[JG14_Josf]

Are you refering to yourself?

Ace of Aces, or Tagart or whoever you are, please stop dragging the discussion down into some personal pissing match. Leave my personal character out of this discussion or you will be ignored - eventually - when it becomes abundantly clear that you offer only personal attacks to a "discussion" that you create by your choices to do so.

Are you refering to yourself?

I am not referring to myself. I am referring to anyone who does not offer a new player, who my have purchased this fine game, information on how THAT PERSON can find out for themselves, without having to rely upon "experts" who troll forums, which plane is the better plane and for what maneuvers the better plane is better.

I took a look at the attached zip and pdf file and your work is missing the Energy Maneuverability fan plot where turn rate is on the vertical left and airspeed is on the horizontal bottom, or I missed it in my brief look at those files.

Like this:



This:



And this:



You have linked for download a zipped .pdf file that includes a Specific Excess Power chart for the P-51, apparently, and also for the P-51 there is an acceleration chart, which is curiously producing remarkably different curves for Ps and Acceleration, and the cause of those differences could help in understanding relative performance, which is the topic.

Thanks for that, it is interesting to me.

The topic is relative performance, because that is what new players find out when presented with a game that models one plane to be far superior than another plane, whereby, each new player can succeed measurably better with the better plane and each new player fails more often with the worse plane, and so the new player asks, and then tries to answer, WHY?

When the professionals finally figured out which attributes made which plane better, the result was Energy Maneuverability, which started as a Scientific Study, or Theory, during the days when John Boyd was working in the United States Air Force, and the obvious "fruit of that labor" is well documented on the Naviar site, where modern measures of relative performance is mathematically precise.

The new player of the game asks WHY?

The modern military professionals ask WHY?

The same question is answered with the same answer.

Which information answers which specific question best?

If there is only one chart to use, to know which plane is better, then the EM chart shown above, with one plane superimposed over another plane, showing the Accelerated Stall line, showing the Sustained Turn Stall line, Showing Corner Speed, showing level flight minimum speed and maximum speed for that altitude, and the person, professional fighter pilot or person playing a game, can then compare and know which plane, not pilot, which plane is obviously superior to the other and WHY one plane is obviously superior to the other plane.

The F-86 versus the Mig-15 INFORMATION, plotted on that one chart, and most likely based upon actual flight test data, such as the flight tests described in the Navair site, to find that specific flight test data, is a very good Study for this topic in particular.

If the only tests being done are climb tests, for example, then the Mig-15 shines as the better plane.

If the only tests being done are Corner Speed tests, then the F-86 is the far superior plane.

If the only tests being done are Top Speed tests, then again the F-86 is the far superior plane.

In fact, and before the scientific methods of measuring relative performance precisely were applied to the F-86 versus the Mig-15, the claim at the time was that the Mig-15, on paper, should be the superior fighter, since the Mig-15 could out climb, out turn in sustained turns, and was capable of much higher altitude than the F-86, but, as happened, the F-86, for many reasons, including the tactics used, the teamwork used, the training, the pilots, and other things, many reasons, the F-86 was dominating the overall tally of victories in the total number of combat sorties at that time.

So the question then, before that work was done, was the same question here, now, as to why one plane is better than the other precisely, and in that case the F-86 was so much more successful than the better turning (sustained turn) Mig-15, the same Mig-15, with the faster climb rate.

The most obvious result of the tests plotted on the graph is the superior Corner Speed, far superior Corner Speed, held by the F-86.

Why might that be significant?

You may not have any interest in knowing the answer, and you may only want to turn this discussion into some nebulous pissing match, but there may be other people, in fact I know there are other people, because other people contact me in private and express interest, in knowing these answers to these questions.

Examples of which tactics work in the better Energy Fighter, where in this case the better Energy Fighter is plotted on a graph with a better Corner Speed and this better Energy Fighter is plotted on the same graph with a much worse Sustained Turn Performance, so the Angles Fighter can Angles Fight the wings off the Energy Fighter on that Graph, but what actually happened in combat, where are the examples of actual combat?

Examples:

http://stephenesherman.com/discussio..._vs_sabre.html

John Boyd, (Mr. Energy Maneuverability, 40 second Boyd, & the Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War) did a complex analysis of the MiG vs. Sabre issue. Initially he too was puzzled at the Sabre's marked superiority in relation to it's Korean Combat record, being as the 2 aircraft on paper, seem so evenly matched. He took into consideration all the factors and conventional wisdom, (narrow advantage Sabre) and it still didn't quite all add up to a 10-1 kill ratio. After further research, interviews, and deep analysis, he concluded that the Sabre possessed a quicker instantaneous rate of turn, that is to say it could transition faster, from one maneuver to another. This is what gave the Sabre pilots a decisive advantage. Put another way, instantaneous rate of turn, (analogy "knife fight in a telephone booth") was more important than sustained turn rate, in the Korean theatre.

http://acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html

It depends on the circumstances of the combat. On several occasions, I dogfought, like World War I, with a MiG. Once we started fighting about 37,000 feet, went around and around down to the ground and back up to about 26,000, before I shot him down. So that hadn’t changed much since World Wars One and Two. It was very exciting and a lot of fun. On a couple of other occasions, we caught them when they didn’t know we were there. That was just a matter of going in and shooting down an unaware pilot. But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker. We didn’t try to climb with them, because they could climb higher than we could. We tried to keep the combat on those elements where we had an advantage. Whenever they were gaining an advantage, we could always leave, we could always turn around and dive away.

If there were those same EM charts, made accurately, made by way of actually plotting the actual performance of the planes in the game, then all this fluff in these forums would be relatively meaning-less.

A plane with both a better Corner Speed and a better Sustained Turn time would obviously be Double Superior, meaning that the Double Superior plane would be more capable of employing Angles AND Energy tactics over the poorly performing opponent PLANE since the poorly performing opponent plane is modeled with a poor Sustained Performance and a poor Instantaneous Performance - shown uncontroversially on one chart.

Your Specific Excess Power chart and your level flight acceleration chart, one chart for one plane, which may be calculated, or may actually be representative of actual flight test data, performed in a controlled environment, repeated for validity, employing more than one pilot to remove the pilot factor, to make the pilot variable into a pilot constant, is ONE plane on the single chart, it is not a superimposed illustration of which plane is capable of greater acceleration or higher Specific Excess Power compared to the other.

So...if less work and more benefit is the goal, then the EM chart, rather than the Specific Excess Power chart, and the Level Flight Acceleration Chart is preferable and an EM chart with superimposed Accelerated Stall lines and Sustained Turn lines are preferable to having two separate charts for each plane, because that is how the professionals did it, when they asked the same questions asked by the new players, or the curious Combat Flight Simulator Enthusiasts, where the idea is to know, precisely, which PLANE, not which pilot, is the better performing plane.

As to actually putting up or shutting up, my level of interest is well past the need to use your advice, or anyone else's advice, in how I can best know which plane works best in which situations, since I evaluate each combat situation, finding out what I can do, and what I cannot do, each time. My interest has moved from the classic "Duel" into team tactics and that has continued to be a work in progress for over 25 years.

If someone wanted to put up or shut up, concerning the claim made by the person making the claim that the 109 is a "perfect" energy fighter, then that person could put up, and that person could describe, or demonstrate, how the 109 is a "perfect" energy fighter, instead of dodging the question and resorting to the diversion from that "put up or shut up" challenge and diverting the "discussion" onto which pilot is better.

Then you step in with the chip on your shoulder, for some reason.

I appreciate the .pdf files, and that is why I respond to you.

As explained above, there seems to be missing in your work those EM charts that work so well in comparing which planes have which advantages (sustained and/or accelerated turn performance) side by side on the same chart.

The professionals, such as John Boyd, Eric Brown, Robert Shaw, and others have asked these questions and have provided much in the way of usable answers.

If, on the other hand, there was a need for a pissing match, then why not start a Ladder, and start putting up or shutting up, with the game, and have fun with the game, instead of resorting to insulting me on a forum?

So instead spending time beating yourself up and talking to yourself in the 3rd person, spend that time pulling your data togther and puting it into a presentable format and post it here for all to see!

No, you may fail to understand the concept of me being an individual person who has personal goals that have nothing to do with you. I engage my time and effort onto these forums to offer the information that I have found along the way where I share an interest with anyone who wants to find out which plane is better than another plane and why that plane is better and how that performance advantage can be used in simulated air combat.

I have my ways of reaching the goals I set, and attacking someone else's character on a forum is not on the list.

If you want to begin, with my help, plotting EM charts on a graph, then that can be arranged, but Track Files may work better, in my opinion.

Two people on two computers hooked up through the internet and one is in a Spitfire and one is in a 109 and Sustained Turn Performance is tested.

That would show the Sustained Turn Performance LINE on the EM chart, and it would be illustrated on the track file, not on an EM chart, so new players would not have to look at and decipher what the Sustained Turn Performance Line is on an EM chart.

New players could load up the track file, and see for themselves which plane has the much better Sustained Turn Performance, and by how much the Spitfire can turn right around from being in front of the 109 to shooting at the 109.

No more room for subjective opinions and if someone claims to be a better 109 pilot, then they can join in on the fun and produce the track file that proves their claim.

You don't want to do that?

You do?

Let me know.

Then both players begin at altitude one plane right behind the other, and both planes find Corner Speed in a diving spiral turn.

Again a track file is recorded.

That information from that test will prove, without any lingering doubt, which plane is the better Energy Fighter. It will prove to be true when performing those tests, one plane will be either superior to the other or both planes will be the same. If one plane blacks out in a much larger turn radius, there will no longer be any more room to make false claims about one plane being a "perfect" energy fighter.

You don't want to do that?

No track files for you?

You do want to do that, so you will let me know, and we can begin to arrange for that to be done.

Next is unloaded dive performance, side by side, from a specific altitude, and then pulling out on the deck, for one test, both planes side by side, level flight, then pitching over into a dive, or rolling into a dive if the Spitfire carburetor is a problem, both planes rolled upside down, level flight, side by side, then pulled into an unloaded dive straight down, then pulled out of the dive, both planes working to pull out at the deck, not one plane sooner than the other, and then unloaded zoom climb, to see which plane tops out higher than the other.

Track files.

Which plane is the perfect Energy Fighter?

Or, start a duel ladder, you, me, whomever, not me, since I'm such a poor pilot according to my personal character assassin, and if such a thing as a Dueling Ladder does take off, with many new challengers vying to be all that they can be, the evidence mounts, without any further controversy as to which plane keeps on winning against which plane regardless of which pilot is flying it.

No, you don't want to start a dueling ladder?

You do, and you prefer that over the side by side tests that we will both be doing soon on our calenders?

I have not been banned and this thread isn't locked yet, so make my day, whoever you are.