Unofficial Trainers - Read This Please

[Zazen13]

If you do that, you are neither on the stall line (lift limit line in the figure below) or pulling a sustainable turn in terms of energy loss.
(Image removed from quote.)

Ok, in that diagram if am going 300 in a Spit and pull 6G's to come around on someone after a pass you would consider that stallfighting?

[Murdr]

Ok, in that diagram if am going 300 in a Spit and pull 6G's to come around on someone after a pass you would consider that stallfighting?

You still would not be sustaing maneuvers on the stall/lift limit line.

[Zazen13]

You still would not be sustaing maneuvers on the stall/lift limit line.

Ahh, I see the line you're talking about...So, what you're saying is anytime someone rides that curve at some point in an engagement you consider them to be stall fighting? Even if the maneuver along that line is simply performed in the course of exploiting an advantage gained largely by a fundamentally different methodology, E fighting for example? If that's true then there are no such things as stallfighters, angles fighters or E fighters because there cannot be air combat without at least some use of at least two of the three techniques at some point. Does that sound right?

[Badboy]

Ok, let me get this straight, if I blow through at 500 mph and pull 6 G's to come back around for another pass  I am stallfighting according to your definition?

Nope, I think you must have misunderstood something I said previously, because at 500mph you would be well above corner velocity and as I explained earlier, you can't stall fight above corner velocity, only below it. That's because if you are above your corner velocity you will either reach the structural limit or black out before you reach the stall, so you simply can't stall fight above corner velocity, you just can't reach that edge of the envelope.

Badboy

[Badboy]

Ok, in that diagram if am going 300 in a Spit and pull 6G's to come around on someone after a pass you would consider that stallfighting?

Nope, again because you would be well above corner velocity and unable to reach the stall.

Badboy

[Zazen13]

Nope, I think you must have misunderstood something I said previously, because at 500mph you would be well above corner velocity and as I explained earlier, you can't stall fight above corner velocity, only below it. That's because if you are above your corner velocity you will either reach the structural limit or black out before you reach the stall, so you simply can't stall fight above corner velocity, you just can't reach that edge of the envelope.

Badboy

Yea, I wrote that with the assumption of decelerating through the maneuver to whatever that corner velocity is for a particular plane, I don't have the charts myself so was hard to describe the question...Murd posted one though that illustrates that.

[Zazen13]

Nope, again because you would be well above corner velocity and unable to reach the stall.

Badboy

Yea, I see the curve you're describing now.

But, my problem with that is, virtually any fight that goes more than one turn so long as it reaches that velocity on the curve is stallfighting. But, It is also has to be E fighting or angles fighting before it gets to that point.  By those definitions that dissect an engagement in slide-show fashion, like in my leg example, you remove the distinction between pilot styles, plane types and fights in general. You could no longer say something like, "I was E fighting a Fw190 in my P51D" or "I had a great stallfight in my Spit with a 109". Because, it's impossible to just E fight, or just Stallfight by those definitions..

My perspective is if the fight is predominantly an Energy fight you were E fighting, even if at some points you did in fact get to the corner velocity/stall/lift line point. The same with your example where you were stallfighting but performed some maneuvers to regain some E. Just because you eased off the turn and got some E doesn't make that E fighting. It's just a means to an end when it comes to the methodology, because there has to be at least a small technique overlap as relative E states get wider or you get further away from the ideal corner velocity.

[Badboy]

Ahh, I see the line you're talking about...So, what you're saying is anytime someone rides that curve at some point in an engagement you consider them to be stall fighting?

Ok, you should be looking at the line that defines the left hand side of the envelope, the lift limit or stall line and only between the points defined as the best sustained turn speed and corner velocity. Fly close to that line between those points and yes, you are considered to be stall fighting.

Even if the maneuver along that line is simply performed in the course of exploiting an advantage gained largely by a fundamentally different methodology, E fighting for example?

That is totally irrelevant, you could be angles or energy fighting at the time, and it is often appropriate to stall fight while doing both.

If that's true then there are no such things as stallfighters, angles fighters or E fighters because there cannot be air combat without at least some use of at least two of the three techniques at some point.

Sorry, I can't quite make sense out of that last quote, but I think I can see where the confusion is coming from, in that quote you mention stall fighters, angle fighters and energy fighters as though they each represent a distinct tactical approach, but they don't, you have given stall fighting a status it doesn't deserve. If you check your copy of Shaw, you will see that he only describes two basic approaches: the "angles" fight and the "energy" fight, you will notice that he doesn't ever refer to stall fighting.

Badboy

[Murdr]

Good, I was hoping a graph might help distinguish between being G-limited (not able to reach stall conditions), and stall limited.

So, what you're saying is anytime someone rides that curve at some point in an engagement you consider them to be stall fighting?

For the duration that they ride the lift limit curve, yes.  As soon as they stop riding the curve for whatever reason, they are no longer stall fighting.

[Badboy]

But, my problem with that is, virtually any fight that goes more than one turn so long as it reaches that velocity on the curve is stallfighting. But, It is also has to be E fighting or angles fighting before it gets to that point.  By those definitions that dissect an engagement in slide-show fashion, like in my leg example, you remove the distinction between pilot styles, plane types and fights in general. You could no longer say something like, "I was E fighting a Fw190 in my P51D" or "I had a great stallfight in my Spit with a 109". Because, it's impossible to just E fight, or just Stallfight by those definitions..

Nope, the distinction is still there. You would still say that you were energy or angles fighting, stall fighting is something you might do as part of either approach, it just depends on the other factors.

My perspective is if the fight is predominantly an Energy fight you were E fighting, even if at some points you did in fact get to the corner velocity/stall/lift line point.

Correct! Remember that energy fighting is the tactical approach to the engagement, stall fighting is just something you may or may not do in the course of it.

The same with your example where you were stallfighting but performed some maneuvers to regain some E. Just because you eased off the turn and got some E doesn't make that E fighting.

You don't always need to ease off on the stick to be energy fighting, you can be energy fighting while riding the stall the whole time. Energy fighting can simply mean that you only use maneuvers that provide energy retention relative to the maneuvers being used by your opponent, so that while you may be energy fighting and your opponent may be angles fighting, you may both also be stall fighting... they aren't mutually exclusive.

Hope that helps.

Badboy

[Murdr]

When someone tries to describe an engagment as "I was in a 5 minute stall fight", they are trying to convey the conditions of where in the envelope the fight took place.  If both planes were constantly riding the edge of stall either turning a luftberry for 5 minutes, or in a slow speed rolling scissors fight for 5 minutes, that description makes sense.  Obviously that description wouldn't make sense if one plane was riding the edge of stall for 30 seconds out of a 5 minute engagment. 

But at heart it is a condition that one may be in during the course of a fight, which people then attempt to use as a way to describe the fight.

[Zazen13]

basic approaches: the "angles" fight and the "energy" fight, you will notice that he doesn't ever refer to stall fighting.

Badboy

Ok, this will help. You can angles fight without stallfighting, angles fighting is exchanging energy for angles even if it results in the net loss of relative E. It wouldn't seem to me stallfighting would be a requirement of that. You wouldn't necessarily have to get to to the ideal curve to angles fight, although it would be better to do so obviously. So, they can, at least in theory, be two different things?...So, I could angles fight without stallfighting and in theory if I never gave up angle to gain relative E on my opponent I wouldn't be E fighting either?

[Zazen13]

When someone tries to describe an engagment as "I was in a 5 minute stall fight", they are trying to convey the conditions of where in the envelope the fight took place.  If both planes were constantly riding the edge of stall either turning a luftberry for 5 minutes, or in a slow speed rolling scissors fight for 5 minutes, that description makes sense.  Obviously that description wouldn't make sense if one plane was riding the edge of stall for 30 seconds out of a 5 minute engagment. 

But at heart it is a condition that one may be in during the course of a fight, which people then attempt to use as a way to describe the fight.

Ok, that's what I'm talking about. If I'm in a Pony and I'm E fighting, but once in a while I burn E to get to my corner speed to get tight with a bandit to keep him from escaping or giving him enough time to improve his position I'm technically stallfighting once I get there. But, in actuality it's really just the use of E fighting which is exchanging angles for relative energy in reverse (angles fighting). For a moment during that reversal of technique it is indeed angles fighting, but then stallfighting as I approach and reach my ideal corner speed to come around on him for the killing blow. But really, it's all part of the E fighting methodology, in practice in can't be pure, but is the overall technique...

[Zazen13]

You don't always need to ease off on the stick to be energy fighting, you can be energy fighting while riding the stall the whole time. Energy fighting can simply mean that you only use maneuvers that provide energy retention relative to the maneuvers being used by your opponent, so that while you may be energy fighting and your opponent may be angles fighting, you may both also be stall fighting... they aren't mutually exclusive.

Hope that helps.

Badboy

Can you give me an example of this, a diagram or a reference page in Shaw's that gives an example? I want to reconcile the theory of this with the actual practice...Murdr used a scissors fight example but can you think of another example that would fit this description?

[Badboy]

Can you give me an example of this, a diagram or a reference page in Shaw's that gives an example? I want to reconcile the theory of this with the actual practice...Murdr used a scissors fight example but can you think of another example that would fit this description?

Sure... Consider two similar aircraft, let's say Spitfires, both same altitude, same speed (some speed below corner velocity) and neutral positions. You will picture them in a nose to tail turn on opposite sides of the circle, everything at this point is equal.

However, one of the pilots has the mindset of an angles fighter, let's call him Pilot A, the other pilot has the mindset of an energy fighter, let's call him Pilot B. Now, Pilot A wants to gain angles and he knows that he can maximise his turn rate by flying at corner velocity so he initiates a low yo-yo and maintains sufficient aft stick to stay on the edge of the stall. As he descends into the low yo-yo his speed increases and so does his turn rate, he is gaining angles. So far so good.

Now let's look at Pilot B's response. He can see Pilot A initiate a low yo-yo and recognises that Pilot A is attempting to gain an angular advantage, so his response is to enter a shallow spiral climb in order to gain a little altitude and make it more difficult for Pilot A to get a shot as he exits at the top of  his low yo-yo. He also pulls sufficient aft stick to remain at the edge of the stall, because he knows that he will also need to maximise his turn rate in the spiral climb and make it more difficult for Pilot A to get that shot. At the end of the maneuver sequence, Pilot A may have come very close to getting a shot, but for the sake of argument, let's say he didn't quite get his nose into position.

Now let's consider their relative energy situation. During this fight Pilot A increased his speed in the low yo-yo and pulled more G, both of which increased drag and cost energy. Also because his speed increased, he also lost thrust and that cost energy too. Pilot B maintained a maximum sustained turn at a lower speed and lower G therefore less drag and more thrust so he will have gained energy relative to pilot A. There will now be a significant energy difference between the two fighters. The fight is a long way from being over, but we can stop here because the point below can now be made

During that evolution, both aircraft were stall fighting the entire time. However, one had the intention of sacrificing energy for angles and flew his aircraft accordingly, and the other had the intention of sacrificing angles for energy and he also flew accordingly. One was the angles fighter, the other was the energy fighter and they were both stall fighting the whole time.

Hope that explanation helps to clarify it for you.

Badboy