A WW2 fighter is by function a vehicle that provides gun solutions. Getting a gun solution always involves expending energy. The plane that is least effected by lost energy, or a plane that loses barely any energy at all is ideal for providing gun solutions. The Spitfire, as currently modeled, is ideal for providing gun solutions. A gun solution is the result of a maneuver. A maneuver is a tactical movement towards a strategic end. Therefore, one must maneuver to provide a gun solution (the gun solution comes at the end of the maneuver). One does not know for sure whether or not their maneuver will result in a gun solution. Gun solutions requiring a great deal of energy are less likely to succeed. Thus, if a pilot attempts a maneuver that is known to consume a large amount of energy, he or she is arrogant when he or she attempts it in the belief that he/she will be successful. However... The Spitfire, as currently modeled, is ideal for providing gun solutions. naive: Simple and guileless; artless... "...if a pilot attempts a maneuver that is known to consume a large amount of energy, he or she is arrogant when he or she attempts it in the belief that he/she will be successful..." Interesting how that which was described is simple, guileless, artless and arrogant. The way by which you are attempting to make me look arrogant is anything but humble. The only time a person's arrogance is a problem for you is when it threatens the existence of your own arrogance. You are aggressively paranoid. If you take time to read my posts, you would find that they are objective. Objective people have no opinions. What is interesting is how I have little opinion, yet my facts "argue" with your opinion. When an objective standpoint threatens an opinion, that opinion is invalid.
Fuck. There he goes with arrogance and niavete, two words he doesn't know the meaning of... Getting a kill isn't arrogant. Getting a gun solution isn't niave. niavete is a childlike view arrogant is a snobbish view Dosew the guy just plain LIKE the way those words roll off his tongue? Like a two year old repeating a new word again and again? The other day, while on patrol, I had a youngster, who was quite angry, call me a "whore."
LOL, you're so funny 1) Glas isn't trying to make you look arrogant, he's trying to make you look retarded. 2) You seem more paranoid than any forum user I've seen lately. Always on the defensive, always trying to get at people personally. 3) Objective people do have opinions, they just keep them to yourself, go blabber on about how objectivity exists somewhere else. If everybody were objective democracy would be a farce anyway. So wake up, there are facts, and there are opinions, in some cases opinions are more important than facts, in other cases it's all around. Like we all know: in a fight it comes down to the pilot to know who's the victor, and the pilot isn't an objective matter, it's rather subjective, so in this field you're entirely off the point. The funniest part about your posts is that you won't take responsibility for them, you always need to try to have the final word by adding a line such as: "Your argument is not helping this discussion, therefore it is invalid" or "I don't like what you're saying, so I won't listen" BTW, I don't care much about your reply, as I already know what you're gonna say <Z>
Yeah, now that is one arrogant statement. And certainly one I have seen used a few times here. @ squirl: There is so much wrong with your 'opinions' (cos thats what they are, they are NOT facts). f.ex 'a gun solution always involves expending energy'. WRONG. A gun solution usually involves expending energy. I have had many times where I have simply boomed on a con, got him square at the bottom of the dive, spent a short burst of ammo, then zoomed back. In such a scenario, I have traded my alt for extra energy to kill the con. Not expended energy, but built it up in the dive. So you see, as with many of your 'opinions', they are not objective standpoints. @ Zembla: I wasnt trying to make him look retarded, I did make him look retarded (and yes squirl, that last statement WAS arrogant )
I post a thread containing imformation that is logical and organized and I receive responses that are opinionated and inorganized. Glas, unless your plane was in a vacuum and you used no fuel in your maneuver, you expended energy. What was the original objective of this thread? To praise me? No. I must be defending myself efficiently if how I am doing so offends you. All the threads in which I participate in are organized advantageously for me. You make the claim: and I respond. That applies to this thread as well. ...And yet you always want the last word. Dare I say that is arrogant, or is saying that arrogant?
No, that is a mathematical/scientific law. "Two points always make a line." -One of the most widely used "opinions."
Well, I said trying didn't I? You're not exactly getting at me. As far as maths, re-open your books, two points don't always form a line. Should I give an example or can you figure out one of your own? <Z>
Everyone wakes up with a hangover, but then you gatta ask yourself......."Will you ever find that cat?" Everyone asks "What cat?" .....You reply "The cat that shit in your mouth!"
If energy is measured on a scale of 1-10 and im in a climb, my energy (depending on AoA) would be, say, about 2-3. If I then dive on a con and take such a line that he passes right through my guns, then in the dive I have picked up my energy levels to, say, 8-9. Where have I expended energy? Not in the dive, and not in getting a solution.
I bet that if you sleep with your finger stuck in your ass, you'll wake up with a smelly finger too. Try and tell us, allsop
Well Glas, that is a reasonable question and it deserves a reasonable answer. Airplanes act in equilibrium. With a dihedral wing, if the plane rolls, the lower wing starts to produce more lift and it returns the plane to level flight. If you have no control over the elevator, the plane might go into a slight dive, but as it picks up speed the plane wants to raise its nose, eventually leveling off after its nose lowers at the top of the subsequent slight climb. The same is true with speed. It is better to have more speed most of the time, but the more speed you have, the more drag there is as well. This is what the max sustained level speed of planes is - the point where the thrust of the propeller is not enough to overcome the drag of a higher speed, but is more than enough thrust for a lower speed. This effect is substantial. In most automobiles, if the speed of the car is doubled, the minimum power to sustain the new speed is about five times that of the minimum power of the former speed. In addition, propellers lose their efficiency at higher speeds. So if you dive with a propeller plane starting at 0 km/h and no throttle, you will not end up at an equal or higher altitude when you climb out of the dive. Engine power is not included because the engine adds more power on the way out of the dive than it does going into the dive because the climb takes longer than the dive does. That is how energy is expended in a dive. Yet I always see people who think that if they dive to a great speed then climb back up, they can get more altitude than if I do a low-drag steady climb over the same duration starting from the same altitude. Again, some planes (you know what they are) are not effected by these rules, so they are in no way realistic in that regard.
Yes, if you do go over a certain speed in a dive then it becomes detrimental. You dont lose energy though, only alt that you wont get back (which, of course, can be converted later to speed and E). However I said in a dive til you get to a point where, on a scale of 1-10, your E is at 8-9. So there is still further energy to be gained. Also, it is possible to go in to a short dive, gain speed, then return to your original alt at a faster speed. Not all dives expend energy. Back to the original point. Probably in about 95% of the times, getting a gun solution will involve expending energy. But not always.
Ok nice screen shots squirl LOL. Here are the ones where i killed you. Not some random ones like you posted. Of course i will puul for gun solution on an annoying B an Z er . Thus the low speed in ones you posted, although i was at a loss to find the 10 mph one you seen. Speed was over 100 when i shot you ;'{) Man what is with this forum everything i try to upload is too big??? How can i upload a screenshot that is 1.12 mb when all i am allowed is 73.2 kb???? AHHHHHHHHH ok got it.
Case A: Fly along straight and level for 10 seconds then raise nose to a 90-degree climb. Level off before speed becomes too low for a smooth recovery. Case B: Lower the nose until a 90-degree dive is reached. Dive for 10 seconds, then climb. Level off before speed becomes too low for a smooth recovery. Case C: Climb at optimum climb speed. Of the three, Case C is the most efficient method of dealing with energy. Case B is the worst way to deal with energy. Some dives end at a higher altitude than when they started. However, this does not mean that the dive is not expending energy. Depending on the length and angle of the dive, the time from the beginning to the bottom of the dive is always much less than the time from the bottom to the end of the dive. This means that the engine is putting out a higher total amount of energy on the way up than on the way down. This is the only way a dive can gain energy. If you were flying a glider, a dive followed by a climb would always result in an energy loss (without updrafts). It makes no difference what the dive angle or duration is, as long as it is a dive it results in a loss of energy. Try taking a plane into a dive, only this time have the engine turned on for the same length of time in the dive as in the climb. Once you decelerate to the speed you started at, record the altitude. (It will be less than the altitude you started at.) Glas, if you can find a way to dive and gain energy, you will find yourself to be very rich, as you would have just invented the first perpetual/more than perpetual machine. Remember both speed and altitude add up into what "energy" is, as both kinetic and potential energy are directly related in ACM. To sum up, a dive has these factors against it: -Higher drag -Energy expended to turn the plane from a dive to a climb (turns expend energy too) -Heavy G-forces at the bottom of the dive -Having to travel a huge distance to go from point A (point of dive start) to point B (point of dive end), longer distance traveled, more energy spent -Potential for aircraft stressing -Momentum making a change of direction at the bottom of the dive difficult and wasteful -Propellers lose efficiency with increased speed. Dives are practical in only a handful of applications. Dives are used to evade or dive-bomb. They are also used in Boom and Zoom, but really only because you are extremely fast when you are near your enemy, making a counter-attack for them almost impossible. So Glas, do you still stand by your belief that not all dives expend energy?
Yes, but more importantly that not all gun solutions expend energy, which was the first point before we got derailed
When an object on a path turns, it is changing direction. Because the momentum it had on its original path still wants to act on that path, the object must build up momentum in the new direction it is going to be able to maintain its linear speed. In other words, if an object turns 180 degrees, it must overcome all of its original momentum to move in the opposite direction. The equation for energy retention in a turn is Cos θ, where θ is the angle between the original and current path and the domain is the percentage of original energy retained. For example, the cosine of 60 degrees is .5, meaning that only 50% of the momentum energy is carried into a 60-degree turn, meaning that the other 50% must be accounted for or there is an energy loss. The cosine of 180 degrees is -1, meaning that not only is 100% of the original momentum lost, but all 100% must be built up again. Obviously, no WW2 plane can turn at such a high rate, but it shows that at literally any turn angle, energy must be recovered. It also proves that if you take the cosine function in small steps (turning slowly) one can accept the energy losses in small portions, allowing them to retain their energy better. Additionally, turning in a curve similar to that of a centrifugal orbit (like that of the moon's) allows you to change direction with little energy loss. However, the momentum rule still applies, albeit to a lesser extent. What does this have to do with gun solutions? Well, realistically speaking, all gun solutions require a turn. Even when the victim is AFK, you still need to divert your flight path and sometimes enter a dive. In other words Glas, even a turn of .5 degrees expends some energy.
