Energy Maneuverability

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Wow, Josf back! Lets see; we also have Kurfy and Taggert. Now we just need Luftluuver back from the dead and the chart wars can really commence! Bring it on!

Don't forget M_Gunz.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Please consider the possibility that the Corner Speed point at the top of the graph is the maximum turn performance for those planes as they were flown during testing by Chuck Yeager and John Boyd as they had available to them a captured Mig and F-86s. John Boyd was working on finding out why the F-86 was defeating the Migs.

Note the much smaller turn rate for the F-86 and the much faster turn rate despite the Mig 15 pushed to a higher g on that graph.

The other curves are Sustained Turn Performance curves or Specific Excess Power at 0, or Ps=0 whereby the plane is not gaining or losing any energy while it is on that line at those speeds, those g loads, and that line is a turn at those speeds, full power, where the pilot is flying a plane in a turn not gaining or losing altitude and the far right point is Top Speed and as soon as the pilot starts turning in a level turn a new plot is added to the line and the pilot could stay at that plot with a very wide turn not gaining and not losing altitude, and the pilot can tighten the turn and make a new plot, not gaining altitude, not losing altitude, not accelerating, not decelerating, flying at that bank angle, full throttle, coordinated turn, full power, and if the bank angle is moved even steeper, and steeper, maintaining level flight, the end result is a stall and that is the far left point on that lower curve which is The Sustained Turn Performance Envelope, and notice, please, how the Mig is much better at Sustained Turns compared to the F-86 except if both planes are turning a Sustained Turn at speeds above .7 Mach at which time the F-86 can out turn the Mig if the Mig pilot tried to follow at that airspeed (but the Mig can just cut the turn).

The obvious interesting observation that may be inspired by the differences in the Accelerated Stall line, if you are now following the meaning of those line on that chart, is the question as to why the Mig Accelerated Stall Performance Deteriorates rapidly with speed compared to the F-86.

If you have the Corner Speed g load LINE confused as a g suit line and you have the Sustained Turn Performance LINE confused with a non g suit line, then you may also have the Accelerated Stall LINE confused too.

I don't know, but I appreciate the effort to learn from those Charts because they are made for a very specific reason relative to Energy Maneuverability which is the modern method of quantifying the specific advantages one plane has over another plane UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

Interesting to that end is the concept of wing deformation under g load and such things could be factors contributing to changes in the theoretical or calculated accelerated stall line as the actual plane can or cannot actually fly on that theoretical ideal Accelerated Stall Line.

The Fw190, in particular, as reported by more than one source, was known to have a wing that deformed under g, and the twist would twist out of it, causing the plane to become less stable, to the point where the pilot had to relax stick pressure or the g load would increase because the wing deformed and therefore lift forces were increasing as the washout was untwisted from the wing.

If you want I can site sources. I have one source on the shelf in the form of a book by Eric Brown who was a World War II test pilot (British).

Simply said, a faster plane fighting at higher speed will loose less E than a slower plane fighting him at the same speed. So keep your Speed high and turn fast. Soomething that some here never agreed to understand (by conformism). Great to hear your voice on that theme here !


Illustration:
1.Kelly J. was never ashamed of the 104 small wing.... He was asked to build a high manoevrable supersonic plane !
2. this where the canards Eu planes are missing the 5th gen contest (the Raf being the less affected in fact): too draggy at high speed to really move like a fish!

EDIT: there is some archive movies on Youtube with Yeager and Boyd flying the 15. I think I posted somewhere (Warclouds ?) a link to a doc

[JG14_Josf]

Illustration:
1.Kelly J. was never ashamed of the 104 small wing.... He was asked to build a high manoevrable supersonic plane !
2. this where the canards Eu planes are missing the 5th gen contest (the Raf being the less affected in fact): too draggy at high speed to really move like a fish!

Thanks,

There may be much more to that illustration than I can comprehend but a similar illustration is provided with the development of the Fw190. The first working prototype was built with a smaller wing and after testing there was a decision made to make the wing longer or to conform more to the concept of lower wing-loading or higher power-loading which are parts of that Ps equation where T/W (Total Thrust or Power Available) is measured against, or subtracted by D/W (Total Drag or Power Required).

Less wing is less drag.

Look at the Spitfire wing, compare it to a TA-152 wing, and what could be an obvious conclusion made relative to Energy Maneuverability?

Source for Fw190 Wing Development:

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=2509994

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

I want to acknowledge the fact that I do not know for sure that the Korea Era EM by Boyd was based upon flight tests done by Boyd and or Yeager, my copy of BOYD was loaned out years ago and I think that that is where the idea that that chart was plotted on tests, NOT CALCULATED, came from.

Yes indeed, Boyd was a great fighter pilot in real life, in fact no one did ever beat the 40 seconds Boyd in the Hun rat fight at Nellis. That is why and how he managed to quantify the principles of the dogfight in the first place. If you want to do the same (in the CloD environment), you would need to be spectacular fighter pilot in the CloD environment. You are not a spectacular fighter pilot in the CloD environment just yet. Mastering the fighter type in question is a key to measure the parameters correctly.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

109s and 190s, Double Inferior or not, does not matter to me,

No simulator known to me portrayed the 109s and 190s as double inferior. This must consider other sim than CloD as there is no 190 in CloD, hence it is off topic.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

I fly what I bring to the fight, unless I get tired of seeing too many very odd things happening where planes can fight in front of me while I am approaching at top speed, and then the guy fighting in a turn fight in front of me is now level with me, after turning and burning, diving and returning to my altitude, and then that same plane zooms up, turns around, starts shooting, while my plane is stalling and incapable of maneuvering from Top Speed in Level Flight on this odd plane that can turn and burn all day and still have enough energy to zoom high enough over me to then perform a pitch over, or who knows, maybe a turn at Corner Speed, and turn the tables at will.

This sounds like you met a fighter pilot superior to you (if he flew the same type) or a fighter pilot flying a superior type to yours. There is always a bigger fish in the pond.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Sustained Turn Performance with the Pylons, as you have described, could begin to quantify a Standard measure of physical distance relative to the ground, you are thinking in terms of making a Ruler, and this Ruler will then have graduations on it, like meters, so that one meter, on that ground is always that meter, not longer, not shorter, it is one meter in length, and the pylons are a known distance across the diameter, which is twice the radius, and the circumference is then a simple math calculation using pie (not apple).

That is the stuff that is ON TOPIC.

I agree again but by doing that kind of flying you will become a test pilot rather than fighter pilot.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

In an informal test on-line with IL2, for example, I remember clearly a case of me following Task in a 109 or 190, I can't remember, and I was in a P-39 at the time, we were both at maximum turn performance and I asked Task on TS if he was at Black Out, which he was, and I was easily able to pull back on the stick, no Black Out, pull lead in that very tight, very fast, maximum performance turn, where Task was at Black Out, and I could happily shoot parts off the plane Task was flying as Task was at his useable Corner Velocity and as I was far from it. I know my air speed was higher because I was closing the distant between Task and my plane before I started pulling lead. If you understand Energy Maneuverability then you understand, based upon that test data, that the P-39 PILOT could tolerate a higher g load than the PILOT modeled into the plane that is flying at a lower speed, at Black Out, and the turn radius is larger for the Blacking Out Pilot, there are few possible explanations, the most obvious one is a lower g tolerance for that pilot.

Again, complete different flight sim to CloD, I would like to inform you that all planes have got the G-limit modelled identically. In other words, the G tolerance in that sim is modelled exactly the same in that particular other sim. That is a FACT.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

If the Quake pilots don't like a Single Superior 109, what do you think they will be willing to do, as in deception, when they have to face a 190A-3 in a Spitfire V, or face an F-86 in a Mig-15, if the game codes the actual relative performance differences?

What is a quake pilot? What is your tactics in a Spitfire Mk.Vb against a Fw 190A-3?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Wow, Josf back! Lets see; we also have Kurfy and Taggert. Now we just need Crumpp and Gaston back from the dead and the chart wars can really commence! Bring it on!

fixed.

A thread with Josf, Crumpp and Gaston would surpass the 100 octane thread post count in no time at all.

[TomcatViP]

Gaston ? like in the comics ?

I don't see a "Gaston" posting frenetically like our usual Fanboys

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I don't see a "Gaston" posting frenetically like our usual Fanboys

I wouldn't mention Fanboys with your post count.

frenetically = fanatically?

[JG14_Josf]

Robo,

As for Energy Maneuverability quantification - it should be measured if Josf prefers it that way but in that case I suggest he simply does it. I am not sure where is he going with the lengthy posts of his, asking trivial questions from one side.

What does "asking trivial questions from one side" mean?

I agree, but this has nothing to do with Josf's initial posts. I believe (and I am aware of the theory of aireal combat) that these are rough guidlines anyway, some basic boundaries and principles. In real combat encounter there is too many variables to be considered and it is impossible to quantify all of them. Biggest variable is the pilot's skill. As for angles fighter vs. energy fighter, I enjoy being the energy fighter flying the RAF planes. That would certainly not fit into Josf's theories.

What does "Josf's theories" mean?

Also, I offered many answers and I made several suggestions but Josf ignored them completely. I don't know why

I do not read posts from people who prop themselves up as the authority over my thoughts, so what could possibly inspire me to read any more of your replies? Since you know my thoughts so well, you tell me what inspires me to respond to your post now.

Please.

This sounds like you met a fighter pilot superior to you (if he flew the same type) or a fighter pilot flying a superior type to yours. There is always a bigger fish in the pond.

Track files record the events so as to leave anyone's, including mine, and including your, subjective opinion, less relevant. I've deleted that game since that event.

I agree again but by doing that kind of flying you will become a test pilot rather than fighter pilot.

Earlier, in our part of this discussion where I published the TOPIC you had the umiitigated gall to prop yourself up as the authority of what is or is not ON TOPIC, and now you school me on what I can or cannot become?

un·mit·i·gat·ed/ˌənˈmitəˌgātid/
Adjective:
Absolute; unqualified.

Do you really think, while you pretend to be the authority over my thoughts, theories, etc., that your contributions inspire anything other than disinterest in me?

I would like to inform you that all planes have got the G-limit modelled identically.

If that is true then there is, in fact, a method by which that truth can be communicated unambiguously.

Do you think I should hold by breath while waiting for that proof to materialize?

What is your tactics in a Spitfire Mk.Vb against a Fw 190A-3?

Alone or flying with one or more wingmen, close escort, detached escort, scout escort, free hunt, intercept, combat air patrol, or are you speaking about maneuvers, and if so then: from a superior energy state, equal energy state, or inferior energy state, nose to nose, from any other angle than nose to nose, from an altitude advantage with more speed, from an altitude advantage with less speed, from an altitude disadvantage with less speed, from an altitude disadvantage with more speed, or any combination of the above? You can ask such a question but the answers may not be what you are looking for, so I see a need to remove more of the obvious, measurable, ambiguity.

I, in no way, appreciate other people claiming to know what I think when their claims are so far off the mark, in my opinion, me, the person who has to live with my thoughts, so far off the mark, so far as I can see, there is no way, as to accept such nonsense, let alone ask for more.

As to the actual on topic stuff, me being the Topic starter, I definitely have an interest in it, so your contributions were worth reading, up to a point, such as this point:

As for angles fighter vs. energy fighter, I enjoy being the energy fighter flying the RAF planes. That would certainly not fit into Josf's theories.

Any more of that from you and expect me to moderate all the contributions you offer in this Topic.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Let me see...
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts to date: 18

Rarely has somebody created so much excitement with so little!

And for what!? Because he can type whole pages of energy fighting in a single post!?

C'mon guys!

And (as I said to the post that a moderator removed) this is not Josf's wrongdoing. He has the right to write his opinions biased, inexperienced or not.

You must have the maturity to judge and ignore or give him the opportunity to elaborate and try more.

Instead, this thread became an adrenalin show!

I wrote my comment in the first page and now I seat back, relaxed and enjoy

Bread and Games!




Ave!




~S~

You are indeed correct Grathos. EVERYONE has a right to voice their opinions. But EVERYONE also has a right to reply back with their own opinions especially when the initial opinions are, to put it very nicely, wrong.

The maturity is a 2 way street. It comes when people who's opinions are proved wrong, to also acknowledge it. No such thing has happened here. Absolutely no humility or acceptance of being in the wrong or having a misguided opinion has come out. That's when you know you're dealing with a mature individual. Instead we have an individual that is in complete denial with everything said to him that offers a different opinion of his own. That's why that individual's own tactics have even gone to talking in the 3rd person about a Straw Man. He will not address his wrongs, simply because he is in denial, possibly his pride as well? And honestly has a belief that everything he's said is correct. Which, as virtually anyone knows that has flown this sim for any amount of time, is not. Granted, there are indeed some interesting FACTS posted. But I, along with others, never responded to the facts, just the OPs misguided/incorrect opinions.

[vranac]

I was reading this thred also , and I can't belive what I saw here

Josf try one fight with Robo or Bliss 1 vs 1 on 109 and you will see what are they talkin about.

I can give you a track ( recordig ) fightin 4 spits alone and they didnt have a chance to catch me. Solid pilots russian guys most of them.

I saw a lot better pilots then myself in CloD, so it isn't a pilot thing.

109 is better plane in this sim if you are using it right!