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.

[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.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

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.

if I were to guess, and without knowing anything about this test, I think the lower red and blue curves are without g suit, the higher curves with g suit. if you notice, the convex points (most outward g value) for both the non-g suit curves (assuming that is correct assumption) is around 5.5. g curve. This value seems reasonable.

early ww2 planes, I do not believe were equipped with accelerometers to measure the g. Maybe the p47, iirc. So, this windup test, I don't think it is realistic to use that for your determination, if you wish to remain a faithful, non-quake pilot. If you start using g-meter, wonder woman view, or digging into the code, that might make you quake player by default.

[IvanK]

Nothing to do with G Suits in this chart. The red and Blue convex lines merely represent the sustained G that each aircraft can pull without energy loss i.e. Ps=0. The Red line represents the Mig15 sustained turn boundary, The Blue line the F86F (doesnt say hard or slatted wing) sustained turn boundary. The left hand margin is the Lift limit, the top the structural limit, the RHS the Vmax limit.

This chart is pretty historical as it was one of Boyds first comparative EM charts. It is my belief that this chart was in fact based totally on calculation. Its origin is I believe from a presentation Vu graph used by Boyd in one of his early presentations. The original graph was taken from Boyds archival papers. I recall its covered in the book "Boyd the fighter pilot that changed history" by Coram.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Nothing to do with G Suits in this chart. The red and Blue convex lines merely represent the sustained G that each aircraft can pull without energy loss i.e. Ps=0. The Red line represents the Mig15 sustained turn boundary, The Blue line the F86F (doesnt say hard or slatted wing) sustained turn boundary. The left hand marhin is the Lift limit, the top the structural limit, the RHS the Vmax limit.

This chart is pretty historical as it was one of Boyds first comparative EM charts. It is my belief that this chart was in fact based totally on calculation. Its origin is I believe from a presentation Vu graph used by Boyd in one of his early presentations. The original graph was taken from Boyds archival papers. I recall its covered in the book "Boyd the fighter pilot that changed history" by Coram.

ah well thanks for clarification. it seems coincidence though. wiki says gloc occurs around 5 g for average human. so to get to those outer performance curves, you would need a g suit.

so, i wonder if the lower curves maybe are just normal operating curves and the outer ones, performance curves under combat condition, or something like that?

[IvanK]

The lower curves are simply Ps=o lines that represent the Sustained G (at the altitude the chart is calculated for) that each aircraft can sustain with out losing altitude or TAS.

Correction to the Book title its

"Boyd The fighter pilot who changed the art of war " essential reading if you are into this stuff. The book covers in great detail how these early EM charts were calculated... the story about how they got the computing assets and time is a classic.

http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-P.../dp/0316796883

Boyd was the father of the OODA loop.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by IvanK

The lower curves are simply Ps=o lines that represent the Sustained G (at the altitude the chart is calculated for) that each aircraft can sustain with out losing altitude or TAS.

Correction to the Book title its

"Boyd The fighter pilot who changed the art of war " essential reading if you are into this stuff. The book covers in great detail how these early EM charts were calculated... the story about how they got the computing assets and time is a classic.

http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-P.../dp/0316796883

Boyd was the father of the OODA loop.

got it now! thanks.

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by IvanK

The lower curves are simply Ps=o lines that represent the Sustained G (at the altitude the chart is calculated for) that each aircraft can sustain with out losing altitude or TAS.

Correction to the Book title its

"Boyd The fighter pilot who changed the art of war " essential reading if you are into this stuff. The book covers in great detail how these early EM charts were calculated... the story about how they got the computing assets and time is a classic.

http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-P.../dp/0316796883

Boyd was the father of the OODA loop.

Even better http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/158365-1

But I believe this topic is well over the heads of your average person that's plays this GAME and doesn't care. But there is a magazine for everyone I guess.