Echo38

That was the other thing I was getting at. Presumably, the aircraft doesn't immediately start taking measurable damage the moment the first air molecules start to hit it, no matter how high the relative velocity. So, if the air begins hitting the airplane hard enough to approach being damaging, then it must be hitting the wings & control surfaces hard enough for them to be at least somewhat effective. Right? In which case, one ought to be able to do something akin to the "atmospheric skipping" technique in which the craft repeatedly leaves and re-enters the very edge of the atmosphere, normally used to allow a spacecraft to cool down. In this case of "heat doesn't matter," the idea would be to just keep it at that spot where there's just enough air density—just enough force—to give lift & elevator authority, but not enough force to break the airplane. Just skirting the very edge of the atmosphere. Or is there some additional problem that I don't understand, such as some fundamental difference between a small amount of air molecules at an extremely high relative velocity and a large amount of air molecules at a comparatively low relative velocity? The only clear problem I can think of, other than temperature, would be "Mach tuck" forcing the airplane into a nosedive, despite all efforts to raise the nose to regulate altitude.

First line of the OP said "decaying orbit," which means that the trajectory is such that the craft will eventually enter the atmosphere and either burn up or impact the ground, if no sufficient corrective action is taken.

And this is the part where I'm really shaky, but: if there's enough airflow to damage the airframe, surely there's enough airflow that the control surfaces would at least be marginally effective, right?

I enjoy helicopters, but to a much lesser extent than fighters. Helicopters are more complex than fixed-wings, for the most part, and require greater stick-and-pedal skill in many areas outside of combat (e.g. entering & maintaining a hover), but I eventually determined that it takes less overall stick-and-pedal skill to fly a helicopter to its maximum potential than it takes to do that with a fighter during a dogfight. Thus, I prefer dogfighting in a fighter (maximum possible stick-and-rudder skill ceiling of all) to even the most demanding types of helicopter flight (e.g. flying NOE). The latter is still fun and challenging, but not so much as the former. I might want to take a helicopter for a spin every now and then for some variety, but I could never fool myself into thinking that flying a helicopter (even with all of the difficulty & complexity of hovering, flying NOE, avoiding VRS and G-load problems, etc.) matches the sheer intimacy with the air that is required for dogfighting. Simply put, it takes more stick-and-rudder skill to dogfight in a prop fighter, than any other type of flight takes in any type of aircraft. And stick-and-rudder skill is what it's all about, right? It's that intimacy with the airflow, that tactile connection from air to control surface to cable to hand to mind, which only dogfighting can exercise to the fullest possible extent. Not to say that it's easy to perform manual bombing, but it takes a small fraction of the stick-and-rudder skill to do that as it does to dogfight. A relatively simple machine can be (and was) devised to automatically calculate the comparatively simple mathematics of gravity, velocity, and altitude involved in bombing; I don't think anyone can objectively claim that the amount of total skill (much less stick-and-rudder skill) involved in high-altitude bombing / impact prediction approaches that required to grok the immeasurably complex art of dogfighting. One can truly devote a lifetime—tens of thousands of hours—to studying & practicing dogfighting, and still have much to learn about it. But one can effectively master level-bomber piloting with only a few hundred hours, no? This is why I can't understand how people would be so enamored of it, compared to dogfighting. I don't think it has anything to do with my imagination (indeed, I'd expect that it's the train-operator types who tend to be unimaginative, not the fighter-pilot types). I'm just puzzled that someone would ... value a chip of granite as highly as a sapphire, I guess. Or maybe "a grouse as highly as a parrot" is a better metaphor. I suppose it doesn't matter. As for your question about focus: you are familiar with the phrase, "jack of all trades, master of none"?

Sorry; in the last half hour, I made significant edits to my immediately preceding post, to try to clarify my line of thinking.

No, specifically heat effects and not friction. IRL, atmospheric friction unavoidably causes heat buildup, of course, but I specifically omitted only temperature as a concern in my hypothetical scenario. The idea is (like) turning off "damage from extreme temperatures" in a simulator's difficulty options. So, I'm well aware that it's physically impossible IRL, but I mean specifically (and have meant since the beginning) a hypothetical scenario where all physics are true-to-life, except that the aircraft and everything within it are immune to overheating and overcooling. Thus, friction is still just as much a thing, except that it magically isn't causing a heat buildup in the aircraft (or, more accurately, the aircraft is somehow undamaged by the heat buildup). At which point, that changes a few things, and I'm wondering if any other "difficulty options" would need to be "turned off" in order to make such an unusual re-entry possible, and how it would work under the given conditions. Can I now "skip" off of the upper atmosphere to gradually reduce my speed without exposing myself to atmo dense enough to cause structural damage? If not, then could I if I had a more appropriate form of control (e.g. a reaction control system)? In short, and rephrasing the original question: what problems other than temperature damage are preventing a P-38, launched from low-Earth orbit, from successfully landing without destroying itself, and what would be the minimum changes necessary for that safe landing to occur? (And I mean a normal landing, not a parachute splashdown.) I suppose I have a peculiar imagination.

Right, that's what I was getting at with the whole "won't it disintegrate upon reaching thicker air" part. So, the question is, is there any way (with the given condition of "magical" immunity to temperature problems) to go from the, uh, thermosphere to the mesosphere gradually enough that the force of the relative wind won't break up the bird? At some point, the control surfaces will be responsive enough to have at least some effect, at which point couldn't the pilot try "skipping"?

Hmm. Still not seeing it. I guess it's similar to why some people prefer bread to pizza, except for a more complicated part of the brain than the part that deals with taste buds. No point getting angry 'coz one guy likes mushrooms on his pizza and the next guy likes anchovies on his, I always say, but I sure think a lot of people have baffling tastes!

The results of this poll were not what I was expecting. I don't want to seem scornful of fellow aviation enthusiasts' choices, but I can't for the life of me understand what people see in bombers. Objectively speaking, that role involves a minute fraction of the stick & rudder skill that the fighter role demands. It's like the difference between a truck driver and a racecar driver, but amplified by the extreme (and beautiful) complexity of the art of dogfighting (which neither bombing nor automobile racing can approach). I simply can't imagine why one would choose something so relatively one-dimensional and static, compared to something so very three-dimensional and kinetic. What's the appeal that I can't see?

So, don't ask me how I got to thinking about this, but: if a Second World War fighter were orbiting Earth in a decaying orbit, then, upon entering the atmosphere, it would burn up. Right? But what would happen if heat weren't a concern? Imagine for a moment that the airplane & everything inside it were not subject to problems of temperature. At this point, then, my main concern would be exceeding structural limits. Let's imagine that the airplane in question is a P-38, which had a rather low critical Mach, even for a WWII fighter. So, in the absence of heat from atmospheric friction, then, as soon as the controls began to have the slightest amount of responsiveness, as air molecules started hitting them, I would attempt to keep the airplane's dive as shallow as possible, with throttles at idle* and propeller levers at full (to maximize drag). Would the airplane break up due to exceeding structural limitations? At such a thin air density, and coming from any sort of orbital velocity, its Mach number would be far, far higher than I'd expect a WWII to withstand. Normally, the drag of the propellers (even when pitched for maximum drag) would keep a prop fighter from getting anywhere near the speed of sound. I've also heard it theorized often that the wing shape of Second World War fighters is such that the airframe would be destroyed if it were able to reach such a speed. But, assuming this is true at normal altitudes for such an aircraft, does it still hold true at extremely low air densities, such as in low-Earth orbit in upper atmosphere? Coming from an in-space orbit, it would already automatically be greatly exceeding the speed of sound as soon as it entered the most outer edge of the atmosphere. And, also, if the airplane were somehow able to avoid structural failure during re-entry, would not the "Mach tuck" effect cause the airplane to inevitably (and soon) enter a straight-down nose dive? At normal altitudes, the pilot can "ride it out" until the wing regains lift and the control surfaces become responsive again in the denser air below. But what would happen in a prolonged dive at extremely low air density? My grasp of the relationships in low air density is shaky. I know that IAS decreases farther and farther below TAS as a WWII fighter climbs, due to the air density. But it gets complicated beyond that. Max-alpha turns at high altitudes have a much higher TAS, and a much wider turning circle, than they do down low. I don't know what happens to turn times. This much can be experienced in a high-fidelity simulator like DCS. Beyond this, beyond the realm of what a pilot of a propeller aircraft can experience, my understanding of low-density aerodynamics is even more dim. Care to discuss the presented problem? * Normally, this would cause the engines to freeze from overcooling, but recall that this thought experiment has the condition of temperature not being a factor.

Raise the MAP limit cannot cause the aircraft be no longer WEP-capable, by definition. Raising the MAP limit makes it more WEP-capable. The factory WEP rating was 67". The highest officially authorized WEP rating I've seen for the P-51 was 72." This appears to have been standard later in the war. There is good reason to believe that P-51s regularly ran at 75", but I've been unable to confirm that this was ever officially authorized. As far as I know, no modifications were made to the cooling system. Thus, the best use of the additional WEP would be at high speed, to increase maximum speed, rather than at low speed, to increase maneuverability.

Okay, so I didn't have any intention of reviving this discussion, but I just now stumbled across something relevant to it while looking at something unrelated. This random web page here asserts the same thing I was saying about the P-38's strategic vitality & being on the job before the P-51, etc. He lists sources at the end of his essay. I haven't checked them out (I do own Bodie's book, somewhere, but it's been many years since I've been in the business of researching aircraft and I'm not starting again now), but maybe someone here might be interested in seeing where this disagreement stems from. In particular, the last portion of the essay, labelled "The Strategic Perspective": http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html#mozTocId668981

There were only two different intake setups across all of the mass-produced U.S. P-38 models. Prior to the J, they had the early setup. The J and L had the later setup. Anything else would be either a prototype or a post-war modification. Not sure about the British "castrated" Lightning. They gutted the supercharger, so that might've had a different intake.

I read it, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. As you directed this as a reply to my post, I can only assume you're contradicting my statement that the "sound radar" is unrealistic. Well, here's the word from Yo-Yo himself: The quote's from this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=94347 In case you aren't aware, Yo-Yo is Eagle Dynamics' physics engineer. I would strongly suggest to those of you who are opening their mouths to argue with me (e.g. "There, see, it has to be this way because there's no choice"), that you first read the rest of that (short) thread. Otherwise, it's just gonna be more copy-paste quoting needed. The problem is clear; everyone who knows a thing about the subject realizes it. And there is a clear and easy solution. And what of all the green pilots who are not paying attention to their six, and yet who are (unrealistically) alerted of the ace sneaking up behind them? This is what I was alluding to earlier with my comment about Richthofen. So many (most?) of the real aces favored, recommended, and gained most of their kills with the short-range sneak attack method. They could not have done so in DCS, with its unrealistic sound propagation. Look, I don't even have a vested interest in this. My own success rate would go down with this fix, not up. I'm a dogfighter, not a hit-and-run guy. Moreover, without TrackIR, I struggle to keep a proper eye on my own six. I get backstabbed far more often than I backstab. But a great flight simulator ought to be a great flight simulator, not a great flight simulator with a glaring error. One's personal success rate should not be a factor in considering whether or not an error in the simulation should be fixed. [looks at SlipBall]

Interesting. So what USAAF called "max cruise" is what Luftwaffe called (translated) "fuel save," and what USAAF called "max continuous" was what Luftwaffe called "cruise flight"? Or ... what? For USAAF fighters, there were four given ratings. In order of most to least fuel-efficient, they were: max cruise, max continuous, military power, and war emergency power. In English aviation terminology, "cruise flight" means "fuel-saving flight." Max continuous referred not to fuel efficiency, but rather engine temperature. [edit: derp! Most to least, not least to most.]

As I wrote in the other thread, there's a simple solution that works better; as one of the testers pointed out, the code's already implemented. All that needs to be done is for ED to make it so that each user's "outside sounds" volume is lowered to zero whenever his engine is at high power. It should be scaled according to one's power settings, so that the higher your engine power, the lower the outside sounds volume. While not 100% perfect, it would work well for all but the most unusual of circumstances (such as the very specific scenario I described in the other thread). At any rate, it'd be far, far better than the current situation (and also better than the proposed solution, which would be better than the current situation, but still less realistic than the easy solution I mentioned).

No. I've studied the matter at length. I've never seen a single example of an actual WWII pilot claiming that he could hear other aircraft from his cockpit while his engine was running normally. Over the 15+ years I've been attending flight sim/game forums, I've only seen a very tiny handful (perhaps four) forum users even claiming they've read such a thing. Meanwhile, on the other side, you have innumerable accounts from pilots where the other aircraft was point-blank and couldn't be heard. There've been numerous real aerobatic pilots who've confirmed flat-out (some on this very forum) that you cannot hear the other aircraft's engine, even when the wingtips are three feet apart. I myself was flying, IRL, a Cessna when another Cessna passed about a hundred feet away. Nothing. There is a very, very narrow range of conditions where you can hear another aircraft's engine over your own, in reality. You can if your power settings are low, your canopy is closed (muffling the slipstream), and the enemy approaches very close to you, at a high rate of closure (the Doppler effect causing the pitch to rise above your engine's) and high power settings. If his engine's apparent sound pitch is drastically higher than yours, and his engine's absolute volume is louder than yours by a large margin, then you can hear his over your own at very close range (as in, a few yards away). What we have in-game is hundreds of times removed from reality, in the modelling of the physics involved in this sound phenomenon. Anyone who does any significant research on the subject will quickly come to the same conclusion. Eagle Dynamics' physics engineer himself admitted that the modelling is not realistic in this matter; I even linked to the post earlier in this thread. Why, then, do you still pretend that the modelling is correct?

Even with your canopy open, you shouldn't be hearing enemy aircraft. In reality, your engine alone is enough to mask that. Indeed, I've heard from open-cockpit pilots that, with your canopy open, the sound of the slipstream does more to deafen you than a closed canopy does. So, counter-intuitively, you're even less able to hear things outside of the cockpit with your canopy open than you are with it closed, in real life.

CH isn't terrible, compared to other SPJs, but their stuff has serious flaws. I've gone into those at length in the past. As for the TM Warthog, every user I've spoken to (quite a few) has agreed that the spring is too stiff out of the box. All of the virtual aces I've known have modified it to be less stiff (usually replacing the grease, extending the length, and/or replacing the spring). After that, I've heard zero complaints about the Warthog.

Yeah. I've been saying for years, this is the largest flaw with DCS as a simulator, by far. All of the other flaws with the simulation of each aircraft are relatively little things, but this is big and global. Richthofen himself couldn't have replicated his success in DCS, because of this sound physics error.

Wasn't DCS: A-10C the reason why Thrustmaster developed the TM Warthog? If so, then I would assume that, sooner or later, Thrustmaster is likely to develop a TM Hornet.

That's very good to hear. Can you point me to a source for this statement?

You're straw-manning. That means you're arguing against a fictional argument that I never made, which you're falsely assuming that I believe. Energy fighting is my favored dogfighting style, and has been for thousands of virtual combat hours. If you're genuinely interested (doubtful), as opposed to trolling (likely), here's a bit I wrote, which should demonstrate that I do understand the point of speed in air combat: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2704103&postcount=20 Again, the A-10C does not have off-boresight tracking capability. Once the A-10 and P-51 merge, the A-10 cannot (other than by fully disengaging in order to setup a new HO) get the P-51 anywhere near its front 90 degrees, much less in the Sidewinder lock cone. Look, I don't see much point in wasting more time arguing with you. As far as I can tell, you're being intentionally ignorant for the sake of contrarian argumentation; I don't appreciate that. You can believe what you like, I suppose; it's clear that you have no interest in how the two really compare in a dogfight. Anyone with both modules can quickly do a few tests against a human opponent of similar skill, at which point it will become obvious that I know well how the two compare as dogfighters. Good day.

Don't be ridiculous. I never said that speed was unimportant, or less important than maneuverability. Speed is life. But maneuverability, not speed, is what makes a kill during a dogfight. This is why fighter designers, even while they usually prioritize speed, still place great emphasis on maneuverability. A fighter has to be fast to survive, but still needs to be maneuverable. Even though, in the modern era, most kills occur BVR, once a dogfight does occur, maneuverability becomes more important than speed, until it's time to disengage.

Superior speed cannot help you shoot down an aircraft that is more maneuverable than you and actively out-maneuvering you with said superior maneuverability. The only way you can use superior speed as an advantage during a dogfight is by running away. The AI P-51 is a pretty easy opponent. A good human VFP can quickly take down the AI, even when beginning at a disadvantage. You must understand that I'm talking about a situation between two pilots of similar skill, not a human stomping a noober or AI. Hence my use of the term "mirror." Means that the aircraft is the only significant difference between the two sides at the beginning of the fight. A classic duel, if you will. As for Sidewinders, sure, if you fire a Sidewinder before the two of you merge, that's an easy kill, but that isn't a dogfight, now, is it? That's just a head-on pass with superior weaponry. Once the merge occurs, once you're no longer flying toward each other to initiate a dogfight, the Sidewinders are just dead weight, worse than nothing, because you'll never get the chance to use them again. The A-10 doesn't have off-boresight locking capability and, if you've got 60% fuel (or even 40%), a P-51 pilot worth his avgas won't let you get anywhere near a firing solution. So, to restate as clearly as I can, in an actual "mirror duel" dogfight (i.e. all things equal other than the aircraft & fuel states), an A-10C with 60% fuel cannot outmaneuver a P-51D at any fuel state, unless the P-51 pilot lets you. No matter how well you maneuver, the P-51 can easily outmaneuver you. If you still disbelieve me, all you have to do to understand the simple truth of the matter is to find a pilot who is similar in skill to you, and have a few mirror duels: some A-10 vs. A-10, some P-51 vs. P-51, and some A-10 vs. P-51, switching out which pilot flies which between duels. You will immediately come to the same conclusion that I did. There's no room for debate. Now, if the entirety of your argument boils down to something like, "But the A-10 can launch a Sidewinder from outside of gun range" (and I'm starting to suspect that it does), then yeah, the A-10 has a winning option in a "dogfight" with a P-51. But I don't think that's what the guy was originally asking. His question was about the ability to outmaneuver, not to lob a fire-and-forget from long range than fly away in slow motion. Particularly the phrase "defending itself during an unexpected attack by another plane" implies that it's already short range and off-boresight, at which point no decent opponent is going to let you get out of gun range to setup a HO. The Brownings make short work of the A-10's engines, so you'll never make it out of gun range if you get bounced. Gotta maneuver, and the A-10 just doesn't maneuver as well as the P-51, in either the vertical or horizontal plane. Not nearly.