Turn rate vs. speed in WW1 combat

[baldeagle]

There, that's better.

Doesn't eliminating real life factors from equations mean that the results have no real life value?

Butch?

Interesting that when the well versed people here on the forum were asked for SPAD vs. Fokker Triplane occurances, most of the stories were of Triplane victories, Notable Dr.I / Spad 7 encounters? , including the story of Frank Baylies, a highly experienced American SPAD ace, who was shot down as late as June, 1918 by a little known Fokker Triplane pilot.

[greatwarpilot]

Originally Posted by baldeagle

Doesn't eliminating real life factors from equations mean that the results have no real life value?

Good point baldeagle.

Originally Posted by propsimviator

Well, I hope I have gotten across what I am actually trying to discuss here, design concept. In such discussions, weather, manufacturing tolerances/quality, field maintenance, pilot mental or physical conditions, and even blind luck, aren't, and can't be, factors, because they aren't the crux of the matter. The design itself, it's capabilities, and potential use, is.

Propsimviator. Butch asked for the thesis of your argument, is this a good encapsulation of it?

If so, I have to ask you the same question you did of Kitboy in his thread. Why does one ask the question since its encased in the theoretical world of "bench flying", as you put it?

Originally Posted by propsimviator

...all parties have acknowledged that such things do play a factor in a real confrontation - they simply aren't what's being talked about

I think this may be what the main point of contention really is. It may be the way you see the argument, but I think many of those who have been trying to stress real life factors are doing so under the belief that you hope to apply your conclusions to real life situations (perhaps since you reach them in part by drawing on real life examples).

You suggest others are presenting little more than a copout, and others categorize your position as being too based in numbers or your definition of potential conclusions as too polarized for the historical method. In reality perhaps each side is trying to present points based on a different conception of what’s being talked about.

A thought anyways.

If my selection from your previous post doesn't capture the thrust of your argument, my appologies and I'd be most interested in hearing your choice for a starting point in this new thread.

Let's go back to the 02 WS6 vs the C6 Z06 on a drag strip.

We know that the Z06 driver could have gotten some really bad news that throws him off his game. We know that he could be distracted by something he sees (maybe some hottie took her shirt off). We know that something on his car could break.

Therefore, we know that, factoring in all those potenialities, that the slower car could actually win.

This is where BaldEagles comments come into play. He (and the others) are basically claiming, that due to this possibility, NOTHING can be said about which machine is more effective in competition - EVER.

That is flatly incorrect.

Despite any of those things being possible to allow for the victory to go to the "lesser" machine, those very same possibilities could well afffect the other machine in the same way.

Furthermore, and most importantly, we have to acknowledge that this will not be the only such instance of competition between these 2 machines, world wide, over a given period of time.

It's when you consider that, that you are actually accounting for "real world" factors. Looking at it as a single, isolated incident that will never be repeated, is ignoring reality. Both the reality of the nature of competition, and of statistical mechanics. The fact that those possibilities could apply to either party equally, over time, and over repeated instances of said competition, those factors will factor themselves out.

(just to remind people incase they missed it, so they don't have to go digging - 02 WS6 T/A, typically will see low to mid 13s, but with an expert driver, under perfect conditions, can see the 12.9s (and has). The C6 Z06 will typically see mid 12s. I'm not sure what it's ideal condition numbers are. But that means that even with perfect conditions and the best of drivers in the WS6, the Z06 will still beat it with only an average driver)



That's that side of it GWP. The other side of it is the specifics of speed vs turn rate. And the irony is that they do seem to be viewing it under perfect conditions in the very way they try to write me off for supposedly doing. Craigs example of Dr.1 vs SPAD was evidence of this. None of the factors that BaldEagle keeps referring to are accounted for in Craig's example situation.

So it becomes even more frustrating. lol

[baldeagle]

So it isn't possible that "real world factors" were common enough to offset the other parameters? That better trained pilots overall could give the Sopwith Camel a positive kill ratio over the Fokker D.VII? Are they then still not worth including in the equation?
Another postulation, for fun: Speed is more important in war flying, merely because it allows one to cover more ground, offensively and defensively, offers more opportunities for combat, and as machinbird has pointed out, makes surprise (another intangible!) easier. Turning ability is more important in a dogfight. That hit-and-run stuff really only works well when combined with the element of surprise (and what are the units of measurement for that again?). If the Camel or Fokker Triplane pilot knows you are coming, he simply turns to meet your Fokker D.VII or SPAD head-on, and it comes down to firepower, and, marksmanship, that human element, which combined sometimes with luck (oh, no!) is essential to shoot somebody down. Head-on it doesn't matter if you're flying an F-86 or a Sleigh Mk.9-25RA (Willow Run built) with 8 tiny reindeer, it's weapons, marksmanship... and how well the pilot is protected, how much punishment the airframe can absorb, relative vulnerabilities of liquid cooled vs. air cooled engine, etc, etc,..... all easily measured

Machinbird, ok, finally got this out. (had to do this at work lol)

Originally Posted by Machinbird

With your permission, let me play with this.
Let's say the Spad is 5 seconds outside of firing distance and is a lone wolf, the Dr.I breaks into the Spad and puts him on the beam, slacking turn to keep him there. The Spad will probably continue his tracking, trying for a kill, but he could also break off in the opposite direction of the Dr.I break. Assuming the Spad continues to track, the Dr.1 applies forward stick when he observes muzzle flashes. This forces the Spad into unbalance flight to continue track the Dr.I and greatly increases his bullet dispersion. At some point, the Spad has to break off the firing run because the beam geometry requires ever increasing G to continue tracking. When the Spad levels his wings or whatever, the Dr.1 reverses his turn to drop astern of the Spad (if he hasn't been too badly shot about) and commences to shoot until the Spad is beyond 1000'. The Dr.1 commences a max rate climb and keeps the Spad in sight in a comfortable viewing azimuth while checking for other uninvited guests. Your move propsimviator.
P.S. The most effective tactic has always been the surprise attack. The faster aircraft has a better ability to launch the surprise attack since he needs less time to get into position.

Interesting....

You are applying elements of energy management in your description.

From a WWI pilot's perspective, that's a reasonable assessment of it too, I would assume. But, don't forget, that this started because someone felt the need to proclaim the Camel was indeed the über-plane it's reputation would suggest, and I mentioned that I'd rather be in a SPAD because it was faster. And therefore, we aren't approaching this from a strictly WWI pilot knowledge basis.

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.)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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, he now has to try to climb and continue turning to get a gun solution on me, and I'm already 325 meters away, and with him now doing about 70 (and me slowed down to 120), the rate of separation is now 73 feet per second (about 22 meters per second).

I actually now have him in the position you suggested the SPAD would be in (in a sense), losing maneuverability, and at a disadvantage that increases with every second.

Seeing this, I could tighten my turn and increase my climb letting my speed drop to about 110. Since that is almost at this top speed, he can't possibly follow me.

As I watch what he does, he will basically be left with 3 options - break off and level out to regain speed | break off and dive to regain speed | follow me and eventually stall out.

If he picks 3, I increase the Gs, bring it to near stall, wing over or hammer head, and put rounds into him.

If he picks 1, I high yo-yo and get a few long distance short bursts on him to frazzle him and repeat the process, building more and more advantage each time, eventually forcing him to pick #2 (as with #1 he won't gain enough speed, the speed differential means I could concievably follow him for a quarter to a half turn now)

And if he picks 2, he's playing into my hands. I simply rinse and repeat.

Eventually, he's out of altitude..... <eg>

[baldeagle]

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

What's the Fokker pilot's best move in that situation?

Originally Posted by baldeagle

So it isn't possible that "real world factors" were common enough to offset the other parameters? That better trained pilots overall could give the Sopwith Camel a positive kill ratio over the Fokker D.VII? Are they then still not worth including in the equation?
Another postulation, for fun: Speed is more important in war flying, merely because it allows one to cover more ground, offensively and defensively, offers more opportunities for combat, and as machinbird has pointed out, makes surprise (another intangible!) easier. Turning ability is more important in a dogfight. That hit-and-run stuff really only works well when combined with the element of surprise (and what are the units of measurement for that again?). If the Camel or Fokker Triplane pilot knows you are coming, he simply turns to meet your Fokker D.VII or SPAD head-on, and it comes down to firepower, and, marksmanship, that human element, which combined sometimes with luck (oh, no!) is essential to shoot somebody down. Head-on it doesn't matter if you're flying an F-86 or a Sleigh Mk.9-25RA (Willow Run built) with 8 tiny reindeer, it's weapons, marksmanship... and how well the pilot is protected, how much punishment the airframe can absorb, relative vulnerabilities of liquid cooled vs. air cooled engine, etc, etc,..... all easily measured

The idea that hit and run only works with surprise isn't true.

But, if it increases the chances of surprise, as well as making it easier to capitalize on, doesn't that make it a more effective combat machine? You kinda help out my point here.

I would also suggest that ride does make a difference in head on. Aside from weapons and toughness, as you mentioned, which are aspects of the machine, it's weapon placement makes a difference too. A E.III would be better off in a head on against a N.11, than vice versa, since it's a cowl mounted gun vs a high wing mounted gun. The convergence distance on the BeBe is a severe limitation, whereas the Fokker can more easily fire past his convergence distance.

Better training and tactical doctrine (almost) always trump technology, but even within that, some machine based advantage is required, even if it's only dive speed and toughness.

But machine nature plays into tactical doctrin and training. And we know things change dramtically in a 2v2 compared to a 1v1, and it's in the multi v multi engagements that "energy fighters" truly begin to shine. History has shown this as well.

It's a self feeding cycle, speed and toughness are valued for combat flying and demonstrate more advantages in large engagements, and so cause a nation using them to workout tactics for that. That in turn encourages further development in that area, which accentuates the training, and so on.

Which comes back to what I was saying yet again. (thanks for the help. hee!)

[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.
Late edit: this post applies to propsimviator's post (#3). You are spraying words a little too fast for me to respond to and do my real job. Patience please for I see a lot of bad assumptions in post #5.

Originally Posted by baldeagle

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

What's the Fokker pilot's best move in that situation?

Originally Posted by Machinbird

the Dr.I breaks into the Spad and puts him on the beam, slacking turn to keep him there. The Spad will probably continue his tracking, trying for a kill, but he could also break off in the opposite direction of the Dr.I break. Assuming the Spad continues to track, the Dr.1 applies forward stick when he observes muzzle flashes. This forces the Spad into unbalance flight to continue track the Dr.I and greatly increases his bullet dispersion. At some point, the Spad has to break off the firing run because the beam geometry requires ever increasing G to continue tracking. When the Spad levels his wings or whatever, the Dr.1 reverses his turn to drop astern of the Spad (if he hasn't been too badly shot about) and commences to shoot until the Spad is beyond 1000'. The Dr.1 commences a max rate climb and keeps the Spad in sight in a comfortable viewing azimuth while checking for other uninvited guests. Your move 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.

[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.