Energy Maneuverability

[JG14_Josf]

So, until I have a possibility to understand the CoD flight models, it is of limited benefit to indulge into a discussion on the theory of dogfight.

Actualy, why don't you have a try yourself? Try to fly some planes in CoD (offline and online) and tell us how their performance feels like.

335th_GRAthos,

You sound as if you are as interested in Relative Performance as I am; however this type of Forum with this type of responses (off-topic to say the least) has me on guard, so I am going to trust that your intent is to share an interest and I am not going to jump to the conclusion that you are setting me up for something nefarious (some kind of flanking maneuver).

I will take this opportunity to work at understanding the differences between our viewpoints in this way:

Those IL2 charts offered on this Topic are not on this Topic since those charts have to do with Sustained Turn Performance (maintaining a fixed energy state) and therefore they do not have to do with Maneuvering in Combat (except for a luffberry circle type of defense or attack) and I already offered a question to be answered along those lines.

One exception to that above observation, and report, is the climbing data, which is a measure of Excess Power, which can then be extrapolated (roughly) to find the Accelerated Stall line, and the Maneuvering Envelope (as can level acceleration tests) if I understand things well enough.

I do not claim to understand things well enough, hence the desire on my part to engage in discussion with people sharing a similar interest.

Climb performance and level acceleration performance is at least as good as, and probably much better than, Sustained Turn Performance, when the idea is to compare one fighter to another to see which can outperform the other in very specific and unambiguous ways - not limited to the Luffberry Circle maneuver also known as the Sustained Turn.

In Naviar terminology the following English words apply:

Ps= 0

I can't show that Navair charts but the WWII era charts (If I am reading them right) and the Korea era chart (Boyd's) shows that Sustained (Ps=0) Turn Performance Curve.

Now, please, onto your very welcome words - in English:

So, until I have a possibility to understand the CoD flight models, it is of limited benefit to indulge into a discussion on the theory of dogfight.

Corner Velocity, to be more specific, is not a Theory. Corner Velocity in real life is a very precise air speed and g load which will then correspond to an exacting turn rate and turn radius. Each real plane and each simulated plane has a corner velocity.

Please consider the possibility that this is not mere theory.

Actualy, why don't you have a try yourself? Try to fly some planes in CoD (offline and online) and tell us how their performance feels like.

I just loaded up the game after having a few weeks of problems failing to get the Patch to work on my old Windows XP system. I now have an upgraded system purchased specifically this game and I will be learning the Corner Speed of the 109 relative ot the Corner Speed of the opposition, that is a consequence of playing the game, as to documenting the actual Velocity, Turn Rate, Turn Radius, or G load: that may yet happen, if there is any interest in it. If there is no other interest in it other than my own, then I don't need to write down any numbers, I'll know which plane has the better corner velocity and I'll have a reasonable understanding of how much better the better plane can maximize turn performance.

I can borrow, again, from the Navair site and again, please, consider that this is not theory or "feel", since the time it takes to complete 360 degrees of turn is exactly that much, not more, and not less, and if one of the other variables can be known, then all four variables can be known with enough precision to get well past subjective opinion.

Naviar on Corner Velocity:

6.3.4.6 CORNER SPEED
The significance of the corner speed can be seen in figure 6.15. At the speed
corresponding to the intersection of the lift boundary and the structural limit, the minimum instantaneous turn radius and maximum instantaneous turn rate are achieved. Thus, VA is the speed for maximum turn performance when energy loss is not a consideration.

That is not theory, and if any two of the four variables are known then the other four can be calculated.

1.
Turn Rate
2.
Turn Radius
3.
Airspeed
4.
G load

To clarify the relevance to the intended focus of this discussion the g load factor is crucial since the g load factor may, or may not, be constant for every plane and therefore some planes (not advertized as such) may be favored over other planes as the CODE (not theory, and not "feel") may CODE a higher g load for one plane compared to another plane.

Not knowing that fact may cause someone to focus attention on Sustained Turn Performance as being better in one plane and not as good in another plane when in fact the maximum pilot g load variable may be 1 g higher in the plane with the poor sustained turn rate.

A plane with a low sustained turn rate and a better (lower) corner velocity is exemplified in the Mig versus F-86 Maneuvering Diagram supplied by Boyd.

If you have read Robert Shaw's Fighter Combat then you may remember something called Double Inferior and Double Superior and this (not theory) is the method by which a plane can be Single Inferior to another plane, such that, for example, the Mig can Sustain a higher level g load, due to higher power loading and lower wing loading while the F-86 has the lower Corner Velocity.

Why?

Now there may be much in the way of room for theory, but the data is what the data is, not subjective, and not subject to feel, and not subject to opinion.

Liars and cheats can divert from the actual data, shooting the messenger, causing flame wars, whatever, but the data is what it is until someone can improve on the accuracy of the data and then there is less error in the data.

Who wants error in the data?

Not me.

Back to your very welcome words:

Josf, you are right with your point, transparency has to addressed first.

1C publicly stated that they are not prepared to provide us with the performance plots of the current flight models in a way similar to what we had available in IL2FB (see below).

What is so difficult about admitting that the game does, or does not, model the same g load for each pilot flying each plane?

Who cares, really, if the players can extrapolate the facts and answer the question ourselves, and then if the game suddenly changes, we know better because we already have the data that proves how the game was, and we have the data that proves how the "patch" changed the game?

I'm asking, I'm not dictating, and I hope that you can tell the difference. It is not a subtle difference.

As to "feel":

I have (in my youth) accumulated 40 hours logged airtime flying Hang Gliders. I know the feel of a wing cutting through the fluid that is known as air. This Clod simulator, to me, feels very good, there are better sounds (or my new system has a better sound card), and the general stickiness, then "buffet", then the break of acceleration on the lift vector is very encouraging, much fun, I can fly around for hours doing nothing more than feeling out the fight model - so far. That is not on-topic.