Tiredness of the pilot (G factor)

January 16, 2018

In terms of the effects on the pilot, it doesn't matter what tactics were common in World War 2 or not...this is a flight simulator and we are talking about simulating physical effects based on what the user is actually doing in the sim, I think the intent of this thread here is to dissuade players from doing certain manuevers because in real life they would become worn out by them, hence maybe why they weren't so common in the real WW2.

By better simulating some of these physical restrictions, we bring the users' tactics and manuevers closer to what was common...(like a guy repeatedly pushing heavy negative G outside barrel rolls was maybe not something you would see in real life as much as you do in the sim)

Edited January 16, 2018 by Iceworm

January 16, 2018

Neostar already addressed most of this stuff. I've added my own comments (in red) for some pile-ons. No condescension or insult to intelligence is meant.

- current USAF fighter pilot.

I think modern fighter pilots are probably at a level of fitness, training, equipment, and straight-up RESTEDNESS that their WW2 counterparts could not possibly have aspired to. They were in a shooting war with multiple missions per day... for months - years?

You'd be surprised. Although there are plenty of guys (and gals) who work out regularly, there are plenty of folks whose exercise habits are "recreational" at best. They spend far more time in the squadron bar than in the gym. Alcohol and caffeine is consumed in vast quantities as well (only one of those before flight, of course). Long story short -- modern fighter pilots aren't the perfect physical specimen that much of the online and airshow-going public make them out to be.

I'm pretty decently rested at home station, but I probably have as many combat hours as most do in their logbook on this forum. These were 8-10 hour missions, flown from around 11 pm until the next day. Upward of 12 air to air refuelings, at night, with tankers whose lights were off the entire time. We'd have to keep our NVGs on until just a few feet away from the boom to even see the guy (we can't legally refuel with NVGs on). Factor in rapidly changing weather that makes you constantly update your gameplan (for you and your wingman), a rapidly changing fight on the ground (I've flown from north to sound back to north Iraq again multiple times in the same flight) with troops in contact, and comms so poor it gives you a headache from the concentration it takes to understand what's being said. With that said, nothing stopped me from getting the job done once the adrenaline kicked in from a JTAC saying "standby 9-line." Nothing stopped me from pulling G to get to the hold point / IP as quickly as possible to get the job done. Long story short, I don't doubt guys on all sides in WWII were fighting fatigue as much as the enemy...but I would be inclined to say this probably manifested itself more in admin (takeoff and landing accidents) than blacking out constantly because they were tired.

I'm not arguing that there's not a slight decrease in G tolerance when tired. But our bodies are far more sensitive to hydration, as an example. Should we model how much our virtual pilot drank that day? Is he a smoker or a non-smoker (the result of this is actually counter-intuitive)? The list goes on and on...but I think you get the point by now. These things should not be modelled when the team still needs to devote attention to things like map building, FM tweaking (which, despite being vastly improved, still needs work), etc.

And as for the speed requirement to generate G-forces, well, I have to say that any rolling, diving scissors fight from 2km and above should theoretically give you the situation and enough energy to get a G loc. Nevermind from 7-8km like when the bomber streams over West Europe were encountered... why else were semi-recumbent seats and G-suits invented during WW2? Because they were unneeded?

G is actually less at high altitude. The air is too thin to generate enough lift to create a high-G situation. Sure, there are exceptions...a long dive with an aggressive pull-out is going to pile on the Gs pretty quickly regardless of altitude. You'd just bleed it off very quickly up high. I fear Gs the most in the low alt environment -- the jet I currently fly can accelerate at 9.5 Gs down low. If I black out, there's also no time to recover. This is how most guys die from GLOC.

Physiologically speaking...

Positive Gs are essentially like losing your blood pressure to your brain. People react differently depending on the amount of time and the severity. I have had a grey-out, progressing to tunnel-vision and near blackout. It came with nausea, hyperventilation, and a sense of doom, weakness, and a loss of ability to concentrate. This lasted for a minute after recovering...

Negative Gs are essentially increasing your intracranial blood pressure. As such they are a cause of headaches, papilledema, retinal hemorrhages, and worst case scenarios result in intracranial bleeds aka hemorrhagic strokes. It's called a "red out" because your retina (which gets its blood supply from the same vessels that feed your brain) is becoming engorged with blood... and you are seeing through the engorged vessels. Bleeds don't disappear once you stop pulling Gs. Luckily, pilots feel very uncomfortable indeed and stop pulling negative Gs...

Your brain is very good at auto-regulating its blood flow, because this is critical to its function. When this mechanism is overwhelmed, positive or negative, there are consequences. Just because you are young and hot stuff, doesn't mean your brain doesn't follow the rules... and when your brain gets whacked, you are whacked...

I've posted a USAF research paper on these forums which detailed the consequences of positive G black-out.

Like any person who suddenly loses blood pressure to their brains, some pilots went into seizures...

In conclusion, my personal opinion is that if G tolerance (that is, G tolerance decreasing over time from fatigue) is modelled, it will detract from the sim. With that said, the devs should definitely make it so you can't fly the aircraft once you've actually G-LOC'd.

January 16, 2018

Why would it "detract" from the sim? It sounds, especially with the negative G's, that better modelling residual effects would only serve to enhance the sim. (My only interest in this thread is extreme negative G manuevers, that I see people in multiplayer doing over and over and over again for prolonged periods of time..and have done it myself too...and I'm just sceptical about how 'realistic' that is)

Edited January 16, 2018 by Iceworm

January 16, 2018

The point is that "the reestablishment of aviation" after your alien sucking scenario depends on a great deal more than just the memories of people who had been aviators. Similarly, resolving just about any question about WW2 aviation discussed on this forum, even including the subjective experience of what it was like to fly WW2 warbirds in combat, is something that depends on a great deal more than recent personal flying experience.

That does not mean that pilot's experiences are not useful or insightful: of course the rest of us have to take them into account. But when a pilot makes a claim about WW2 aviation, such as "Fighter dive tactics were not common and were used to make up for aircraft shortcomings,..." he is making a historical claim. He gets no additional weight for this claim by virtue of his aviation experience. In that particular case I am not at all sure that he is right: when the RAF were operating cross channel in 1941-43, diving attacks by 109s in Gruppe or JG strength were commonplace, according to my reading of the contemporary accounts. Whether those led to risk of black-outs or not I am still unsure despite this interesting thread. That is a medical issue. neostar says it never happened to him and gives reasons: Venturi posts some interesting medical research. With luck everyone learns something.

And so it goes on. This is exactly how a forum is supposed to work.

Correct, I am making a historical claim based on my research with documentaries and books (pilot interviews etc) like everyone else on this forum BUT additionally I have my experience in the same physical environment (altitude, speed, temp, visibility etc) to give me insight as to what the WW2 pilots were experiencing.

What most in the sim community don't realize is how hard it is to spot the enemy at a distance. Unless you are willing to fly hardcore settings with no aid from markers you don't appreciate the difficulty involved in spotting enemies 3-5+ miles out. Even with this you still don't have the true picture when factoring atmospherics and background noise.

The reason I state diving on the enemy was not common (i.e. dive tactics) is because you have to be lucky enough to spot the enemy before they spot you because once they spot you, they will deny you any advantage you may have with altitude by pointing their nose on you and closing the distance.

During my combat training, even with the aid of radar and air controller intercept it was not uncommon to lose visual of targets before the merge in which case you had to reacquire the targets. It is this experience with visual acquisition that adds weight to my historical claim.

Unless you happen to get lucky the odds were that you were going to spot the enemy right about the same time they were going to spot you.

In ww2:

The only exception to this case was air intercept where you the fighter, spots enemy bombers (much larger) before they spot you in which of course gave you time in using altitude and coming in with the sun on your back was the standard tactic.

BUT if those bombers had fighter escorts then there was a good chance you didn't see them because your eyes were glued on the bombers for your initial setup run so guess what happens next. If you were good you spotted the enemy fighters before you started your dive on the bombers and chances are they were at your altitude or higher hence you never get the chance for the dive run unless you are willing to take a chance those enemy fighters haven't spotted you.

Remember there are a lot of enemy eyeballs scanning the immediate area for just these types of tactics.

This documentary below is one of the best out there discussing russian tactics. It makes clear that russian pilots used high-altitude dive tactics on formations. What isn't clear is that those formations had to be bombers because fighters do not fly in tight formation while in combat. Bombers flew tight to aid in combined gunner coverage. Fighters spread out to maximize visual scans and mutual fighter support.

I still stand by my claim that actual dive runs were not as common as you might think given the dynamics involved. Remember the enemy is trying to do the exact same thing as you.

So both sides are going to setup as high as possible before entering the combat area unless otherwise dictated (i.e. CAS, CAS escort etc).

We know about dive runs because it's what stood out not because it was common.

And no I didn't just make stuff up about P40's dive tactics making up for it's shortcomings.

In this documentary (I think, I have seen so many) you will see they talk about it:

Ah here it is at time 32:30 this doc talks specifically about P40 dive tactics making up for shortcomings:

BTW the germans had no problem using dive tactics during the battle of britain because the english never had the time to setup for high altitude tactics. Even with the cutting-edge radar the Brits were always on the defensive and could not afford high-altitude patrols or had enough time to setup for high-altitude engagements. Again I saw this in an documentary and I am not making it up. So yes during this two month window, dive tactics were common for the germans attacking the british forces.

Neostar already addressed most of this stuff. I've added my own comments (in red) for some pile-ons. No condescension or insult to intelligence is meant.

- current USAF fighter pilot.

Glad to see an air force bubba piping in on this. Good stuff for the sim community to chew on.

Edited January 16, 2018 by neostar

January 16, 2018

Why would it "detract" from the sim? It sounds, especially with the negative G's, that better modelling residual effects would only serve to enhance the sim. (My only interest in this thread is extreme negative G manuevers, that I see people in multiplayer doing over and over and over again for prolonged periods of time..and have done it myself too...and I'm just sceptical about how 'realistic' that is)

You should be skeptical because negative Gs for more than a couple of seconds is unrealistic. The sim should model this by losing control of the plane for a few seconds while the plane goes back to positive G. I would make a case for the pilot view smashing up against the top of the canopy for good measure.

Redout and blackouts would not have enough time to happen.

January 16, 2018

Personally, I'd rather not see that simulated in IL2.

Me neither.

January 16, 2018

Why would it "detract" from the sim? It sounds, especially with the negative G's, that better modelling residual effects would only serve to enhance the sim. (My only interest in this thread is extreme negative G manuevers, that I see people in multiplayer doing over and over and over again for prolonged periods of time..and have done it myself too...and I'm just sceptical about how 'realistic' that is)

A harsher model for negative G would be fine. Factoring fatigue in is the part I'm concerned with. I just honestly think it's too subjective. It's along the same lines as why we don't model random engine failures, gun jams, etc. Sure, some people want it, but there's just a lot of room for things to be modelled incorrectly.

2nd on the smacking the canopy part. Negative G, in the way that people use it online, would probably result in this. Even if you're strapped in tight, you're going to have trouble continuing to read instruments, manipulate flight controls, and maintain spatial awareness. It's just very disorienting. I know guys who have departed the jet (out of control) and have experienced negative alpha, and they couldn't even read the HUD because they were so "light in the seat."

It's fair enough to want a solution to this. I just worry that fatigue will have wider-reaching (negative) consequences.

WRT more headshake for positive / lateral G, please no. It's fine / sufficient the way it is.

January 16, 2018

2nd on the smacking the canopy part. Negative G, in the way that people use it online, would probably result in this. Even if you're strapped in tight, you're going to have trouble continuing to read instruments, manipulate flight controls, and maintain spatial awareness. It's just very disorienting.

No... As I said, if your harness is tight:

You can still read your instrument.

Of course, you can completely manipulate your flights controls.

But under heavy Gs, positive or negative, it'll be harder to move your head around.

You should be skeptical because negative Gs for more than a couple of seconds is unrealistic. The sim should model this by losing control of the plane for a few seconds while the plane goes back to positive G. I would make a case for the pilot view smashing up against the top of the canopy for good measure.

No... what you describe would only happen if you forget to close your harness.

January 16, 2018

No... As I said, if your harness is tight:

You can still read your instrument.

Of course, you can completely manipulate your flights controls.

But under heavy Gs, positive or negative, it'll be harder to move your head around.

No... what you describe would only happen if you forget to close your harness.

My time in out of control flight training in the T2 and T34 tells me you folks making this assertion that having a tight harness is all you need, don't know what you are talking about.

As my air force counterpart has stated, negative Gs are very disorienting and unless you strap-down like the professional aerobatic pilots do, you will not be able to stay in your seat and have steady control of the aircraft.

Even the aerobatic pilots keep the negative gs at 1 or less because they know all to well how dangerous that situation can be when controlling the aircraft.

January 16, 2018

I like the idea, from earlier, that each time you are subjected to a certain threshold of Negative G's you incur a very small percentage of 'wound' per second, or something similar.

January 16, 2018

My time in out of control flight training in the T2 and T34 tells me you folks making this assertion that having a tight harness is all you need, don't know what you are talking about.

As my air force counterpart has stated, negative Gs are very disorienting and unless you strap-down like the professional aerobatic pilots do, you will not be able to stay in your seat and have steady control of the aircraft.

Even the aerobatic pilots keep the negative gs at 1 or less because they know all to well how dangerous that situation can be when controlling the aircraft.

You mean generally fighter pilots don't tight their harness?

With all the respect I have about your experience, your statement about negative Gs is wrong. In the first aerobatic levels, we already push -3G. In unlimited level, it goes up to -8, sometimes more (aircraft can support -10). And almost half of the sequence (or training flight) will have negative figures.

So I can say without doubt that you can still control your aircraft under heavy negative G, without getting in dangerous situation.

Edited January 16, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

January 16, 2018

Hello everybody,

We all know (pilots or not) that G force affect physically the pilot.

The thing is, in that game, after a G lock you just have to wait few seconds to recover, and then you continue the flight like nothing happened. Which is of course impossible.

The idea would be to see the pilot getting slowly but surely more and more tired if he pull too much G. After a moment, he should be unable to pull hard turns and sustain another hard and long dogfight.

Btw, WWII pilots had not anti G flight suits.

I'm posting this firstly to know if dev already talked about it. Could it be possible to implement that in the game?

It would be so much interesting...

I'm also looking for memories of WWII pilots talking about it. My experience of G force is only based on aerobatics flights, which is quite different: we take higher G (positive and negative), but we don't have to sustain it for more than few seconds (maximum 5-6 seconds, which is enough to get a black out btw). And the average duration of the flight is 15 minuts.

I posted this 4 years ago

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/1125-pilot-limitation-under-load-and-stress/?do=findComment&comment=22469

January 16, 2018

Didn't noticed that part of the forum. I've should post this there.

January 16, 2018

No biggy. It was an excellent discussion until the troll bongo turned up and made it some sort of 'battle he must win'. I think everybody agreed it would be a good thing to do, start simply and extend from that. Blakhart didn't brag about what he does, but at the time he was flying the MiG-29 for Poland iirc.

The first few pages get to the nub of it and would be nice if the devs took it on board.

January 16, 2018

And yet some climbers climb Everest without oxygen

Yes, but they acclimatise over several weeks and make one summit push where the climb is several hours. They don't get up their in 25 minutes. And of course even though they are literally the best climbers in the World rather than drafted kids, some of them still manage to die trying.

January 16, 2018

You mean generally fighter pilots don't tight their harness?

With all the respect I have about your experience, your statement about negative Gs is wrong. In the first aerobatic levels, we already push -3G. In unlimited level, it goes up to -8, sometimes more (aircraft can support -10). And almost half of the sequence (or training flight) will have negative figures.

So I can say without doubt that you can still control your aircraft under heavy negative G, without getting in dangerous situation.

Yep, I've had this discussion (back before I retired) with a young very sharp co-pilot that owns a CAP10. He's a bachelor, not a care in the world. He explained how his instructor (world famous Russian aerobatic champion) challenged some RL fighter pilots to a g tolerance contest of sorts. The aerobatic pilots pulled and pushed extreme positive and negative g faster than the fighter pilots. He was honestly proud to say that he routinely pulled and pushed higher g's than this old Jurassic era fighter pilot. I agreed that he did. I politely asked my co-pilot if these were sustained g's, and were they able to keep the other airplane in sight and achieve or deny weapons parameters whilst pulling and pushing to extremes. My co-pilot gave me a puzzled look, I politely told him that competitive aerobatics is choreography to look pretty without having to watch another airplane let alone multiple airplanes. He smiled and shrugged, yeah it's different.

But you are right, some airplanes can be controlled under heavy negative g.

January 17, 2018

You mean generally fighter pilots don't tight their harness?

With all the respect I have about your experience, your statement about negative Gs is wrong. In the first aerobatic levels, we already push -3G. In unlimited level, it goes up to -8, sometimes more (aircraft can support -10). And almost half of the sequence (or training flight) will have negative figures.

So I can say without doubt that you can still control your aircraft under heavy negative G, without getting in dangerous situation.

curious what platform did you fly? I have never heard of any aircraft able to withstand -8gs.

You do realize that at -8gs the harness would be supporting 8 times the body weight of the pilot. For a pilot close to 200lbs that would be almost 1600lbs exerted on the body at the harness contact points. You have any idea how painful that would be even for just an instant? Sustained would be out of the question. Combat aircraft have never been designed for such negative Gs and like I said before the restraint systems are not designed for continuous negative G control of the plane.

I already stated that aerobatic pilots have a different restraint system so it makes sense that they can sustain negative Gs better but no way can anyone deal with negative 10Gs both for medical and aircraft design reasons.

Harness locked is not the same as a harness cinched down with maximum force. Harness locked has some play in jets and I am sure it wasn't any better 70 years ago.

Like I said in earlier posts, when in a combat environment the pilot is constantly looking back and scanning for enemies. This becomes extremely difficult (near impossible) with the harness locked. It is and was normal practice to have the harness unlocked during flight for said reasons.

The harness is typically locked for takeoff and landings as a safety measure in case of a mishap.

BTW I have a hard time accepting -8 not to mention -10Gs.

Planes aren't designed like that.

From wiki:

Design standards[edit]

Excessive load factors must be avoided because of the possibility of exceeding the structural strength of the aircraft.

Aviation authorities specify the load factor limits within which different category of aircraft are required to operate without damage. For example, the US Federal Aviation Regulations prescribe the following limits (for the most restrictive case):

For transport category airplanes, from -1 to +2.5 (or up to +3.8 depending on design takeoff weight)^[5]
For normal category and commuter category airplanes, from -1.52 to +3.8^[6]
For utility category airplanes, from -1.76 to +4.4^[6]
For acrobatic category airplanes, from -3.0 to +6.0^[6]
For helicopters, from -1 to +3.5^[7]^[8]

Edited January 17, 2018 by neostar

January 17, 2018

Correct, I am making a historical claim based on my research with documentaries and books (pilot interviews etc) like everyone else on this forum BUT additionally I have my experience in the same physical environment (altitude, speed, temp, visibility etc) to give me insight as to what the WW2 pilots were experiencing.

What most in the sim community don't realize is how hard it is to spot the enemy at a distance. Unless you are willing to fly hardcore settings with no aid from markers you don't appreciate the difficulty involved in spotting enemies 3-5+ miles out. Even with this you still don't have the true picture when factoring atmospherics and background noise.

The reason I state diving on the enemy was not common (i.e. dive tactics) is because you have to be lucky enough to spot the enemy before they spot you because once they spot you, they will deny you any advantage you may have with altitude by pointing their nose on you and closing the distance.

During my combat training, even with the aid of radar and air controller intercept it was not uncommon to lose visual of targets before the merge in which case you had to reacquire the targets. It is this experience with visual acquisition that adds weight to my historical claim.

<snip>

Long, informative post and I do not want to nitpick - but I will just a little

I agree that you have the additional experience that someone like me just reading the reports does not have - but that may sometimes lead you into error because your experience gives you preconceptions that are misleading in another setting.

Let us take the "diving attacks" issue: my counter example was the RAF daylight raids (Rodeos and Circuses) over France in 1941-43. Typically a Circus was done with several Spitfire squadrons and a small bomber formation acting as bait. You bring visibility into the issue - I ~~fly~~ play icons off, so I know this is a problem when trying to find and track an individual target, especially low down against terrain. But in the real world, formations of 30+ fighters at high altitude are much easier to see than single planes (or so pilots have said in this forum on several occasions), especially when the ground radar is communicating with you to tell you where to look.

The RAF wanted a dogfight - so naturally the GAF did not want to give them one. Being good Germans and faithfully following Boelcke's rules they would not attack at all unless they had altitude advantage. A whole Gruppe would dive onto the bombers - or the fighters, they knew the bombers were just bait and sometimes ignored them - fire a long burst during the dive, and then continue their dive. 30 aircraft doing this might score a few hits - or none at all, but they were fairly safe because the Spitfires could not catch them without a sustained chase dragging them low and further into France: not good for the Spitfires already close to their Bingo point.

Hence you read comments about how the 109s seldom stuck around for a fight: the RAF noted specifically that by contrast, once the Fw190s arrived they did, not in the horizontal so much as in a vertical energy fight.

So are diving attacks common? Common enough to be a routine tactic for the GAF vs the RAF.

Did that ever lead the GAF pilots to suffer G-loc? You seem to think not, and I appreciate your detailed and clear input as to why.

Edited January 17, 2018 by unreasonable

January 17, 2018

Wait until you're my age. I'm so old that I G-LOC if I get up off the couch too fast.

January 17, 2018

I am 62 - and yes I had noticed that too. But the good part is I soon forget all about it.

January 17, 2018

Long, informative post and I do not want to nitpick - but I will just a little

I agree that you have the additional experience that someone like me just reading the reports does not have - but that may sometimes lead you into error because your experience gives you preconceptions that are misleading in another setting.

Let us take the "diving attacks" issue: my counter example was the RAF daylight raids (Rodeos and Circuses) over France in 1941-43. Typically a Circus was done with several Spitfire squadrons and a small bomber formation acting as bait. You bring visibility into the issue - I ~~fly~~ play icons off, so I know this is a problem when trying to find and track an individual target, especially low down against terrain. But in the real world, formations of 30+ fighters at high altitude are much easier to see than single planes (or so pilots have said in this forum on several occasions), especially when the ground radar is communicating with you to tell you where to look.

The RAF wanted a dogfight - so naturally the GAF did not want to give them one. Being good Germans and faithfully following Boelcke's rules they would not attack at all unless they had altitude advantage. A whole Gruppe would dive onto the bombers - or the fighters, they knew the bombers were just bait and sometimes ignored them - fire a long burst during the dive, and then continue their dive. 30 aircraft doing this might score a few hits - or none at all, but they were fairly safe because the Spitfires could not catch them without a sustained chase dragging them low and further into France: not good for the Spitfires already close to their Bingo point.

Hence you read comments about how the 109s seldom stuck around for a fight: the RAF noted specifically that by contrast, once the Fw190s arrived they did, not in the horizontal so much as in a vertical energy fight.

So are diving attacks common? Common enough to be a routine tactic for the GAF vs the RAF.

Did that ever lead the GAF pilots to suffer G-loc? You seem to think not, and I appreciate your detailed and clear input as to why.

Well what you are describing to me is a diversionary tactic using dives amongst large groups (who are keenly aware of the tactic) to bait not to really kill. Judging by the consensus of this very old thread (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83432) this tactic backfired for the allies.

My point was bonafide dive tactics going for the kill like the russians would do to unsuspecting bomber formations or the flying tigers over china did. These tactics were used but were not common throughout the war because of the visibility dynamics involved and once both sides became aware of diving tactics both tried to counter them every time making it much harder to pull off.

To describe the scenario you presented as common would imply that the majority of dogfights that occurred in ww2 involved massive group fights (hairballs I think they were called) and we know this isn't the case. There were lots of skirmishes involving CAP and fighter sorties patrolling sectors etc which were more common than the large scale fights. These are the sorties I am talking about. Sure lots of famous occasions involving hairballs especially in the pacific but it was not commonplace. The high sortie counts required by daily operations prohibited large scale attack runs. Also large scale fights were dangerous for everyone involved because of the increased risk of mid-air collisions.

The logical reason for limited large scale fights was logistics, having all those planes up at the same time meant exposing your defenses when they came back to re-arm and refuel. So economy of forces were always on the mind of the planners.

I am also confused by your statement about 109s not wanting to stick around for a fight. If they were flying over occupied France they had more gas because they had nearby airfields and they also had a reputation going with the 109s being the premiere fighters at the start of the war.

Now towards the end of the war things changed as Germany's air forces were gutted and resources were becoming scarce and they lost the prestige of the 109s as the spitfires and certain russian fighters proved to be a match to them.

Like I said in the case of the battle of britain you had the german fighters using diving tactics with impunity because the brits never had a chance to meet them at altitude. These special cases were just that special cases and not common occurrences throughout the war. Had the spitfires and hurricanes met the germans at altitude there would be no diving tactics during that time.

And I will repeat what a I said before to pull hard Gs during a dive is to waste energy that could be used better. Optimum turns (standard tactics to regain altitude or maintain separation) will not use max Gs hence less chance of a G-loc.

And just a reminder this is just a discussion not an argument so your point of view is just as valid as mine

Edited January 17, 2018 by neostar

January 17, 2018

<p>

curious what platform did you fly? I have never heard of any aircraft able to withstand -8gs.

You do realize that at -8gs the harness would be supporting 8 times the body weight of the pilot. For a pilot close to 200lbs that would be almost 1600lbs exerted on the body at the harness contact points. You have any idea how painful that would be even for just an instant? Sustained would be out of the question. Combat aircraft have never been designed for such negative Gs and like I said before the restraint systems are not designed for continuous negative G control of the plane.

I already stated that aerobatic pilots have a different restraint system so it makes sense that they can sustain negative Gs better but no way can anyone deal with negative 10Gs both for medical and aircraft design reasons.

Harness locked is not the same as a harness cinched down with maximum force. Harness locked has some play in jets and I am sure it wasn't any better 70 years ago.

Like I said in earlier posts, when in a combat environment the pilot is constantly looking back and scanning for enemies. This becomes extremely difficult (near impossible) with the harness locked. It is and was normal practice to have the harness unlocked during flight for said reasons.

The harness is typically locked for takeoff and landings as a safety measure in case of a mishap.

BTW I have a hard time accepting -8 not to mention -10Gs.

Planes aren't designed like that.

From wiki:

Design standards[edit]

Excessive load factors must be avoided because of the possibility of exceeding the structural strength of the aircraft.

Aviation authorities specify the load factor limits within which different category of aircraft are required to operate without damage. For example, the US Federal Aviation Regulations prescribe the following limits (for the most restrictive case):

For transport category airplanes, from -1 to +2.5 (or up to +3.8 depending on design takeoff weight)^[5]

For normal category and commuter category airplanes, from -1.52 to +3.8^[6]

For utility category airplanes, from -1.76 to +4.4^[6]

For acrobatic category airplanes, from -3.0 to +6.0^[6]

For helicopters, from -1 to +3.5^[7]^[8]

Beat me to it.

All I have is a lap belt to keep me secured under negative G. Seat kit straps, g suit hose, O2 hose, backup O2 hose, comm cord, and parachute risers do nothing to keep me restrained.

I tighten it when I first get in. I retighten on taxi bc it already feels looser from me moving in the seat (note I’m not saying the belt loosens...). I tighten again before takeoff. Even then, negative G will still move you.

If I only tighten it once after getting it...I’m hitting my helmet on the canopy under negative G.

Can you tell me more about your experience, Faucon? I’m particularly interested in your qualifications. A blanket “no” to my statement makes me curious.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Go_Pre

January 17, 2018

Well what you are describing to me is a diversionary tactic using dives amongst large groups (who are keenly aware of the tactic) to bait not to really kill. Judging by the consensus of this very old thread (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83432) this tactic backfired for the allies.

My point was bonafide dive tactics going for the kill like the russians would do to unsuspecting bomber formations or the flying tigers over china did. These tactics were used but were not common throughout the war because of the visibility dynamics involved and once both sides became aware of diving tactics both tried to counter them every time making it much harder to pull off.

To describe the scenario you presented as common would imply that the majority of dogfights that occurred in ww2 involved massive group fights (hairballs I think they were called) and we know this isn't the case. There were lots of skirmishes involving CAP and fighter sorties patrolling sectors etc which were more common than the large scale fights. These are the sorties I am talking about. Sure lots of famous occasions involving hairballs especially in the pacific but it was not commonplace. The high sortie counts required by daily operations prohibited large scale attack runs. Also large scale fights were dangerous for everyone involved because of the increased risk of mid-air collisions.

The logical reason for limited large scale fights was logistics, having all those planes up at the same time meant exposing your defenses when they came back to re-arm and refuel. So economy of forces were always on the mind of the planners.

I am also confused by your statement about 109s not wanting to stick around for a fight. If they were flying over occupied France they had more gas because they had nearby airfields and they also had a reputation going with the 109s being the premiere fighters at the start of the war.

Now towards the end of the war things changed as Germany's air forces were gutted and resources were becoming scarce and they lost the prestige of the 109s as the spitfires and certain russian fighters proved to be a match to them.

Like I said in the case of the battle of britain you had the german fighters using diving tactics with impunity because the brits never had a chance to meet them at altitude. These special cases were just that special cases and not common occurrences throughout the war. Had the spitfires and hurricanes met the germans at altitude there would be no diving tactics during that time.

And I will repeat what a I said before to pull hard Gs during a dive is to waste energy that could be used better. Optimum turns (standard tactics to regain altitude or maintain separation) will not use max Gs hence less chance of a G-loc.

And just a reminder this is just a discussion not an argument so your point of view is just as valid as mine

No problem - I always try to learn something new from these threads. I think part of the problem we are having is the idea of what is "common". I certainly do not agree that "common" implies "the majority": it just means not uncommon. Large scale fighter sweeps by the RAF - in Wing or Group strength (btw I am sure you know that in the RAF the Group is the larger formation) - were routine in 1941. They had to fly in those numbers because the Germans would almost always operate as a Gruppe together, sometimes the whole JG. Of course smaller operations also happened - but these interception type scenarios involving a large, high, up-sun formation diving down and through the escorts or bomber formations were certainly not rare. You might think that the common experience of the RAF from 1940 through to 1942 was in some way unrepresentative - in that light every phase of the war was unrepresentative, as each phase had it's own particular nature. Given that for much of the period under discussion the RAF was the only air force actually fighting the Germans, I hardly think that their experience should be dismissed.

What is more important than the absolute numbers is that they happened often enough - so to go back to the original topic the question then is did such tactics lead to significant risk of G-loc: you think not and I accept that, unless someone can come up with some convincing evidence.

I took up this specific issue not to pick an argument with you so much as to illustrate my objection to Oubaas' post: pilots are not always right about the history.

Just on the detail of this specific case - why on earth would the 109s stay to fight in this scenario when that is what the RAF want? They have essentially a free attack - with low probability of hits to be sure, but the RAF will be back for more punishment the next time the weather is good. Once a dogfight develops the 109s have no significant advantage over Spitfires, except for the fuel point that you mention: the German pilots knew that having found that out in the BoB. Hit and run gives a few victories at relatively low risk: after all the GAF over France had far less reason to fight to the death than the RAF over the UK: nothing strategic was at stake, much of the time the bombs would only fall on French people anyway, so who cares? I am not saying that they never got in to a longer fight - of course they sometimes did, young men being what they are, but the accounts of these battles make it clear that the 109s usually did not stick around for a fight. Fw190s could use energy tactics much more effectively than 109s due to their superior high speed handling - so they did.

January 17, 2018

curious what platform did you fly? I have never heard of any aircraft able to withstand -8gs. You do realize that at -8gs the harness would be supporting 8 times the body weight of the pilot. For a pilot close to 200lbs that would be almost 1600lbs exerted on the body at the harness contact points. You have any idea how painful that would be even for just an instant? Sustained would be out of the question. Combat aircraft have never been designed for such negative Gs and like I said before the restraint systems are not designed for continuous negative G control of the plane. I already stated that aerobatic pilots have a different restraint system so it makes sense that they can sustain negative Gs better but no way can anyone deal with negative 10Gs both for medical and aircraft design reasons.

Extra330SC (still flying it btw) : https://www.extraaircraft.com/330SC.php

And yes I have some kind of idea about heavy negative Gs. It's regular to push -6/7G, but sometimes it's 8 or 9.

January 17, 2018

unreasonable I hold the opinion that diving attacks were indeed fairly common (as opposed to rare or uncommon) based on a whole library of books I own and have read. According to one title the USMC and Finnish Air Force were highly proficient at variations of steep diving air-to-air gunnery PRIOR to WW2, a skill that was passed on.

I’m currently reading Attack of the Airacobras where it describes how Porkryshin was able to initiate his “formula for terror” in the Spring of 1943. A notion that was resisted by Soviet HQ (altitude stacking, diving out of the sun). A tactical revolution for the VVS that initially caught LW fighters off guard. And they were starting below 10,000 feet (3,000 meters) which was described as high altitude.

Accounts of the air war in the Solomons and New Guinea frequently mention diving attacks as opening moves, and as tactics against stragglers. But to you question about G-LOC from this practice, I cannot recall any anecdotes of G-LOC, just occasional descriptions of gray out or black out.

So if I’ve read neostar correctly, I disagree with his assertion that steep diving attacks were a rare thing. But I do agree that G-LOC was not that common. But I would conclude it was a known threat based upon enthusiasm or lack of interest amongst USN Hellcat pilots when G-suits were introduced late in the war.

January 17, 2018

Extra330SC (still flying it btw) : https://www.extraaircraft.com/330SC.php

And yes I have some kind of idea about heavy negative Gs. It's regular to push -6/7G, but sometimes it's 8 or 9.

didn't realize the materials have gotten that strong for an airframe to sustain -10Gs. In any case I am sure you agree we are talking apples and oranges with regards to combat and aerobatics.

unreasonable I hold the opinion that diving attacks were indeed fairly common (as opposed to rare or uncommon) based on a whole library of books I own and have read. According to one title the USMC and Finnish Air Force were highly proficient at variations of steep diving air-to-air gunnery PRIOR to WW2, a skill that was passed on.

I’m currently reading Attack of the Airacobras where it describes how Porkryshin was able to initiate his “formula for terror” in the Spring of 1943. A notion that was resisted by Soviet HQ (altitude stacking, diving out of the sun). A tactical revolution for the VVS that initially caught LW fighters off guard. And they were starting below 10,000 feet (3,000 meters) which was described as high altitude.

Accounts of the air war in the Solomons and New Guinea frequently mention diving attacks as opening moves, and as tactics against stragglers. But to you question about G-LOC from this practice, I cannot recall any anecdotes of G-LOC, just occasional descriptions of gray out or black out.

So if I’ve read neostar correctly, I disagree with his assertion that steep diving attacks were a rare thing. But I do agree that G-LOC was not that common. But I would conclude it was a known threat based upon enthusiasm or lack of interest amongst USN Hellcat pilots when G-suits were introduced late in the war

Like I said, steep diving attacks were common for SBD-2s, Stukas, fighter attacks on enescorted bombers, ground attack planes etc etc. They were not common for typical fighter vs. fighter skirmishes for the reasons I already cited.

I stated in my earlier posts that the russian ace you cited started changing the mindsets of the russian pilots to use diving runs on bombing formations. But once the german fighters were aware of the tactic I promise you that wasn't as effective unless the bombing formation was unescorted which did occur during the eastern campaigns.

But my point was and is that fighters diving on fighters was not as common as you think for the reasons I already stated. Only in special situations where one side is at a disadvantage could such a tactic work and work sucessfully (i.e. stragglers, damaged planes limping away etc etc).

It is very easy to assume something is common because it's stated in a book by a pilot's recollection.

It's the same as if I were to write a book and talk about my techniques I used for landing on a carrier or how I came back to the ship and landed with two 500lb bombs still under my wings. One could assume the techniques I used for landing as common or it was common for planes to come back to the ship still sporting bombs under the wings. Both of these cases were not common. My techniques were unique to me and bombs were commonly jettisoned before returning to the ship after a malfunction had occurred.

Chances are those situations written in a book are put in there as highlights just like we read about the exciting combat actions many times over but rarely do we here about standing staff duty officer watch or runway officer watch or flying a full sortie with no combat action whatsoever all common occurrences in war.

And as I stated over and over again, g-suits and gloc were a factor once the faster planes appeared late in the war (i.e. p51s, hellcats, me-262s etc etc)

Finally here is a must watch documentary for those enjoying this sim. At time 32:30 you will here the narrator talk about the russian ace and his diving tactics, it is clear to me he is talking about diving on bomber formations not fighter formations.

Edited January 17, 2018 by neostar

January 17, 2018

Respectfully neostar, there are more anecdotes by pilots and mission debrief narratives of all the belligerent air arms to support the notion that diving attacks against unaware fighters was common. An unaware target is an unaware target, fighter pilots were not immune to being surprised.

You are certainly entitled to hold whatever opinion you want, the evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) does not conform to your analysis.

Also a former fighter pilot...with 400+ air combat titles in my library (that I’ve actually read).

Edited January 17, 2018 by busdriver

January 17, 2018

Beat me to it.

All I have is a lap belt to keep me secured under negative G. Seat kit straps, g suit hose, O2 hose, backup O2 hose, comm cord, and parachute risers do nothing to keep me restrained.

I tighten it when I first get in. I retighten on taxi bc it already feels looser from me moving in the seat (note I’m not saying the belt loosens...). I tighten again before takeoff. Even then, negative G will still move you.

If I only tighten it once after getting it...I’m hitting my helmet on the canopy under negative G.

Can you tell me more about your experience, Faucon? I’m particularly interested in your qualifications. A blanket “no” to my statement makes me curious.

Don't forget all that dirt,debris and Foreign Object Debris flying up to meet you at the top of the canopy that was always fun.

January 17, 2018

Respectfully neostar, there are more anecdotes by pilots and mission debrief narratives of all the belligerent air arms to support the notion that diving attacks against unaware fighters was common. An unaware target is an unaware target, fighter pilots were not immune to being surprised.

You are certainly entitled to hold whatever opinion you want, the evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) does not conform to your analysis.

Also a former fighter pilot...with 400+ air combat titles in my library (that I’ve actually read).

Oh I totally agree there were those situations of unaware pilots being killed without ever knowing what hit them but no way was that common.

Your eyesight must have been much better than mine because I had a hell of a time tracking bandits visually outside of 3 miles.

My experience in BFM and BVR engagements taught me that you had a better chance of spotting the enemy looking up and not down because you were not dealing with the ground clutter which is a the main reason why it's so hard to spot the enemy at high altitudes looking down unless there was an overcast below the bandits which evened things out for both sides.

Like I said, we are more likely to read about the exciting and out of the ordinary scenarios than we are the routine, mundane and common. It's what sells books and let's not forget pilot's embellishments when retelling stories.

In any case you are entitled to your views as I am mine.

Edited January 17, 2018 by neostar

January 17, 2018

Some fighter pilots in WW2 were flying and surviving and considered a great help for their squad because of their good eyesight, not because they were excellent shots or tactical geniuses. They spotted the bandit, the tactical genius of the squad found an approach where the enemy would have a hard time spotting them and the good shots would go on score the kills. Surprise attacks, even against large formations, happened this way. But what was truly common is that someone did not see all enemies, dodging the first two he saw but getting nailed by the third or fourth when he thought he was in the clear again.

January 17, 2018

Oh I totally agree there were those situations of unaware pilots being killed without ever knowing what hit them but no way was that common.

Like I said, we are more likely to read about the exciting and out of the ordinary scenarios than we are the routine, mundane and common. It's what sells books and let's not forget pilot's embellishments when retelling stories.

And yet there are scores of books filled with combat narratives where tail end charlie got smoked BEFORE anybody knew the bandits were in their midst. That was fairly common. To try and discount the veracity of books because it's a commercial endeavor leaves one to pick and choose who you believe. The majority of fighter pilots' missions did not involve combat. Most guys didn't shoot down an adversary. But these same embellished "there I was" stories frequently include the enemy getting the drop on the author's formation (falling on them out of the sun or from behind clouds).

I think it's fairly obvious if one reads the accounts covering the entirety of WWII, the less well trained fighter pilots (or flying relatively lower performing airplanes) were frequently victims of unobserved diving attacks. At least it is to me, in the Battle of Britain the RAF pilots flying tight formation with scripted attacks fit that description. So do the USAAC guys in the Philippines or New Guinea in early months of the Pacific air war, or the Russians prior to the Kuban. Then the pendulum swung and less experienced Japanese or German replacements became the victims as the Allies gained tactical experience and technical/logistical superiority.

Speaking in terms of WWII air combat, to dismiss diving attacks as uncommon is to dismiss (or at least devalue) the tactic of having an altitude advantage before attacking. What good is a tactic if you're not going to take advantage of it? Just because a pilot has an easier time acquiring a tally when looking up, doesn't make that the preferred position versus an adversary. How exactly does the fighter with a significant altitude advantage enter the merge? I bet the answer is D-I-V-I-N-G A-T-T-A-C-K. And I think it was not uncommon to clearly VID the bandit type until in the dive.

Edited January 17, 2018 by busdriver

January 17, 2018

And yet there are scores of books filled with combat narratives where tail end charlie got smoked BEFORE anybody knew the bandits were in their midst. That was fairly common. To try and discount the veracity of books because it's a commercial endeavor leaves one to pick and choose who you believe. The majority of fighter pilots' missions did not involve combat. Most guys didn't shoot down an adversary. But these same embellished "there I was" stories frequently include the enemy getting the drop on their formation (falling on them out of the sun or from behind clouds).

I think it's fairly obvious if one reads the accounts covering the entirety of WWII, the less well trained fighter pilots (or flying relatively lower performing airplanes) were frequently victims of unobserved diving attacks. At least it is to me, in the Battle of Britain the RAF pilots flying tight formation with scripted attacks fit that description. So do the USAAC guys in the Philippines or New Guinea in early months of the Pacific air war, or the Russians prior to the Kuban. Then the pendulum swung and less experienced Japanese or German replacements became the victims as the Allies gained tactical experience and technical/logistical superiority.

Speaking in terms of WWII air combat, to dismiss diving attacks as uncommon is to dismiss (or at least devalue) the tactic of having an altitude advantage before attacking. What good is a tactic if you're not going to take advantage of it? Just because a pilot has an easier time acquiring a tally when looking up, doesn't make that the preferred position versus an adversary. How exactly does the fighter with a significant altitude advantage enter the merge? I bet the answer is D-I-V-I-N-G A-T-T-A-C-K.

Ah here is where the disconnect is. I am specifically talking about having the time to position oneself to have the sun on your back and an altitude difference such that the dive is of the nature of 45 degrees plus all the while maintaining visual on the enemy.

This is extremely hard to do without being spotted by the enemy which would spoil the setup instantly.

Attacking with a shallow dive angle is not what I am talking about and it makes sense you had all kinds of altitude deltas at the merge. I experienced that variety myself in real-life.

Like I said in my past posts typically that fighters coming down to attack was met by the adversary pointing up and exchanging bullets. That was common.

To assume that those inexperienced pilots early in the war and later too, didn't sit down in the ready room and discuss observed enemy tactics with more experienced pilots and lessons learned from previous wars (i.e. spanish war) would seem naive to say the least.

It's all about perspective. If I only read the books out there with 2nd hand accounts or pilot interviews I would have a different perspective than I have now with all my experience as a fighter/attack pilot.

These guys were not in a vacuum, there was a rich history of tactics and lessons learned going back to WW1 that I am sure they were discussed and studied before jumping into the cockpit..

It's hard for me to accept the typical fighter pilot from all sides not doing clearing turns, flying in spaced out tactical formations ensuring maximum visual coverage and in constant comms letting each other know when the enemy was spotted.

As someone else already pointed out those pilots that dive attacked on another fighter found themselves quickly shot at by the wingman they didn't see or ignored.

My experience helped me to paint a more realistic picture of what probably happened with the daily air ops during WW2. In the end, you have your books to paint your picture and I have my experience and my study of documentaries/books to paint me my picture.

The reason why I am so cynical of commercial media recollections (such as books) is because I saw first hand how bad it could get. When top gun came out in the eighties which had military advisors on the set advising etc. What I thought was a realistic representation before joining the navy and becoming a pilot turned out to be a complete farce. I am not talking about the over-the-top acting. I am talking about the flying that was portrayed, the enviroments, the situations etc. It reminds me at how hokey the WW2 movies portrayed the fighting engagements (midway, tora tora, etc).

Sensationalism sells, the boring mundane and commonplace does not.

Edited January 17, 2018 by neostar

January 17, 2018

I know I watched at least one USN training film from 1943 emphasize diving attacks, and would have the squadron forming a "rotary mower" with half diving down and attacking, then climbing back up as top cover, and then the other half coming down and doing the same, repeated as necessary...sort of a squadron version of double attack, but before terms like that became actual terms.

I've also read in more than one place, but certainly that Shaw book, that 90% of all air victories in history were against opponents who didn't see the attack coming. Don't know obviously if that was an exageration, but a number that big certainly indicates that victory-by-surprise has been pretty common in history.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Iceworm

January 17, 2018

It's all about perspective. If I only read the books out there with 2nd hand accounts or pilot interviews I would have a different perspective than I have now with all my experience as a fighter/attack pilot.

These guys were not in a vacuum, there was a rich history of tactics and lessons learned going back to WW1 that I am sure they were discussed and studied before jumping into the cockpit..

It's hard for me to accept the typical fighter pilot from all sides not doing clearing turns, flying in spaced out tactical formations ensuring maximum visual coverage and in constant comms letting each other know when the enemy was spotted.

My experience helped me to paint a more realistic picture of what probably happened with the daily air ops during WW2. In the end, you have your books to paint your picture and I have my experience and my study of documentaries/books to paint me my picture.

The reason why I am so cynical of commercial media recollections (such as books) is because I saw first hand how bad it could get. When top gun came out in the eighties which had military advisors on the set advising etc. What I thought was a realistic representation before joining the navy and becoming a pilot turned out to be a complete farce. I am not talking about the over-the-top acting. I am talking about the flying that was portrayed, the enviroments, the situations etc. It reminds me at how hokey the WW2 movies portrayed the fighting engagements (midway, tora tora, etc).

Sensationalism sells, the boring mundane and commonplace does not.

So, if I had some actual experience flying fighters, that's your litmus test? Okay...so be it.

You really have missed the evolution of fighter formations. The RAF flew rigid three-ship Vics in the beginning and they'd have a single weaver across the back of the formation to essentially be the "designated mort." They actually tried using scripted choreographed attacks. During BoB, squadron level efforts to adopt the LW style 2-ship/4-ship (section/division) faced major opposition from HQ. Tactics evolve.

IJN fighters flew three ship formations initially. They used a pretty vertical maneuver to entice an opponent to follow them uphill. That is until the US pilots stopped playing that game. IJN land based fighters would remove their radios and lacked GCI assistance until late in the war. Tactics evolve.

Russian's were ecstatic to get US aircraft with functioning radios. Their idea of flying a CAP until late 1943 was to orbit in a "wheel" or "carousel" (as they called it) at max endurance airspeed directly over the point they were defending. The USN and USAAC flew compact formations early on. I'm not making this shit up. Your notion that WWII fighter pilots universally adopted good tactical doctrine is a telling bit of mis-information.

To think that low time late war German or Japanese pilots could overcome the steep disadvantage they faced by listening to the battle hardened veteran tell sea stories while his left hand shot down his right hand is probably not how you want to make a logical argument. You, having been an actual fighter pilot, know that FNGs have a tough time keeping Lead in sight, much less function as a steely-eyed killer checking six for bandits.

Ahh Top Gun, I was a Phantom RTU (RAG to you) IP when that came out. Bozo Lloyd a former co-worker at Northwest and Delta was the Tomcat driver that flew the tower flyby. I think you can find the YouTube video where the F-5 guys explained why they had to fly as they did (answer because it looked cool and to get them all in the same frame). Bozo has a hilarious story as a old fat bald guy standing in front of a wall of TVs showing Top Gun at Best Buy. The scene with his flyby is playing, Bozo looks down at a kid standing there and says, "That's me." The kid's father looks at Bozo in his old fat guy glory and pulls his son away like Bozo is a pedophile. But if you thought flying fighters was like Top Gun...would it be fair to say you were somewhat gullible? No wonder you think those hundreds of air combat titles are making shit up.

January 17, 2018

I think the other point that neostar is overlooking in this discussion is that it a diving attack does not have to be a surprise to be a good tactic. Of course, surprise is better, and if the defender sees the attackers in time they would turn towards the attacker: but the diving plane has the option of doing what the 109s often did: make one fast firing pass then dive away. As to the defenders always being tactically spaced out etc: well, not necessarily. Before 1941 the RAF usually flew in Vics since the idea was concentrated MG fire against bomber formations, fighter/fighter combat not at all being a priority - later they started using a stacked trail - it took a while before they had the experience and training to adapt to the German finger four type system. (edit - simultaneous post with Busdriver: he makes same point in better detail).

Anyway, what this last part of the thread proves beyond a doubt is my point that taking someone's word as authoritative on historical or technical aviation issues in general just because they have flying experience is a very bad idea. We have neostar and Busdriver - both with extensive military flying experience, directly contradicting one another on the issue of whether diving attacks were "common". I happen to agree with Busdriver in this case based not only on my own reading but my own experience of being in a British Officers' Mess - what I find naive is the idea that most pre and early war RAF Pilot Officers spent their free time talking about flying tactics, but that is another matter. The key point is that for a non pilot to decide which of the two pilots they decide to agree with in this case, they have to look at their own understanding of the issue, as well as the logic and evidence presented by the speakers.

Edited January 17, 2018 by unreasonable

January 17, 2018

I think the other point that neostar is overlooking in this discussion is that it a diving attack does not have to be a surprise to be a good tactic. Of course, surprise is better, and if the defender sees the attackers in time they would turn towards the attacker: but the diving plane has the option of doing what the 109s often did: make one fast firing pass then dive away. As to the defenders always being tactically spaced out etc: well, not necessarily. Before 1941 the RAF usually flew in Vics since the idea was concentrated MG fire against bomber formations, fighter/fighter combat not at all being a priority - later they started using a stacked trail - it took a while before they had the experience and training to adapt to the German finger four type system. (edit - simultaneous post with Busdriver: he makes same point in better detail).

Anyway, what this last part of the thread proves beyond a doubt is my point that taking someone's word as authoritative on historical or technical aviation issues in general just because they have flying experience is a very bad idea. We have neostar and Busdriver - both with extensive military flying experience, directly contradicting one another on the issue of whether diving attacks were "common". I happen to agree with Busdriver in this case based not only on my own reading but my own experience of being in a British Officers' Mess - what I find naive is the idea that most pre and early war RAF Pilot Officers spent their free time talking about flying tactics, but that is another matter. The key point is that for a non pilot to decide which of the two pilots they decide to agree with in this case, they have to look at their own understanding of the issue, as well as the logic and evidence presented by the speakers.

You prove my point that no amount of books will be authoritative and that each pilot's experience with what they read and see in documentaries provides a unique perspective wholly their own.

This is why opinions differ in this thread and I have already stated everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I presented my perspective with my observations to back it up it's up to you believe it or pick some other person's perspective just don't claim I am wrong and you are right because you don't know and I don't know what really happened in that time and place. We can only make an educated guess based on similar experience and/or academic research.

However, when I comment on pulling Gs or maintaining control of a combat aircraft while maintaining negative Gs I am speaking from direct experience and to dismiss it out of hand is a very very bad idea if you desire to seek the facts.

January 17, 2018

Well posited unreasonable. I'm sure neostar and I would laugh and tell jokes at the bar regaling each other in the superiority of our respective service/airplane...and in the next breath if this discussion came up would without hesitation tell the other he was full of shite. It is what it is.

Edited January 17, 2018 by busdriver

January 18, 2018

No biggy. It was an excellent discussion until the troll bongo turned up and made it some sort of 'battle he must win'. I think everybody agreed it would be a good thing to do, start simply and extend from that. Blakhart didn't brag about what he does, but at the time he was flying the MiG-29 for Poland iirc.

The first few pages get to the nub of it and would be nice if the devs took it on board.

I havent had that pleasure Osprey. You missed me with some other =LG= pilot.

I`m a turbo prop rider -3.5 + 7.5 but no G - suit on board.

Neostar already addressed most of this stuff. I've added my own comments (in red) for some pile-ons. No condescension or insult to intelligence is meant.

- current USAF fighter pilot.

About what Venturi said. Its good to have such guys in the community.

True, true and once again true however his experience can`t be compared in straight way to WWII sim reality.

1. Flying without a G-suit, good oxygen system and air conditioning makes the difference

2. People are making arcade - almost-impossible-retard manouvers ( especially during defence ) to avoid enemy fire because SIM is not giving any negative effect after high + and high - G which is totally bullshit

3. You can`t compare modern CAS/CAP mission to WWII combat.

Making a high pull after the attack or before the attack is a piece of cake... What about making 10 in a row ?

Without g-suit ? Make sense ?

With all these warm clothes on you ? Or with 40`C degree in the cockpit during the summer time at low altitude ?

Realistic G-effects would force people to realistic flying.

Those who prefer arcade can always pick a easy settings server or stay offline

January 18, 2018

True, true and once again true however his experience can`t be compared in straight way to WWII sim reality.

.....

3. You can`t compare modern CAS/CAP mission to WWII combat.

I'm not really sure where to start. But I fundamentally disagree -- although times are different, I think I most certainly can compare my experiences to that of a WWII pilot. I've never claimed that the aircraft, environment, and other era-related factors are the same, but my experience is far closer than 99% of the population, including those commenting on this threat who are telling me I'm "wrong."

1. Flying without a G-suit, good oxygen system and air conditioning makes the difference

Those who think a G-Suit makes you immune to Gs only show their lack of knowledge. I've said this before: G suits, on average, only add about 1.5 G of tolerance. I flew a BFM ride yesterday with a student where we did 5 engagements, lasting on average 2 minutes each. One of them included sustaining over 6 Gs nearly the entire time. That means around 120 seconds of 4-4.5 G was up to my body alone. Other fights saw multiple instances of 7-8 Gs for 10-15 seconds. 5.5+ up to me. Break turns, despite lasting for only about 5 seconds or so, induce over 9 G. You can do the math for how much I was responsible for.

Making a high pull after the attack or before the attack is a piece of cake... What about making 10 in a row ?

See above. So from the limited example I provided, you think I can't possibly relate to pulling G "10 in a row" ??? You're acting like every WWII mission was a swirling dogfight. They weren't. Pilots were bored 90% of the time; many pilots never saw the enemy on the average mission

1. Flying without a G-suit, good oxygen system and air conditioning makes the difference

I've already addressed the G suit comment. Oxygen system, sure I'll give you that (doesn't invalidate my experience though).

Good air conditioning? Laughable. ECS exists to cool our displays and avionics primarily. I'm an afterthought. If it's hot, I won't stop sweating profusely until above 20,000'. And no, I can't spawn on the runway. 60+ minutes of ground ops is the norm.

With all these warm clothes on you ? Or with 40`C degree in the cockpit during the summer time at low altitude ?

See above for the "40 C in the cockpit" part.

Heating is decent in the jet. Warm clothes, sure. Are you telling me WWII pilots didn't have access to warm clothing? Is that a factor you really want modelled? Things like this lead me to believe you're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's get back to the basics:

The desire is to find a means to ensure pilots can't indefinitely command negative G to evade attacks. Folks are claiming it isn't a realistic tactic. Fair enough.
This doesn't mean that fatigue is the way to handle this. I've already argued that it will probably be botched when modeled. Forget that aspect for now. What happens when you bounce someone and they do some negative G maneuver that you deem unrealistic...but it's that pilot's first negative G maneuver? Does that mean he's not fatigued, so he can get away with it? What if you don't attack again for 2 minutes? Did his energy / health bar go up? Are you still going to complain on the forums in scenarios like this?
We already assume a perfect airframe, perfect engine, and ideal conditions when modeling aircraft. Why shouldn't we assume a rested, healthy pilot? It just doesn't make sense and is inconsistent not to. If anything, this should be a consideration for offline play during a campaign -- if a pilot turns from a late evening sortie to a 6 AM scramble, I bet he'll be pretty tired. Kinda flies in the face of "if you're too noob to handle my awesome realism, stick to offline" argument, huh?
Possible solution: model red-out penalties much like what the penalties for a G-LOC *should* be. This is just an idea; I'm not saying it's the best solution. I just think something like this is more realistic than fatigue, which is too subjective.

Long story short, you've got multiple guys who have "been there, done that" telling you that modeling fatigue is a waste of effort. Nearly 2 years ago, I spent a significant amount of time/effort arguing to the community that rudder authority (the "wobble effect") in this game wasn't realistic at all. The amount of hostility I met -- and the number of folks who have NO EXPERIENCE FLYING HIGH PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT telling me I was wrong -- was absurd. People kept waxing poetic about the "feeling of flight" -- too bad they had no idea what that feeling actually was. These people were particularly nasty to BlitzPig. The whole situation was analogous to a bunch of virgins claiming to be sex experts because they've been reading Playboy and Maxim articles for years. Guess what -- you've still never done the real thing.

And the best part of all? The devs, fortunately, recognized there was an error and did a substantial FM update. I quit posting on these forums for over a year based on the aftertaste of that whole incident. Not one person was classy enough to say "you know what, I was wrong, and I should have listened."

Edited January 18, 2018 by Go_Pre

January 18, 2018

I'm not really sure where to start. But I fundamentally disagree -- although times are different, I think I most certainly can compare my experiences to that of a WWII pilot. I've never claimed that the aircraft, environment, and other era-related factors are the same, but my experience is far closer than 99% of the population, including those commenting on this threat who are telling me I'm "wrong."

Those who think a G-Suit makes you immune to Gs only show their lack of knowledge. I've said this before: G suits, on average, only add about 1.5 G of tolerance. I flew a BFM ride yesterday with a student where we did 5 engagements, lasting on average 2 minutes each. One of them included sustaining over 6 Gs nearly the entire time. That means around 120 seconds of 4-4.5 G was up to my body alone. Other fights saw multiple instances of 7-8 Gs for 10-15 seconds. 5.5+ up to me. Break turns, despite lasting for only about 5 seconds or so, induce over 9 G. You can do the math for how much I was responsible for.

See above. So from the limited example I provided, you think I can't possibly relate to pulling G "10 in a row" ??? You're acting like every WWII mission was a swirling dogfight. They weren't. Pilots were bored 90% of the time; many pilots never saw the enemy on the average mission

I've already addressed the G suit comment. Oxygen system, sure I'll give you that (doesn't invalidate my experience though).

Good air conditioning? Laughable. ECS exists to cool our displays and avionics primarily. I'm an afterthought. If it's hot, I won't stop sweating profusely until above 20,000'. And no, I can't spawn on the runway. 60+ minutes of ground ops is the norm.

See above for the "40 C in the cockpit" part.

Heating is decent in the jet. Warm clothes, sure. Are you telling me WWII pilots didn't have access to warm clothing? Is that a factor you really want modelled? Things like this lead me to believe you're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's get back to the basics:

The desire is to find a means to ensure pilots can't indefinitely command negative G to evade attacks. Folks are claiming it isn't a realistic tactic. Fair enough.

This doesn't mean that fatigue is the way to handle this. I've already argued that it will probably be botched when modeled. Forget that aspect for now. What happens when you bounce someone and they do some negative G maneuver that you deem unrealistic...but it's that pilot's first negative G maneuver? Does that mean he's not fatigued, so he can get away with it? What if you don't attack again for 2 minutes? Did his energy / health bar go up? Are you still going to complain on the forums in scenarios like this?

We already assume a perfect airframe, perfect engine, and ideal conditions when modeling aircraft. Why shouldn't we assume a rested, healthy pilot? It just doesn't make sense and is inconsistent not to. If anything, this should be a consideration for offline play during a campaign -- if a pilot turns from a late evening sortie to a 6 AM scramble, I bet he'll be pretty tired. Kinda flies in the face of "if you're too noob to handle my awesome realism, stick to offline" argument, huh?

Possible solution: model red-out penalties much like what the penalties for a G-LOC *should* be. This is just an idea; I'm not saying it's the best solution. I just think something like this is more realistic than fatigue, which is too subjective.

Long story short, you've got multiple guys who have "been there, done that" telling you that modeling fatigue is a waste of effort. Nearly 2 years ago, I spent a significant amount of time/effort arguing to the community that rudder authority (the "wobble effect") in this game wasn't realistic at all. The amount of hostility I met -- and the number of folks who have NO EXPERIENCE FLYING HIGH PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT telling me I was wrong -- was absurd. People kept waxing poetic about the "feeling of flight" -- too bad they had no idea what that feeling actually was. These people were particularly nasty to BlitzPig. The whole situation was analogous to a bunch of virgins claiming to be sex experts because they've been reading Playboy and Maxim articles for years. Guess what -- you've still never done the real thing.

And the best part of all? The devs, fortunately, recognized there was an error and did a substantial FM update. I quit posting on these forums for over a year based on the aftertaste of that whole incident. Not one person was classy enough to say "you know what, I was wrong, and I should have listened."

Well put Go_pre. I think we need to remind ourselves that it's hard to relate our experiences to those that have never been there. It's the classic case of engineer (academic) vs. operator (actual).

In any case we are all learning from this discussion.

I would love to see the devs implement a g-meter reading like they have for an fps counter. This would allow us to see how much G is being exerted in the flight model and see if the turns/pulls/pushes are realistic.

On a related note I encourage everyone to check out this documentary below which is by far the best covering the soviet aircraft of this sim and I bet the devs have this film for reference.

On particular note check out starting at time 40:30. We see one of their seasoned test/combat pilots pulling off nine Gs, I assume without a G-suit. Interesting to see how the soviets were researching Gs. You can also tell he is easily handling 6Gs from the footage showing the gauges behind them. I am also surprised to see no effort in maintaining a tense posture for blood pressure, I suspect it was intentional to see how many Gs he could take before passing out.

Edited January 18, 2018 by neostar

Tiredness of the pilot (G factor)

Recommended Posts

Guest deleted@83466

GP*

Guest deleted@83466

neofightr2

neofightr2

Bearcat

GP*

Blackhawk_FR

neofightr2

Guest deleted@83466

Blackhawk_FR

ACG_Dickie

Blackhawk_FR

ACG_Dickie

ACG_Dickie

busdriver

neofightr2

unreasonable

Oubaas

unreasonable

neofightr2

GP*

unreasonable

Blackhawk_FR

busdriver

neofightr2

busdriver

neofightr2

neofightr2

JtD

busdriver

neofightr2

Guest deleted@83466

busdriver

unreasonable

neofightr2

busdriver

Blakhart

GP*

neofightr2

Please sign in to comment

Browse All

Activity