|
diving extension/pitch-back
Quote:
Low altitude, 1 vs 1, boom&zoom, easily solve the spitfire@your 6. It sounds impossible for Il2 FM. |
I would like to see that il Il2 too
Interesting read from "Fighter Combat" by Shaw.
It could indeed be nice to have two ace pilots from our community to fly and record the engagement such as described in your post to show other less skilled pilots how to fight with the Jug (in the IL2 1946 environment and at the same altitudes). I'm sure it would be very instructive. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quick combat in IL2: 1 Ace Spitfire LF IXc vs. 1 Ace P-47D-10, 2000 meters, Normandy map. ~20 trials with AI on for both planes. P-47D-10/Spitfire wins about 45% of the time, with about 10% double-kills. But, the only time the P-47 wins is if it takes out the Spitfire in the first head-on pass. If the Spit survives the first pass with its engine running, it wins the fight. As always, even Ace AI shows a suicidal tendency towards head-on passes against well-armed foes. AI P-47 pilots almost never use the plane's superior roll rate to make barrel rolls - just aileron rolls. Also, they never use the plane's superior speed to extend range to break off the fight or "drag the fight upstairs" where the jug would have the advantage. That aside, if there were two human opponents facing off, and they were both smart enough to avoid head-on passes, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But, that might just be realistic. In the historical dogfight described above, Shaw refers to Robert Johnson as "one of the greatest natural fighter pilots" while we don't know how good the Spitfire pilot was. Also, it was a mock dogfight, so there was no damage. The Spitfire was in a position to take shots which could have ended the fight before Johnson was able to get into firing position. So, realistically, in a maneuver fight at low altitude, the Spitfire's superior overall maneuverability, climb rate and cannon armament might give it the edge over the jug's slightly better speed, zoom climb and roll rate. |
Quote:
2) when P47C begins to dive, even a rockie pilot of spitfire could push full forward throttle with 3000rpm engine. A ace for spitfire? no help. 3) in Il2, you even can not extend to a safe distance beyond spitfire IX shoot range if both have similar initial energy. Leave alone "Pitch back". |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If I am the P47C pilot caught by a spitfire IX below 5000ft(1500m) alt, the first step is "dive extend" to 800-1000m safe distance, at this time, both are near deck. Then I begin to zoom carefully keeping spitfire IX from entering 500m shooting range. Is that possible? Johnson said spitfire can't get closer. LOL . Finally, when I begin to hammer around, I should be out of spit shoot range, 600m? Furthermore, this is not only 600m distance, but also 600m higher. Only with this energy advantage, could I turn back and point my guns to spitfire. Isn't it? If I get only 200-300m higher, I can barely turn back to spitfire. When P47C vs SpitIX mock combat(1942late -1943 mid), there was no Tempest. In 1944, allied knew that Tempest could outdive/outzoom P47 slightly/somehow. BTW, spitfire IX F,HF, even LF could outclimb P47C/D-early at high altitude,ie 8000m high. :) Funny. Of course, P47Dlate P47M/N is another story, P47M =Spitfire XIV @climb high alt. |
Whats your pull up angle? Maybe you're pulling up too sharply and he's cutting the corner. It's a common mistake. I use this in turn fighters all the time... any time someone pulls a dive with a zoom pull up they cut it too tightly and that's where I have them... if they were smarter they would have easily out zoomed me and pulled away.
|
Quote:
I think 45 degree or so dive/zoom is usually fine, but that depends on initial energy difference/distance etc. Just be careful, if your a/c has the dive/zoom advantage, you will finally hold the energy, that's energy fight. |
Quote:
Modify your technique.. see if it helps. Maybe it will. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
However we must take into consideration that Shaw refers to Johnson's book in order to make a "scientific" point: it IS possible for a heavy energy fighter such as the P47 to win against T/B fighter in a dogfight. Here P47 wins -no question- against Spitfire. It is not just about pilots different skill levels (ace vs noob), it is about what can be done if an aircraft is flown correctly. Remember that Shaw does NOT care about opinions: he rather tries as engineer and pilot to make scientific statements (read: things that actually work in the real world) about how one can win against a disimilar aircraft. His book is something that must help fighter pilots to survive and win, not something that could lead to death. Surely Shaw would not make a statement or illustrate a point with an inapropriate example: he knows what he's talking about. I don't see why he would describe a mock combat if it was of any use in an actual combat. My understanding is: during a well executed engagement a properly flown P47 could hold the fight against a properly flown Spitfire. This is why i find BlackBerry's questionning very interesting and why i wanted to ask for aces pilots around here to do a demo showing how it is possible to hold a fight in a P47 against a Spitfire under 5000 ft ceiling. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We don't have a P-47C so we can't test that directly. With any of the P-47D's I know I could easily out dive a Spitfire and put some serious distance between myself and the Spit. The pull up I'm somewhat less certain of. I'd have to read up on the technique involved for sure. |
Quote:
But, you make a good point. The P-47D had a vastly improved rate of climb, so there's no excuse for it to get consistently out-climbed by the Spitfire in the game, especially when zooming. AI isn't bad, other than being aggressive about taking head-on shots. Not up to an ace human pilot's skill, but challenging enough for ordinary players. But, it certainly doesn't know how to take advantage of the P-47's strong points. My point was that the P-47 isn't as hapless in the game as people claim it is, although it certainly isn't going to win a maneuver fight against a Spitfire with its current FM/physics modeling. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And when we are quoting Shaw this is the part that precedes the paragraph quoted by BlackBerry. Quote:
|
something new its makes me want to fly a p-47 (:
|
I see -not surprising, since we are all humans- that everyone can have another interpretation when it comes to quoting a text, i'm just proposing my cheap one that's all:
Quote:
But later when talking specifically about Spitfire IX and Thunderbolt P47C, Shaw doesn't go on with the double inferior argument since P47C is faster (superior top speed) and accelerates faster in a dive, thus neutralizing excess power of the "double superior" aircraft. The Spitfire in the example given is not completely a "double superior" (even with 25% better power loading, 25% lower wing loading advantage the Spitfire does NOT have top speed advantage or dive acceleration advantage) aircraft. Here is the difference with the part you quote, which completely correct in its context. The part you are quoting precisely refers to: " Excess power OFTEN results in excess speed and a tendency to overrun or overshoot the adversary." Robert L. Shaw, p.183 The key word being "often": that means "not always", just like in the P47c vs Spitfire IX example described later: "The Thunderbolt only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P47's heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance. Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension." idem, p.184 It is not something like cooperating enemy to me... This is why i still find BlackBerry's questionning valid: i think he has good points actually. But that is just my interpretation. |
Quote:
True for pedals, you would need them no question for such a test. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I never fought Spits with P-47 in game but I fought many Spits with FW and what happened in the Johnson's story is absolutely possible to do in game if Spit pilot is not very good. And for all we know Spit pilot from the story could be an ATA ferry pilot pitted against one of the best American pilots. |
Quote:
Much more useful is test pilot reports and performance analysis. Even then, you want a lot of data. In fairness to the IL2 AI, I did the same auto-pilot P-47D-10 vs. Spitfire Mk IXc test I ran earlier, but with Ace P-47 and Rookie Spitfire. Not surprisingly, it usually plays out exactly as Johnson described it. Assuming that the Spitfire survives the head-on pass, the engagement generally goes like this: 1) Spitfire burns off too much E in turns trying to follow the P-47's zoom climb or dive in the first pass. 2) Once the spit loses enough E, P-47 uses marginally better top speed and superior dive or zoom climb to extend. 3) P-47 extends, zoom climbs, turns into the opponent, and rolls and climbs as the Spitfire comes in for another head-on pass, getting a ~45 degree deflection shot on the Spitfire's forward quarter. Spit takes mortal damage to its engine or gets shot up badly enough that it loses its speed/ maneuverability advantage. 4) P-47 finishes off the Spit at its leisure. |
Quote:
Quote:
Remember here what Johnson states in the quote: "But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom". So apparently it was a known technique to use dive to gain energy advantage with the P47, as Shaw also say : "Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension". It seems to me that Shaw understands that it is common to increase energy in a diving extension, at least to the point of having 'energy advantage". But, of course, that is only my interpretation, and you're entitled to yours. You'll also notice how he states: "German fighter" and not the noob friendly and cooperating fighter. He is talking about actual combat experience, and this shows that the Spitfire pilot may not be as poor skilled as you may want us to believe. Johnson talk with actual combat experience, he would certainly not lose his time telling such a minor feat as beating a noob Spitfire pilot in a mock fight, when he has so many other victories to talk about. He tells us a story with actual combat in mind. Otherwise ask yourself why Shaw would have discuss this -according to you- poor example in his book? Come on... Quote:
First the Spit dives trying to follow the Thunderbolt diving, then only after being outmaneuvered trying to match the P47 in the zoom (this is the important part of the episode BTW) comes its first (and last) hard turn described as "skidding around hard and coming in on my tail". After that the Spitfire pilots is unable to follow rolls as Johnson "just refused to turn".Then the P47 enters the last dive of the mock combat followed by the fatal zoom climb. Question to you: where are all the hard-ernergy-killer turns you are talking about? The Spitfire only turns hard once, so definitely not many hard turns here: anyway, if this only hard turn is enough to kill the Spitfire energy potential vs a P47, then there must be quite a performance problem in the game vs reality IMHO. But that's just a question. As for counter measures, ha! there always a tactic against another tactic! Quote:
I also know well that one can shoot down an unexperience or a surprised pilot online, but still i would like to see a track of it (following more or less what Johnson describes in the account and especially the crucial part: "He couldn't make it; the big Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show off the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward, soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back; the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position. But my advantage was only the zoom—once in steady climb, he had me. " AND ESPECIALLY "I gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. "). And as for the ferry pilot, unlike you i don't know for sure, but i really doubt so -for reasons already mentionned in my above remarks. The maneuvers he performed that day were the same he used in actual combat against the Luftwaffe. |
Quote:
I hear you about anecdotes... However, here the anecdotal evidence is illustrating a general trend which applies to energy fighters, there's nothing like amazing feats here. Shaw's book is about physics and about techniques that work in actual combat: its a method. ("Robert L. Shaw holds a masters degree in aeronautical engineering and is a veteran of fourteen years in U.S. Navy fighter aviation. His assignments have included duty as a carrier-based fighter pilot, an operationnal test pilot, and test director for the Navy's Air Combat Maneuvering Range (ACMR)." 4000 hours in F4 and F14 fighter, the man knows what he's talking about here. |
2 Attachment(s)
RegRag1977, I agree with you. Shaw's P47C vs SpitfireIX story is to demonstrate combat tactic, the emphasis is "method" not " a rookie spitfire's pilot failure." My interpretation is below, notice that I care about their energy state all along the mock fighting.
Let P47C's energy(including both speed and altitude) is Ep. Let Spitfire IX energy is Es. 1) At first, P47C and spitfireIX in formation. So, Ep=Es. Neither are full throttle. Quote:
2) then P47C full throttle to a higher speed, sometime later, spitfire followed with full throttle. There is some distance between p47c and spit because p47 speed up earlier, and p47 has a somewhat higher speed due to higher Vmax. Whether the p47c dives slightly or not is not important because spit is chasing p47c at same altitude with a little lower speed. Now, Ep>Es, only slightly difference. (20-30km/h slower?) Quote:
3) Quote:
4) Quote:
At this stage, Ep>Es. still slightly advantage. 5) Turning point comes when both speed drops to sth. 300km/h? and below. Zoom period is finished. Continues low speed climb is here. Of course, spit9 outclimb p47c. Finnaly, spit9 fly ahead of and above of p47c and still keeping climb. Certainly, spitfire has opportunity of shooting at p47c at late period of zooming when distant is quite smaller. Now p47c behind of and lower than spit, and spit begin to turn around in low speed, and try to ride on p47c's 6clock again. This stage, spitfire pilot might grin happily. spit9 win! spitfireIX has both angle(before overshoot) and energy: Ep<Es. spitfire's somehow higher energy comes from its better climb rate(25 percent better power loading.) 6) Quote:
The most important is that the spitfireIX has both angle and energy! and this is at low altitude, only 5000ft. spitfireIX is ready to get to firing position. This is a typical nightmare for those caught by a spitfire at low alt. Quote:
7) P47c begin to barrel/scissors with better roll rate. But this could NOT establish energy advantage, just make spitfire not get into firing pisition. Ep=Es, approximately. The distance between them is enlarging due to spitfire's lag in roll maneuver. . Quote:
8 )Now big time comes, p47c begin to dive, this is the beginning of dive extend/pitch back tactic. If spitfire follows, this will be the beginning of spitfire's failure regardless who is the pilot of spitfire. Even you are the best spitfire pilot in the world, if you dare to follow, you lose, your excellent skills could NOT avoid being out-energy by p47c. Quote:
Distant between them? Don't know. But it should be greater than the time before barrel/scissors. 9) The dive continues, speed higher and higher, p47c dive acceleration advantage show off. Even spitfireIX has same initial energy, p47c will establish energy advantage during dive. Of course, spitfire could not get closer to p47c, on the contrary, p47c is farer and farer away from spitfireIX.When they reach lowest point of the dive and begin level flight. P47c has more speed, same alt with spit. So, Ep>>Es. and the distance is quite enough for the next maneuver----pitch back. Quote:
10) P47c begin to zoom. This is the second zoom. The first zoom earlier is from not-so-high speed, and p47c get caught by spit. This time is different because p47c zoom from HIGH SPEED after a dive. Spitfire could NOT get closer to p47c even spit could cut the corner, in such a high speed zoom. High Speed is p47c's "secret weapon". Spitfire pilot probably wants to repeat the first zoom, catch p47c when both speed drops to low. But BEFORE that, p47c has already established energy advantage, and spitfire could never get close to p47c, leave alone "overshoot" p47c. Ep>>>Es ! When p47c speed drops to low, at the same time, spitfire IX speed also drops to low. But P47c is quite higher than spitfire, and p47c's altitude is so high that p47c could turn back to spitIX. Amazing. With il2 FB experience we know that p47c should be 500m+ higher than spitfire, otherwise, p47c have no enough space to turn back and spitfire will shoot p47c down. Quote:
Thus we know Shaw's opinion, P47C establish sufficient energy advantage over spitfireIX by "dive extend/pitch back" tactic. Why? Spitfire is bleeding energy during high speed straight flight---dive and zoom. Spitfire pilot not stupid, he will NOT tight turn while P47c fly straight. Both of them straight fly, but P47c bleeds spitfireIX's energy in straight flight. That's the key. If you are bleeding energy in straight flight, you could do nothing. ACE pilot=rookie pilot during this period. All you should do is to think about how to avoid shot down in the next few minutes by a higher energy opponent. To reproduce in il2 FB, we need NOT barrel/scissor maneuver, just let p47c fly 400m ahead of spitfireIX, same speed, same altitude,ie 5000ft. Then p47c begin to dive extend (near deck) and pitch back, SpitfireIX FOLLOWS. We'll see how much energy advantage p47c establishes when finish the tactic. In real combat, if spitfire don't follow, p47c just dive away and go home, that's small case. |
Quote:
For Johnson, he begin to dive when s spitfireIX on his 6 o'clock, not head to head. A)Bleeding a tight turning spitfireIX's energy is very easy. An experienced spit pilot will NOT let this happen. He also wanna bleed your energy. :) B)Bleeding a straight flight spitfireIX's energy is your real task. If you accomplish this, you may beat a Spitfire ACE. This is the purpose of Shaw's text, he is NOT saying how to beat a rookie opponent, he is telling us how to implement your aircraft performance, how to beat a kind of aircraft. Follow his instruction, you will establish energy advantage regardless who is the opponent pilot. ACE or rookie? No difference. You don't need to care about it. To reproduce in il2 FB, we need NOT barrel/scissor maneuver, just let p47c fly 400m ahead of spitfireIX, same speed, same altitude,ie 5000ft. Then p47c begin to dive extend (near deck) and pitch back, SpitfireIX FOLLOWS. After extend to deck, you begin to zoom, the zoom angle as you wish. We'll see how much energy advantage p47c/d10 establishes when finish the tactic(speed drops to 300km/h). Fly straight during the whole process, don't evade spit's bullet. Good luck.:-P |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you want to build E in WWII environment than climb, climb, climb. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
P-47 rolls and turn gently Spit follow the roll and turns inside P-47 rolls to the other side and turns Spit can't follow the roll so he is still turning left when P-47 is already turning right. When Spit has rolled and turning right Johnson repeats everything again but to the other side. With every roll and turn Johnson is putting Spit outside of his turn and that force Spit to turn harder every time to get inside of P-47 turn. This creates E difference and separation which enables Johnson to perform vertical move and beat the Spit. Basic premises of E fight is denying the vertical moves to your opponent, now ask yourself, why Spit didn't pull into vertical and meet P-47 head-on, that would be a draw. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Very precise description, we should have begin with this for better understanding of Johnson's account. This will be of great interest especially to people like Fatcat believing that the Spitfire pilot burnt all his energy in hard turns. |
Quote:
I was looking for more arguments, and no personal attacks... Quote:
Are you trying to make your point against mine by comparing a standard WW2 design with a prototype? Would that be scientific or prove comprehension ability and familiarity with BFM,ACM and physics in general? Or agenda and other Kindergarten stuff? You're right it is not relevant. Quote:
Frankly, i don't understand your strange comparison with cars, i did not know cars and WW2 aircraft were so close in design that we could compare them, i leave you with that, and instead i ask you to think about what it does mean when successful fighter pilots tell you something like that: "no modern allied aircraft engaged in PTO could turn inside an A6M type", maybe it will help you to understand Johnson statement. Quote:
Quote:
haha It seems like that you cannot bear the idea of a famous Spitfire being shot down, and this is childish to me. It appears YOU have an agenda (with the Spitfire), not me. Quote:
Quote:
Please read points 7 and 8 in BlackBerry's last post remark on a small detail: Strange what you say about rolling around longitudinal axis and losing E: I always thought aileron rolling was considered E neutral....Maybe for some reasons it is not so for P47? Quote:
Quote:
|
What power settings did the Spitfire use while following through the rolls and then the dive? What engine did it have?
|
Quote:
|
Not really a question of what performance did the plane have, but rather of what performance the pilot chose to get out of it. I'd be surprised if he went all out all the time for several reasons, but then I don't see any information about it, and I don't want to get involved in speculation.
However, I would want to warn anyone to draw and insist on general conclusions based on an anecdotal piece of evidence where parts of the most important information are missing. This hardly ever helps to clarify anything, yet often is very misleading. |
Quote:
I just based my interpretation of performance on details like " I openend the throttle full", "a moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me", granted Johnson knows what he's talking about, being a succesful fighter pilot. But it's clear that we would need more specific information to have a definite word on the subject. My point was just that perhaps the P47 could hold the fight against a Spitfire by using its advantages i.e. dive acceleration and top speed, better zoom climb performance. And i must insist that i am not discussing a point here in order to change something in the game: that is not my purpose at all. |
Quote:
With regard to P47's pilot, Robert S. Johnson, he is so famous that easy to find his information. http://acepilots.com/usaaf_rsj.html 1945, Robert was an ACE, but in 1943 April, he was indeed a rookie pilot in P47. His first combat, first meeting Luftwaffe was may 14th 1943. What a rookie pilot was he at that time! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My interpretation is that, in a 1v1 low altitude dogfight, an experienced RAF pilot flied new 18lbs boost SpifireIX, was beaten by a American rookie pilot in a P47C by the tactic named "dive extension/pitch back" before mid-April 1943 when 56th Fighter Group had never met Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe along english channel in April 1943, on the other hand, was elite. For example, JG26 "The Abbeville Boys". :) But Johnson said" But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. " Thus we don't need to suspect the level of RAF's pilot. Imaging RAF pilot using only 60% throttle in zoom in that famous mock combat is also amusing. |
Similarly, a 9lbs boost Tempest MkV could outdive and outzoom a 18lb spitfire XIV, although both have 2000HP engine.
We know tempest slightly outdive/outzoom P47D, spitfireXIV slightly outdive/outzoom spitfireIX. *http://www.hawkertempest.se/TacticalTrials.htm Quote:
Very similar to Johnson's text about P47C vs SpitfireIX mock combat. I estimate that 9lbs TempestMKV will beat a 18lbs SpitfireXIV with dive extension/pitch back tactic when spit is on tempest's 6 o'clock with same initial speed, same initial altitude,ie 1500m. Believe it or not. Dive and zoom have different periods, a certain aircraft performance will vary at different period. For example, 1943 Italy, p47 vs fw190g Quote:
Quote:
1)climb extension/pitch back : works fine in il2 2)dive extension/pitch back: works bad in il2 Sad news for allied P47,P51 and Tempest. Hope cliff of Dover bring us more accurate allied aircrafts. Those lighter/small propeller Russian aircrafts should answer for their design style in boom and zoom. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.