Energy Maneuverability

[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.