Energy Maneuverability

[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.