Energy Maneuverability

[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.

[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.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

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.

Well that's your opinion. I didn't come off with an attitude until Josf dissected 2 very simple sentences reiterating what robo had said into a 5 paragraph conglomeration of trash and rambling on about quake players and how people in his high and mighty attitude should play a video game. But hey I guess that's ok for him to do it. You guys have flown together.

[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.

[JG14_Josf]

Returning back to the topic, despite further diversions and misunderstandings, with one measure of defense against those who pretend to speak for me while they (not coincidentally) fail to actually quote what I write on this forum.

I do not need a ventriloquist who is fond of creating a Man of Straw, and then the ventriloquist speaks for the Man of Straw, and then the ventriloquist claims that his Man of Straw is me. I can write things in English. If someone wants to speak for me then consider using quotes, and in that way your ventriloquist act will be irrelevant and the Straw Man you create can return back to the closet or wherever you hatched him.

Here is a very good description of how to plot the Accelerated Stall line using Modern Methods which were pioneered by John Boyd:

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

Here is the quote:

To perform the windup turn, momentarily stabilize at the desired Mach number. Set the thrust for the test as you roll into a turn and smoothly increase load factor. As load factor and drag increase, reduce the pitch attitude in order to keep Mach number constant.
Use bank angle to adjust the pitch attitude. When the limit condition is reached, record the g level. Increase the load factor no faster than 1/2 g/s to minimize the effects of unsteady flow.

No real pilot and no pilot in the game can fly above their g tolerance limit so for practical purposes the usable Corner Speed is the g tolerance limit of the pilot piloting the plane in or out of Mock Combat.

Returning to a Modern example of an EM chart it may help to view the specific shape of competitive Accelerated Stall Lines which define the flight envelope of competitive planes tested by competent pilots such as John Boyd and Chuck Yeager when they set out to understand the true measures of relative performance between two planes that they were able to fly and test.



Notice how the two Accelerated Stall lines are not the same as would be expected if the Accelerated Stall lines were made the same because they were based ONLY on calculations. Those lines would be THE SAME shape if they were calculated instead of tested and plotted based upon test results.
They are probably different because they are based on flight tests, not calculations.

Notice the places on the chart that correspond to the 5 g Accelerated Stall, the 6 g Accelerated Stall, for each plane, and know that a test plot at 9 g, if it is not calculated, is a test plot done by a pilot with a high degree of conditioning for g force tolerance such as a Chuck Yeager or a John Boyd, a Johnny Johnson, or a Pips Priller.

I don't want anyone to turn off g loads, if that is what someone thinks, but it would be nice to find out, one way or the other, if the Spitfire pilot g load limit CODED into the game is the same as the 109 pilot g load CODED into the game.

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.

Thanks I missed that timely welcome, and it is appreciated greatly.

What do you think, if you have any measure of it, as to the following rough (but to be improved if possible) estimates of relative game performance:

Sustained Turn Percentage advantage: Spitfire 25%
Corner Speed Advantage: (109 at 350 kph indicated)
Level Flight Acceleration:

Is it worth filling in the blanks so as to know if those variables are altered in the future or to know if one plane is superior to another and how much one plane is superior to another without so much ambiguity?

Level Flight Acceleration is nearly equal to a Specific Excess Power advantage but not necessarily as may be shown on EM Charts where the Accelerated Stall lines are not plotting out the same curves from one plane to the next, such as the very interesting case of the F-86 and the Mig 15.

For that reason I see a need to quantify (as well as possible):

Unloaded (minimum induced drag) dive and zoom acceleration/deceleration.

Also, knowing the nature of acceleration for aircraft in level flight it is important to understand how a peak rate of acceleration occurs when induced drag caused by higher angles of attack at slower speeds is decreasing and before parasite (form) drag is increasing (square with velocity) and at the peak Level Acceleration Rate the Rate of Acceleration diminishes due to the rapidly gaining induced drag. The slow speed rate of acceleration is zero, somewhere in the middle the rate of acceleration peaks at the highest Specific Excess Power speed (Corner Speed?), and then the rate of acceleration drops back to zero at top speed in level flight. One plane may peak while another plane is still accelerating.

So...and again, that Corner Speed thing is more important than it may appear on the surface, and methods by which level flight acceleration tests are flown are also available in the Navair documents.

As to deaf ears concerning the obvious and measurable differences between Angles and Energy Fights, who knows why, and I am persistent not because of those few, I am persistent because I know that the subject matter is interesting to some people, and one is enough.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Returning back to the topic, despite further diversions and misunderstandings, with one measure of defense against those who pretend to speak for me while they (not coincidentally) fail to actually quote what I write on this forum.

I do not need a ventriloquist who is fond of creating a Man of Straw, and then the ventriloquist speaks for the Man of Straw, and then the ventriloquist claims that his Man of Straw is me. I can write things in English. If someone wants to speak for me then consider using quotes, and in that way your ventriloquist act will be irrelevant and the Straw Man you create can return back to the closet or wherever you hatched him.

Once again, you should practice what you preach. You ask for people to quote you directly when talking about things you've said then go right ahead and talk about other people and their arguments without doing the same. That's called being hypocrite. I can give you a definition if you like.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Thanks I missed that timely welcome, and it is appreciated greatly.

What do you think, if you have any measure of it, as to the following rough (but to be improved if possible) estimates of relative game performance:

Sustained Turn Percentage advantage: Spitfire 25%
Corner Speed Advantage: (109 at 350 kph indicated)
Level Flight Acceleration:

Is it worth filling in the blanks so as to know if those variables are altered in the future or to know if one plane is superior to another and how much one plane is superior to another without so much ambiguity?

Well, given that we're currently on a beta patch, I think it would be best to wait for the final "release" version, to see if 1C fixes the broken flight models. With so much in flux it'd be a waste of effort if any testing will be thrown out in 3 months.

As for the specific numbers you mention: I'd be hard pressed to pin down an exact number for the Spitfire's sustained turn rate advantage (but I agree that it exists in some small amount).

Corner speed seems about right to me, but I would check with someone like LittleD who flies the 109 religiously. I myself have not been in-game very much lately, since the news that CLOD would likely not be fixed came down.

Level Flight Acceleration is nearly equal to a Specific Excess Power advantage but not necessarily as may be shown on EM Charts where the Accelerated Stall lines are not plotting out the same curves from one plane to the next, such as the very interesting case of the F-86 and the Mig 15.

For that reason I see a need to quantify (as well as possible):

Unloaded (minimum induced drag) dive and zoom acceleration/deceleration.

I agree that these things should be quantified but as I mentioned above I think it's best to wait until the final patch comes out

As to deaf ears concerning the obvious and measurable differences between Angles and Energy Fights, who knows why, and I am persistent not because of those few, I am persistent because I know that the subject matter is interesting to some people, and one is enough.

In my experience, the problem is that people see a phrase like "Angles tactics are viable if your opponent is the Energy Fighter" and they think that that equates to flying circles on the deck, and allowing your opponent to have the initial advantage in every encounter.

Clearly this is not true, but from trying to explain it so many times I think that perhaps some people are wilfully ignorant.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Well, given that we're currently on a beta patch, I think it would be best to wait for the final "release" version, to see if 1C fixes the broken flight models. With so much in flux it'd be a waste of effort if any testing will be thrown out in 3 months.

This is a very good point. Many things have changed (ever so slightly) in the recent beta patches, e.g. blackout modelling or Bf 109 slats behaviour. I am certain that there will be more changes in the final release.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

As for the specific numbers you mention: I'd be hard pressed to pin down an exact number for the Spitfire's sustained turn rate advantage (but I agree that it exists in some small amount).

Josf mentions 25% advantage, but he did not mention how exactly he measured that. I also believe it exists (and rightly so) but I have to add that it very much depends on the pilot's skill (also quite rightly so).

Corner speed seems about right to me, but I would check with someone like LittleD who flies the 109 religiously. I myself have not been in-game very much lately, since the news that CLOD would likely not be fixed came down.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I agree that these things should be quantified (...)

I agree but I find even easier and more basic side of this sim difficult to measure. If you look at the FM tests (by IvanK, klem, Snapper, Felipe etc etc) there was always major issue with methodics - it is impossible to re-calculate the results for normal day, IAS vs TAS conversion is extremely difficult, the gauges are off.

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

In my experience, the problem is that people see a phrase like "Angles tactics are viable if your opponent is the Energy Fighter" and they think that that equates to flying circles on the deck, and allowing your opponent to have the initial advantage in every encounter.

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.

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