Turn rate vs. speed in WW1 combat

[baldeagle]

Missed that last post, but you seem to be trying to define everything in concrete terms, and the ifs and likelyhoods don't support that, political (whatever that means) or not.

[FlyXwire]

Originally Posted by baldeagle

...lot of assumptions.... plus a guesstimate, some ifs, and a likelihood

Exactly Baldeagle!

Here's some theory-based assessment (maybe it's correct too).........PDF file:

http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty...202005-119.pdf

"The second anomaly is the Fokker Dr.I, which has a reputation for superior climb and maneuverability. "[It] climbed like a monkey and maneuvered like the devil:" Manfred von Richthofen. The figures show that while the Dr.I was superior in turn, it was poor in climb, relative to contemporary fighters. It is possible that Richtofen's opinion of the Dr.I's climb was due to its 19 degree climb angle which was 20% greater than the airplane he had flown previously, the Albatros D.III."

I mean really, knowledge is relative, and so are opinions......whether they were MvR's or any other pilot's (past and present).

I do enjoy hearing from guys like Baldeagle who have flown as close to the real thing as any of us will ever get!

Originally Posted by Machinbird

We aren't out to get you frustrated propsimviator. Craig's Spad vs Dr.I example which I set to a tactical scenario is actually a potential tool for understanding what you might be missing. If you have never tracked an aircraft with a gunsight from another aircraft, you probably won't understand. There are many more factors here that you probably haven't included in your simulated model. To ignore them because they are inconvenient is wrongheaded!
The Spad vs Dr.1 scenario I tactically laid out would most likely result in a draw. Bullet holes in both aircraft but no shoot down on either side. Probabilities figure heavily into the result. Not neat and clean.
The scenario devolved to a draw because the Dr.I pilot saw the other aircraft in time. In the situation where a pilot is awakened to his peril by the sound of bullets whistling by his ears, the results are generally fatal. This exactly parallels WWI experience. But the difference is situational awareness. How are you going to put that into your calculations? You are playing with just one piece of the puzzle, your conclusions have limited application to reality. This then is what the "old hands" are trying to tell you.

If you refer to the other thread, I have mentioned the importance of SA. I have also pointed out that a plane that is more difficult to fly requires more concentration (no matter how experienced the pilot, and this also works against him gaining that experience in the type), that in turn means less SA. Conversely, an easier to fly plane requires less concentration and allows the pilot to put more focus on what's going on around him.

Likewise, a plane that requires more physical effort to fly (high torque) will fatique the pilot at an increased rate.


As for tracking a plane from a gunsight, the only thing I was missing was the terror of potential death. I too once thought turn was everything.

Originally Posted by baldeagle

Missed that last post, but you seem to be trying to define everything in concrete terms, and the ifs and likelyhoods don't support that, political (whatever that means) or not.

lol, well in that case, you are trying to shroud everything in uncertainties and write absolutely everything off as unknowable or inestimable, while also insisting that the core of my stance, irrespective of it's cause (which you still don't know), is incorrect, in spite of history showing you to be wrong.

Originally Posted by baldeagle

Can you measure the difference in effectiveness between the N.11 and Fok E.III gun placement? And it still comes down to the pilot being able to hit the target, maybe easier on the E.III, but how much easier? The N.11 is probably a better gun platform, more stable and more controllable, but again by what measurement?
By the way, be careful where you get your numbers from, the last Triplane I flew I timed a 360 degree turn, from level to level again, so including rolling in and rolling out, and it was almost 20 seconds, even with Voss and a rotary engine it isn't going to be much less, certainly not anywhere near 5 seconds. Those figures you get from 1917 are measured by very uncertain means, not to mention the exaggerations made by manufacturers, pilots, and anybody with a point to make. I wouldn't put too much stock in contemporary figures, except in very general terms.

20 seconds simply makes everything in my example far more effective.

I figured 5 to be very low, but didn't want to get bitten the wrong way so I intentionally guessed low. Worst case, I guessed too low, but then my description becomes even more effective, as happend.

I do not have any turn time stats on WWI planes (only WWII), so don't assume any earlier reference to data includes that.

Also, I would point out that when you are being shot at, you will do something about it. An experienced pilot would know that the plane shooting at him could out roll him opposite his torque (probably in both directions) and he can't waste time trying that, so he's going to roll with his torque and break. And once that happens, he can't very well go back the other way, it's better to continue the turn all the way though.

Nothing I have suggested is unlikely or onreasonable. Rather, it's rather close to certain (though I won't make an absolute, definitive statement).

[baldeagle]

Not so, I agree with some of your opinions, but I think you go too far to one end of the spectrum, not allowing for any uncertainties. And who's showing attitude now?

[Mark]

I fear there will never be an answer satisfactory to both sides here, as this scenario to my way of thinking seems to be an Evolution/Intelligent Design sort of argument. Where one side is trying to promote a philosophy as a science (i.e. aeronautics), where it can never be quantified as such. And based on data taken with a hodgepodge of non-standardized methods.

Kinda reminds me of the old saying-

In Theory, there is not much difference between practice and theory.

In Practice, there is.

BS trying to standardize how a pilot will respond in a stressful situation is just that, BS. Roll this way or that, depends on a lot more than engine torque. I suppose torque would matter with an attack from dead astern while in straight and level flight at cruise, but otherwise just making a hard turn is only one factor that can put you in a difficult situation if none of the other thousand or so variables are taken into account.

Propsim, since you are disagreeing with the majority of people here, why are you so resistant to getting some stick time so you can have an idea of what these experienced people on the forum are talking about?

I suspect a bit of what you do not understand right now might make a bit more sense then.

Originally Posted by baldeagle

Not so, I agree with some of your opinions, but I think you go too far to one end of the spectrum, not allowing for any uncertainties. And who's showing attitude now?

Actually, it's funny you ask because I would have assumed you. lol

It looks to me like you are less interested in dealing with the topic of the strengths and weaknesses of speed vs turn specialization and instead are far more interested in trying to attack my character. I mean, not directly or outright, it's hard to describe, but it has the feel of a politcial campaign, where candidates focus more on their opponent than the actual issues.

Either way, I'm not trying to get in your face.

Originally Posted by Mark

I fear there will never be an answer satisfactory to both sides here, as this scenario to my way of thinking seems to be an Evolution/Intelligent Design sort of argument. Where one side is trying to promote a philosophy as a science (i.e. aeronautics), where it can never be quantified as such. And based on data taken with a hodgepodge of non-standardized methods.

Kinda reminds me of the old saying-

In Theory, there is not much difference between practice and theory.

In Practice, there is.

BS trying to standardize how a pilot will respond in a stressful situation is just that, BS. Roll this way or that, depends on a lot more than engine torque. I suppose torque would matter with an attack from dead astern while in straight and level flight at cruise, but otherwise just making a hard turn is only one factor that can put you in a difficult situation if none of the other thousand or so variables are taken into account.

Propsim, since you are disagreeing with the majority of people here, why are you so resistant to getting some stick time so you can have an idea of what these experienced people on the forum are talking about?

I suspect a bit of what you do not understand right now might make a bit more sense then.

Ah the patronizing idiot is back. lol I knew you couldn't stay away. Just to give you a hint, the thread may be different, but the discussion is the same, and you said you weren't going to bother anymore.

Typical. Just like I said. lol

I'm not even going to respond to your points because of the tone of them, let alone that you don't have a damn clue about me and show it each time you spew your high and mighty arrogant crap.

[FlyXwire]

Hey,

There's been some interesting points and discussion in this thread, and even though the back and forth has been a bit quick from the hip, there's no reason for personal attacks......please!!!

For one, I haven't had a chance to print the thread out before posts start getting deleted, or the whole thing is locked.

Keep it intellectual guys, and leave the animosity out, ok?