the turn fight and why it kills

[BnZs]

Crutch: The word "fight" implies there will be maneuvering, I.E, turning. Sure, opportunities to dive in at Mach .6 and shoot unaware opposition abound in multiplayer flight sims. However, I think the fact that there are opportunities to do something *else* is what makes these games remain worth playing.

Getting down to the nitty gritty of an actual engagement with another decent pilot will always "anchor you in place" to a certain extent, I.E you will have to actually maneuver and loose energy instead of booming along at 400 plus. As far as new players go, I think the idea that if you fly a hot plane very fast you will be tough to catch is one they grasp easily enough, and more time must be spent opening their minds to the other things they can do in air combat. Encouraging them to "avoid the turn fight" is not a productive turn of phrase IMHO.

[crutch]

BnZ, correct  every encounter that isnt a quick drive-by shooting in the back will 'fix' you in place.

but you can fight smart and keep your 'escape' window open if the situation goes to pot.  by the time you are in a circle fight on the deck you are fixed in place with no escape options at all barring a friendly base full of ack next door.

I just want players to be aware of options beside the full blown circle fight.

[BaldEagl]

I just want players to be aware of options beside the full blown circle fight.

But wasn't your entire post about the "full blown circle fight"?  I initially thought you were trying to help people manage that type of fight so why in the end say avoid it entirely?

I also have a bone to pick.  You say the best way to win a turn fight is to avoid it.  You don't actually win that way unless your definition of a win is to not get into a fight at all.  Unless of course you call picking, vulching or killing an unaware player a "fight".

[crutch]

my initial posts were about what is going on inside of a circle fight.  I think I have shown that just slamming the throttle to the wall and motoring through turn after turn isnt going to win a fight.  some planes are perfect for circle fights, A6m, Hurricane, 109F.  for them to sucker someone else into a turn fight is to their advantage. pure circle fights are for the isolation of a duel not the MA where such a fight is a magnet for someone else to drop in an 'pick' the loser.

I have been in many excellent fights, of 10 mins or more, where I never turned more than 90/180 degrees at a time. these were not running fights but fights that ranged from 10K to 15K to 1K, love that stuff

[FLS]

It isn't your aircraft that determines it's suitability for a turn fight, it's your target's aircraft that does.

I've had a lot of good turn fights in the MA, you just have to drag your target away from the furball.

[BnZs]

my initial posts were about what is going on inside of a circle fight.  I think I have shown that just slamming the throttle to the wall and motoring through turn after turn isnt going to win a fight.  some planes are perfect for circle fights, A6m, Hurricane, 109F.  for them to sucker someone else into a turn fight is to their advantage. pure circle fights are for the isolation of a duel not the MA where such a fight is a magnet for someone else to drop in an 'pick' the loser.

I have been in many excellent fights, of 10 mins or more, where I never turned more than 90/180 degrees at a time. these were not running fights but fights that ranged from 10K to 15K to 1K, love that stuff

WWII airplanes don't have enough power to sustain turns at their best rates. So, after you've bled down to below corner speed and are still turning, there are plenty of reasons to keep your throttle balls-to-the-wall, and even that won't be enough power. Assuming you are trying to gain in the nose-to-tail chase. Nose-to-nose turning may introduce a geometry where forward velocity temporarily becomes more important than any other performance aspect and "hitting the brakes" is the way to go.


Well, if you are defining "turning fights" as a Lufberry, I find even in "duels" in WWII airplanes, someone usually wins before it comes to that. Most of the time guy who may loose a little position on the merge establishes a scissors and you're off.

[Damionte]

I for one found the initial posts informative in a sense. They explained something I already knew in a different way thus making it all the more clear.

Not every explanation works for every student.

The tittle is misleading though. Which I beleive is the real problem people have with the post.

The later points he made about the environmental dangers of getting into a turn fight really have more to do with why a turn fight gets you killed than the nature of a sustained turn.

Also need to keep in mind that was he's talking about here is only an excerpt from a larger topic. It's not the entire chapter written on that subject, it's just a piece of it. Taken out of context as it has been and posted as a sample of a larger work I suppose it can be misleading.

[humble]

BnZ, correct  every encounter that isnt a quick drive-by shooting in the back will 'fix' you in place.

but you can fight smart and keep your 'escape' window open if the situation goes to pot.  by the time you are in a circle fight on the deck you are fixed in place with no escape options at all barring a friendly base full of ack next door.

I just want players to be aware of options beside the full blown circle fight.

While I find the initial offering here to be of interest in a clinical sense the simple reality is that position and relative performance determine tactics. This is on it's surface only applicable advice if you are in a superior position and/or plane. As badboy alluded to to it is the combination of correct ACM applied with consideration for circumstance and E state that will enable the better pilot to persevere regardless of initial position or plane performance a majority of the time. Anytime I see advice focused on keeping options open and an escape window I question the source. This is in no way meant as an attack but an observation. If you have an "escape window" that means you have control of the fight. Accordingly your goal is simple, find it, fix it, kill it. Nothing more nothing less. A good pilot operating in a +E environment against an average opponent shouldn't take more then 30-45 seconds to end a fight once he has his opponents measure. The better the opponents plane the more important this consideration is. The threat you let linger is the one that makes things complicated later on.

From my perspective the entire objective of +E ACM is to kill your target as quickly and efficiently as possible. Circumstance will dictate tactics but given a window to vanquish a single con before other enemy planes enter the area that should be your objective. In the event that you are engaged by a plane in superior position and/or superior performance then you need to be able to both fly to your enemies weaknesses and understand how to create opportunities to extend and reset the fight. The single biggest misconception I see is players with a superior E state "extending", the reality is that only a pilot in a negative E state or inferior position looks to maneuver to extend and reengage on more favorable terms.

[Badboy]

The tittle is misleading though. Which I beleive is the real problem people have with the post.

I agree about the title, but the reason I responded had more to do with factual errors, some of which I have pointed out, and the bad advice.

The later points he made about the environmental dangers of getting into a turn fight really have more to do with why a turn fight gets you killed than the nature of a sustained turn.

True, but players want to turn fight, it can be fun and very rewarding, especially when you know how to win and when you have the skill to win and survive consistently in such fights. It isn't easy to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to prevail in a hard turning engagement, for anyone who wants to learn how, simply avoiding those fights because of the risk is certainly not the best way to go. If you want to be good at turn fighting, you have to do it a lot, and in doing it you won't just get better at it, you will also acquire the situational awareness necessary to judge when the circumstances allow you to fully commit and when they don't. But you won't ever get there if you think the only way to win a turn fight is not to get in one.

Also need to keep in mind that was he's talking about here is only an excerpt from a larger topic. It's not the entire chapter written on that subject, it's just a piece of it. Taken out of context as it has been and posted as a sample of a larger work I suppose it can be misleading.

Forgive me for being blunt, but it isn't just misleading, some of the advice is poor and the concluding statement isn't just bad advice, it is plain wrong. The examples are flawed and there are a number of factual errors. It doesn't get much worse.

Badboy

[Wreked]

Forgive me for being blunt, but it isn't just misleading, some of the advice is poor and the concluding statement isn't just bad advice, it is plain wrong. The examples are flawed and there are a number of factual errors. It doesn't get much worse.

Badboy - no insult intended but it seems to me you're a wee bit harsh here. I suspect your views for game play (technical/ACMs aside) are bang on for those who follow the "fight" style but there are many who play from a different perspective and crutch makes some valid points.

I believe I got crutch's intent from the 1st - using some physical representations he attempted to show what the end result of furballing/turn fighting leads to - you get low and slow - easy meat for incoming cons. Perhaps he was incorrect in some of his physics/ACM examples but he was dead on in his view of the end result.

Now the issue arises in determining the validity of his suppositions. IMHO as usual it becomes a comparison between those who see this game ONLY as a "fight" environment and those who see it as an "air combat simulation".

I, as many others, have no real interest in this "fight" concept of playing. I view my style of play more as a "hunter/killer" style of play. I enjoy greatly the hunt for the con - always make it a point to attack from a position of superioriy - try to know when to disengage and reset - AND I get a huge charge out of seeing the con explode into many peices - preferably with lots of flames - crys of rage - lamenting of their women.....

But the fight means little to me - I strive towards making a kill preferably in the style as the majority of WWII kills occured - without the enemy pilot even seeing me.

The "fight" people are more than welcome to fly the way they see fit in the stlye of their dueling rules - OTOH many others decide to fly more along the lines that the Main is a combat simulation (many play it as nothing more than practice for the WWII reenactment events and wish to hone the skills used their - much different from dueling rules - in effect there are basically no combat rules in FSO's etc.).

Personally I do not think the seemingly constant negative comments made about those who see the "style of play" differently are one bit benificial. Perhaps those sort of comments aren't meant to be so harsh but once again the failings of the internet easily can misrepresent intent.

To coin a phrase out of context : "Can't we all just learn to get along together?" - both in the virtual air and on the boards.


....cheers eh!

[humble]

What if your plane choices don't allow you to fight from a position of superiority?

[Wreked]

What if your plane choices don't allow you to fight from a position of superiority?

Don't confuse fighting to your planes strengths as being unable to defend it's weaknesses - I fly exclusively the 190A8 in the Main.  Except on initial contact I am rarely in a position of superiority - I do OK.

.....cheers eh!

[humble]

My question wasn't specific to a given plane type but we'll use your A8. If you have are +E vs a pony or Tiffie are you going to press home an attack or look to preserve a "way out"? If the bogey driver is competent then the odds of you landing are seriously compromised if you let him equalize E state with you. I'm not advocating any type of ACM stupidity but simply recognizing that when your +E your objective is to kill the other guy....this is doubly true if the con has the ability to seize control of the engagement over time. as above.

[Wreked]

Well in my view it is as important to know your opponents weaknesses as well as strengths. The trick is to balance out the 2 in comparison to your rides attributes.

A couple of "dippsie doodle" moves come in handy too!! <---only known by us Canadians

What I mean by that is there are things that many people are unconfortable with - flying through forested areas below tree level being one 
Pulling negative G's and what I've coined as a "roller coaster" <---putting the enemy alternatly into black out/red out/black out in short order till they loose sight of you (better sticks don't fall for it - drat!!)

Knowing how to defeat/survive an opponent when you are cornered is important!
Better through smart flying not to find yourself in that position.

I'd venture that would be the end point/intent of this discussion.

.....just my opinion eh!

[Badboy]

Badboy - no insult intended but it seems to me you're a wee bit harsh here.

No insult taken, and actually I wasn't being harsh. I have been as kind as I possibly could, and probably kinder than I should, because the original post is probably a good deal worse than many realise.

I suspect your views for game play (technical/ACMs aside) are bang on for those who follow the "fight" style but there are many who play from a different perspective and crutch makes some valid points.

On the contrary, I haven't expressed my views for game play, and my comments addressed the significant number of factual errors.

Now the issue arises in determining the validity of his suppositions.

Nope, the factual errors in the original post remain regardless of anyone's "views for game play", and even if the original post had been an exposition on the value of one style of play over another my response regarding the factual errors would have been same. And for the record, I value both styles of play equally.

Personally I do not think the seemingly constant negative comments made about those who see the "style of play" differently are one bit benificial. Perhaps those sort of comments aren't meant to be so harsh but once again the failings of the internet easily can misrepresent intent.

I agree, but once again I should point out that my comments addressed the facts, not "views for game play" as you claim. To illustrate that let me provide another example. Let's just take a closer look at just one of the points made in the original post.

Pilot ‘A’ thinks he can catch up to pilot ‘B’ by increasing his airspeed and he pushes his throttle to the stop, accelerating to 275 IAS. He is starting to black out at 3 Gs and he does not want to pull any more. Will he catch pilot ‘B’?  No

Firstly, this example was taken from the highly unlikely situation of two pilots flying Spitfires in a duel and staying at 250mph and 3G, but now we discover they were both also not even at full throttle. But I doubt that anyone would get the impression that you should begin a duel by entering a 3G flat turn while throttled back? After all, that is so unrealistic it is almost absurd. But since it isn't even credible, and since even new players learn fairly quickly that you need to pull more than 3G if you are trying to out turn someone, and your speed won't really stay at 250mph for long, no real harm done... after all it is only an example right? 

Wrong! Things just get worse from there, because the post continues by stating that when pilot A increases power, he doesn't tighten his turn because he begins to black out at 3G.

Apart from the obvious fact that 3G is a tad low for blackouts, this leads the original poster to the conclusion that increasing power in a turn won't help, the final sentence is fairly convincing... Will he catch pilot B? No!

Wrong again, if both pilots fly this fight as they should, increasing power will allow them to maintain higher turn rates for longer, and eventually they will both end up in a sustained turn at the lift limit, at which point they may well be only able to pull a little more than 3G, the important point is that increasing power will increase the speed in the turn, it will also increase the G, and it will also increase the turn rate, and all that for very little loss in radius. It is absolutely the right thing to do.

So, by just looking at one tiny part of his post, we see that the example was flawed, both the values used and situation described were unrealistic. The calculations put forward to support the example were wrong, and the conclusions  drawn from the example was wrong. Even worse, the conclusion wasn't just wrong, it led to the complete opposite notion of the right thing to do to win in a turn fight.

Does any of that have anything to do with what style of play anyone prefers?  Possibly, it looks as though the original poster was projecting his preferences into an aspect of air combat that he doesn't fully understand.

And that's just one small part of the original post, most of the rest falls apart under similar scrutiny.

Badboy