Look at how much time I spent with my speed actually being greater than his? How does this work? How does he go from behind me to in front of me, if I'm faster than him??!??! The rolling scissors isn't about speed, or speed differential, it's about flight paths, angles, and closure. Being "fast enough" allows me to maneuver to control those variables.
Start by getting some closure, the easiest way I've found is to get him approaching from the side. Draw him into a lead shot, pull up out of his way before he can hit you, and then roll around him. It starts as a Barrel Roll Defense, and progresses into a rolling scissors only if he agrees to play. Fly a longer path than him, while covering less ground (less forward progress). As he squirts out in front of you, shoot him.
http://www.4shared.com/file/173258664/ed95be6e/P38_overshoot.html
This isn't a thread about "how to do a rolling scissors", so I was tempted to not explain it. At the same time, it's hard to "counter" something, when you don't understand it to begin with...
-
Maybe someone who flies the hog more than I do can do things differently, but I find once my speed gets below 120mph (again, in the F4U) my ability to maneuver is practically nil. That's what, 50% above stall speed? There are points in my maneuvers where I'll slow down A LOT, but I'm not doing much maneuvering at all at those points...
My guess is that what some perceive as the "ability to manuever while flying slowly" is just the Hog's stability at slower speeds - hanging on its prop, being a stable gun platform etc.
-
My guess is that what some perceive as the "ability to manuever while flying slowly" is just the Hog's stability at slower speeds - hanging on its prop, being a stable gun platform etc.
Yup, it definitely has good guns.
The "hanging on the prop idea" is another one of those generalities I question. So, one day when I was bored I went and checked it out... I did "vertical prop-hanging" tests on several planes just to compare them, and to compare the torque rumors on them at the same time.
Basically, I didn't see much of a difference from one plane to another. I'll go out on a limb here, and say that the prop-hanging and torque advantages and disadvantages are mostly a myth, at least in the vertical. I was able to take planes I seldom fly at all, so have no "feel" for, and get them to do about the same as a plane I've flown extensively for years. Minutes of experience, vs years of experience, and it didn't matter. Plane type didn't matter. Heck, I had to set my views up in the one that I thought would hang the best, and/or have the "worst" torque (109K4), and found it as kitten-like as any of the rest...
I tried it with flaps, and without. The thing that seemed to matter the most (as far as the departure point, and type) was angle of entry. One plane "felt" more at home, and it was the one I expected it to be (P38). But even there, the difference in speed or "hang time" wasn't that much. It just drops it's nose over nicely, without any tendency to spin. More or less, all the planes are "out of control" once you hit about 65mph, and the best they can do is "coast" upward for another couple of seconds. They all "fall" over in the 40mph range. None "hang" at "zero" airspeed, they all fall over sooner than that...
I checked and filmed the F4U, 109, P51, Spit16, and P38. I've tried others since then, but didn't bother to film them, as quite honestly, I felt they were all about the same... I sure wouldn't say one has "wicked torque" or "hangs better" than any other, to any real extreme...
For that matter, I've actually flown the 109's for a few sorties this month, and don't see anything too terrible about them, or their guns (which I've heard are tough to master). Just another plane... Easier in a few respects than the one I always fly. Kills weren't hard to come by... Views are nice, guns are nice, speed and acceleration are great... Goofy-lookin' plane to be sure, but not hard to fly.
Films, if anyone is excited enough to download them...
http://www.4shared.com/file/237192589/6ab038e3/F4U-1A.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/237192651/d38370c5/109K4.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/237192608/d7283c24/P51.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/237192596/e3141433/Spit16.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/237192625/9baf221b/P38.html
-
It might be a myth...
I think I was thinking more along the lines of... below 120 mph, the F4Us have a bit better ability to point their nose (i.e., not necessarily while hanging in the vertical).
That too may be a myth, I don't know.
As for the 109... the tater is really the only "difficulty". It's the combination of short firing time, slow ballistics, and slight inaccuracy (due to bullet dispersion) that made it annoying to learn as a primary plane. Go with the TA152, the extra ammo makes up for the other qualities a bit. You can afford to spray a bit more. That said, as I've learned gunnery and started to ease off the trigger, I find it easier and easier to tater, even with the 109 series. :devil
With the 20mm... it's like any other plane. Ballistics are worse than Allied planes, but not terrible. Only real drawback to the series (that I feel) is the poor rear view.
-
I would say that the slow speed handling of the LW 109 can be a bit tricky due to the engine torque. In static tests its not that noticeable, but every now and then you want to roll right and climb and the plane just wont unless u snap roll it to the right.
-
I remember to throttle off for a split second if I want to roll right at really low speeds.
-
I tried it with flaps, and without. The thing that seemed to matter the most (as far as the departure point, and type) was angle of entry. One plane "felt" more at home, and it was the one I expected it to be (P38). But even there, the difference in speed or "hang time" wasn't that much. It just drops it's nose over nicely, without any tendency to spin. More or less, all the planes are "out of control" once you hit about 65mph, and the best they can do is "coast" upward for another couple of seconds. They all "fall" over in the 40mph range. None "hang" at "zero" airspeed, they all fall over sooner than that...
Bear in mind this is coming from a biased 38 driver who didn't test any other planes, but I gotta disagree about the 38. You can really hold it there longer than anything else and at a whim cut an engine to change directions with a hammerhead. 540 degree hammerheads are neat too. :)
Here's a film, it's in the first 30 seconds.
http://www.mediafire.com/?yzmjmzfog0n (http://www.mediafire.com/?yzmjmzfog0n)
-
I would say that the slow speed handling of the LW 109 can be a bit tricky due to the engine torque. In static tests its not that noticeable, but every now and then you want to roll right and climb and the plane just wont unless u snap roll it to the right.
I get some funny little "roll quirks" with the F4U too, in certain instances.
I'm confused though, shouldn't the 109's torque make it "want" to roll right? I thought the prop revolved opposite of an F4U?
-
I get some funny little "roll quirks" with the F4U too, in certain instances.
I'm confused though, shouldn't the 109's torque make it "want" to roll right? I thought the prop revolved opposite of an F4U?
I think it's only the Tempest, Spit XIV and maybe the Typhoon whose props revolve the opposite direction. Maybe one of the Russian rides, but I'm not sure about that....
And I agree, the F4U has some bizarre rolling tendencies at low speeds. She always wants to fall off on the left wing, even if you're going to the RIGHT (can't tell you how many times I've stalled out in a right hand turn only to snap over to the outside). She also doesn't even want to snap-roll to the right AT ALL.
I think the F4U would generate a lot fewer complaints if HTC increased her resistance to rolling to the right under low-speed, high-power situations like the 109s. IF data can be found that supports this behavior in the F4U, as she did incorporate a number of tricks into her airframe design to reduce torque effects (IE: the vertical stabilizer was actually offset from the centerline for this exact reason).
-
Often when I try to keep my speed up, it greatly increases the distance needed to pull my nose up at the bottom, causing me to overshoot. How are you overcoming this problem?
natural in the rolling scissor when this doesn't happen things are "funny".
you need to address your position while climbing and your energy needs while diving, which is what i said originally, along with my observations that this does not seem to be the case always in the games.
-
I'm confused though, shouldn't the 109's torque make it "want" to roll right? I thought the prop revolved opposite of an F4U?
Surely you must be joking Mr Mtnman? The 109 torque is infamous amongst us krauts...
-
Surely you must be joking Mr Mtnman? The 109 torque is infamous amongst us krauts...
Honestly, I don't know. I don't fly any of the LW planes, mainly due to their looks. I've always heard they had torque issues, I just haven't seen it...
I've flown them for 3(?) hops this tour, just to try something different, and didn't find them to be difficult to fly, fight in, or get kills in. I was fighting a spit on my first hop, and got jumped by a 262. They both died, and I went home...
I've also flown them here/there (maybe 2-3 times?) when people in the TA wanted to work in them. I'm far from experienced in them, but found them to fly about like any other... The same things that work for me on a day/day basis still worked in the 109. The acceleration and climb sure made things seem easy (I don't normally have that). I'm used to needing a few more rounds of ammo too, just a few pings from the 109 ended the fights I was in.
For me, AH is about flying corsairs and shooting other folks down. I've more than satisfied my "LW itch" for another 5-6 years at this point...
-
natural in the rolling scissor when this doesn't happen things are "funny".
you need to address your position while climbing and your energy needs while diving, which is what i said originally, along with my observations that this does not seem to be the case always in the games.
Any examples?
As for the "not always the case in the game" idea- does it seem like the FM's or "environmental" aspects vary day by day, or minute by minute? What do you mean, not always the case? Sometimes? But not at other times? Sometimes things are "correct", but at others they're not?
When you watch the film I posted, what anomalies do you see?
What precisely happens that's "funny"?
Ardy's statement/question is related to "how do I do this better"? or "what are you doing to be successful at this"?... while yours seems to be "AH is messed up".
-
when i run across something funny in a scissor again i will try to note it when i name the save film file ...
we have already been over several possibilities of what it could be other than something wrong with the FM ...
i've been over the "funny" things that happen that should not happen in a scissor, now if you want to argue that a pilot/plane should be able to work against gravity and achieve better results than a pilot/plane working with gravity i am all ears, i am also curious about the ability of these planes to go nose up in any significant way at the speeds stated here, not saying anything is impossible here, but i would love to see the possible positive AOA change of a WW2 prop fighter at what 100-150 IAS ...
Any examples?
i'm very curious, and yes especially if the flaps were deployed.
+S+
t
-
People!!!
There is no actual "prop hanging" in a 109. This term refers to the ability to CONTROL the plane nose up into a POWER ON STALL.
If you drive the K4 up at 90 deg verticle at any speed it will eventually go to 0 airspeed, tail slide and flop around until you get airspeed again....like any other plane.
What is really happening is the pilot is driving the plane into the verticle at an off angle from 90 deg until it reaches less than 100 mph..at this point the tork and rudder are used to maneuver the plane around and over. At the end of the maneuver the nose is pointed down. The plane is being maneuverd during the last seconds of airspeed...BEFORE it stalls to 0 airspeed and CAN NOT be maneuvered. During this the plane APPEARS to be hanging on the prop when in fact it is not.
Climb rate is the deciding factor here. When a plane drops into rolling scissors with a 109 the goal of the 109 is to draw you into verticle turns to the point of draining the energy. At some point the 109 is going to capitalize on the climb...this comes at lower airspeed where IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Once the 109 neutrilizes the bandits ZOOM and takes the fight to pure engine and climb power the fight is dominated by the better climbing plane. We are talking about climb rate when the plane gets below about 200mph. The 109's can eeeek out every bit of energy in the verticle while most other planes will stall out flat and flip.
The 109's also have wing slats that deploy when the wing approaches stall. This helps greatly in preventing a snap roll when maneuvering at stalling speeds.
BTW...tork is to the LEFT in ALL 109's.
And...there is not FM problem.
Once you learn how to handle any plane at stalling speeds nearly all of them can dupicate what the 109 does...BUT the difference is the 109 can do it at about 50 mph slower than all other planes....and that speed difference is where the over shoot happens.
As for "countering scissors"...there is no counter. Either you scissor to death or ESCAPE. So the proper "counter" would be to find an exit where you can gain seperation and speed to change the fight to something else such as a flat turn or achieve a top positon for BZ.
In every scissor engagement there are EXIT points. The exit points diminish quickly as the fight slows down. If you get into scissors and want to get out you better do it right quick...before the 4th turn. After that your locken in and the best pilot is going to win.
-
Honestly, I don't know. I don't fly any of the LW planes, mainly due to their looks. I've always heard they had torque issues, I just haven't seen it...
Well to me, they just have massive engine power (which is reflected in their climb). At low speeds... i.e. around 120 mph and below, I notice significantly impaired rolling to the right to the point where I find it completely natural to throttle off to make those rolls (and by extension to keep the throttle on to help roll left). This does happen to other planes, just doesn't seem as serious.
I was surprised about your comment mainly because so many of our planes have left-handed torque. It's the right handed ones that are the exceptions (off the top of my head: Spit 14, Tiffie series).
-
i've been over the "funny" things that happen that should not happen in a scissor
I cant make head nor tail of your description of the "funny" things happening, can you be more specific?
-
I cant make head nor tail of your description of the "funny" things happening, can you be more specific?
how about this, instead of saying my descriptions are too general when i posted a perfectly clear discription in reply 32 of this thread and more since then, why don't you guys who profess to do all these things so much better than i do go out and try to gain the rear position out of order on another equally "club vetted" player ...
remember both of you must be honestly trying to get the rear position, if either of you are able to gain when you are descending and your counterpart is climbing and the two of you can not find an explanation for that then i suggest the general FM and or specific FMs are flawed.
it is my understanding that working against gravity in a scissor and succeeding is, or should be, impossible.
now i have on occasion seen this happen in the games, however i do not have a record handy so maybe your testing can allow you to see what i am talking about ...
EDIT : addendum, mind you this is just an example of things that make players say WTF, and is one that particularly bothers me. i fly and have flown with both long time simmers and long time real world pilots even long time combat pilots and to a man they all have their WTF moments in the games.
now are they all examples of a game that does not completely accurately represent reality? i am sure not.
are some of them actually things that would be impossible in the real world? i am sure they are.
that is all i was saying since the beginning.
-
are you talking about a rolling scissors or a flat scissors with some vertical components? because they are completely different.
-
are you talking about a rolling scissors or a flat scissors with some vertical components? because they are completely different.
feel free to look at both, yes they are different but my point would be the same.
i.e. being able to work rearward on a similar climbing aircraft while diving should be very very very unlikely ...
point of fact crossing above of your opponent is stated as a clear goal of a pilot trying to win a scissor fight.
-
ok i'm gonna bail on this as I have no idea what you're trying to describe. I'll wait for film :)
-
ok i will keep an eye out for ya :)
-
Well to me, they just have massive engine power (which is reflected in their climb). At low speeds... i.e. around 120 mph and below, I notice significantly impaired rolling to the right to the point where I find it completely natural to throttle off to make those rolls (and by extension to keep the throttle on to help roll left). This does happen to other planes, just doesn't seem as serious.
I was surprised about your comment mainly because so many of our planes have left-handed torque. It's the right handed ones that are the exceptions (off the top of my head: Spit 14, Tiffie series).
No big deal... I guess I thought the 109's were one of the odd-ball types that had opposite torque. I knew about the others, I just don't fly any of them enough to really pay attention to it...
-
how about this, instead of saying my descriptions are too general when i posted a perfectly clear discription in reply 32 of this thread and more since then, why don't you guys who profess to do all these things so much better than i do go out and try to gain the rear position out of order on another equally "club vetted" player ...
remember both of you must be honestly trying to get the rear position, if either of you are able to gain when you are descending and your counterpart is climbing and the two of you can not find an explanation for that then i suggest the general FM and or specific FMs are flawed.
it is my understanding that working against gravity in a scissor and succeeding is, or should be, impossible.
now i have on occasion seen this happen in the games, however i do not have a record handy so maybe your testing can allow you to see what i am talking about ...
EDIT : addendum, mind you this is just an example of things that make players say WTF, and is one that particularly bothers me. i fly and have flown with both long time simmers and long time real world pilots even long time combat pilots and to a man they all have their WTF moments in the games.
now are they all examples of a game that does not completely accurately represent reality? i am sure not.
are some of them actually things that would be impossible in the real world? i am sure they are.
that is all i was saying since the beginning.
Actually, I'm not so sure you shouldn't be able to gain on your opponent in the "bottom", at least temporarily... After all, you'd likely be closer to corner-speed, so should have an improved turn rate at that point. Sure, your radius would be larger, but that could be outweighed by your improved turn rate... I guess it would depend on the situation.
Is that where you're going with this?
And again, if I'm flying the rolling scissors, I'm not trying to gain on my opponent to begin with... It really sounds like you're flying this maneuver by trying to hurry up and get behind your opponent, instead of allowing him to overshoot.
As for things in the game not being possible in the RW, I'd have to say you're correct, but that doesn't mean the FM is wrong. In my eyes, a lot of that has to do with the efficiency we can manage our cockpits... For example, in the game I can manage throttle and flaps at the same time (F4U). In an actual plane, I couldn't. So, any time I'm able to do that, I'm performing "impossible" tasks, leading to impossible maneuvers. Maybe not impossible for the plane, but impossible for a "normal" human-piloted plane (F4U). I'm also able to easily do those things (as well as others), when RL G's might make it very difficult for me to just move my hand or arm in a coordinated manner.
-
Actually, I'm not so sure you shouldn't be able to gain on your opponent in the "bottom", at least temporarily... After all, you'd likely be closer to corner-speed, so should have an improved turn rate at that point. Sure, your radius would be larger, but that could be outweighed by your improved turn rate... I guess it would depend on the situation.
Is that where you're going with this?
And again, if I'm flying the rolling scissors, I'm not trying to gain on my opponent to begin with... It really sounds like you're flying this maneuver by trying to hurry up and get behind your opponent, instead of allowing him to overshoot.
As for things in the game not being possible in the RW, I'd have to say you're correct, but that doesn't mean the FM is wrong. In my eyes, a lot of that has to do with the efficiency we can manage our cockpits... For example, in the game I can manage throttle and flaps at the same time (F4U). In an actual plane, I couldn't. So, any time I'm able to do that, I'm performing "impossible" tasks, leading to impossible maneuvers. Maybe not impossible for the plane, but impossible for a "normal" human-piloted plane (F4U). I'm also able to easily do those things (as well as others), when RL G's might make it very difficult for me to just move my hand or arm in a coordinated manner.
all good points ...
+S+
as i said i will keep my eye out and probably we could sort it out
-
After all, you'd likely be closer to corner-speed, so should have an improved turn rate at that point. Sure, your radius would be larger, but that could be outweighed by your improved turn rate... I guess it would depend on the situation.
According to Badboy's bootstrap, all our planes turn tighter at corner velocity than at sustained. Keep that in mind.
As for the rolling scissors itself.. the lag/lead relationship of the lift vector is important, possibly more important than which "phase" of the scissors you're in. If I'm on offense (assuming same planes), I can stay with my opponent in the rolling scissors so long as I'm using lag pursuit - it doesn't matter if he's going up and I'm going down at any given moment, it's the net accumulated effect of me lagging.
-
According to Badboy's bootstrap, all our planes turn tighter at corner velocity than at sustained. Keep that in mind.
As for the rolling scissors itself.. the lag/lead relationship of the lift vector is important, possibly more important than which "phase" of the scissors you're in. If I'm on offense (assuming same planes), I can stay with my opponent in the rolling scissors so long as I'm using lag pursuit - it doesn't matter if he's going up and I'm going down at any given moment, it's the net accumulated effect of me lagging.
Not so much "tighter", as being able to came around the circle in less time, even if the circle may be a bit larger. Rate, rather than radius.
Back to thorsims question on what a WWII plane could do as far as AoA change between 100-150, I'd leave that to the mathematicians, but... I bet the one at 150mph could do more than the one at 100mph...
How those numbers tie to the rolling scissors, though, may still be surprising. Look at my film again. My speed is much higher than that, for all but a brief moment. Most of the time it's between 150 and 325, and I'm at least as fast as the guy behind me, if not faster at some points. The rolling scissors isn't about being slow...
-
Not so much "tighter", as being able to came around the circle in less time, even if the circle may be a bit larger. Rate, rather than radius.
I fully understand the difference. What I am saying is that according to his numbers/calculation methodology, turn rate is higher AND turn radius is smaller at corner velocity than at sustained turn. Many people do not seem to realize this.
Edit: I understand that the main diff is that turn rate's higher, but the radius issue is still there.
-
Corner Velocity is a fleeting moment........ now one might be able to keep themselves in that "Fleeting Moment" for a small fraction of time, but they can not sustain it.....and this will not be much benefit in a rolling scissors....except perhaps in the 1st 1 or 2 twists ( rolls )
Sustained lasts for a while...... and will come into play even more so the further down the rolling scissors ya go.......
-
What I am saying is that according to his numbers/calculation methodology, turn rate is higher AND turn radius is smaller at corner velocity than at sustained turn.
Many people do not seem to realize this.
This is so very True.......
-
EDIT : addendum, mind you this is just an example of things that make players say WTF, and is one that particularly bothers me. i fly and have flown with both long time simmers and long time real world pilots even long time combat pilots and to a man they all have their WTF moments in the games.
now are they all examples of a game that does not completely accurately represent reality? i am sure not.
are some of them actually things that would be impossible in the real world? i am sure they are.
that is all i was saying since the beginning.
Does it really matter ?
Are the 1000's of hours you have spent learning the flight model in real world ww2 planes, compromising your ability to learn the flight model in AH ?
Instead of questioning the validity of the flight model when someone does something you consider not possible in the real world - why dont you just ask them what they did and how they did it ? Its a game , a simulation , it has a relativity to the "real world" most likely , but the most important thing to learn are the flight rules/model of AH , not be worrying all the time about whether the flight model is "real world" perfection . It is what is . Learn it , have fun with it.
-
i do all those things ...
i did not mean to sound like i was trying to burn down the castle, i just every one in a while come across things that do not seem to be the way they should be, i like to talk about possibilities and probabilities and stuff and things that is all. there really is nothing tragic here, it is just a conversation ...
Does it really matter ?
Are the 1000's of hours you have spent learning the flight model in real world ww2 planes, compromising your ability to learn the flight model in AH ?
Instead of questioning the validity of the flight model when someone does something you consider not possible in the real world - why dont you just ask them what they did and how they did it ? Its a game , a simulation , it has a relativity to the "real world" most likely , but the most important thing to learn are the flight rules/model of AH , not be worrying all the time about whether the flight model is "real world" perfection . It is what is . Learn it , have fun with it.
-
I fully understand the difference. What I am saying is that according to his numbers/calculation methodology, turn rate is higher AND turn radius is smaller at corner velocity than at sustained turn. Many people do not seem to realize this.
Edit: I understand that the main diff is that turn rate's higher, but the radius issue is still there.
I tried to go to the ta to test this with vertical turns. I was not able to tell precisely but it still felt like that the the slower you were(up to a point, and well below corner speed), the 'tighter the radius, but the slower the dps the turn. If you are trying to prevent an overshoot and you are in the rolling scissors, the larger radius turn will mean you have more forward motion and thus cause you to overshoot correct? I don't quite understand how the faster you are up to corner velocity, the tighter the turn?
-
What I am saying is that according to his numbers/calculation methodology, turn rate is higher AND turn radius is smaller at corner velocity than at sustained turn.
Yep, because that's the way it really works and the calculations reflect that. But that's in a horizontal turn, when you add in a vertical component to the turn things are different. In the rolling scissors, when you are going over the top you have the addition of God's G, and on the underside of the maneuver, even though you may be closer to corner velocity, you have less G available than you would in a horizontal turn and the radius is therefore larger in that situation.
Badboy
-
I don't quite understand how the faster you are up to corner velocity, the tighter the turn?
I'll address this, but only for horizontal turns.
(1) Compare two planes, both going the same speed, but plane A is turning more DPS than plane B. Then plane A should obviously have a tighter turn radius.
(2) Compare another two planes, both having the same DPS but plane A is faster than plane B. Then obviously plane A should have a bigger turn radius.
Up to corner velocity, the faster you are, the more DPS you get. The DPS boost is big enough that it outweighs the effect of going faster on turn radius. In other words the effect of (1) is greater than the effect of (2).
-
I don't quite understand how the faster you are up to corner velocity, the tighter the turn?
Because the turn radius doesn't just depend on speed, it also depends on the radial G. At lower speed a greater proportion of the total lift being generated by the wings is needed to counteract gravity so that the aircraft can maintain the horizontal turn, so less is available for turning. In effect the pilot needs to reduce the bank angle as the speed drops in order to keep the aircraft in the air, so less lift is being used to turn and consequently the turn widens.
As your aircraft gets faster the reverse process occurs. As the speed increases, the total lift increases and so a smaller proportion of it is needed to maintain horizontal flight. The bank angle can therefore be increased so the radial G doing the turning will be a greater proportion of the total lift, so even though the speed is greater the turn will tighten. This will continue all the way up to the G limit, and so the tightest turn will occur at corner.
The catch is that the maximum coefficient of lift for an aircraft isn't really constant, it is influenced by Reynolds and Mach effects and so things are a tad more complicated, particularly as the speed and altitude range for fighters increases. When those factors are taken into account for modern fighters it is possible to see EM diagrams where the best turn radius occurs at corner under certain conditions but where it doesn't occur at corner under other conditions. All you really need is a full set of EM diagrams.
That's the simple explanation, and the good news is that real WWII fighters had a much smaller operating range and the best turn radius in a horizontal turn was at corner.
Hope that helps...
Badboy