Energy Maneuverability

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by 4./JG53_Wotan

My replies have nothing to do with Josf.

They are pointed at the self-righteous "mister experience" 'tards like yourself.

I have been on this forum since 2007 and until today had less then 25 posts. I only participate in these "discussions" when folks like you show up.

As a moderator Alpha has done his job - even deleting a couple of my own off-topic posts.

He should by all rights delete the last 2 I made. If and when that happens I certainly won't shed a tear - or bother crying over on my squad forum and provoking the town folk into grabbing the torches and pitch forks to go after an "evil moderator".

Wotan

It's clear you don't read this forum much. As pointed out by many others here, Alpha has his own agenda and is very biased. Every single time he is proven wrong he deletes posts to try to save face. What he doesn't understand is it only makes him look worse. He's done this countless times and countless individuals have called him out on it.


Some people who actually post here see it all the time. Some people expect their opinions, especially if correct, to not be deleted while others opinions fall to the bias of Alpha. It's understandable, as Alpha has proven yet again how little he knows about a sim he is talking about. The bias probably comes from the lack of knowledge on the subject. Either way, moderators should not be biased to anyone. He even PM'd me completely making up something that I said for his own agenda.

If that's someone fit for a moderator, then I'm clearly living on the wrong planet.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Well wings do actually come off in severe Over G cases . In 46 the aircraft do actual deform (FM wise) for over G, Wing shedding occurs for gross overstress.

Here is a Partnavia pulling the wings off IRL straight out symmetrical over G

and a C130

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

...Cliffs does the same thing in severe cases. I tried dive bombing in a Ju88 without the air brake a few times. Once was quite a bit higher (6500m) and pulled out way to hard to watch one of my wings fly clean off.
But it's also neat to see just how the bent the airframe is when you do a nice G stress but not the insanity level. It makes the plane fly like a lame duck. (dog track / can't trim it / major loss of airspeed).

This is awesome news Bliss! Thanks for the info!
My understanding was same as Alpha's, CoD does not model "memory effect" for exceeding the structural limit.
If 1c managed to put it in after the patches, this is a magnificent good news which has been omitted until now!

~S~

PS. Thanks for the videos IvanK, never seeing before!

[4./JG53_Wotan]

It's clear you don't read this forum much. As pointed out by many others here, Alpha has his own agenda and is very biased. Every single time he is proven wrong he deletes posts to try to save face. What he doesn't understand is it only makes him look worse. He's done this countless times and countless individuals have called him out on it.

I read this forum every day - that is at least enough to have formed a low opinion you. I have seen Alpha's "moderating" as well. Its no more or less "biased" then any other.

The posts deleted in this thread should have been since they did not deal directly on the topic. However, I don't care anything about "who is the worst moderator" on these forums. I only replied in this thread to those of you who claim superior "experience" over others as a means to discredit someone you don't agree with.

The fact that you are now pointing out the "moderate" as an issue is just another example of the above.

Wotan

[CaptainDoggles]

Hi Josf, good to see you on these forums.

There are A LOT of folks on this site that don't/can't comprehend the concept of an "angles vs energy" fight. I've tried to make the argument many many times and it just falls on deaf ears.

[JG14_Josf]

In case there continues to be misunderstanding, despite repeating the same questions over and over again, here is a repeat of the same questions over again.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34290

That is the Original Post

So as to reinforce the understanding that I am not unique, or alone, in the interest in Corner Velocity as one of the important measures of Energy Maneuverability here is the quote from the Original Poster:

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?

I'm in love with the Spitfire MKII, so that would be a good starting point...

Here is a source of information concerning how the information can be gathered:

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c6.pdf

Here are what appear to be calculated Energy Maneuverability Charts done in World War II for the Spitfire and the 109:




Here is the thread and the document that may be referring to those charts:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=33720&page=6

Here is the direct download from that thread describing what appears to be the production of those charts AND much in the way of how the British compared their Spitfires to the captured 109 they tested and reported on in that downloadable document:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wtmfqxlon7...ing%20test.pdf

Here is a quote from that document concerning what may be those Spitfire and 109 Energy Maneuverability Charts:

In a recent report on the dog-fight Gates gives an analysis whereby the performance of an aircraft in steady spiral flight at full throttle can be estimated from its measured full throttle performance in straight flight (partial climbs and top speed): the analysis leads to a compact diagram from which the radius and the time of turn, and the corresponding rate of ascent or decent can be obtained at any given airspeed and normal g.
Such diagrams have been constructed for the Spitfire and the Me 109, and are given in Fig. 17, together with an explanation of their use. The turning performance of the Hurricane is probably little different from that of the Spitfire, these aircraft being roughly similar in wing loading and level performance. The “stall boundary” depends on the estimate of CLmax at full throttle. In the case of the Spitfire this has been measured in flight, while the Me.190 figures were based on the Spitfire results; tables of the assumed values of CLmax are given in Fig. 17. CLMax falls off as g is increases, because the stalling speed increases as g gets larger, thus lessening the slip-stream effect.
It will be seen that the minimum radius of turn without height loss is obtained by flying as near the stall as possible at a comparatively small g. For ease of comparison the radius of turn has been plotted against speed for both airplanes in Fig. 18, (i) for turns at the stall, and (ii) for turns without height loss. The advantages of the Spitfire over the Me.109 at once becomes apparent, the minimum radius of turn without loss of height being about 696 ft. on the Spitfire as against 885 ft. on the Me.109. The characteristics of these turns are summarized in the following table:

That appears to be speaking about the tables shown in the picture above, and now moving back to reality in the game.

There are 4 variables involved in Corner Speed and according to Robert Shaw and according to Math if you don't like Robert Shaw any 2 variables known can be used to calculate the other 2 variables.

Those variables are:

1.
Air Speed (true)
2.
g Force
3.
Turn Rate (degrees per second)
4.
Turn Radius

Mock combat was performed by British combat pilots when they captured enemy planes and there is documentation on those test.

Mock combat was performed by German combat pilots when they captured enemy planes and there is very little documentation on those tests.

We simulate combat, which is Mock combat in these games.

Example of Mock Combat taken from the British document found on this site, downloadable because a forum member makes that document available - thanks.

When the 109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me.109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently for fear of stalling and spinning.

Now turning to a major point of contention concerning the differences between accurate information and "good enough" information such as might be the information gathered carelessly and not subjected to any attempts to improve the information such as reinforcing data, whereby more than one qualified person is propped himself up as know it all of everything.

I don't know everything. I think that the 109 Corner Speed is at around 350 km/h indicated and so that will have to do until there are any other offerings from anyone else who may be able to find a more accurate number.

I can record the track file and find the time it takes to travel around one full circle.

Math can then be applied in the determination of Degrees per second since I will then have the time and the known number of 360 degrees traveled in that time.

Here, for any know it all people out there, not counterfeit know it all people, is a question on this topic that could help find a more accurate Corner Speed.

Is it possible to get any other of the 4 variables required to have at least 2 of the variables known precisely, so as to then know all 4 variables precisely to thereby know at least one example of one pilot flying at Corner Velocity in the game?

1.
Turn rate (easy to calculate based upon one 360 turn done in a specific amount of time.
2.
Air Speed (the gauge on the airplane is indicated and it does shake around a bit)
3.
g Force (If the game code is modelling a known pilot g force limit, such as 5 g, then this variable can be known for each plane being tested if the code is known, so if anyone knows if the code in the game has a known g force for any pilots simulated in any planes then please consider speaking up)
4.
Turn radius (if there were search lights placed on the ground at known distances or pylons or if a track file can be viewed to some measure of scale relative to an aircraft wingspan, then this could be a possible standard of measure for turn radius possibility otherwise the other variables have to be figure out more precisely)

If the turn rate is known then the length of the flight or circumference of the turn measure, if found out, can thereby be used to calculate air speed (true) and turn radius, and then g can be found out too.

If you look at a Dog House Plot you can see that they are mathematically calculated as representations of physical reality. A dot on the graph is a specific air speed, turn rate, g, and turn radius, no question, it is a physical fact, and all that is need to get on the chart is two of the four variables known somehow.

Then, without the math, or the charts, there is the reality that the game code offers, and if Corner Speeds can be known then the g Loads CODED for each pilot can be known too.

Are Spitfire pilots coded with higher g loads?

Are 109 pilots coded with higher g loads?

Would anyone like to know?

Is such information worthy of resort to personal attacks if such information were to be sought after by someone?

[MadBlaster]

I will try again. Not as expert, nor a rl pilot, but common sense applies by looking at the doghouse graph.

If
you fly straight
at top speed
at sea level
with full tank of gas

conclusion 1:
your are in the flight envelope

if you then
roll your plane 90 degrees left or right
and pull back on the stick
without exceeding the structural load limit

conclusion 2
you will experience ever increasing g force
you are still in the flight envelope

if you continue to
pull back on the stick
in an ever increasing fashion

conclusion 3
you will eventually hit the stall limit line via high speed stall.
You are no longer in the flight envelope at that moment.
you must pause the game at that moment in time, because
you have just found the peak of the doghouse
where load limit (g) line and stall limit line intersect at the maximum instantaneous turn rate of the plane you are flying under the current flying conditions.

For practical purposes,

The actual value of the turn rate is irrelevant.
The actual value of the turn radius is irrelevant.
The actual value of the g limit at that moment is irrelevant.
Blackouts can be made irrelevant, if they are turned off for testing purposes.
The IAS at that moment in your turn is relevant for the given flight conditions. As a player, that is the value you are after. You must sustain that speed for best cornering. Unless you are trying to “game” the game, so to speak. In that case, it is legitimate to call your motivations behind this thread into question, imho. If this information is incorrect, please, anybody, point it out. I would really like to know how it is off topic or incorrect or flaming or wth.

This post, similar to what I made earlier today and was deleted. It is not my fault CloD failed (off topic).

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by 4./JG53_Wotan

I read this forum every day - that is at least enough to have formed a low opinion you. I have seen Alpha's "moderating" as well. Its no more or less "biased" then any other.

The posts deleted in this thread should have been since they did not deal directly on the topic. However, I don't care anything about "who is the worst moderator" on these forums. I only replied in this thread to those of you who claim superior "experience" over others as a means to discredit someone you don't agree with.

The fact that you are now pointing out the "moderate" as an issue is just another example of the above.

Wotan

It seems you might not have read any of Josf's posts. Pay close attention to the one's stating a summary of the spitfire being a better plane in this sim. Then pay even closer attention to all the people giving reasons why it's not. All I did was add to Josf's WRONG opinions. If that's off topic than Josf shouldn't have gave his opinions in the 1st place. He should try to stick with facts.

And saying that experience doesn't matter only shows me how daft you really are. Your logic is very flawed. It's no wonder you think the way you do.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Hi Josf, good to see you on these forums.

There are A LOT of folks on this site that don't/can't comprehend the concept of an "angles vs energy" fight. I've tried to make the argument many many times and it just falls on deaf ears.

Nobody was questioning the actual facts presented. Unless Alpha deleted those as well? The people, such as myself, chimed in when those facts turned to opinions and very wrong ones at that.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

Nobody was questioning the actual facts presented. Unless Alpha deleted those as well? The people, such as myself, chimed in when those facts turned to opinions and very wrong ones at that.

Well, I've flown in online wars both with and against Wotan and Josf many many times and I can tell you they're both excellent pilots and also just generally good guys.

Your entry into this thread (unless an earlier post has been removed) was IMHO haughty and smacking of pride, and you do them a disservice with that attitude.