Energy Maneuverability

[arthursmedley]

Wow, Josf back! Lets see; we also have Kurfy and Taggert. Now we just need Luftluuver back from the dead and the chart wars can really commence! Bring it on!

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Wow, Josf back! Lets see; we also have Kurfy and Taggert. Now we just need Luftluuver back from the dead and the chart wars can really commence! Bring it on!

Don't forget M_Gunz.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Wow, Josf back! Lets see; we also have Kurfy and Taggert. Now we just need Crumpp and Gaston back from the dead and the chart wars can really commence! Bring it on!

fixed.

A thread with Josf, Crumpp and Gaston would surpass the 100 octane thread post count in no time at all.

[TomcatViP]

Gaston ? like in the comics ?

I don't see a "Gaston" posting frenetically like our usual Fanboys

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I don't see a "Gaston" posting frenetically like our usual Fanboys

I wouldn't mention Fanboys with your post count.

frenetically = fanatically?

[JG14_Josf]

Robo,

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.

What does "asking trivial questions from one side" mean?

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.

What does "Josf's theories" mean?

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

I do not read posts from people who prop themselves up as the authority over my thoughts, so what could possibly inspire me to read any more of your replies? Since you know my thoughts so well, you tell me what inspires me to respond to your post now.

Please.

This sounds like you met a fighter pilot superior to you (if he flew the same type) or a fighter pilot flying a superior type to yours. There is always a bigger fish in the pond.

Track files record the events so as to leave anyone's, including mine, and including your, subjective opinion, less relevant. I've deleted that game since that event.

I agree again but by doing that kind of flying you will become a test pilot rather than fighter pilot.

Earlier, in our part of this discussion where I published the TOPIC you had the umiitigated gall to prop yourself up as the authority of what is or is not ON TOPIC, and now you school me on what I can or cannot become?

un·mit·i·gat·ed/ˌənˈmitəˌgātid/
Adjective:
Absolute; unqualified.

Do you really think, while you pretend to be the authority over my thoughts, theories, etc., that your contributions inspire anything other than disinterest in me?

I would like to inform you that all planes have got the G-limit modelled identically.

If that is true then there is, in fact, a method by which that truth can be communicated unambiguously.

Do you think I should hold by breath while waiting for that proof to materialize?

What is your tactics in a Spitfire Mk.Vb against a Fw 190A-3?

Alone or flying with one or more wingmen, close escort, detached escort, scout escort, free hunt, intercept, combat air patrol, or are you speaking about maneuvers, and if so then: from a superior energy state, equal energy state, or inferior energy state, nose to nose, from any other angle than nose to nose, from an altitude advantage with more speed, from an altitude advantage with less speed, from an altitude disadvantage with less speed, from an altitude disadvantage with more speed, or any combination of the above? You can ask such a question but the answers may not be what you are looking for, so I see a need to remove more of the obvious, measurable, ambiguity.

I, in no way, appreciate other people claiming to know what I think when their claims are so far off the mark, in my opinion, me, the person who has to live with my thoughts, so far off the mark, so far as I can see, there is no way, as to accept such nonsense, let alone ask for more.

As to the actual on topic stuff, me being the Topic starter, I definitely have an interest in it, so your contributions were worth reading, up to a point, such as this point:

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.

Any more of that from you and expect me to moderate all the contributions you offer in this Topic.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Robo,

What does "asking trivial questions from one side" mean?

Hello Josf, I ment asking the trivial questions in your initial posts. Some other user called them rhetorical. It means the answer was already known anyone familiar with this particular sim, when that question has been asked by you.

By "one sided" I ment they were coming from a person trying one particular plane.

I am sorry I got you confused, I hope it is clear now.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

What does "Josf's theories" mean?

Your thoughts, assumptions, hypotheses as presented in your initial posts. If you decided to come in here to present your theories based on no experience with this particular sim, you can expected some of it to be wrong and therefore confronted by other forum users. I hope you do not mind, it is actually the point of starting a thread imho, e.g. having other people posting in a thread, leading a discussion.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

I do not read posts from people who prop themselves up as the authority over my thoughts, so what could possibly inspire me to read any more of your replies? Since you know my thoughts so well, you tell me what inspires me to respond to your post now.

I do not know your thoughts, I only know the ones you verbally presented in this thread and most of them were wrong, so I told you so. I spent considerable amount of time doing that. I understand you do not appreciate tha I disagree with you. I was not the only person telling you that. Perhaps that would be a good indication for you to reconsider your own thoughts.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Earlier, in our part of this discussion where I published the TOPIC you had the umiitigated gall to prop yourself up as the authority of what is or is not ON TOPIC, and now you school me on what I can or cannot become?

I am sorry you see it this way. It was my intention to participate in this thread because I find this topic very interesting. Unfortunately I found that the OP is not an authority on aerial combat in Cliffs of Dover yet.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Do you really think, while you pretend to be the authority over my thoughts, theories, etc., that your contributions inspire anything other than disinterest in me?

I was hoping for the oposite after I replied that you were wrong, unfortunatelly. I was hoping for an interesting debate on topic. I would not otherwise spend time typing my replies.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Alone or flying with one or more wingmen, close escort, detached escort, scout escort, free hunt, intercept, combat air patrol, or are you speaking about maneuvers, and if so then: from a superior energy state, equal energy state, or inferior energy state, nose to nose, from any other angle than nose to nose, from an altitude advantage with more speed, from an altitude advantage with less speed, from an altitude disadvantage with less speed, from an altitude disadvantage with more speed, or any combination of the above? You can ask such a question but the answers may not be what you are looking for, so I see a need to remove more of the obvious, measurable, ambiguity.

(about Mk.Vb vs A-3) Say you are in a Spitfire, nose to nose merge co-alt, same speed, no wingmans.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Any more of that from you and expect me to moderate all the contributions you offer in this Topic.

You would need a reason to moderate my contributions other than the fact I disagree with you.

Would you moderate (I suppose that means remove) the contributions of other forum users that also disagree with you? That is quite a few people in here already and as you see and all of them are telling you cca. what I was telling you.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Robo.

(about Mk.Vb vs A-3) Say you are in a Spitfire, nose to nose merge co-alt, same speed, no wingmans.

Just a quick note: "nose to nose" typically doesn't mean the same thing as "head on".

It's quite possible for two aircraft to be pointing in totally different directions, but also be in a particular turn geometry called "nose to nose".

Without looking at the numbers at all, in the above scenario I'd imagine your spit pilot would want to zoom (to encourage the 190 to zoom as well, which slows him down) and then go aggressively for angles in the vertical.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Just a quick note: "nose to nose" typically doesn't mean the same thing as "head on".

It's quite possible for two aircraft to be pointing in totally different directions, but also be in a particular turn geometry called "nose to nose".

I know, but thank you anyway.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Without looking at the numbers at all, in the above scenario I'd imagine your spit pilot would want to zoom (to encourage the 190 to zoom as well, which slows him down) and then go aggressively for angles in the vertical.

Yes that could work for a little while.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Robo.

I know, but thank you anyway.

Just clarifying for others who might not know.