Tiredness of the pilot (G factor)

[Blakhart]

Hey Go Pre,

 

Chill, I deal with the G too and have my fancy "wings" as well, but do you really know what I`m talking about when pointing out the issue with arcade defense ?

 

About the rest of your comments. 

 

How many tournaments did you flew in IL-2 and how many hours you spent in IL-2 1946 & IL-2 BoS to understand the core of the problem ?

You probably dont see the main game issue related to G usage.

 

I dont doubt in your real exp but I belive you dont have enough game experience and thats why you have a wrong opinion and bad picture of the whole situation.

You will fly-play a bit and finally understand.

 

p.s.

Your experience is taken probably from a jet with stick ( controls) hydraulic support or fly-by-wire system, right?
And you think you can compare level of exhaustion to old WW II warbirds which didnt had all this fancy computers and equipment ?

Laughable :D Think before you judge.

 

( And BTW I had the same opinion about the woobling rudder before and was kicked off from the testers group because of my critic )

High five! 

Enough for me, I dont give a&%$ about the forum wars. Devs will do what they want to do. Any extra comments direct on PM.

Edited January 19, 2018 by =LG=Blakhart

[neofightr2]

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.

I've done this maneuver in my training days in the T-2 buckeye. It was extremely choreographed because it was easy to bungle up. In fact we were attacking a dragged banner (constant heading and speed) with simulated gunfire. Fun but tedious because of the ground rehearsals that we students had to do to get it right.

 

The diving attacks like these worked on bombers who were forced to fly a strict heading and tight formation (just like the banner) to survive and complete the mission. This stuff doesn't work against enemy fighters unless they are drones (or a banner) who don't react.

Edited January 19, 2018 by neostar

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

 

The diving attacks like these worked on bombers who were forced to fly a strict heading and tight formation (just like the banner) to survive and complete the mission. This stuff doesn't work against enemy fighters unless they are drones (or a banner) who don't react.

 

Well, maybe you're misinterpreting what I described, but I simply don't believe that it "doesn't work"...what I was describing earlier is essentially a high element flies top cover, another element makes it's attack, and then climbs back up to replace the high element, while the other element comes down in, repeated as necessary.  And it doesn't matter if we are attacking a level flying bomber, or a gyrating fighter....In the case of an attack against a figther(s), it's about keeping him in a lowered and reducing energy state, while the attackers are retaining or regaining theirs.  The engaged element (or aircraft)  has the option to press it's attack, or it can blow on through, and alternate with the free element. This is like classic, not to mention, well documented stuff here....Whatever label we want to put on it (we could call it Double Attack, Loose Deuce, Fluid Four, etcm depending on the specifics), it does work, or otherwise it wouldn't be in basically every textbook on fighter tactics ever written.  And in terms of our game here, I'm talking a multiplayer environment with human opponents, you bet this kind of thing works. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Iceworm

[neofightr2]

Well, maybe you're misinterpreting what I described, but I simply don't believe that it "doesn't work"...what I was describing earlier is essentially a high element flies top cover, another element makes it's attack, and then climbs back up to replace the high element, while the other element comes down in, repeated as necessary.  And it doesn't matter if we are attacking a level flying bomber, or a gyrating fighter....In the case of an attack against a figther(s), it's about keeping him in a lowered and reducing energy state, while the attackers are retaining or regaining theirs.  The engaged element (or aircraft)  has the option to press it's attack, or it can blow on through, and alternate with the free element. This is like classic, not to mention, well documented stuff here....Whatever label we want to put on it (we could call it Double Attack, Loose Deuce, Fluid Four, etcm depending on the specifics), it does work, or otherwise it wouldn't be in basically every textbook on fighter tactics ever written.  And in terms of our game here, I'm talking a multiplayer environment with human opponents, you bet this kind of thing works. 

I agree about the energy state management. It's the biggest factor for winning in a dog fight.

 

Just remember these tactics you mentioned have many factors. Is it one sided? Are both sides of the fight trying to do the exact same tactic? Are the numbers even or are they lopsided? All these factor into whether these tactics work and work consistently. I have watched a few streams from the sim pros (like sherrif) where his team are doing great work in covering each other and maintaining energy states while one is attacking. But they always seem to be picking off singletons. I haven't seen many videos where sections or divisions are going at it each using advanced tactics. Typically that's where it degrades into a hairball where everyone is doing whatever they have to to survive.

 

If I was on the other team both employing high cover tactics as you described and I was in high cover and saw the other team doing the same, I would immediately vector over to the other high cover and breakup the tactic. It's what they should be doing too.

Edited January 19, 2018 by neostar

[GP*]

Hey Go Pre,

 

Chill, I deal with the G too and have my fancy "wings" as well, but do you really know what I`m talking about when pointing out the issue with arcade defense ?

 

About the rest of your comments. 

 

How many tournaments did you flew in IL-2 and how many hours you spent in IL-2 1946 & IL-2 BoS to understand the core of the problem ?

You probably dont see the main game issue related to G usage.

 

I dont doubt in your real exp but I belive you dont have enough game experience and thats why you have a wrong opinion and bad picture of the whole situation.

You will fly-play a bit and finally understand.

 

p.s.

Your experience is taken probably from a jet with stick ( controls) hydraulic support or fly-by-wire system, right?

And you think you can compare level of exhaustion to old WW II warbirds which didnt had all this fancy computers and equipment ?

Laughable :D Think before you judge.

 

( And BTW I had the same opinion about the woobling rudder before and was kicked off from the testers group because of my critic )

High five! 

Enough for me, I dont give a&%$ about the forum wars. Devs will do what they want to do. Any extra comments direct on PM.

 

I've fallen victim to it before, I've seen it on youtube videos as well, but you'd be correct in stating I probably don't have as much experience online as many do. I just don't have the time. I'm not sure how many times I have to see the same thing though to grasp the concept.

 

Not sure why you are under the impression that I haven't thought my points out before "judging." I'm going to chalk this one up to a possible language barrier. None of the trainers I flew had any control assistance, and we'd regularly get to 300 KTS for some maneuvers (550-560 KPH). Fatigue from flight control manipulation was not exactly noteworthy...

 

Even jets with hydraulic controls or FLCS have artificial weight to them. It's significant.

 

But we'll have to just agree to disagree at this point. I think we just have different opinions on how this problem should be solved, and that's fine. I'm going to move on from this topic.

[neofightr2]

 

Your experience is taken probably from a jet with stick ( controls) hydraulic support or fly-by-wire system, right?

And you think you can compare level of exhaustion to old WW II warbirds which didnt had all this fancy computers and equipment ?

Laughable :D Think before you judge.

 

 

Really? Think before you judge?

 

I have several hundred hours in the t34C Mentor (high peformance turboprop), T2 Buckeye (intermediate jet) and the T45 Goshawk(advanced jet) before I flew over a thousand in the Hornet.

 

All 3 trainers were not fly by wire and all 3 were mechanical linkage. None of these aircraft had fancy computers and equipment to aid with the flying. I didn't even have the hud which is now normal for the latest T45.

So I can state with some authority that those planes never caused me exhaustion from pulling and pushing the stick during high-speed maneuvers.

 

Yet, you are happy to judge before you think, that we modern jet pilots don't know what we are talking about because we can't relate to WW2 warbirds. That is what's laughable.

 

Your time in an aerobatic aircraft does not qualify you to dismiss other's opinions on this topic. Especially those that have actual combat experience in the air (air war medal with bronze star).

 

Also, I have been flying flight sims since the mid-1990s so I know all about the artificialities of flight sims. I have seen it all when it comes to sims and their shortcomings to real flight.

Edited January 19, 2018 by neostar

[Guest deleted@83466]

Neostar, if you ever come online, I'm going to wax your tail.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Iceworm

[neofightr2]

Neostar, if you ever come online, I'm going to wax your tail.

Now that I will agree with. I am sure you have put in a ton of online hours into this game. I would expect no less.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Well, probably not, but, on a serious note though, I do encourage you, and everybody else get online in a mulitiplayer environment, because I think it is the essence of our game, and the more the merrier.  You can never have enough server numbers.  And the more people can bring intelligent acm tactics, the better it is for everyone.  I think it is a pretty damned good endorsement of this game that we have several real USAF or USN fighter aircraft pilots willing to play it.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Iceworm

[kirk66]

Interesting thread.  Just though I'd throw in a few points from someone with a little experience in military jets (2000+ hrs F-4 WSO), 1000+ hrs in prop planes (including aerobatics in Citabrias, Cap 20s, Pitts S-2Cs, and one glorious hour in the front seat of a T-6 - the original one), and 3000+ hrs in gliders, including lots of time in ASK-21s giving commercial aerobatic rides.  I currently fly Supercubs and Pawnees for my glider club when not flying crosscountry, acro, or racing in my own glider.

 

About G-limits.  Most military planes were/are good for 7.5 - 9 positive to 3 negative, which is plenty for any reasonable combat maneuver. Something like a Pitts or an Extra will be higher - and the Swift S-1 acro glider that I occasionally flew has a +10/-7.5 limit - AT VNE!.  The difference between jet/combat maneuvers and sport/contest aerobatics is night and day - in jets the G's can be sustained for so much longer that even 5 gs continuously in a rate fight can seem to go on forever.  OTOH, nothing beats the feel of a nice long extend at 0 G to leave the fight - and again that low G can be held for a long time.  In sport planes, and even more so gliders, the G's are much more transient - you just can't stay at high G very long. That doesn't mean you can't get there - in the Swift I've done 9 G pulls from close to VNE (150 knots) to a vertical line, slow rolled on the way up, and leveled off at the top.  But the G is so short that your blood doesn't have time to leave your brain, so not a big deal. As far as negative, the Swift had a full 6-point ratcheting harness with a backup (as do Pitts, Extras, etc) that you can cinch down until it's hard to breath, and foot straps on the rudders to keep your feet on the pedals.  Set up like that, negative G's aren't too bad (as long as the cockpit is clean) and just flying around upside down in interesting but trying to check six while strapped in that way is impossible - even more so with the reclining seat position.

 

In the F-4, as has been said previously, we would tighten our lap belts for takeoff and landing, and loosen them the rest of the time (hoping to remember to tighten again if we had to eject).  During ACM, my technique was to run my seat down so I had room to move my head around, loosen the lab belt so I could shift sideways, and hook my feet UNDER the rudder pedals to use my legs to hold myself in place when the pilot unloaded for acceleration or during a guns jink. As an aside - G's are a lot easier to take if you are the one on the controls.  As a WSO, you could get pinned in the radar, heads down, if your pilot didn't warn you; so you learned to read the radar while sitting back if possible. Even then, you would get stuck in the cockpit at times and would have to pull yourself up and back to checking six  - seeing stars while you forced the blood back into your brain.  Fun times... 

 

So, perhaps the AI gunners in IL-2s and Bf-110s should become less accurate under G?

 

Finally, about how tiring air combat was/is - I find it amusing how people complain about a Warthog stick being too stiff - normal stick force per G is around  3-5 lb/g, often with significant increase as speed increased.  After awhile, you are talking about parking the throttle in the left corner and using both hands on the stick. Wonder why the P-38 has a wheel? On top of that (although this is less an issue in the BoX scenarios), when you are flying 7-8 hour missions stuffed into a small unpressurized cockpit, either too hot (P-51) or too cold (P-38), flying formation the whole time - yeah, it would get tiring.  The answer in many cases was chemical - benzedrine was the drug WW2 was fought on.

 

Not yet online, still learning the game - looking forward to jumping into a fight soon!

 

Cheers,

 

Vulture

[Solmyr]

Interesting thread.  Just though I'd throw in a few points from someone with a little experience in military jets (2000+ hrs F-4 WSO), 1000+ hrs in prop planes (including aerobatics in Citabrias, Cap 20s, Pitts S-2Cs, and one glorious hour in the front seat of a T-6 - the original one), and 3000+ hrs in gliders, including lots of time in ASK-21s giving commercial aerobatic rides.  I currently fly Supercubs and Pawnees for my glider club when not flying crosscountry, acro, or racing in my own glider.

 

About G-limits.  Most military planes were/are good for 7.5 - 9 positive to 3 negative, which is plenty for any reasonable combat maneuver. Something like a Pitts or an Extra will be higher - and the Swift S-1 acro glider that I occasionally flew has a +10/-7.5 limit - AT VNE!.  The difference between jet/combat maneuvers and sport/contest aerobatics is night and day - in jets the G's can be sustained for so much longer that even 5 gs continuously in a rate fight can seem to go on forever.  OTOH, nothing beats the feel of a nice long extend at 0 G to leave the fight - and again that low G can be held for a long time.  In sport planes, and even more so gliders, the G's are much more transient - you just can't stay at high G very long. That doesn't mean you can't get there - in the Swift I've done 9 G pulls from close to VNE (150 knots) to a vertical line, slow rolled on the way up, and leveled off at the top.  But the G is so short that your blood doesn't have time to leave your brain, so not a big deal. As far as negative, the Swift had a full 6-point ratcheting harness with a backup (as do Pitts, Extras, etc) that you can cinch down until it's hard to breath, and foot straps on the rudders to keep your feet on the pedals.  Set up like that, negative G's aren't too bad (as long as the cockpit is clean) and just flying around upside down in interesting but trying to check six while strapped in that way is impossible - even more so with the reclining seat position.

 

In the F-4, as has been said previously, we would tighten our lap belts for takeoff and landing, and loosen them the rest of the time (hoping to remember to tighten again if we had to eject).  During ACM, my technique was to run my seat down so I had room to move my head around, loosen the lab belt so I could shift sideways, and hook my feet UNDER the rudder pedals to use my legs to hold myself in place when the pilot unloaded for acceleration or during a guns jink. As an aside - G's are a lot easier to take if you are the one on the controls.  As a WSO, you could get pinned in the radar, heads down, if your pilot didn't warn you; so you learned to read the radar while sitting back if possible. Even then, you would get stuck in the cockpit at times and would have to pull yourself up and back to checking six  - seeing stars while you forced the blood back into your brain.  Fun times... 

 

So, perhaps the AI gunners in IL-2s and Bf-110s should become less accurate under G?

 

Finally, about how tiring air combat was/is - I find it amusing how people complain about a Warthog stick being too stiff - normal stick force per G is around  3-5 lb/g, often with significant increase as speed increased.  After awhile, you are talking about parking the throttle in the left corner and using both hands on the stick. Wonder why the P-38 has a wheel? On top of that (although this is less an issue in the BoX scenarios), when you are flying 7-8 hour missions stuffed into a small unpressurized cockpit, either too hot (P-51) or too cold (P-38), flying formation the whole time - yeah, it would get tiring.  The answer in many cases was chemical - benzedrine was the drug WW2 was fought on.

 

Not yet online, still learning the game - looking forward to jumping into a fight soon!

 

Cheers,

 

Vulture

 

And interestning read here, that made me nod the head a few times and think about more. Why don't we all demand our Pervitin pills to the devs ?!

Edited January 23, 2018 by Solmyr

[neofightr2]

Interesting thread.  Just though I'd throw in a few points from someone with a little experience in military jets (2000+ hrs F-4 WSO), 1000+ hrs in prop planes (including aerobatics in Citabrias, Cap 20s, Pitts S-2Cs, and one glorious hour in the front seat of a T-6 - the original one), and 3000+ hrs in gliders, including lots of time in ASK-21s giving commercial aerobatic rides.  I currently fly Supercubs and Pawnees for my glider club when not flying crosscountry, acro, or racing in my own glider.

 

About G-limits.  Most military planes were/are good for 7.5 - 9 positive to 3 negative, which is plenty for any reasonable combat maneuver. Something like a Pitts or an Extra will be higher - and the Swift S-1 acro glider that I occasionally flew has a +10/-7.5 limit - AT VNE!.  The difference between jet/combat maneuvers and sport/contest aerobatics is night and day - in jets the G's can be sustained for so much longer that even 5 gs continuously in a rate fight can seem to go on forever.  OTOH, nothing beats the feel of a nice long extend at 0 G to leave the fight - and again that low G can be held for a long time.  In sport planes, and even more so gliders, the G's are much more transient - you just can't stay at high G very long. That doesn't mean you can't get there - in the Swift I've done 9 G pulls from close to VNE (150 knots) to a vertical line, slow rolled on the way up, and leveled off at the top.  But the G is so short that your blood doesn't have time to leave your brain, so not a big deal. As far as negative, the Swift had a full 6-point ratcheting harness with a backup (as do Pitts, Extras, etc) that you can cinch down until it's hard to breath, and foot straps on the rudders to keep your feet on the pedals.  Set up like that, negative G's aren't too bad (as long as the cockpit is clean) and just flying around upside down in interesting but trying to check six while strapped in that way is impossible - even more so with the reclining seat position.

 

In the F-4, as has been said previously, we would tighten our lap belts for takeoff and landing, and loosen them the rest of the time (hoping to remember to tighten again if we had to eject).  During ACM, my technique was to run my seat down so I had room to move my head around, loosen the lab belt so I could shift sideways, and hook my feet UNDER the rudder pedals to use my legs to hold myself in place when the pilot unloaded for acceleration or during a guns jink. As an aside - G's are a lot easier to take if you are the one on the controls.  As a WSO, you could get pinned in the radar, heads down, if your pilot didn't warn you; so you learned to read the radar while sitting back if possible. Even then, you would get stuck in the cockpit at times and would have to pull yourself up and back to checking six  - seeing stars while you forced the blood back into your brain.  Fun times... 

 

So, perhaps the AI gunners in IL-2s and Bf-110s should become less accurate under G?

 

Finally, about how tiring air combat was/is - I find it amusing how people complain about a Warthog stick being too stiff - normal stick force per G is around  3-5 lb/g, often with significant increase as speed increased.  After awhile, you are talking about parking the throttle in the left corner and using both hands on the stick. Wonder why the P-38 has a wheel? On top of that (although this is less an issue in the BoX scenarios), when you are flying 7-8 hour missions stuffed into a small unpressurized cockpit, either too hot (P-51) or too cold (P-38), flying formation the whole time - yeah, it would get tiring.  The answer in many cases was chemical - benzedrine was the drug WW2 was fought on.

 

Not yet online, still learning the game - looking forward to jumping into a fight soon!

 

Cheers,

 

Vulture

Great perspective.

I like the details on the aerobatic equipment. I knew that had to have some strong stuff to support the negative G regime.

 

During my time in the gulf warzone. We were issued speed pills (or something similar) for the 24 hour ops tempo that was done on the ship. This was only done once for the deployment. I think they were testing to see how effective the 24 hr op tempo was vs. the normal 18 hour cycle.

The pilots had no problem with it but the ship's crew was impacted pretty hard. Let's remember that the ground crews also have to be on their feet that entire time supporting the planes.

 

I have always said mental fatigue is a huge factor for long missions (8+ hours) involving lots of mid-air refueling but I never felt physically exhausted.