Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[thorsim]

once again, i have nowhere in this or any other thread discounted the loadings.  

please stop misrepresenting my point so you will be able to disagree with it.

it is tiresome

Ahem, have you noticed all the examples where an aircraft is larger, sometimes *literally* double the weight of another aircraft yet has *superior* maneuver performance through superior loading? That should tell you something.

[Ack-Ack]

i had always heard it described as a dive break,

It's a common mistake.  The Grandaddy of online flight sims got it wrong too, AW had incorrectly modeled air brakes on the P-38J-25-L0 instead of dive flaps.  It was the king of overshoots, using the air brakes was like slamming on the brakes in a car but then AW wasn't about the flight modeling.

ack-ack

[BnZs]

once again, i have nowhere in this or any other thread discounted the loadings.  

please stop misrepresenting my point so you will be able to disagree with it.

it is tiresome

Point? Do you have one? The physical mechanism is by altering its flight path by bringing lift to bear against its inertia. How well it does this is defined by the ratio of how much lift vs. how much inertia. That is it. You can not demonstrate one valid physical reason why the weight alone should change anything, principally because it in reality, does not. You can not even clearly define *any* effect you think weight should have on aircraft performance, other than saying you feel it should "worsen" it in some way, much less define a mechanism by which this is accomplished. You have stated that you think a weightier airplane should loose energy (read: airspeed) in turns faster than a lighter one. Thus demonstrating that you are ignorant of the fact that airspeed loss in turning has nothing to do with weight, and everything to do with increase in drag caused by increased AoA. In point of fact, a heavier object has more inertia and will tend to slow down *less*, all other things being equal. They are of course not equal because a heavier object will need more lift to alter its trajectory, which will in turn require inducing more drag, thus nullifying any advantage inertia would otherwise bring.

Do three things for me.

1. Clearly define what effect you *think* weight should have independent of loading factors.

2. Show the physics by which this effect works.

3. Explain just how you discovered that all aeronautical engineers have been wrong for years.

[hitech]

once again, i have nowhere in this or any other thread discounted the loadings.  

please stop misrepresenting my point so you will be able to disagree with it.

it is tiresome

15 Has no grasp of simple debating logic.

"Wight In and By it's self effects maneuverability."

That statement by simple logic implies that with the same loadings but different weights , maneuverability MUST changes, I.E. you have completely discounted loadings.  

Or are you now saying loadings are what changes the maneuverability in which case you now say that weight in and by itself does not effect maneuverability?

HiTech

[thorsim]

no sirs someone at some point back said that a plane 2x as big and heavy but with the same loadings would maneuver exactly the same as its smaller lighter counterpart.

i do not agree. 

you can reduce that to an appreciable amount, say greater than 15% ...

i.e. the same loadings or similar within say 2-5%, but 15-25% bigger and heavier and i think that the smaller lighter advantage would reveal itself in the real world even if it does not do so in the math or computer modeling, and invite real world proof of my premise one way or another.

Point? Do you have one? The physical mechanism is by altering its flight path by bringing lift to bear against its inertia. How well it does this is defined by the ratio of how much lift vs. how much inertia. That is it. You can not demonstrate one valid physical reason why the weight alone should change anything, principally because it in reality, does not. You can not even clearly define *any* effect you think weight should have on aircraft performance, other than saying you feel it should "worsen" it in some way, much less define a mechanism by which this is accomplished. You have stated that you think a weightier airplane should loose energy (read: airspeed) in turns faster than a lighter one. Thus demonstrating that you are ignorant of the fact that airspeed loss in turning has nothing to do with weight, and everything to do with increase in drag caused by increased AoA. In point of fact, a heavier object has more inertia and will tend to slow down *less*, all other things being equal. They are of course not equal because a heavier object will need more lift to alter its trajectory, which will in turn require inducing more drag, thus nullifying any advantage inertia would otherwise bring.

Do three things for me.

1. Clearly define what effect you *think* weight should have independent of loading factors.

2. Show the physics by which this effect works.

3. Explain just how you discovered that all aeronautical engineers have been wrong for years.

15 Has no grasp of simple debating logic.

"Wight In and By it's self effects maneuverability."

That statement by simple logic implies that with the same loadings but different weights , maneuverability MUST changes, I.E. you have completely discounted loadings. 

Or are you now saying loadings are what changes the maneuverability in which case you now say that weight in and by itself does not effect maneuverability?

HiTech

[hitech]

BNZ: 2 + 2 = 4.

Thor: No it is not its 5 , and here is why I think so
I believe that addition does not work when dealing with 2's so 2 + 2 = 5

BNZ: Please prove that.

Thor: Ok my proof is because I believe so.

HiTech

[warphoenix]

i'm know i'm just  a begginer but I have 2 a.v.a. kills in a f4u. like people are saying it depends on pilots skill. but another  thing it also depends on how well the pilots play to their advantages and disadvantages.now here's a tip on f4u attacks.its a senario, you in a f4u vs. an a6m: play to your supirier speed and and your supirier armament and your opponent will most likely play to his supirier agility but he's almost  out of ammo and you haven't fired a shot since your last dogfight  2 sorties ago! so just make him over shoot his turn and lead him heavily with your 6 .50 mgs
but people don't fight in here ok?

[thorsim]

once again misquoted and having that misquote argued with ...

are you the reason this happens here so much hitech?

BNZ: 2 + 2 = 4.

Thor: No it is not its 5 , and here is why I think so
I believe that addition does not work when dealing with 2's so 2 + 2 = 5

BNZ: Please prove that.

Thor: Ok my proof is because I believe so.

HiTech

[Bronk]

The XVI is ridiculously superior to 90% of what it faces, outside of other Merlin Spits, because of the same physical principles I am outlining. In a war, I myself would have squeezed Goerrings fat-head until he gave me *multiple* squadrons of Spitfires. In a game, if you think it is healthy for gameplay for one tool to be ridiculously superior to another tool, then we must agree to disagree.

Well said.
 

[Ack-Ack]

i'm know i'm just  a begginer but I have 2 a.v.a. kills in a f4u. like people are saying it depends on pilots skill. but another  thing it also depends on how well the pilots play to their advantages and disadvantages.now here's a tip on f4u attacks.its a senario, you in a f4u vs. an a6m: play to your supirier speed and and your supirier armament and your opponent will most likely play to his supirier agility but he's almost  out of ammo and you haven't fired a shot since your last dogfight  2 sorties ago! so just make him over shoot his turn and lead him heavily with your 6 .50 mgs
but people don't fight in here ok?

What you described is all part of 'pilot skill'. 


ack-ack

[BnZs]

What effect do you think heavier weight should have on aircraft performance, independent of loading factors, and where is the physics demonstrating that this would be the case?

[thorsim]

i think it would cause the plane to lag behind in comparison when moving against it's own momentum

What effect do you think heavier weight should have on aircraft performance, independent of loading factors, and where is the physics demonstrating that this would be the case?

[BnZs]

i think it would cause the plane to lag behind in comparison when moving against it's own momentum

And this means what exactly? Do you predict a reduction turn rate, roll rate, an increase in turn radius, what? And do please show the math for the physics involved.

[warphoenix]

What you described is all part of 'pilot skill'. 


ack-ack

that is what it was suppost demonstrate

[thorsim]

maybe i should use the word inertia rather than momentum but what i am getting at is these ...

when you move the controls the forces on the control surfaces move the aircraft this is not an instant thing i.e. full stick left does not result in full roll left instantly, there is a lag as the mass of the aircraft gains momentum.  reverse the input instantly and there is more lag as there is more opposing inertia to overcome by the forces on the control surfaces.  the more inertia the more time is lost.  

planes skid, throttle changes do not result instantly in increased speed, roll are not reversed instantly even in good rolling aircraft, i think the smaller lighter planes have an easier time with all these things simply because they have less inertia to be moved around by the fluid air and the force it can apply.  

control surfaces, props, and airframes are not 100% efficient, extreme input changes do not result in extreme direction changes instantly and the more inertia or momentum to over come, the more delay there will be while these things over come the inertia of the aircraft.  i think smaller lighter aircraft are "quicker" or more nimble because they are dealing with less inertia, and that has real word consequences for over all maneuverability.  

why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?

And this means what exactly? Do you predict a reduction turn rate, roll rate, an increase in turn radius, what? And do please show the math for the physics involved.