What's the best way to...

[SgtPappy]

... Split-S, high/low-yoyo and otherwise change direction?

It seems that as I attempt to gain angles on the opponent, I see myself having to do multiple high-yoyos just to stay in the turning circle, even if I'm in the same aircraft. Sometimes, when I'm at the top of the high yoyo, my plane seems to freeze and it takes ages to get my nose back down again. I'm not used to something like this in other sims; almost stopping when I'm slow. In those sims, my Spitfire is one of the best planes in maneuvering combat under 200 mph. In this game, my aircraft feels way too sloppy under 200.

It seems that just to pull a very tight vertical turn, I have to enter a controlled stall at the top and simply fall. Sure it works, but the time it takes to get into position makes me vulnerable so I can't always do that.

I've tried to really stay at the corner velocity of my Spitfire, but that velocity seems far to high to reach often. Meanwhile, everyone else is turning faster than myself. I've been using combat flaps a lot and very rarely, even landing flaps just to get that extra lift. Am I using them wrong?

How do I best and quickly execute a high yoyo, or some other fast direction-changing maneuver?

[flynlion]

Since any video game will understandibly have a very limited field of vision, I almost always lose sight of my opponent when I try to yo-yo at speed. With this game I find that the only way to change direction quickly is to back off throttle sharply for just a split second as I enter the turn, then add power as soon as I can once my turn is established. This is one aspect of flight sim games that is decidedly UN-realistic, as one would almost never reduce power in a live aircraft in actual combat, and one would certainly never abuse a turbo-charged piston aircraft engine the way we do all the time in BoP. I also never heard of "combat flaps" before I started playing video games. The Spitfire for example had split flaps with only 2 settings, full up or down 90 degrees. Why would anyone add the drag of a split flap before entering combat? All this game play add on stuff may take away from the realism, but it is also fun so what the heck.

[kozzm0]

... Split-S, high/low-yoyo and otherwise change direction?

It seems that as I attempt to gain angles on the opponent, I see myself having to do multiple high-yoyos just to stay in the turning circle, even if I'm in the same aircraft. Sometimes, when I'm at the top of the high yoyo, my plane seems to freeze and it takes ages to get my nose back down again. I'm not used to something like this in other sims; almost stopping when I'm slow. In those sims, my Spitfire is one of the best planes in maneuvering combat under 200 mph. In this game, my aircraft feels way too sloppy under 200.

It seems that just to pull a very tight vertical turn, I have to enter a controlled stall at the top and simply fall. Sure it works, but the time it takes to get into position makes me vulnerable so I can't always do that.

I've tried to really stay at the corner velocity of my Spitfire, but that velocity seems far to high to reach often. Meanwhile, everyone else is turning faster than myself. I've been using combat flaps a lot and very rarely, even landing flaps just to get that extra lift. Am I using them wrong?

How do I best and quickly execute a high yoyo, or some other fast direction-changing maneuver?

It is a big risk to vertical turn a spit- I look for when they do it too slow, and nail them. A slow plane is easy to hit.

There's only one real reason to do it - quick angles leading to a sure shot. If your opponent fails to dodge, you'll get the angles just by reducing the turn radius so much. The problem is you can't turn well at the top of the turn, and your opponent can easily roll out of the way if they see you.

I read somewhere authoritative that the spitfire mk 2's corner speed was around 270 (kph). I think it was in the pilot's manual, either that or an e-m diagram someplace. It seems about right but in BOP I think it's more like 300kph. That would be, about, hmm, about 187mph.

The best opportunity for yo-yo's is near the beginning of the fight, when you've got plenty of speed and can quickly trade it for altitude. But if you find you're chasing some snail pilot round and round at 250kph, you're both below corner speed. The target sacrifices turn rate for low turn radius in a desperate bid to generate angle-off-tail. If you simply try to get inside their circle, you end up making the same trade of high turn rate for low turn radius.

Suppose you don't constantly try to reduce AOT to zero? (this is called "lag pursuit" in the US). Instead keep your plane faster, nearer its corner speed. You'll stay outside the target's circle, but you'll also turn your circle faster than they turn theirs. This means that as long as you're careful not to give them a chance to switch direction and make you overshoot, you break the stalemate. With you doing faster circles, they can't catch you; but since your circles are faster, you can catch them. That's not what you do of course, with lag pursuit catching them would just be passing them on the outside. Instead, you maintain the same distance behind them by trading the extra turn rate for altitude.

When it's done right, this tilts your circle until the top of it is inside your target's circle. That is when you pull max-g and make the low-radius move, turning lag pursuit into lead pursuit.

Also, don't let your eyes deceive you about how fast someone is turning. You can both be turning at a faster rate, yet see the opponent generate AOT by turning lower radius. And even if you're doing the same turn rate and turn radius, they can still get angles because the centers of your turn "circles" are not the same. So no matter which way you turn, the attacker is likely to get at least one shot. That's why lead pursuit is more immediately dangerous, but also risky, because it is much easier to make a lead pursuer overshoot.

When you've got a lead pursuer bearing down on you (when you look all the way up, there they are in the middle of the screen), you need to do more than just pick a direction and turn. If you've got a spit or a hurricane, you can try flat scissors, but they'll still get at least one shot. The attacker's "guns plane" is a 2-d region delineated by the longitudinal and vertical axes of the fighter; meaning their goal is to get you either above or below their fighter's nose and then fire a long burst while keeping you on that line. If you turn as hard as you can, you reduce your ability to roll, giving the attacker the time they need to line you up in their guns plane. But if you roll instead, they can't keep you in their guns plane. The best they can do is roll also, then maneuver for a quick shot as you pass through their guns plane.

[SgtPappy]

I have been meaning to learn how to utilize the lag persuit more effectively. In Aces High II, I used that tactic often with great success in the P-38, but the flight dynamics are different here.

If you have a video of a lag pursuit, I'd like to see that.

Yes, I noticed that executing a rolling scissors can be very effecient to reduce the chances of getting downed by an enemy, but the flight slows down very quickly and I can't seem to stay within corner speed as well as my opponent. Any way to do so in a slo battle like a rolling scissors?

So far I've just been retracting flaps as I dive and drop them into combat position as soon as I start pulling up from 0 fpm climb on the variometer. At the top of the loop, I raise them, dive, rinse, wash, repeat.

[kozzm0]

The rolling scissors is one of my favorite moves, except when I fight Mirgervin, who does it better than me, and counters better when I try to start one.

Almost the sole objective of a rolling scissors is to minimize your forward velocity. It's not important to maintain corner speed, because you get angles by adding the 3d spiral element just like in a Lufbery. It's a way of getting a high degree-of-turn rate at reduced speed. It's almost like a battle of barrel rolls, and you can do those at almost whatever speed. Just keep the speed high enough to maintain the maneuver, and no more.

apply power on the climb, and reduce throttle on the dive. Make the climbs and dives as steep as you can without losing track of the opponent or allowing them space to attack. I can tell you one well-known trick that's supposed to work, but I've never quite been able to do it: at the start of the climb end of a rolling scissors, stop rolling when your plane is level, apply max throttle and pull up to a vertical climb, going higher than the scissors was; then roll 180 and pull the nose down so your plane is inverted horizontal. At this point you should see the opponent in the climb phase and slightly in front, because you momentarily reduced your horizontal V to zero. Pull the nose straight down (facing the direction the scissors is coming from), dive a bit, then roll 180 towards the opponent as they go over the top of their circle. At this point you should be able to keep the throttle low and simply keep rolling until they're in front.

If you can make this work, congratulations - I can't. It also may take more than one high climb to make some opponents overshoot. I just adapt the concept to the basic maneuver - try to move up and down as much as possible, instead of forward.

[PantherAttack2]

Why would anyone add the drag of a split flap before entering combat? All this game play add on stuff may take away from the realism, but it is also fun so what the heck.

I'm no expert on this, but the whole point was to gain an advantage in maneuverability, although at the cost of speed. As far as I'm concerned, combat flaps are a realistic element and is nothing made-up. In BoP, some planes shouldn't have combat flaps, but that doesn't mean all of them shouldn't.

[flynlion]

I'm no expert on this, but the whole point was to gain an advantage in maneuverability, although at the cost of speed. As far as I'm concerned, combat flaps are a realistic element and is nothing made-up. In BoP, some planes shouldn't have combat flaps, but that doesn't mean all of them shouldn't.

Pulling G with flaps deployed is an excellent way to cause structural damage. If anyone can come up with a single example of WW2 fighter that had a recomended "combat flap" setting, I would love to see it. Might be an interesting research project :)

[PantherAttack2]

Pulling G with flaps deployed is an excellent way to cause structural damage. If anyone can come up with a single example of WW2 fighter that had a recomended "combat flap" setting, I would love to see it. Might be an interesting research project :)

I would love to see that too.

And, as I said I'm not an expert at all, but it seems to me like opening flaps to a small degree does help. Obviously you shouldn't have flaps on landing in a dogfight, but flaps at lower angles may help. That's what it looks like, anyways.

[winny]

Pulling G with flaps deployed is an excellent way to cause structural damage. If anyone can come up with a single example of WW2 fighter that had a recomended "combat flap" setting, I would love to see it. Might be an interesting research project :)

Harold W. Scruggs, 24 May 1944, 339th FG "I lowered about 10 degrees flaps and made two 360 degree turns in which I gained rapidly on the E/A…"

Capt. Bradford V. Stevens, 12 September 1944, 339th FG "…I was able to turn inside the Me 109 after dropping 20° flaps."

2nd Lt. Myer R. Winkelman, 6 August 1944, 339th FG "I put down 20° flaps and got on his tail."

2st Lt. S. K. Moats, 29 July 1944, 352nd FG I dropped 20 degrees flaps and after 2 more turns I was closing on the tail of the E/A."

Lt. Glennon T. Moran, 27 May 1944, 352nd FG "We fought for about 20 minutes and it was necessary for me to put down combat flaps three times in order to turn with him."

Major George E. Preddy, 21 June 1944, 352nd FG "He turned into me and I dropped 20 degrees of flaps, out turning him."

1st Lt. Arthur C. Cundy, 14 January 1945, 353rd FG "With throttle pulled back and full flaps down, I overshot this 190."

1st Lt. William J. Cullerton, 2 November 1944, 355th FG "I started to overshoot so I dropped full flaps and gave him another long burst just as he was leveling off to land."

Capt. Walter V. Gresham, 15 August 1944, 355th FG "I downed 40 degrees of flaps and got in another burst which hit him hard."

Capt. Fred R. Haviland, 21 June 1944, 355th FG "At 1,000 feet, I dumped 20 degree flaps and made a turn inside him and started to get within firing range, when the E/A made an abrupt turn, snapped over and crashed into the ground, exploding as he hit the ground."

2nd Lt. Esward Moroney, 2 November 1944, 355th FG "...I put down full flaps and closed on the E/A."
2
All taken from pilots after action reports. (All Mustang pilots) It seems tha 20 degrees was the "combat flap setting"

[kozzm0]

the fw-190 had hydraulic or electric flaps that could be set at full landing, or at a slight 15-degree takeoff/maneuvering setting. It didn't help much, but it had an effect.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

You're right about the spitfire though: no combat flaps on that thing. landing, or nothing. Giving it a combat setting in BOP gives it an unfair advantage. In real life the 109f had a smaller minimum turn radius.

[flynlion]

All taken from pilots after action reports. (All Mustang pilots) It seems tha 20 degrees was the "combat flap setting"

Nice find Winny! :)

So at least on the Mustang, there are some examples of pilots successfully employing partial flaps in combat. I did not know that. But I still think this is more the exception than the rule. The "combat flap" setting was hardly a recommended procedure, even if it could be useful once in a while on certain aircraft in certain situations. I bet a lot of pilots who tried it came home with bent aircraft, if they came home at all.

[winny]

Nice find Winny! :)

So at least on the Mustang, there are some examples of pilots successfully employing partial flaps in combat. I did not know that. But I still think this is more the exception than the rule. The "combat flap" setting was hardly a recommended procedure, even if it could be useful once in a while on certain aircraft in certain situations. I bet a lot of pilots who tried it came home with bent aircraft, if they came home at all.

Just go here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html) There's a whole section on using flaps in P-51's. It's hundreds of combat reports. I've been reading them all day on and off..

[flynlion]

Just go here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html) There's a whole section on using flaps in P-51's. It's hundreds of combat reports. I've been reading them all day on and off..

Wow, lotsa good reading there :cool:
I still haven't found anything concerning flap usage with aircraft other than the P-51, but I'll keep looking. Thanks for finding and posting the link!

[SgtPappy]

the fw-190 had hydraulic or electric flaps that could be set at full landing, or at a slight 15-degree takeoff/maneuvering setting. It didn't help much, but it had an effect.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

You're right about the spitfire though: no combat flaps on that thing. landing, or nothing. Giving it a combat setting in BOP gives it an unfair advantage. In real life the 109f had a smaller minimum turn radius.

It's both an advantage and a disadvantage for the pilot.
In other sims, one could use the landing flaps on a Spit for a sudden decrease in speed at the top of a rolling scissors for example, allwoing a pilot to quickly flip over, retract the flaps and dive on the opponent. I found this very effective in Aces High.

In the other IL-2 games, the landing flaps retracted/deployed much more slowly than in Aces High, so I'd barely use them. In IL-2 however (and Aces High), one could use the superior low speed rate of climb and acceleration the Spitfire VIII/IX had in order to keep at corner velocity or maintain an energy advantage. In BoP, I find that the Spitfire gains speed no better than any other plane, unless the two planes are flying straight and the Spit has a faster top speed. This is a huge disadvantage for me, and I'm finding it quite difficult to energy fight when I can't even gain energy faster than anyone else.

[SgtPappy]

Bump!

Sorry guys, but I'm wondering if anyone's noticed what I'm noticing:

All the piston engine fighters seem to accelerate at the same rate in a straight line. Don't know, but it feels as such when I play.

[kozzm0]

It's both an advantage and a disadvantage for the pilot.
In other sims, one could use the landing flaps on a Spit for a sudden decrease in speed at the top of a rolling scissors for example, allwoing a pilot to quickly flip over, retract the flaps and dive on the opponent. I found this very effective in Aces High.


They made combat-settable flaps for the planes that needed them most, but they didn't really do much good... those planes should mostly stay out of the types of situations combat flaps were designed for.

The 109f got much better results from the, what the hell was it called, the extensions on the front of the wings that increased wing area (to lower loading) when necessary. Clever invention, they don't show them in BOP.

[flynlion]

They made combat-settable flaps for the planes that needed them most, but they didn't really do much good... those planes should mostly stay out of the types of situations combat flaps were designed for.

The 109f got much better results from the, what the hell was it called, the extensions on the front of the wings that increased wing area (to lower loading) when necessary. Clever invention, they don't show them in BOP.

Hi Kozzmo
The leading edge extensions are called "slats", and were designed to allow shorter takeoffs and landings on muddy fields. They were not controlled by the pilot, but were held in the retracted position by airflow and would extend out as airspeed fell below a certain level. Some pilots found this useful in a slow speed turning fight, but many more found that it screwed up their shooting accuracy and flying precision.

[kozzm0]

Hi Kozzmo
The leading edge extensions are called "slats", and were designed to allow shorter takeoffs and landings on muddy fields. They were not controlled by the pilot, but were held in the retracted position by airflow and would extend out as airspeed fell below a certain level. Some pilots found this useful in a slow speed turning fight, but many more found that it screwed up their shooting accuracy and flying precision.

Yeah, that's the things. In other sims I see them automatically drifting forward when I fly a 109f. They look funny, like part of my wings are falling off.

If the pilots didn't like them, they still gave the 109f a great minimum turn radius without having to put big fat wings on the plane. Lot of Luftwaffe aces liked the 109f

[Robotic Pope]

Hi Kozzmo
The leading edge extensions are called "slats", and were designed to allow shorter takeoffs and landings on muddy fields. They were not controlled by the pilot, but were held in the retracted position by airflow and would extend out as airspeed fell below a certain level. Some pilots found this useful in a slow speed turning fight, but many more found that it screwed up their shooting accuracy and flying precision.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/109-spit-hurri-turn.pdf

In section 4 the test pilot tried using 10 degrees flap to improve the turn in a Me109, it didn't work. Also he found the slots/slats to be a disadvantage in a tight turn as they would open unevenly at high G's and cause one wing to stall.

[kozzm0]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/109-spit-hurri-turn.pdf

In section 4 the test pilot tried using 10 degrees flap to improve the turn in a Me109, it didn't work. Also he found the slots/slats to be a disadvantage in a tight turn as they would open unevenly at high G's and cause one wing to stall.

"little if any effect" they said. Combat flaps weren't too effective at getting degrees/s at maneuvering speeds. But they are good for reducing the lower bound of maneuvering speed, which reduces minimum radius. Not usually an advantage, but it can be the deciding factor at the end of a fight. If a fight gets to low radius and low speed, it's also at low g's, if they're low enough for the slats to work, then there are situations where low radius can beat higher turn rate. Like low-level flat scissors.

In Targetware I think they help the 109f at strafing runs which is a better use for them. Not so great for combat but maybe for attack.

also that was a British pilot, the Germans probably knew a few tricks for flying them better

About the piston engine planes, I never really noticed but they do all seem to be pretty much the same, except maybe the fast 109's like K, but maybe that's cause of its top speed. I have noticed that when I try to disengage from a hurricane with a faster piston plane, like a yak-3, the hurricane has an unfair way of keeping pace. In fact I've never exceeded 700kph in level flight in a yak 3, they could do it in real life

[SgtPappy]

Indeed, the slats on 109 wings were able to make the aircraft turn better according to the Germans, and planes like the La-5 and La-7 have them, but I've never noticed them in-game. The cause for the better turning ability is that the slats (according to the diagram below) seem to cause a Bernoulli effect, pressurizing and speeding up the air over the wing. This delays separation of airflow and maintains lift at higher AoA.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/kuvat/SLATTIENVAIKUTUS.JPG
http://www.hyperscale.com/images/006.jpg

I don't know why others haven't noticed before, but I've mentioned it a couple of times as well, kozzm0. :-P There's a lot of error in speed and acceleration; a major problem in an energy fight. Like you said the Yakovlev should pass 700 km/h in level flight, and my Spitfire IX should easily pass 320 mph @ SL. I can't even pass 305 mph. Our inability to accelerate from slower, lower-powered foes makes it nigh impossible to truly energy fight since energy fighters generally have the ability to gain energy faster than their opponents. Since there is no such advantage in BoP, there is nearly no way to really energy fight. Simply we can only extend, climb and BnZ slower aircraft rather than gaining angles on them using superior speed gained from faster acceleration.

[kozzm0]

So the slats enable the wing to add lift without increasing drag? Or to increase AOA without increasing drag?

I had thought of them as just being a way to add area to the wing to decrease loading, but the air flowing through the slots has something to do with it too then.

[Soviet Ace]

If I could just coin in on this little Kozzom0 and SgtPappy conversation. The Yak-3 in which you're both talking about that has a 708km/h speed is the post WW2 Yak-3 that was powered with the unreliable VK-107 or the Western name: M-107. ALL Yak-3s in WW2, were powered with the reliable VK-105PF-2 which put out about 650-655 km/h or so. The VK-107 engine that Klimov created came out too late for WW2, and was originally intended for the Yak-3U, but was put in afterwards which was later taken out because of its unreliability.

So keep to the WW2 Yak-3 which had a VK-105PF-2, not a VK-107. :D Thought I'd correct that. ;)


EDIT: Oh and I forgot to mention, there is no such thing in Soviet history or anywhere of the "VK-1097PF-2" engine. So wikipedia (incase you're interested at all) is wrong on calling it the VK-107PF-2. Specially when they're talking not about a Yak-3U or anything, but just the original Yak-3 (The basic simple one that I personally prefer) which had a real world Soviet VK-105PF-2. No where in my books on Yaks, is there a mention of a VK-107PF-2 engine or anything.

[kozzm0]

EDIT: Oh and I forgot to mention, there is no such thing in Soviet history or anywhere of the "VK-1097PF-2" engine. So wikipedia (incase you're interested at all) is wrong on calling it the VK-107PF-2. Specially when they're talking not about a Yak-3U or anything, but just the original Yak-3 (The basic simple one that I personally prefer) which had a real world Soviet VK-105PF-2. No where in my books on Yaks, is there a mention of a VK-107PF-2 engine or anything.

I could have spent my whole life believing in the vk-107pf-2 engine, if I had ever heard of it. Now if anyone ever says "vk-107pf-2 engine" I will know they're full of crap

Maybe you should fix the wikipedia, the fix will stick since you've got a reference

Ok so the ww2 yak-3 could only do 650... but I can't hit 650 in BOP either. Seems to top out at about 550 for me. Low altitude, of course, could it go faster higher up? I've looked at e/m charts but not altitude performance charts

[Soviet Ace]

I could have spent my whole life believing in the vk-107pf-2 engine, if I had ever heard of it. Now if anyone ever says "vk-107pf-2 engine" I will know they're full of crap

Maybe you should fix the wikipedia, the fix will stick since you've got a reference

Ok so the ww2 yak-3 could only do 650... but I can't hit 650 in BOP either. Seems to top out at about 550 for me. Low altitude, of course, could it go faster higher up? I've looked at e/m charts but not altitude performance charts

Right, the WW2 Yak-3 did 650 km/h, and later could do about 708 km/h with the VK-107. The WW2 Yak-3 best performance at high altitude, was maxed 10,300ft or so. The VK-105PF-2 wasn't much for high altitudes, and could freeze up if at certain altitudes. (More like B-17 altitude etc. I would guess.) Its max ceiling was like 35,000ft but it performed terribly due to its wingspan and all around small body etc. Anyway, I would try it around 10,300ft and see what you get. From my books; that was the Yak-3's best high altitude performance range, and anything higher would probably get the Yak-3 into trouble. Farther down, like sea level down, I'm sure you could get some pretty good speed from the VK-105PF-2, but I haven't tested it myself on BoP. I think the Yak-3 along with all the other planes are a bit inaccurate here and there.

For example, the Yak-3 did not have a ring like the early Yak-1, 7, 9's did.

Picture of a REAL Yak-3 cockpit, everything where it should be. The picture is also in my books, but I found it online so it was easier. :D
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/images15/17.jpg

[SgtPappy]

Thanks Ace, it's good that you arrived when you did. Though you have proven our figures wrong, I think the three of us can agree that our BoP planes are much too slow at least at sea level.

The Spitfire IX in-game has a larger rudder, suggesting it's a late-built model, most of which were equipped with the Merlin 66 engine. Spitfire LF IX (one's with the Merlin 66) could usually pass 330 mph at sea level. You'll notice that isn't anywhere near possible in BoP. If our Mk.IX is indeed modeled after the first Mk.IX's that entered service with the Merlin 61 in 1942, I should still have little problem passing at the VERY least 310 mph without WEP, which again, does not happen. Of course, since all the planes are a little too slow, that shouldnt be much of a problem. The problem arises when the Hurricane behind you reaches 200 mph the same time as your Spitfire IX when you both started at 170 mph. :evil: Acceleration is a very important advantage that some fighters have over others that simply allows for a domnant energy fight.

kozzm0, Lift cannot be produced without drag. When the slats are deployed, they do indeed produce much drag, but that's not a problem when you're pulling alpha trying to out turn someone.

[kozzm0]

I know there has to be drag... I was thinking about how the slats improve performance by "delaying airflow separation," it seems like that would also decrease the difference in pressure on the leading edge. Anyhow they worked, I guess

you've been drafted by team USSR, btw... check the battle for europe thread

Recently I was training with an la7 and my engine was hit so I headed back to land at 55% power... and noticed I was doing over 600. No lack of power in that model.

[Soviet Ace]

Maybe you should fix the wikipedia, the fix will stick since you've got a reference

And let it be said, that I did so. The Yak-3 specifications on Wikipedia, are now 100% accurate for the WW2 Yak-3. :D