Energy Maneuverability

[Ibis]

Ho my, just like the old days.
bring it on
now where is my pipe and slippers?
Sweety bring me a drink would you
tar.

[JG14_Josf]

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

vranac,

Suppose I had and interest in hearing more ambiguous claims of nothing specific, if we are to go way off the topic of Energy Maneuverability, then I could carefully listen to these ambiguities, and I'd ask myself questions like "Why am I wasting my time with these people who speak in ambiguities?"

Now you offer more of the same?

What exactly do you think these people are telling you that you think I aught to know?

Are they telling me what is the percent advantage in Corner Speed one plane has coded into it over another plane?

How about me reporting the best effort I have so far in accurately identifying the 109 Corner Speed, and then someone, some expert, some person who does actually know it all, sets me straight on the actual in game Corner Speed of the 109, which is not 350 km/h, rather it is 336 km/h, when fuel load is at 25% and recorded at 4,000 meters, and this person says something along the lines of "Hey, I can show you, let's log onto the Server before your regular squad night tomorrow, and I can have you follow me in a Windup Turn and if you can match my Corner Speed then we both can record the event and we both can know that both our planes, from both our computers, fly the same 109 Corner Speed, and we can even send each other our own track files, and you can see, and I can see, and anyone else can see, that our pilots are at the same amount of grey out, and will that be an on Topic type of event or would you prefer to deal with dishonest people who may or may not show up, may or may not have some secret program cheat going, may or may not have any clue as to what this Topic is about, and may or may not be looking for argument for the sake of argument?

Then, suppose, we both trade off, me and this mythical person, where mythical person A, we can call him A if we want, is on-line in a Spitfire while I fly on-line with a 109, and now we test relative Corner Speeds with the same follow the leader Windup Turn Test, same track files, same exchange of track files, and then we can document which plane has the better Corner Speed coded in the game and we can do so unambiguously.

Now, this is a discussion, and I have no shortage of competent sim pilots to work with, I don't need more "experts" wasting my time with their own axes to grind. If this game lasts past Beta and our squad remains interested in it then my interests in quantifying Energy Maneuverability will inspire specific things done by me, with people in my squad, and I can thank you for the advice, but I can also ask you "What is the point?"

What do you think, without ambiguity, these people, who already prop themselves up as authorities over what I think in my own mind, will teach me EVER?

So far they have taught me to stop wasting my time dealing with them.

So now, please, tell me what, exactly, these other people are going to teach me, according to your understanding of what exactly I want to know, as if I have not yet stated exactly what I want to know more than once.

Such as:

Cornering Speed: "The lowest air speed at which a fighter can obtain the structural or aerodynamic limiting G force."

In the "dogfight" situation, this is the speed I'm trying to maintain in order to "out-turn" an adversary. It's also the speed above which I must excercise caution to prevent "Over-G" damage. Below this speed I must remain "Stall vigilant.

Is there a central location where the cornering speeds of CLoD aircraft can be found?

More than that, there is the matter of actually plotting the Accelerated Stall line, if possible, and then there are neat things to know like the relative advantages and disadvantages of unloaded (dive and zoom) rates of acceleration and deceleration, along the lines of an absolute value for each plane, say: The Maximum Peak Rate of Acceleration, and a known time from the level flight stall to 100 km/h above Corner Speed, and then a "which plane zooms higher from the same altitude and same starting speed?" type knowable and quantitative advantage, documented in meters one plane tops out above another plane, or number of plane lengths one plane can zoom higher than the other, recorded on a track files, or some other unambiguous measure that does not change with a word in English from "lots" to "some" and then to "mucho" dude - cause' I said so.

When our Squad gets busy with these things: we figure it out, but thanks, and please consider just cluing me in yourself, if you think there is something I want to know, other than the things I'm asking to know - precisely.

Level Acceleration Rate for the 109 at the peak rate of level Acceleration and the Airspeed at that peak, and compare that to the same known performance measure for the Spitfire?

Do you think I want to know what I ask to know or do you think that I want to know what you think I want to know?

I'm asking, because I don't assume to know what you are thinking. Do you think it is strange that I don't assume to know what you are thinking?

I am asking, rather than assuming that I know the answer concerning what you do or do not think.

[MiG-3U]

Well Josf,
1. If you want to test the planes then just do it with your team, find a method to do it, measure the results and publish here. Then we have something to talk about.

2. If you find that you/your team can't deal with the Spitfires when flying the 109s in this sim, try if you can deal with the 109s while you are flying the 109s as well (or Spit vs Spit). Then you know that if it's the plane or the pilot.

3. If you really think that you have a point, try to pack it to just few lines and to a well defined, specific argument or question. I simply can't find what should we exactly talk about from your longish posts.

4. Your every post contains many, many questions, often more or less rhetorical. And if someone at least partially tries to answer your questions, you reply with even more questions which are even more rhetorical if possible. In the end no one is interested to give answers because this is going nowhere.

[ATAG_Bliss]

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/i...1.70/wap2.html

I think this about sums it up

Unfortunately, some folk aren’t just wrong, they are wrong with conviction and persistence, and no amount of reason helps

[Jam656es]

I already checked this Forum, briefly, and I found this:

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Robo,

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

Hello Josf, I ment asking the trivial questions in your initial posts. Some other user called them rhetorical. It means the answer was already known anyone familiar with this particular sim, when that question has been asked by you.

By "one sided" I ment they were coming from a person trying one particular plane.

I am sorry I got you confused, I hope it is clear now.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

What does "Josf's theories" mean?

Your thoughts, assumptions, hypotheses as presented in your initial posts. If you decided to come in here to present your theories based on no experience with this particular sim, you can expected some of it to be wrong and therefore confronted by other forum users. I hope you do not mind, it is actually the point of starting a thread imho, e.g. having other people posting in a thread, leading a discussion.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

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.

I do not know your thoughts, I only know the ones you verbally presented in this thread and most of them were wrong, so I told you so. I spent considerable amount of time doing that. I understand you do not appreciate tha I disagree with you. I was not the only person telling you that. Perhaps that would be a good indication for you to reconsider your own thoughts.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

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?

I am sorry you see it this way. It was my intention to participate in this thread because I find this topic very interesting. Unfortunately I found that the OP is not an authority on aerial combat in Cliffs of Dover yet.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

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 was hoping for the oposite after I replied that you were wrong, unfortunatelly. I was hoping for an interesting debate on topic. I would not otherwise spend time typing my replies.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

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.

(about Mk.Vb vs A-3) Say you are in a Spitfire, nose to nose merge co-alt, same speed, no wingmans.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

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

You would need a reason to moderate my contributions other than the fact I disagree with you.

Would you moderate (I suppose that means remove) the contributions of other forum users that also disagree with you? That is quite a few people in here already and as you see and all of them are telling you cca. what I was telling you.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Robo.

(about Mk.Vb vs A-3) Say you are in a Spitfire, nose to nose merge co-alt, same speed, no wingmans.

Just a quick note: "nose to nose" typically doesn't mean the same thing as "head on".

It's quite possible for two aircraft to be pointing in totally different directions, but also be in a particular turn geometry called "nose to nose".

Without looking at the numbers at all, in the above scenario I'd imagine your spit pilot would want to zoom (to encourage the 190 to zoom as well, which slows him down) and then go aggressively for angles in the vertical.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Just a quick note: "nose to nose" typically doesn't mean the same thing as "head on".

It's quite possible for two aircraft to be pointing in totally different directions, but also be in a particular turn geometry called "nose to nose".

I know, but thank you anyway.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Without looking at the numbers at all, in the above scenario I'd imagine your spit pilot would want to zoom (to encourage the 190 to zoom as well, which slows him down) and then go aggressively for angles in the vertical.

Yes that could work for a little while.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Robo.

I know, but thank you anyway.

Just clarifying for others who might not know.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by 4./JG53_Wotan

I am providing a very useful service to this community right now in this thread - or did you miss that?

Indeed. People now have an instant dislike to you, and that saves them a lot of time........