ACE PATROL: AAR

[Giftzwerg]

I don't write AARs ... well, ever ... but this jewel of a game is so
Just Plain Fun that I can't help myself.

OK. Here was the mission I got as my "Busty Maiden" (Patrol Leader
"Marsha Luke"): recon of an enemy airfield. I'm playing on the middle
difficulty setting - equidistant from "Rookie" and "Legendary". It's
still on the second battle in the American campaign, so I'm flying SPAD
VII, just having moved up from the Nieuport 11 "Bebe."

Entering the mission, I notice that *I* am the reconnaissance aircraft.
I was sorta expecting to be an escort to a Bleriot something-or-other,
but it's just me. Scanning around the sky, I see that not only do I not
have a recon to escort, but there are *four* E.III Eindeckers arrayed
between me and the aerodrome I'm supposed to overfly and mark for an
artillery strike.

All right, what are the challenges? The 4:1 combat ratio is kinda
daunting. Also, the airfield I have to overfly is behind enemy lines,
which means continually having to skirt enemy positions and the
attendant AAA sites. And the Eindecker is a superbly maneuverable
dogfighter, armed with the same single MG as my own mount.

So what have I got going for me? Simplicity of mission is one. I just
have to fly over the enemy aerodrome and get home with a whole skin to
win the game (it won't be a big win, but a win is a win...). And the
SPAD VII is a quite fast, very durable airplane that can employ "boom
and zoom" tactics effectively against the E.IIIs. Also, "Marsha Luke"
has some solid experience and training, able to push the SPAD envelope a
little. And there are *tons* of clouds around, the perfect foil for a
pilot who wants to dart in and dart out.

So my strategy is simple; zoom to high altitude, don't make any
unnecessary maneuvers, thread the needle between the German AAA
establishments, keep on step ahead of the Fokkers, and get the recon
done. At that point, I'll see about picking off some Fokkers.

In I zoom. The enemy queues up to the north, and makes ready to zip
through the AAA belts that I have to dodge. I climb, climb with the
idea that the height will come in handy on a long, diving escape run.
The Eindeckers are *really* slow, and I'm thinking the recon is going to
be a piece of cake. So confident am I that I ...

... blow the approach. I overshoot the airfield, failing to get the
recon done. The mission is over. I've fucked up hopelessly. My
choices now are <laughter> come around again, circling a huge enemy AAA
site, or get into a turning furball with *four* much more maneuverable
foes, or just dart for home and accept a failed mission.

So I dart for home. I blow through the enemy planes, which only manage
to pepper me with some wholly ineffectual gunfire. Sobbing, my "Busty
Maiden" wipes the makeup out of her eyes and notices that ... she's
right back where the mission began.

Climbing turn. Roar back down the same AAA site gap. The Fokkers are
really out of position, and clearly haven't anticipated that the battle
isn't over. The murder of Fokkers bursts in on me, but my every move is
a turning dive. This time, I do a perfect overflight.

Mission accomplished!

But I'm not outta Dodge yet. The Fokkers are swarming from all
directions.

What's the new strategy? Get west. Engage the Eindeckers over friendly
territory, where *they* have to worry about AAA sites, and were *I* can
execute maneuvers over friendly guns. So I zoom away at top speed,
watching the Fokkers swarm in my wake.

Now begins the Battle Royal, with me leading a merry chase through
clouds and Fokker-hostile AAA guns, zooming and jinking.

...

(I got all four.)



--
Giftzwerg
***
"Journalism is about covering important stories.
With a pillow, until they stop moving."
- David Burge

[Holdit]

In article <MPG.2bfca735f...@news-east.giganews.com>,
giftzw...@hotmail.com says...

>
> I don't write AARs ... well, ever ... but this jewel of a game is so
> Just Plain Fun that I can't help myself.
>

Well done Buusty Maiden...bless her well-filled bra. Good AAR. If I had
an iPad, I'd be buying the game now on the strength of it. Apart from
the lack of detail about the kills, it reads like an episode of
"Dogfights".

"Busty Maiden is...here...the Eindeckers are...here."

On a not-unrelated note, has anyone tried "Rise of Flight"? Opinions?

Holdit

--
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others
of whom I made the most careful and particular enquiry."
- Thucydides (Peloponnesian War)

"I've just jazzed mine up a little."
- Spike Milligan (World War 2)

[Holdit]

In article <MPG.2bfd71faf...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
holdit...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS says...

> In article <MPG.2bfca735f...@news-east.giganews.com>,
> giftzw...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > I don't write AARs ... well, ever ... but this jewel of a game is so
> > Just Plain Fun that I can't help myself.
> >
>
> Well done Buusty Maiden...bless her well-filled bra. Good AAR. If I had
> an iPad, I'd be buying the game now on the strength of it.

Silly of me...because it's "for the iPad" I assumed it wasn't available
for the iPhone. Which it is. I've just installed it and played the intro
"ballon-busting" mission. Good fun. Good interface.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:56:10 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I don't write AARs ... well, ever ... but this jewel of a game is so
>Just Plain Fun that I can't help myself.

Historically, the prevailing winds were from West to East, giving the Germans a significant positional advantage in
those times of not-very-strong engines. Very few German pilots actually crossed the lines East to West because their
higher command recognised the fighter as an essentially defensive weappon.

Is that factored in the game?
.
.
.
"Bother", said Pooh, as she stopped breathing.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <a7l7p8d88m3m6ad26...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...

> >I don't write AARs ... well, ever ... but this jewel of a game is so
> >Just Plain Fun that I can't help myself.
>
>
> Historically, the prevailing winds were from West to East, giving the Germans a significant positional advantage in
> those times of not-very-strong engines. Very few German pilots actually crossed the lines East to West because their
> higher command recognised the fighter as an essentially defensive weappon.
>
> Is that factored in the game?

Not that I can see, but the game is modeled on an extremely small scale
- a four-plane flight is the largest formation under player control - so
I'm not sure it would much matter. The game is, after all, about
getting the two sides into an air battle.

[dougb]

Definitely a fun game. Now why can't I get Squadron Leader Biggles out of my mind...<g>

Doug

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 15 mei, 20:39, "Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)" <n...@thistime.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:56:10 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I don't write AARs ... well, ever ... but this jewel of a game is so
> >Just Plain Fun that I can't help myself.
>
> Historically, the prevailing winds were from West to East, giving the Germans a significant positional advantage in
> those times of not-very-strong engines.

How so ? Faster climbing rate going against the wind ? Never heard
that one so I'm curious.

> Very few German pilots actually crossed the lines East to West because their
> higher command recognised the fighter as an essentially defensive weappon.

Seriously ? Paris was bombed about 50 times in 1914 and Britain was a
target throughout the war, first with Zeppelins, then with Gothas,
Dorniers and whatnot. Defensive my lower posterior. Oh, just saw you
said "fighters" - disregard - sure, their targets were enemy bombers
and recce planes, so naturally each side tended to operate within
their own lines or right over the front line itself - doubt the
prevailing winds had anything to do with their tactical use though.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Big Salad]

On 5/15/2013 6:21 AM, Holdit wrote:
> On a not-unrelated note, has anyone tried "Rise of Flight"?
> Opinions?

I bought it many months back (when it was mentioned in this NG before).
Haven't got very far with it, though. I'm still only doing the tutorials.

So far my impression is positive. Seems stable (although one would hope
that the tutorials are) and a decent enough simulation.

I started by trying to download the free-to-play version, and had
trouble with the size of the download. I found a store (US) that shipped
the CD for a pretty low price, so I just went ahead and bought the full
version.

For those unfamiliar, this is one of those games where the basic price
is fairly low, but you pay for extra planes.

It seems to fill a need for a realistic WWI flight simulation with
reasonably up-to-date graphics.

[DirkG]

If you get on their mail list they'll let you know when they have sales
on the planes and other add-ons. I got most of the single-engined
scouts for $2.99 each. Brings back memories of my old favorite the Red
Baron series, only much nicer graphics. I'm still learning too...I've
only jumped into a quick fight to get the feel for the planes.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 06:26, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> No. This is a tactical miniatures boardgame on the iDevice. Think Heroclix
> but with planes and you are not too far off.

Heroclix ??? - it's Wings of War on the iPad.

> Still great fun, but don't buy
> anything beyond the 99¢ British campaign unlock. The rest of the IAP/DLCs
> don't add much at all.

I'm waiting for Snoopy (as von Richthofen) to appear :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 06:25, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> That is a strange one. I have yet to encounter any flight sims modelling
> faster climbs when aainst the wind. How does that work, aerodynamically?

As it should ? There's a reason planes take off against the wind : to
get more lift at lower speed because the wind-speed in essence is
additional air-over-wings speed in addition to the absolute ground
speed, which is the process that creates the lift.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 15/05/2013 10:53 PM, Holdit wrote:
> In article <MPG.2bfd71faf...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> holdit...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS says...
>> In article <MPG.2bfca735f...@news-east.giganews.com>,
>> giftzw...@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> I don't write AARs ... well, ever ... but this jewel of a game is
>>> so Just Plain Fun that I can't help myself.
>>>
>>
>> Well done Buusty Maiden...bless her well-filled bra. Good AAR. If I
>> had an iPad, I'd be buying the game now on the strength of it.
>
> Silly of me...because it's "for the iPad" I assumed it wasn't
> available for the iPhone. Which it is. I've just installed it and
> played the intro "ballon-busting" mission. Good fun. Good interface.
>
> Holdit
>
>
>

Sorry should have said that somewhere - Works fine on both, though it's
definitely roomier on the pad.

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com

[Giftzwerg]

In article <kn24sv$lei$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> > Silly of me...because it's "for the iPad" I assumed it wasn't
> > available for the iPhone. Which it is. I've just installed it and
> > played the intro "ballon-busting" mission. Good fun. Good interface.

> Sorry should have said that somewhere - Works fine on both, though it's
> definitely roomier on the pad.

Doesn't work on my gen4 iPod, though. Unhappy about "no digital
compass" or some nonsense. Who knew.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <933896265390371013.58...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > "Bother", said Pooh, as she stopped breathing.
>

> No. This is a tactical miniatures boardgame on the iDevice.

Except minus the board and the cards and the chits and the dice and the
tabletop, and swapping in a proper computer game.

Sorry. You can't have this one. You can have PHANTOM LEADER, though;
absolutely *stunning* example of exactly what happens when a boardgame
designer brings his special magic to a computer.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1730077887390371168.6...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> That is a strange one. I have yet to encounter any flight sims modelling
> faster climbs when aainst the wind. How does that work, aerodynamically?

Because climbing is facilitated by air moving flowing faster over the
wing; it doesn't matter *what* causes air to flow faster over the wing.
This is why aircraft always take off into the wind, insofar as possible.

Think about an aircraft carrier turning into a 25-knot wind to launch a
strike. Just sitting on the deck, without moving at all, the wind
flowing over the wing on the plane about to be launched is already
moving at 25 knots - the windspeed - plus 35 knots coming from the 4-
shaft nuclear propulsion.

Before the catapult even fires, the plane has an effective 60 knots of
lift.

[Holdit]

In article <75b47a08-cbe0-4de4-a261-c2e82ef29a56
@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

I'm waiting for Baron von Reichs-Pudding.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 10:32, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> Wait, does flying against the wind mean that my plane is heading north and
> the wind is blowing from the north to the south?

Yup.

I'm scratching my head what else it could mean ?

Even modern jet fighters prefer taking off into the wind, but it's not
really an absolute requirement in emergencies or such.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 10:50, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <933896265390371013.585898adelphi-inbox....@news.aioe.org>,
> adel...@inbox.com says...

>
> > > "Bother", said Pooh, as she stopped breathing.
>
> > No. This is a tactical miniatures boardgame on the iDevice.
>
> Except minus the board and the cards and the chits and the dice and the
> tabletop, and swapping in a proper computer game.

Wings of War doesn't have a board :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Mark Bestley]

or dice, chits. It does have cards but they match exactly the arrows on
the screen.

This is a one to one copy of Wings of War (or vice versa) Except Wings
of war requires you to choose 2-3 moves at once.


--
Mark

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 13:42, ne...@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:

> eddyster...@hotmail.com <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 16 mei, 10:50, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <933896265390371013.585898adelphi-inbox....@news.aioe.org>,
> > > adel...@inbox.com says...
>
> > > > > "Bother", said Pooh, as she stopped breathing.
>
> > > > No. This is a tactical miniatures boardgame on the iDevice.
>
> > > Except minus the board and the cards and the chits and the dice and the
> > > tabletop, and swapping in a proper computer game.
>
> > Wings of War doesn't have a board :)
>
> or dice,

Kind of - it has "fire" cards with a particular distribution which in
essence is almost the same as dice.

> chits.

Yes it does - there are markers for various bad things that can happen
to your plane - can't turn left, engine on fire, ...

> It does have cards but they match exactly the arrows on
> the screen.
> This is a one to one copy of Wings of War (or vice versa) Except Wings
> of war requires you to choose 2-3 moves at once.

Can't wait for "Sid Meier's X-Wing" game to appear :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Carl Alex Friis Nielsen]

On 16-05-2013 10:32, ade...@inbox.com wrote:

Just note that as soon as the plane has left the ground, flying into the
wind has NO effect on the planes ability to climb. It just helps the
plane get a higher INITIAL air speed.
The wind affects what happens to the plane in relation to the ground -
not the air.

[Carl Alex Friis Nielsen]

On 16-05-2013 10:58, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <1730077887390371168.6...@news.aioe.org>,
> ade...@inbox.com says...
>
>> That is a strange one. I have yet to encounter any flight sims modelling
>> faster climbs when aainst the wind. How does that work, aerodynamically?
>
> Because climbing is facilitated by air moving flowing faster over the
> wing; it doesn't matter *what* causes air to flow faster over the wing.
> This is why aircraft always take off into the wind, insofar as possible.

Just remember that it doest matter once in the air - whem climbing from
100 feet to 5000 feet the direction of the wind doenst influence the
rate of climb.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 15:26, Carl Alex Friis Nielsen <c...@mail.dk> wrote:
> On 16-05-2013 10:58, Giftzwerg wrote:
>

> > In article <1730077887390371168.609294adelphi-inbox....@news.aioe.org>,
> > adel...@inbox.com says...

>
> >> That is a strange one. I have yet to encounter any flight sims modelling
> >> faster climbs when aainst the wind. How does that work, aerodynamically?
>
> > Because climbing is facilitated by air moving flowing faster over the
> > wing; it doesn't matter *what* causes air to flow faster over the wing.
> > This is why aircraft always take off into the wind, insofar as possible.
>
> Just remember that it doest matter once in the air - whem climbing from
> 100 feet to 5000 feet the direction of the wind doenst influence the
> rate of climb.

I'm not an aircraft engineer but how do you then explain why a
Fieseler Storch can "hover" when flying into a strong headwind - in
essence climbing as fast as it's falling from gravity - but cannot do
this trick with a tailwind ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[dougb]

It would however impact the altitude climbed in a given distance travelled, since the speed of the wind impacts ground speed. So against a head wind you'd climb from 1,000 to 3,000 feet in less ground distance travelled than if you were flying with a tail wind. Is this what the game is trying to capture?

Doug

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 16:22, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
> It would however impact the altitude climbed in a given distance travelled, since the speed of the wind impacts ground speed.  So against a head wind you'd climb from 1,000 to 3,000 feet in less ground distance travelled than if you were flying with a tail wind.  Is this what the game is trying to capture?

Nope - the point is that this game does not simulate this, which
frankly it shouldn't in this type of game - this is not a flightsim.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Carl Alex Friis Nielsen]

Because its airspeed is the same as the speed of the wind it is flying
into - the aircraft IS moving in relation to the wind.
Now if everything else being equal there was no wind the aircraft would
still move forward with the same speed in realtion to the air and
remaining at the same altitude, but would now also move in relation the
ground, since the air is no longer moving in relation to the air.

If you went up in a hot air balloon the wind would carry you along and
as a passenger you would feel no wind at all.

You could also consider a man walking throug a train at 5 km/h moving in
the oposite direction at 5 km/h - in relation to an observer on the
ground beside the train he is standing still.

And you concept of a climbing motion opposing a falling motion for an
aircraft at level flight is misleading. Gravity exerts a force on the
aircraft and the lift generated by the preassure differntial between the
air above and below the planes wings exerts a force of the same
magnitude but opposite direction - no up or down motion involved.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 16:32, Carl Alex Friis Nielsen <c...@mail.dk> wrote:

> And you concept of a climbing motion opposing a falling motion for an
> aircraft at level flight is misleading.

I flunked physics :)

> Gravity exerts a force on the
> aircraft and the lift generated by the preassure differntial between the
> air above and below the planes wings exerts a force of the same
> magnitude but opposite direction - no up or down motion involved.

Ah, ok, I saw it as a mathematical vector thing with two forces
cancelling each other out.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Carl Alex Friis Nielsen]

On 16-05-2013 16:22, dougb wrote:
> It would however impact the altitude climbed in a given distance travelled, since the speed of the wind impacts ground speed. So against a head wind you'd climb from 1,000 to 3,000 feet in less ground distance travelled than if you were flying with a tail wind. Is this what the game is trying to capture?
>
> Doug
>

Sure, but in a dog fight movement in relation to the ground isn't often
that relevant.
If everything else equal two planes flying head to head - one with the
wind, the other against the wind - spot each other simultaneously and
begin climbing with the same control settings they will meet at the same
height, so if the plane flying against the wind ends up with a height
advantage its just plain wrong.

[Carl Alex Friis Nielsen]

That is exactly what i wrote - forces cancelling each other out, but you
wrote "motion" and not "force"

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 17:09, Carl Alex Friis Nielsen <c...@mail.dk> wrote:

> If everything else equal two planes flying head to head - one with the
> wind, the other against the wind - spot each other simultaneously and
> begin climbing with the same control settings they will meet at the same
> height,

It's a bit counter-intuitive, but Google confirms this - who said you
can't learn anything on usenet ? :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <88ba56a1-5d7b-47fb-a43a-7754f69908c4
@o10g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > >> That is a strange one. I have yet to encounter any flight sims modelling
> > >> faster climbs when aainst the wind. How does that work, aerodynamically?
> >
> > > Because climbing is facilitated by air moving flowing faster over the
> > > wing; it doesn't matter *what* causes air to flow faster over the wing.
> > > This is why aircraft always take off into the wind, insofar as possible.
> >
> > Just remember that it doest matter once in the air - whem climbing from
> > 100 feet to 5000 feet the direction of the wind doenst influence the
> > rate of climb.
>
> I'm not an aircraft engineer but how do you then explain why a
> Fieseler Storch can "hover" when flying into a strong headwind - in
> essence climbing as fast as it's falling from gravity - but cannot do
> this trick with a tailwind ?

Ir only "hovers" with respect to the ground. It's *groundspeed* is
zero, but it's airspeed must be above stalling or it falls to the
ground.

[Carl Alex Friis Nielsen]

Intuition is subjective - and the internet is for porn!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33-bACeB8C0

[Giftzwerg]

In article <5194f810$0$56778$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
ca...@mail.dk says...

> > Ah, ok, I saw it as a mathematical vector thing with two forces
> > cancelling each other out.
>
> That is exactly what i wrote - forces cancelling each other out, but you
> wrote "motion" and not "force"

It's strictly an airspeed / groundspeed thing, which is why the aircraft
carrier is a good way to look at it.

When an F-18 sits at a catapult, it's groundspeed - relative to the deck
of the carrier - is zero. But if the carrier is steaming into the wind
at 40 knots and the wind is blowing at 25MPH, the airspeed of the F-18
is 65MPH. If the fighter needs 150 MPH to lift off the deck, it only
needs the catapult and its' engines to supply 85MPH of additional speed.

A Fiesler Storch? You could probably fly that like a kite from the deck
of a fast carrier.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <eb5575f2-bab7-4a72...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...

***

I'm still trying to figure out what anyone is talking about here.

My understanding is that the prevailing winds were from West to East.
This handicapped the British in several ways, all unrelated to
"climbing."

- The British / French pilot had to carry more fuel into and during
combat over the trenches because they'd be flying into a headwind on the
way home. More fuel == heavier aircraft == less maneuverability.

- Because of the prevailing winds and the woefully-underpowered
aircraft, combat that started over one point would end up at a point
significantly east of where it began. This meant a drift towards the
German side of the lines - maybe into German territory. Advantage:
Germany, since a German pilot who survived a forced landing was back at
his airfield in a few hours, while a surviving Briton was at POW camp in
a few hours.

- It's better to have a tailwind than a headwind between you and safety
when you're nursing a damaged airplane.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <5194f6b5$0$56796$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
ca...@mail.dk says...

> Sure, but in a dog fight movement in relation to the ground isn't often
> that relevant.

Unless a prevailing wind means the combat tends to drift over enemy
territory, then it's a big deal.

[Carl Alex Friis Nielsen]

On 16-05-2013 18:15, Giftzwerg wrote:

> A Fiesler Storch? You could probably fly that like a kite from the deck
> of a fast carrier.
>

In WW2 the Germans flew unpowered autogyros by towing them behind
submarines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Achgelis_Fa_330

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1750508199390410725.3...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > Before the catapult even fires, the plane has an effective 60 knots of
> > lift.
>

> Pardon my rusty memory, but it has been eons since I last read a flight sim
> manual. What effect then is it on a plane when the wind is blowing in the
> same direction during takeoff? Will it be harder to do so?

Without getting into the eternal flame war over why *exactly* an
airplane flies (I'd rather argue d|n0$@vrs...), essentially a airplane
lifts into the air when air flows over the wing at a certain speed or
faster.

What you're talking about is taking off with a tailwind. Essentially, a
tailwind would be added to the speed at which an airplane becomes
airborne, so you'd need a longer take-off roll or would need to apply
increased thrust.

This is simplified (so all aeronautical engineers go be pedantic
somewhere else....):

Airplane needing 150 MPH airspeed to fly:

In calm air, you need to get rolling down the runway at 150MPH. With no
wind, groundspeed == airspeed.

In a 30MPH headwind, you need to get rolling down the runway at 120MPH
*groundspeed*, which, added to the 30 you get "free" from the wind
equals 150MPH.

In a 30MPH tailwind, you need to get rolling down the runway at 180MPH
*groundspeed*, which, added to the -30 you get from the tailwind equals
150MPH.

In all three cases, the aircraft takes flight at exactly the same
*airspeed*: 150MPH.

> Sometimes, I really miss my 486 and CH Flightstick...

Real airplanes are easier to fly than simulators.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

Never had Wings *of War* , (unless that's a local marketing title variant of Yaquinto's "Wings"?) That one I have but
the inherent bias (grain) of hex-grid put it straight back on the shelf once I got the 486, Red Baron and Thrustmaster
gear.
.
.
=============================================================
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

"By George, you've GOT it!"

Well-reasoned, Gifty. (sotto voce) Not just a pretty face, after all.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 12:28:15 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 15 mei, 20:39, "Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)" <n...@thistime.net>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:56:10 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I don't write AARs ... well, ever ... but this jewel of a game is so
>> >Just Plain Fun that I can't help myself.
>>
>> Historically, the prevailing winds were from West to East, giving the Germans a significant positional advantage in
>> those times of not-very-strong engines.
>
>How so ? Faster climbing rate going against the wind ? Never heard
>that one so I'm curious.

No, but when your top speed (Fokker DRI) is about 80 mph, a headwind of 5-10 mph is significant.

Tended to mean that aerial fighter combats drifted eastwards so that a German victory (forcing an Allied plane down)
lead to the capture of plane and pilot. Wasn't that how Fokker was inspired to develop his version of the interrupter
gear by examining a captured Morane-Saulnier Bullet with prop deflector plates?

It also meant that German pilots had less chance of being captured behind Allied lines.
>
>> Very few German pilots actually crossed the lines East to West because their
>> higher command recognised the fighter as an essentially defensive weappon.
>
>Seriously ? Paris was bombed about 50 times in 1914 and Britain was a
>target throughout the war, first with Zeppelins, then with Gothas,
>Dorniers and whatnot. Defensive my lower posterior.

Probably your best plan. Don't ask for help, though! :)

>Oh, just saw you
>said "fighters" - disregard - sure, their targets were enemy bombers
>and recce planes, so naturally each side tended to operate within
>their own lines or right over the front line itself - doubt the
>prevailing winds had anything to do with their tactical use though.
>
>Greetz,
>
>Eddy Sterckx
.
.
---------00000000000000000000----------------
Sex is like real estate.......
Get lots while you're young.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:24:55 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <5194f6b5$0$56796$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
>ca...@mail.dk says...
>
>> Sure, but in a dog fight movement in relation to the ground isn't often
>> that relevant.
>
>Unless a prevailing wind means the combat tends to drift over enemy
>territory, then it's a big deal.

"I think you've got it!"

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:15:15 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <5194f810$0$56778$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
>ca...@mail.dk says...
>
>> > Ah, ok, I saw it as a mathematical vector thing with two forces
>> > cancelling each other out.
>>
>> That is exactly what i wrote - forces cancelling each other out, but you
>> wrote "motion" and not "force"
>
>It's strictly an airspeed / groundspeed thing, which is why the aircraft
>carrier is a good way to look at it.
>
>When an F-18 sits at a catapult, it's groundspeed - relative to the deck
>of the carrier - is zero. But if the carrier is steaming into the wind
>at 40 knots and the wind is blowing at 25MPH, the airspeed of the F-18
>is 65MPH. If the fighter needs 150 MPH to lift off the deck, it only
>needs the catapult and its' engines to supply 85MPH of additional speed.
>
>A Fiesler Storch? You could probably fly that like a kite from the deck
>of a fast carrier.

There was a post-war French version (the Criquet??) which could take off and land on the top of a moving train carriage.
(Not just a flat-bed, but a passenger/luggage van) Probably best attempted on a line with few or no tunnels though.
.
.
"When in doubt, lubricate"
Hyneman's Adage

[Giftzwerg]

In article <3saap81u141a1gtuc...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...

> There was a post-war French version (the Criquet??) which could take off and land on the top of a moving train carriage.
> (Not just a flat-bed, but a passenger/luggage van) Probably best attempted on a line with few or no tunnels though.

Or curves...

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1728886610390426267.4...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > Well-reasoned, Gifty. (sotto voce) Not just a pretty face, after all.
>

> How about carrier takeoffs and landings?
>
> Takeoffs would have the carrier steaming into the wind, but for landings,
> which is preferable? And do carriers start turning once they detect shifts
> in wind direction during such ops?
>
> We really need more detailed combat flight sims...

Carriers *always* (try to...) head into the wind during flight
operations - takeoffs and landings both.

On landing, this means the aircraft can maintain a higher *airspeed*
(which is good for keeping the plane out of stall-speed territory), but
be traveling at a lower *groundspeed* relative to the deck.

This means that a carrier plane's wing is traveling at, say, 180 MPH,
but with a 30 MPH wind and a 40 MPH carrier speed, the landing aircraft
is *hitting the deck* at "only" 110 MPH.

(Not only that, a friend of mine who served on a carrier during Gulf I
told me once that there's a sort of digital "wind sock" so the officers
conning the carrier can minimize any crosswinds by sailing the ship so
the angle-deck landing area is optimal, even though the ship's course is
offset by the angle. I guess they've been working on this "carrier
landing" stuff for some time now...)

[DirkG]

On 5/16/2013 2:00 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:

>
> What you're talking about is taking off with a tailwind. Essentially, a
> tailwind would be added to the speed at which an airplane becomes
> airborne, so you'd need a longer take-off roll or would need to apply
> increased thrust.
>
> This is simplified (so all aeronautical engineers go be pedantic
> somewhere else....):
>
> Airplane needing 150 MPH airspeed to fly:
>
> In calm air, you need to get rolling down the runway at 150MPH. With no
> wind, groundspeed == airspeed.
>
> In a 30MPH headwind, you need to get rolling down the runway at 120MPH
> *groundspeed*, which, added to the 30 you get "free" from the wind
> equals 150MPH.
>
> In a 30MPH tailwind, you need to get rolling down the runway at 180MPH
> *groundspeed*, which, added to the -30 you get from the tailwind equals
> 150MPH.
>
> In all three cases, the aircraft takes flight at exactly the same
> *airspeed*: 150MPH.
>

That essentially is the issue with taking off and landing into the wind;
the reduced distance needed for flight (or landing). Most of the time
running out of runway can be a bad thing... Anyway, I'm no expert but a
quick search verified my assumption.

[DirkG]

It doesn't have to be a simulation to model ground distance traveled.
Even the old Air War game from SPI accounted for that. If you went
vertical, you didn't move any hexes. I think AH Air Force and Dauntless
did too. An optional rule in AH Richtofen's War is Prevailing Wind; a
table gives wind direction by die roll (generally towards the east) and
planes at 2000m or higher are moved two hexes in the wind direction,
200m to 850m 1 hex, and below 850m none.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <kn3uf8$9ce$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, a...@a.com says...

> since the speed of the wind impacts ground speed. So against a head
> wind you'd
>
> climb from 1,000 to 3,000 feet in less ground distance travelled than if
> you were
>
> flying with a tail wind. Is this what the game is trying to capture?

So far as I can see, the game doesn't model "wind" at all. And that's A
Good Thing.

> > Nope - the point is that this game does not simulate this, which
> > frankly it shouldn't in this type of game - this is not a flightsim.

> It doesn't have to be a simulation to model ground distance traveled.
> Even the old Air War game from SPI accounted for that. If you went
> vertical, you didn't move any hexes. I think AH Air Force and Dauntless
> did too. An optional rule in AH Richtofen's War is Prevailing Wind; a
> table gives wind direction by die roll (generally towards the east) and
> planes at 2000m or higher are moved two hexes in the wind direction,
> 200m to 850m 1 hex, and below 850m none.

When I see design choices like this, I understand at my core how
monstrosities like WAR IN THE EAST are whelped. Never miss an
opportunity to toss in another chart, table, or deck of cards.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <727777849390451264.98...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > (Not only that, a friend of mine who served on a carrier during Gulf I
> > told me once that there's a sort of digital "wind sock" so the officers
> > conning the carrier can minimize any crosswinds by sailing the ship so
> > the angle-deck landing area is optimal, even though the ship's course is
> > offset by the angle. I guess they've been working on this "carrier
> > landing" stuff for some time now...)
>

> Hmm, I wonder if there will be a Sid Meier's Top Gun Combat. I would love
> to play with jets and missiles too...

If any other designer had build ACE PATROL, I would argue against it.
AP is pure gameplay gold, but once somebody started tarting it up with
radar-guided missiles and heat-seeking missiles and swing-wing
configuration shifts ...

... but Charles Moylan pulled it off. So Meier could, too.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

Of course, the nextgen design will pivot the flight deck so that the hull can continue at full speed in whatever
direction while te flight deck can pivot to cater for the pilots' needs to face int the wind. (Rumor is they haven't yet
decided whether to call it the "R.M. Nixon or the "G. Ford")
.
.
A mate of mine recently admitted to being addicted to brake fluid.
When I quizzed him about it he reckoned he could stop any time....

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 18:24, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <5194f6b5$0$56796$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> c...@mail.dk says...

>
> > Sure, but in a dog fight movement in relation to the ground isn't often
> > that relevant.
>
> Unless a prevailing wind means the combat tends to drift over enemy
> territory, then it's a big deal.

It was a bullet from the ground which killed the Red Baron ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

I’ll add some real world data here. In the late eighties on the
military airbase where I served planes usually took-off and landed
into the prevailing south-westerly winds. The main runway was even
oriented that way.

We didn’t change it for crosswinds but if the wind did happen to blow
from the north-east we did change the direction of the runway – a
process which took half an hour as a very strict procedure had to be
followed for this.

But during NATO maneuvers (unprotected) time on the ground was
critical so planes came in “straight” – depending on the direction
where they came from – and headed for the concrete shelters at once.
So I’ve seen F-16’s land with a tailwind, without a significant
lengthening of the runway it required.

Wind has a big impact on slower planes, but not so much on a plane
that does 150 mph at takeoff/landing anyway. Now, while 50 extra yards
is peanuts on a 2 mile long runway, that’s definitely not the case on
a carrier.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Jagg]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:41:09 -0400, DirkG wrote:


> If you get on their mail list they'll let you know when they have sales
> on the planes and other add-ons. I got most of the single-engined
> scouts for $2.99 each. Brings back memories of my old favorite the Red
> Baron series, only much nicer graphics. I'm still learning too...I've
> only jumped into a quick fight to get the feel for the planes.

One big negative with this game is that to play the SP campaigns it
requires always on connection to the internet. They said thye would remove
it at some point and never did. They are now working on a WWII version
because they bought the rightd to Cliffs of Dover and if it has the same
DRM requirement then no buy from me. Otherwise, RoF is very good IMO.