If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:17:33 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . From another perspective, however, I had always learned that a Lufberry was a 1-v-1 situation in which the attacker and defender were trapped in a single circle, same plane fight, tail-chasing each other and simultaneously trying to attack and defend against the other guy. If transitioned from horizontal to vertical, it became a rolling scissors. Modern tactics and missiles have long ago outdistanced any advantage in a Lufberry per se', and as for being defensive to the point of initiating a rolling scissors against a smart shooter.........that's a heart attack on a bun for sure!!! :-)))) When we used to instruct the scissors, either as a classic reversing scissors or the rolling scissors, I used to tell the students that it was the last place they ever wanted to be since more than 50% of the people who enter a scissors die there. They would look quizzically and then suggest it wasn't possible, as one would be the victor and one the lose, hence 50%. I then would point out the high likelihood of a mid-air between the two frantically reversing aircraft, each trying to reacquire nose-tail separation. Yep, more than 50%! You are so right about losing sight. One of the greatest misunderstandings among novices about aerial combat, and something they learn very quickly as they move into the learning curve, is the value of sight. Many come in visualizing only the written material, which as you and I well know, doesn't begin to paint the "real picture" of what it's like up there when you start yanking the damn thing around. They all seem to have that rock solid line drawing view of what to expect. Then, all of a sudden, reality sets in as they go nose to nose with a closure of 1000 kts or more. In fact, I don't know about you, but one of the earliest "lessons" I had to deal with personally when aggressively maneuvering a fighter was that my damn helmet would slip down and block my vision in direct proportion to the g I was putting on the airplane. Hell, I began to "really" learn something when I realized that I could almost tell the g I had on the bird at any moment by where the upper lip of the helmet was on my forehead!! :-))) I also remember that one of the first things you encounter as an acm instructor is getting them through that first hour of 1 v 1 with some kind of feeling of self accomplishment, as all their preconceived "book learn'in" and "notions" go right out the canopy and they start screaming through the ICS...."How much offset did you say I need"......."Where is he????....... Where the hell IS HE?????" "DAMN!!!! THERE he is!!!!........" :-))))) Dudley |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:35:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets. The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker. Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat. Breaking up a defensive circle is easy as long as it is at an altitude sufficiently high to allow unrestricted vertical maneuvering. My view is that the defending aircraft want to get right down in the weeds ASAP. Down on the deck they can use topography to mask themselves, even conceal a sneaky reverse. This also introduces the difficulty of visually picking out individual aircraft in the ground clutter. The circle should not be so tight that aspect changes are minimalized. I'm sure you've seen what happens when turning circles are so tight that the relative aspect between target and shooter barely changes due to a very tight turn radius, yet poor turn rate (in degrees/second). My regards, Widewing (C.C. Jordan) http://www.worldwar2aviation.com http://www.netaces.org http://www.hitechcreations.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:27:15 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" wrote: "WaltBJ" wrote in message . com... Cub Driver wrote in message ... I have seen references to the circle's SNIP: In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of superior energy capability. Walt BJ Right on! Lufberry's looked good on paper....that is until the circle was engaged by fighters with lower wing loadings; and flown by pilots who knew how to bleed down and arc. Snap shooters like Marseille could play dixie on these circles...and did just that...against poorly flown Lufberry's. In fact, even a higher wing loaded fighter could engage through low yo yo's and arcing if flown by superior pilots. This was the "real" learning period in ACM. It involved the painful transition from thinking defensive to thinking like a Hans Marseille......attack! Just like Hartmann, he boresighted for conversion range using the windshield bow for wingspan instead of using the sight, then he pulled g for lead; raised the nose in the turn for gravity drop; centered the ball for trajectory shift, and hosed them at high angle off before he bled down and out of the cone. Pilots who were thinking about things like Lufberry's as they entered the war didn't last very long in combat. Nothing kills a fighter pilot faster than over thinking the defensive side of the ACM equation. Dudley Henriques Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets. The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker. Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat. snip Of course, since a year or two after DS the Hogs have had a lead-computing gunsight (LASTE), and they had AIM-9Ls before DS. And they also had a special waiver at Red Flag (at least in the '80s) that allowed them to take head-on gun shots inside the 1,000 foot bubble, implying that their primary defensive move (along with getting as low as possible) would be to use their turn rate and radius to face the threat and pop him with either a missile or the gun. And all those chaff and flares don't hurt either, if defeating a missile becomes necessary. Guy |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
About the Warthog: The A-10 has been in the inventory for longer than many or most of the posters on this newsgroup have been alive. It has served creditably in three wars that I know of. Has it ever had to go into a defensive circle? all the best -- Dan Ford email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9 see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
About the Warthog: The A-10 has been in the inventory for longer than
many or most of the posters on this newsgroup have been alive. It has served creditably in three wars that I know of. Has it ever had to go into a defensive circle? One of my friends that flies F-16s got into one with 3 A-10s once. There was a altitude limitation placed on him, so he couldnt just go up and do a "Hog pop".. He said it ended up being a draw, neither could get in firing position on the others, and that an A-10 can potentially turn inside its own ass under the right conditions. Ron Pilot/Wildland Firefighter |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:08:05 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote: About the Warthog: The A-10 has been in the inventory for longer than many or most of the posters on this newsgroup have been alive. I wish you wouldn't write stuff like this. I remember the A-10 first flight, which was after I got out of college and was working at Edwards. It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight). Mary -- Mary Shafer "There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets" Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Shafer" wrote...
It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight). Just consider yourself a walking aviation history library! :-) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:6w6fb.25559$%h1.15156@sccrnsc02... "Mary Shafer" wrote... It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight). Just consider yourself a walking aviation history library! :-) Now that she's retired , I was hoping I could get her to come over here and help me with my retirement work.......you know; yard work!!! :-))) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired For personal e-mail, use dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt (replacezwithe) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote:
"Mary Shafer" wrote... It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight). Just consider yourself a walking aviation history library! :-) And very much appreciated by lurkers like me. ronh -- "People do not make decisions on facts, rather, how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are aircraft cost-effective for defensive purposes? | Chad Irby | Military Aviation | 6 | September 12th 03 01:23 AM |
NACO charts - why have a reference circle? | Bob Gardner | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | September 6th 03 01:15 PM |