Fight for Honor - A Folds of Honor Charity Event

[Mover]

To take a shot. Missile/ guns whichever. And Captain Craig Mole Underhill did exactly that pulling 12 g's in a split s manuerver. And killed the mig 29.

 

One example does not a trend make. Nor does it indicate sound tactics.

[Mover]

Just Say to Mover, ED and Moltar and all the Staff Tnx for and awasome event for a worthty cause bringing the DCS community on it . Made an old eagle here happy again ! Tnx guys

 

Thanks, Bozo!

[Carlos]

One example does not a trend make. Nor does it indicate sound tactics.

 

I will bow to your expertise on that. As in I know you do not train that way.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Carlos

[Nazgûl]

Is it a political issue or is it about Fight for Honor tournament, to raise money and a little support for military families? It looks like those Whatsap policy groups hehehe. If you want to talk about over-g, create a separate topic for that. People are coming here to chat and read about the tournament, but the only thing they find is "over-g, over-g". And, please, more respect with Mover. He had the good will to create / encourage the tournament in order to raise money for the charity campaign but I believe he is almost sorry for that hehehe. If you wanted to participate in the tournament, you would have to respect the g-limit. If you want to be a pilot in real life, you will also have to respect the g-limit. If one day you are a fighter pilot, enter a real combat, and still have to exceed the g-limit, do not come on this topic to talk about it. Create a separate topic to tell about it. Don't be inconvenient. Thanks, Mover, Moltar and all the Staff, who are making this tournament possible! The tournament is going very well. Everyone is having fun. Thank you again!

[Carlos]

If this is the case, and i will take your word for it .....

 

.... its not the norm and you have found the exception. To assume it is the go-to , or is some simple plaza "1 extra g to get the kill. " and that "That pilot is going to pull that bitch and shoot." like it was an everyday conclusion, you are simply incorrect.

 

I wonder what the real context of the F15, 12 over G split S for a shot, actually was. I wonder if there was some other context being over looked that pushed him to do it, like the jet was bingo about to flame out and it was a decision of breaking the jet and eject with a kill, or flame out and eject without a kill. Maybe there is more to that video than simply " f15 12 G split S for a shot ergo pilots regularly pull a meaningless 1 over G because you bet "That pilot is going to pull that bitch and shoot."

 

This is my point with cherry picking information, heavily speculating , then presenting it without context as if it is definitive.

 

Im sure you will respond however , that "it simply proves that its not "never" .... for which i would simply reply, in the same spirit of not liking us using "never", dont present every YouTube video as it is some how "always" or " likely ". Context and nuance is everything, simply because you have a video of something you are arguing about most certainly does not mean it is also in the context of your argument.

 

Oh I agree that it's not the norm.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Carlos

[maxsin72]

Ok.... in an effort to conclude this sh!t show ....

 

Remember you have argued many things so far. You have argued for over Ging , pulling circuit brakers, arriving at the merg with barely enough gas for a single set, some times in the context of a real fight during war sometimes in the context of training, basically that every video that you have watched with Snodgrass telling stories of unique instances, with seemingly complete disregard for the context of those unique instances, you have demonstrated that his videos should be viewed as all encompassing universally applied and unquestionably ubiquitous concepts with only your perspective as context. And in this last message you are using a single statement from a single person, who is your token "argument from authority" pilot, and reference the f15 as a representative of all fighters.

 

So your conclusion from all your youtubing is what exactly? And how does it relate to Movers charity event exactly? Spell it out please because i am throughly bamboozled by all the BS. Just A few sentences please.

 

 

No, you did not understand. Snodgrass said that every time he met very skilled pilots in strong planes ( F15, F18 ) he configured and used F14 in prohibited ways because he was able and free to do it. Tell me why, when occurred the occasion, they asked him to fight against F15 or they let him fight with F18 and they let him to do in prohibited mode? I don't know the answer but he did it many times, every times that was the only way to beat his opponent, and also his opponent fought till the last drop of fuel and under the limit of altitude. Perhaps 30 years ago things were different.

Edited September 27, 2020 by maxsin72

[G B]

No, you did not understand. Snodgrass said that every time he met very skilled pilots in strong planes ( F15, F18 ) he configured and used F14 in prohibited ways because he was able and free to do it. Tell me why, when occurred the occasion, they asked him to fight against F15 or they let him fight with F18 and they let him to do in prohibited mode? I don't know the answer but he did it many times, every times that was the only way to beat his opponent, and also his opponent fought till the last drop of fuel and under the limit of altitude. Perhaps 30 years ago things were different.

 

Holy sh!t. What is your deal with Snodgrass!? Not even real fighter pilots consider him to be some God. Just a guy with a lot of hours and quals. A guy with a lot of hours who even if he Over-Gd would be wrong. Give it a rest with him.

 

There have been dozens of guys with 4000+ hours and a top gun patch and air medals, etc. You’re speaking for the fanboy community. Not the real fighter pilot community.

Edited September 27, 2020 by G B

[G B]

And you're correct fighter pilots have over g'd there jet. To get a kill in combat.

 

An exception. A very rare one. That guy went rogue. It worked out for him, but that’s far from a guarantee.

 

Over Ging happens. Accidentally. And after landing the pilots are embarrassed that they now added more work to maintenance’s already exhaustively long days, and lost sorties for the follow-on flight schedule.

 

Deliberately over Ging does not happen. I got it, you saw a dude on the Discovery channel. Not the norm. Not even remotely in the same universe as the norm. Deliberately over Ging for a shot is NOT a thing.

[Carlos]

An exception. A very rare one. That guy went rogue. It worked out for him, but that’s far from a guarantee.

 

Over Ging happens. Accidentally. And after landing the pilots are embarrassed that they now added more work to maintenance’s already exhaustively long days, and lost sorties for the follow-on flight schedule.

 

Deliberately over Ging does not happen. I got it, you saw a dude on the Discovery channel. Not the norm. Not even remotely in the same universe as the norm. Deliberately over Ging for a shot is NOT a thing.

 

Got it. Thanks

[sark]

Trolls feed on attention. Their end-goal isn't to win the argument, it's to continue it... to continue to be the center of attention.

 

 

 

This thread isn't going to end unless you let the trolls go unanswered. That's how they lose.

[maxsin72]

Holy sh!t. What is your deal with Snodgrass!? Not even real fighter pilots consider him to be some God. Just a guy with a lot of hours and quals. A guy with a lot of hours who even if he Over-Gd would be wrong. Give it a rest with him.

 

There have been dozens of guys with 4000+ hours and a top gun patch and air medals, etc. You’re speaking for the fanboy community. Not the real fighter pilot community.

 

 

A person's credibility also depends on their CV and the ability to document their claims. You say there are dozens of people with 4000+ flying hours on the same plane in the last 50 years - document it. I also repeat that I trust more in what Snodgrass says than in what you say because you have never flown on a Tomcat.

You and Mover also told me i'm a fanboy: 1. it's not the truth, 2. look at yours fanboys that insult me with "nice" words because i don't agree with their heros, i never insult anybody because i'm only interested in arguments.

[snipy]

A person's credibility also depends on their CV and the ability to document their claims. You say there are dozens of people with 4000+ flying hours on the same plane in the last 50 years - document it. I also repeat that I trust more in what Snodgrass says than in what you say because you have never flown on a Tomcat.

You and Mover also told me i'm a fanboy: 1. it's not the truth, 2. look at yours fanboys that insult me with "nice" words because i don't agree with their heros, i never insult anybody because i'm only interested in arguments.

 

If you are interested in arguments, consider that of the thousands upon thousands of fighter pilots, with hundreds of thousands of hours combined, spread across a multitude of jets... you've dug one (1) example of repeat use of disallowed "configuration" as a common tactic. One example of repeat use.

 

I think that would be called rare, don't you?

 

Probably even a bit individualized, given we don't even see the folks in his unit employ such tactics. Did he not want to teach them to his unit? Did he not want his unit to survive? Of course he wanted them to survive... he didn't want them to use those tactics.

 

Logically, then, that they were not taught should be proof enough that their use was not meant to be employed.

[Head Doctor]

On the (off)topic, I was here just reading because of my lack of knowledge about real fighter aircraft procedures does not help at all to the debate. But... there is an interesting underlining theme here on wich I felt motivated to post something.

 

I learned from a colleague, when attending at masters' degree, how to act with a brutal intellectual honesty when arguing: he deepened his topic of study in his thesis and, from that moment on, he started to try to invalidate and search for flaws in his own argument. He called me and other colleagues in a very humble way to try to find logical or conceptual mistakes. His central thesis was very good and was published with improvements based on his and our criticism. Personally, it was a great lesson on how to take the scientific process and the construction of knowledge seriously. In other words, if you get passionate on your arguments and try to defend it at any cost (like everyone else normally does), you wouldn't be able to see other aspects and learn even more.

 

I would like to give some references for the matter of logics and fallacies (this sneaky bastards are everywhere):

 

- The Fallacy Detective: Thirty-Eight Lessons on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning

(This is basically a response to the classic book of Schoppenhauer on how to win an debate without having reason, wich is a worty reading too)

 

- The Art of Reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

 

- Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic

 

- There are great courses for free on youtube and podcasts in several languages, too. I suggest those made by philosophers and respected academics (argumentum ad verecundiam on my suggestion, ok, but these guys have greater probability to be teaching the right stuff).

 

And before I close my (off)topic comment, I can share a tiramisu or a very nice carrot cake recipe if anyone woud like to try. Carrots' quality control not included.

 

[Now... back on topic]

Edited September 28, 2020 by Head Doctor
Corrected the fallacy reference

[Lex Talionis]

No, you did not understand. Snodgrass said that every time he met very skilled pilots in strong planes ( F15, F18 ) he configured and used F14 in prohibited ways because he was able and free to do it. Tell me why, when occurred the occasion, they asked him to fight against F15 or they let him fight with F18 and they let him to do in prohibited mode? I don't know the answer but he did it many times, every times that was the only way to beat his opponent, and also his opponent fought till the last drop of fuel and under the limit of altitude. Perhaps 30 years ago things were different.

 

This is the issue with "arguments from authority", not everyone is going to believe in the authority referenced. Especially when the authority sighted goes against the rest of the comunity the authority is from. And when you have minimal knowledge on your own to logically formulate your own argument without the need for the authority.

 

As said before, i belive you are misconstruing much information from the videos arriving to incorrect conclusions. I don't believe he was "free" to blatently break rules, or that he was making an argument that doing so would allow him to out perform superior aircraft "every time". Each of those videos has a context you are cherry picking information from. And if we asked him in person and it does turn out he actually meant everything in the way you think he did, you will have decades of military testing that would argue against him. You simply believe more in the authority than the rest of the comunity, religiously.

 

I have already addressed one video referenced, how it would only work against a single pilot in only a training environment. I am pretty sure if i reviewed others i would discover much context that would isolate those examples as painfully unique and only applicable in very unique, non real world non combat environment when a myriad of other variables must be considered. But again, you religiously believe in your interpertation of a single individual's videos.

 

And your motivation for the argument in the first place, im fuzzy on this but if it was to argue against the G limitations in the competition sighting it was unrealistic, i guess i would have to ask "what "realisum " are you referring to" (pains me to even say that) because if it is all centered around your interpertation of the videos, well we already discussed how sighting to the authority is not a good argument.

 

Good arguments do not need an "authority ", "arguments from authority " are generally considered "bad arguments " because they lack intellectual/logical validation. If you cant argue a concept free of an authority it typically means you have a weak argument. I try to never argue from authority and always explain concepts free of leaning on credentials. The devil is always in the details.

 

We get it, this is your guy and there is no talking you out of anything he says. But the rest of us don't need whatever list of accreditations next our name to know logical fallacies when we see them.

 

It has been intresting, thanks for the generally civilized conversation.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Lex Talionis

[Head Doctor]

I would like to thank a lot Mover, Moltar and everyone else involved in the organization of this tournament. It was not as intimidating as I was afraid of. Great guys flying, a supportive environment. I was laughing hard with the chat on Discord yesterday! This kind of relieve is why I play flight simulators for so many years.

 

A big thank you!

[macedk]

sad that it wasn't streamed, hope for some youtube then :)

 

EDIT: Just saw Moltar's explanation on the no stream :)

Edited September 28, 2020 by macedk
New information

[Lex Talionis]

On the (off)topic, I was here just reading because of my lack of knowledge about real fighter aircraft procedures does not help at all to the debate. But... there is an interesting underlining theme here on wich I felt motivated to post something.

 

I learned from a colleague, when attending at masters' degree, how to act with a brutal intellectual honesty when arguing: he deepened his topic of study in his thesis and, from that moment on, he started to try to invalidate and search for flaws in his own argument. He called me and other colleagues in a very humble way to try to find logical or conceptual mistakes. His central thesis was very good and was published with improvements based on his and our criticism. Personally, it was a great lesson on how to take the scientific process and the construction of knowledge seriously. In other words, if you get passionate on your arguments and try to defend it at any cost (like everyone else normally does), you wouldn't be able to see other aspects and learn even more.

 

I would like to give some references for the matter of logics and fallacies (this sneaky bastards are everywhere):

 

- The Fallacy Detective: Thirty-Eight Lessons on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning

(This is basically a response to the classic book of Schoppenhauer on how to win an debate without having reason, wich is a worty reading too)

 

- The Art of Reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

 

- Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic

 

- There are great courses for free on youtube and podcasts in several languages, too. I suggest those made by philosophers and respected academics (argumentum ad verecundiam on my suggestion, ok, but these guys have greater probability to be teaching the right stuff).

 

And before I close my (off)topic comment, I can share a tiramisu or a very nice carrot cake recipe if anyone woud like to try. Carrots' quality control not included.

 

[Now... back on topic]

 

 

Thanks for this. I thought i was going crazy.

[Basilisk]

I would like to thank Mover, M0ltar, and everyone who helped to organize and run the tournament. I had a lot of fun, and I sucked with a lot of confidence!

 

On the G limit off topic:

 

Will M61 Vulcan even work at 9g+, meaning will it feed properly? Also, has it ever been test fired at 9g+?

I thought about it because Gonky mentioned that F-8 Crusaders sometimes over G'ed their cannons (Colt Mk 12 according to Wikipedia) in Vietnams during

.

[maxsin72]

If you are interested in arguments, consider that of the thousands upon thousands of fighter pilots, with hundreds of thousands of hours combined, spread across a multitude of jets... you've dug one (1) example of repeat use of disallowed "configuration" as a common tactic. One example of repeat use.

 

I think that would be called rare, don't you?

 

Probably even a bit individualized, given we don't even see the folks in his unit employ such tactics. Did he not want to teach them to his unit? Did he not want his unit to survive? Of course he wanted them to survive... he didn't want them to use those tactics.

 

Logically, then, that they were not taught should be proof enough that their use was not meant to be employed.

 

 

I agree with you that is not the norm but this is obvious and no, i don't think that disallowed "configuration" was a common tactic.

I think it was a possibility for that kind of pilot very skilled, often chosen by superiors to fight in particular situations: best F15 pilots vs best F14 pilots because nobody wanted to lost the challenge, so Snodgrass was allowed to did all that, him and probably few others while thousands upon thousands of fighter pilots were not allowed. Also Joe Satrapa pulled his F14 at 8.5g and Keith Nance admittend he didn't look many times at 6.5 g limit. So Snodgrass is not alone and other pilots perhaps didn't respect the limits but i think much of them won't like to publicize all this.

 

 

[maxsin72]

This is the issue with "arguments from authority", not everyone is going to believe in the authority referenced. Especially when the authority sighted goes against the rest of the comunity the authority is from. And when you have minimal knowledge on your own to logically formulate your own argument without the need for the authority.

 

As said before, i belive you are misconstruing much information from the videos arriving to incorrect conclusions. I don't believe he was "free" to blatently break rules, or that he was making an argument that doing so would allow him to out perform superior aircraft "every time". Each of those videos has a context you are cherry picking information from. And if we asked him in person and it does turn out he actually meant everything in the way you think he did, you will have decades of military testing that would argue against him. You simply believe more in the authority than the rest of the comunity, religiously.

 

I have already addressed one video referenced, how it would only work against a single pilot in only a training environment. I am pretty sure if i reviewed others i would discover much context that would isolate those examples as painfully unique and only applicable in very unique, non real world non combat environment when a myriad of other variables must be considered. But again, you religiously believe in your interpertation of a single individual's videos.

 

And your motivation for the argument in the first place, im fuzzy on this but if it was to argue against the G limitations in the competition sighting it was unrealistic, i guess i would have to ask "what "realisum " are you referring to" (pains me to even say that) because if it is all centered around your interpertation of the videos, well we already discussed how sighting to the authority is not a good argument.

 

Good arguments do not need an "authority ", "arguments from authority " are generally considered "bad arguments " because they lack intellectual/logical validation. If you cant argue a concept free of an authority it typically means you have a weak argument. I try to never argue from authority and always explain concepts free of leaning on credentials. The devil is always in the details.

 

We get it, this is your guy and there is no talking you out of anything he says. But the rest of us don't need whatever list of accreditations next our name to know logical fallacies when we see them.

 

It has been intresting, thanks for the generally civilized conversation.

 

 

I have reported of Snodgrass but there are also Satrapa, Nance and perhaps others who did not respect limits without say anything to anybody. Obviously this was not common and most of the pilots i think respected rules but Snodgrass was not absolutely alone. And remember i'm talking only about F14.

So or Snodgrass, Satrapa, and Nance lied or they did really all that and in my opinion the fact they did it is the only thing that matters.

[S. Low]

I realize I'm pouring gasoline on a fire here, but it's worth discussing since it is related to the rules: Starting at 35:51, Jell-O asks SYPH and Cosmo about G limits on the F-14 A/B:

 

They say that the A/B was designed for 7.5 g, but the crew was ordered limited to 6.5. But there was no limiter and the pilot says that "Trust me, there was many times that we went down there and tapped that little guy" "The gauge" "Yeah so we wouldn't get in trouble."

 

Here's my 2 cents. I think exceeding the g-limit on the F-14 was more common than the pilots in this thread are willing to accept/admit, but it had a far more negative consequence to the fleet than the sim gamers are willing to accept/admit.

 

Edit:

And here at 41:25ish they begin talking about the maintenance nightmare of the F-14 and how they had to bend their own metal to replace parts, tons of panels to remove. If you listen further, they discuss how the airframe was extremely durable and there was a time on the Kennedy when a hornet got blown into a tomcat, and the hornet was heavily damaged but the tomcat flew the next day. Anecdotal but interesting. It still seems to me that the guys who flew the tomcat were willing to exceed g-limits and keep it hush hush, but I also feel as though this heavily contributed to the maintenance issues of the jet.

 

A few minutes later in the 46 minute section the pilot talks about that his squadron was allowed to manually control the flaps in combat, and because of their corner speed they really weren't at risk of exceeding g-limit of the airframe (supporting what the fighter pilots here have been saying), but they had OTHER maintenance issues from breaking the mechanisms relating to the flaps.

 

Again, the F-14 was used and abused.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Relic

[M0ltar]

Fight for Honor - A Folds of Honor Charity Event

 

I realize I'm pouring gasoline on a fire here, but it's worth discussing since it is related to the rules: Starting at 35:51, Jell-O asks SYPH and Cosmo about G limits on the F-14 A/B:

 

They say that the A/B was designed for 7.5 g, but the crew was ordered limited to 6.5. But there was no limiter and the pilot says that "Trust me, there was many times that we went down there and tapped that little guy" "The gauge" "Yeah so we wouldn't get in trouble."

 

Here's my 2 cents. I think exceeding the g-limit on the F-14 was more common than the pilots in this thread are willing to accept/admit, but it had a far more negative consequence to the fleet than the sim gamers are willing to accept/admit.

 

 

 

No one is saying with the 14 that is was common or uncommon. All anyone is saying is that it shouldnt be done and bad things can happen if you do exceed those limits.

[S. Low]

No one is saying with the 14 that is was common or uncommon. All anyone is saying is that it shouldnt be done and bad things can happen if you do exceed those limits.

 

I agree, and I agree with the rules. I felt it necessary to investigate further and upon further inspection it seems as though both parties arguing in this thread have elements of truth.

[snipy]

I agree with you that is not the norm but this is obvious and no, i don't think that disallowed "configuration" was a common tactic.

I think it was a possibility for that kind of pilot very skilled, often chosen by superiors to fight in particular situations: best F15 pilots vs best F14 pilots because nobody wanted to lost the challenge, so Snodgrass was allowed to did all that, him and probably few others while thousands upon thousands of fighter pilots were not allowed. Also Joe Satrapa pulled his F14 at 8.5g and Keith Nance admittend he didn't look many times at 6.5 g limit. So Snodgrass is not alone and other pilots perhaps didn't respect the limits but i think much of them won't like to publicize all this.

 

 

 

These are again, one offs, not repeat use, and one example of Schrödinger's cat--if he didn't check the G meter, then he didn't over G...

 

But the logical argument is that if it was not trained, it was not meant to be employed. Snodgrass going up against another fighter is war games, and he gamed the game.

 

What seems to be forgotten is that these jets are weapons, meant to be used in combat, to gain or maintain aerial superiority, to support or allow boots on the ground to gain and maintain strategic objectives.

 

If everyone pulls G and breaks their jet, because they want a kill, we're going to lose air superiority pretty quick, and the ground guys are going to get hammered.

 

There is a common adage, you fight how you train. They aren't trained because that isn't how it is meant to be fought.

[Carlos]

These are again, one offs, not repeat use, and one example of Schrödinger's cat--if he didn't check the G meter, then he didn't over G...

 

But the logical argument is that if it was not trained, it was not meant to be employed. Snodgrass going up against another fighter is war games, and he gamed the game.

 

What seems to be forgotten is that these jets are weapons, meant to be used in combat, to gain or maintain aerial superiority, to support or allow boots on the ground to gain and maintain strategic objectives.

 

If everyone pulls G and breaks their jet, because they want a kill, we're going to lose air superiority pretty quick, and the ground guys are going to get hammered.

 

There is a common adage, you fight how you train. They aren't trained because that isn't how it is meant to be fought.

 

There was confusion (who would of thought through text). And I did not realize this (over g'ing in the game) was a sore issue. It's a arcade game after all. know you don't over g a jet. I know there are lower g limits with load outs, like fuel tanks fuel quantity, bombs etc. But I knew of an example where a guy over g'd to get onto a migs 6. But the guy answered me with no pilot would do that. It's was kinda like, hey that guy got into a car wreck. And someone answers, nobody gets into car wrecks. And the correct response should of been, nobody gets into car wrecks on purpose. Hopefully this clears it up. And I don't get an encyclopedia of response on how I'm wrong.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Carlos