Turn rate vs. speed in WW1 combat

[baldeagle]

Yeah, Luke 6:41
Merry Christmas everyone, and/or Happy Holidays
I'll be here all week......

[Machinbird]

Originally Posted by propsimviator

You are applying elements of energy management in your description.

There may be elements of energy management here, but people have been managing aircraft energy for a long time. Nothing that wasn't known at the time by the experienced aviator.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

If I were in that SPAD, I'd have been flying fast in the first place, and as high as I could as well. If I'm diving on that Dr.I, I'd be exceeding my maximum level speed (even with only a shallow dive). (Just another note, I have been constantly talking about the SPAD XIII, so that is the one I'm assuming is being used in this example.)

Exactly what I was expecting. Every advantage you can get!

Originally Posted by propsimviator

I was also asking what would happen to the Dr.I in particular (in addition to all that you answered) when he made a hard break. That would mean, a hard roll, with rudder to compensate for adverse yaw, followed by a high G hard turn. That means lots and lots of drag. Which is to say, he would slow *way* down.

Here, I think your lack of real world experience shows. This turn by the Dr.I is in the closest direction to the direction of attack and only requires about 90 to 100 degrees of turn max. The idea is to accelerate closure of the Spad while complicating his tracking problem. When you lay G on a Dr.I, it doesn't bleed energy nearly as fast as the Spad will for the same turn radius. In fact there is minimal need for break turns in the Dr.I, just enough to break up the initial firing solution. Thereafter, by virtue of its lower speed, a rather gentle turn will suffice to be well in advance of the Spad's turn. I would estimate that the Dr.I would lose about 5 mph in the 90 degree break turn, say from 95 down to 90 mph.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

Again, if I am the SPAD pilot, I know he's going to break. I'm planning on it, in fact. When he does, I let him burn up his speed. I hold the shallow dive for a few seconds, easing back on the stick just ever so slightly, and blow past him at 140-150 or so (SPAD XIII speed that I keep seeing, accompanied by time to climb charts and speed at alt charts, is 130).

Not even going to fire? Well that is the safest route, because you probably will be able to generate additional lateral and vertical separation and probably won't get your tail peppered. The Dr.I pilot meanwhile has turned gently behind you and is doing a maximum rate climb and is following the Spad like a puppy aiming for the blind spot under the tail.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

Once I pass him, I will ease up at a faster rate and begin a very slight turn in the direction he turned, while also letting the nose ease up until I'm going about 120.
Even if he was moving at his top speed (115 being both the highest, and most credible speed I've seen, as it's usually accompanied by climb times and speed at altitudes), he's going to drop to about 70 or so, if not lower, while completing his 360.
In all likelihood, this was done in the direction of his torque because roll is faster. So rolling back is just going to take longer and slow him down even more. It's better for him to just continue the turn to try to get on my tail, since I'm clearly not going to follow him.

Well, quite a few assumptions here that won't pan out. Since the Dr.I isn't reversing course, only putting the Spad on the beam (perpendicular to the Dr.I longitudinal axis for the non-nautical) the turn is quickly completed and if the Spad aborts the run and pulls up and away from the turn with such separation that a tail shot opportunity is not present the Dr.I turns to follow in a gentle fashion (no urgency to turn sharply).

Originally Posted by propsimviator

And in the same sense that you assumed the SPAD would try to follow and be lured into trying to fire, so too could the same be assumed for the Dr.1. My plane trucking on past without any apparent maneuvering would be a tempting target indeed.
While he's turning, he's effectively not moving. That means an effective 145 mph (let's split the difference) speed differential. That = about 213 feet per second.
Since I turned gently in the direction of his turn, I'm forcing him to go more than 360 degrees, but not turning so hard I bleed speed. This means it takes longer for him to bring his guns around.

So what we have is the Spad has aborted his first firing run without shooting and both aircraft are climbing with the slower Dr.I aiming for the Spad's blind spot. You can rinse and repeat this scenario as many times as you want and it will still be a standoff.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

How long does it take a Dr.I to turn over 360 degrees from 115? (and how much danger is he in of breaking his plane? Did you read that article on upper wing failiers? Eeep!) 5 seconds? I'm not sure on this one, so I'm guess-timating. If it is 5 seconds, that's 1065' of seperation that I've gained, or about 325 meters. What was the convergence setting on those planes? WWII was around 250 meters or so and they were moving much faster and needed to shoot from further out.

Well, Baldeagle says about 20 seconds but he's counting the roll in and roll out which must have been slow and he is probably referencing a 45 to 60 degree bank angle, I guess we'll have to ask him. I've always thought of the Dr.1 as sort of like the Luscombe 8 type aircraft with slower roll rate, peculiar visibility, less yaw stability and more power, I suppose we'll have to ask about that comparison too.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

Not only that, I've also regained my altitude, adding vertical separation to the horizontal separation. This means, not only has he lost speed from the turn....
Eventually, he's out of altitude..... ........<eg>

Well if wishes were fishes you might get your wish, er.. fish. In reality if the Spad pilot knows what is good for him, he'll look for another sucker to jump.

You continue to make assumptions about my experience, while at the same time intoning some impressive amount on your part, despite later showing you don't have any.

If people want this to stay impersonal, then how about refraining from making such personal judgements (not to mention large assumptions), or is that just par for the course around here?

Even 90*s still means 180* minimum. And then, which is faster, rolling left, turning 90, then rolling right and turning another 90, or just turning left and pouring on the G to try to catch me as I go by?

One thing I will point out now, for something that will likely play out later on down the line - specific planes don't matter to this concept. (which is partly why trying to attack things like maintenance issues and the like are nothing more than misdirection) What matters is 1 plane that can turn faster but is slower in both level flight and dive, and another plane that can't turn as well, but is faster in both level flight and dive.

The same points and concept can be applied whether you are talking about F4U-1 vs A6M5, or P-47D-10 vs 109G6, or SPAD XIII vs Dr.I, or SE5a vs Albatros D.Va.

The specifics of the application will change to match the combatants, but the concepts will apply.

To that extent, it could also just as well be 1 fantasy aircraft against another fantasy aircraft, so long as each posseses the qualities in question (and similar enough to be "contemporaries").

Too bad you aren't close enough and I don't have the cash on hand at the moment. We could hit Air Combat USA for a real hop for some real dogfighting to settle this. Even with 2 identical planes, if one plane energy fights and the other just angles fights, the e-fighter will still end up victorious.

I'll say it again - I used to think that turn rate was the most important thing at one point too.

[Mark]

Propsim,

Hey, I see I've gone from a SOB to an Idiot, is that a promotion or demotion? I guess you forgot about the adage about the first person who resorts to name calling loses the argument....

Perhaps another example here is your application of drag racing examples to support your ideas, and yet by your own admission you have never tried to validate data given on your own automobile by actually trying it yourself, with your own car. In varying environments also. Perhaps if you spent a couple weekends researching that you might see there are not as many absolutes as what appear. Other than the one about expensive crap breaking when it gets worked hard at any rate.

Sitting in front of a computer screen, it is also easy to negate the time factor. In a dynamic environment one usually does not have the comfort of being able to sit around and figure things out at leisure, because most times when you do it that way, the environment has changed by the time you are implementing your actions. So you do quite a bit of instinctive response, and occasionally your instincts may lie to you. Wait until you stall something unexpectedly and you'll see what I mean. Especially if your head is in the cockpit when the break happens.

My apologies for bringing in real life scenarios here, but this topic is about real life flying, not about what-if situations based on imaginary environments. I suspect that is the foundation of all the disagreements here.

Oh, and for the record I stopped posting in the other thread because it was off-topic to the purpose of the thread. Kitboy was trying to find out some information regarding details and it got hijacked to the different subject of the reputation of the Camel. Kinda like interrupting someone who is asking an earnest question trying to gain some knowledge, it is an impolite thing to do. If a different topic starts up why would I not feel free to participate?

I'll say it again, it's a big ol' world out there and you can gain a suprising amount by getting out into it and experiencing new things. I bet if that happens some of the stuff people here (and not just me) are saying will start making a bit more sense to you.

[Machinbird]

Originally Posted by propsimviator

You continue to make assumptions about my experience, while at the same time intoning some impressive amount on your part, despite later showing you don't have any.

Actually, I haven't made a claim as to my experience (yet).

Originally Posted by propsimviator

If people want this to stay impersonal, then how about refraining from making such personal judgements (not to mention large assumptions), or is that just par for the course around here?

Do you mean refrain from pointing out the obvious. I was hoping to focus you on where your analysis went adrift. It is obvious that your mental picture of the Spad vs Dr.I scenario and mine are quite different.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

Even 90*s still means 180* minimum. And then, which is faster, rolling left, turning 90, then rolling right and turning another 90, or just turning left and pouring on the G to try to catch me as I go by?

Propsimviator, you are steaming into the fight from one side and departing the other. Your initial entry is pretty much along the Dr.I 's course. If the Dr.I makes a 90 and forces an overshoot and then reverses back toward the Spad, he has made 180 degrees of turn approximately, not 360. Remember we don't want to bleed too much air speed off, we want to be in the Spad's six o'clock area and still in firing range with some time to fire.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

One thing I will point out now, for something that will likely play out later on down the line - specific planes don't matter to this concept. (which is partly why trying to attack things like maintenance issues and the like are nothing more than misdirection) What matters is 1 plane that can turn faster but is slower in both level flight and dive, and another plane that can't turn as well, but is faster in both level flight and dive.

The same points and concept can be applied whether you are talking about F4U-1 vs A6M5, or P-47D-10 vs 109G6, or SPAD XIII vs Dr.I, or SE5a vs Albatros D.Va.

The specifics of the application will change to match the combatants, but the concepts will apply.

To that extent, it could also just as well be 1 fantasy aircraft against another fantasy aircraft, so long as each posseses the qualities in question (and similar enough to be "contemporaries").

Believe it or not, I recognize the validity of your statement in so far as energy management goes. My experience has been that with a properly flown energy fighter the fight can become a fish in a barrel scenario, but the fish in the barrel is a piraña. It takes two or more energy fighters to safely handle the turning one down below. One to distract while the other attacks. That is why Voss was in big trouble when the SE-5's of 56 sqdn fought cohesively.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

Too bad you aren't close enough and I don't have the cash on hand at the moment. We could hit Air Combat USA for a real hop for some real dogfighting to settle this. Even with 2 identical planes, if one plane energy fights and the other just angles fights, the e-fighter will still end up victorious.
I'll say it again - I used to think that turn rate was the most important thing at one point too.

And I used to think flying an energy fighter was the most important thing. But you are right that it is a good thing we can't do an ACM hop. I understand that pipper burns take a long time to heal.
Have a happy holiday.

Originally Posted by Machinbird

Actually, I haven't made a claim as to my experience (yet).

Only implications, which is all I stated.

Do you mean refrain from pointing out the obvious. I was hoping to focus you on where your analysis went adrift. It is obvious that your mental picture of the Spad vs Dr.I scenario and mine are quite different.

Ah arrogance. Gotta love it. Do try not to head too far in marks direction. lol

But, with that in mind - turn-about is fair play.

Propsimviator, you are steaming into the fight from one side and departing the other. Your initial entry is pretty much along the Dr.I 's course. If the Dr.I makes a 90 and forces an overshoot and then reverses back toward the Spad, he has made 180 degrees of turn approximately, not 360. Remember we don't want to bleed too much air speed off, we want to be in the Spad's six o'clock area and still in firing range with some time to fire.

Try focusing more on what is said and less on what your counter will be as soon as you get through the post.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

Even 90*s still means 180* minimum. And then, which is faster, rolling left, turning 90, then rolling right and turning another 90, or just turning left and pouring on the G to try to catch me as I go by?

^^ Just so you could see it again. And for further help, given a poor roll rate, and high stick force ailerons, snaking back and forth isn't always as easy as you make it out to be.

Believe it or not, I recognize the validity of your statement in so far as energy management goes. My experience has been that with a properly flown energy fighter the fight can become a fish in a barrel scenario, but the fish in the barrel is a piraña. It takes two or more energy fighters to safely handle the turning one down below. One to distract while the other attacks. That is why Voss was in big trouble when the SE-5's of 56 sqdn fought cohesively.

Yet the British liked to turn fight, which is why they didn't like the SPAD. (Of course that didn't slow down Nungesser, Guynemer, or Fonk, but nevermind) That also explains why they thought so highly of the vaunted Camel. That doesn't mystically change for one encounter. So they were trying to turn with their SE's as best they could to follow one of the best turn fighters ever made.

Also, if you recognize the validity of the concept, as you claim, then you would be supporting the fact that it is better to have a plane that is faster in level flight and in dive (particularly if it can roll better and is tougher).

1v1 combat is great, and so are examples, but it's a total fantasy anyway, despite the others trying to claim that reality can't be ignored, they are doing it anyway, and now so are you. 2v2 is not 2 1v1s. It's a whole 'nother ball game. And from any perspective you look at, a faster fighter is better (that does mean overall btw, not just in 1 specific circumstance). It will get you to the fight faster, it will cover more ground in less time (for patrols), it will get your out of trouble easier (since you can disengage at will, and not so coincidentally, dictate the fight), it can be tougher since weight savings isn't as high a priority (safer for the pilot), it is more likely to be in a position of having surprise, and once thre, is more likely to capitalize on it, and to top it all off, it doesn't need to be as inherently unstable about it's axes, so it can actually be easier to fly, which gives it's pilots more SA and a better chance (in addition to all the above) to live long enough to become highly experienced.

Thus, it is better to have a faster plane. Point of the entire argumen, waaaay back in the other thread that people decided to get their back up about.

But then, if you do know this, and are fighting anyway, you must just like to argue.....

And I used to think flying an energy fighter was the most important thing. But you are right that it is a good thing we can't do an ACM hop. I understand that pipper burns take a long time to heal.
Have a happy holiday.

Ok, once again, so you can read for understanding -

Originally Posted by propsimviator

Too bad you aren't close enough and I don't have the cash on hand at the moment. We could hit Air Combat USA for a real hop for some real dogfighting to settle this.

^^ even highlighted the pertinant part for you.

Oh, and it is the most important thing from an overall war perspective, and also gives the pilot who is skilled enough to know how to use it, the most options. (rookies yank n bank. rookies also tend to die in e-fighters without proper training as a result <- which is why I laugh every time someone tells me I'm blowing off the pilot. lol)

[Craig]

Originally Posted by propsimviator

Be fair BE. Don't let this get heated or subjective/personal. This whole thing is a what-if. You're ignoring the heart of the matter to instead cast aspersions on character. It's a political tactic, but not a debating tactic.

Yer KIDDING, right, Mister Sharp Elbows? Really, now, grow some skin. It's not a 'political tactic', it's not it's not 'casting aspersions' on anyone's character - he's just put you into check.

Mate.

[baldeagle]

And for my next trick, I will insist that all arguments against me are actually arguments for me.....

[greatwarpilot]

Propsimviator.

A few things. First of all I don't understand why you thought Baldeagle's post number 6 was subjective or personal. It seemed to me like he made a reasonable assessment of your scenario and asked a direct question.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

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.

I really don't think you're being fair here. Those of us who are trying to bring up other factors (be them human factors, intangibles, factors deriving from personal flight experience, etc.) aren't doing so to say that absolutely everything is unknowable. Rather it would seem to be in an attempt to get you to accept that perhaps you are trying to draw too firm a conclusion in declaring something as wrong, incorrect or accusing the writer of trying to evade the topic at hand. You seem to argue for a number of certainties (at least in your eyes), and are dismissive of other relevant factors. There is definitely a middle ground between the kind of scenario you have presented and using assumptions and estimates regarding performance to draw conclusions and your accusation of writing off everything as unknowable. Somewhere between those two polarized points of view lies what I believe to be a more reasonable approach to this problem. One whereby such match-ups can be discussed, but a variety of potential results can be drawn depending on a number of variables. The result of this more subtle analysis would be something that is likely to bear much more resemblance to what really happens in the air. It may not (in fact most likely would not) say with any certainty who would be victorious in a theoretical match-up between a Spad and a DR1. However it could discuss a number of potential outcomes (since there indeed are many) and most importantly it would discuss the factors that would serve to influence the fight towards one outcome or another.

Also in terms of your tone towards other members of the forum, even if you dislike the style of post others make in response to you I don't think calling them names is really going to help the situation (and it certainly doesn’t do much for the image you portray of yourself). Often it's just better to take the high road in such a situation.

Finally, I'd like to ensure that I'm not trying to obscure the issue or speak in generalities so I'm going to ask you a direct question.

You've accused a number of people of making assumptions about your experience. I bring it up not as a personal attack or criticism but rather because I believe knowing something of the background from which someone is arguing can lead to a better exchange for all parties. Several of us have laid out details of our flying background, and others have alluded to it. So I'll ask directly - Are you a pilot? If so what kind of a flying background do you come from?

[CWatson]

The most important factor in combat is the pilot and his ability to exploit his advantages while not allowing you to exploit your advantages or his weaknesses. This whole Spad13 vs Dr1 scenario echos a P51 vs Me 262 dogfight. The P51 came out the victor more times than pure numbers on paper would lead one to assume likely.

Energy fighting, or slash and dash as it was referred to me by a WWII pilot before the energy term was used did have it's advantages in the inital attack especially if on a unalert target. However if you both see each other and horns are going to be grappled and you want to stay in the fight turning becomes very important.

Both Zemke and my favorite WWII fighter the P47 have been used in this discussion so I will follow suit. Zemke with a couple other pilots got in a hairy situation. Zemke flying the faster in level flight and faster accelerating in a dive energy fighter got caught by a slower Me 109G6 flown by Gunther Rall. Rall shot all of them down but Zemke himself buy using and exploiting energy tactics on the better energy fighter by diving in and climbing out of the circling P47s, marksmanship played no small role in this either. The pilot in the manuever fighter caught and used tactics best for the situation and his abilities.

In your Spad13 vs Dr1 scenerio you have the Spad exploiting his energy while the Dr1 ignoring his energy. The advantage is going to be to the more manueverable fighter with a pilot who is managing his energy. Almost all air combat narratives start of with "We dive on the formation of" or "We were attack from above by" ect.. so even if they did not use the term the pilot were aware of and tried to exploit their energy advantage, even the pilots flying the more manueverable planes.

CWatson