NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
I think most planes have terrible visibility when you’re trying to look through the floorboard. I don’t know how anyone can claim a bubble canopied aircraft has terrible visibility.
Dallas Executive Mid-Air / B-17 - P-63
- Thread starter melax
- Start date
.
The Simulator jockey in the video there doesn’t understand formation dynamics, and that is obvious through what he is saying. “…if the P-63 kept his turn in at that speed, he would rapidly catch up to the P-51s.” Wrong. At the speed the P-63 is moving, being much more than what the P-51s are moving, the P-63 will have a larger turn circle than the P-51s, and would end up not catching up to the P-51s, but rather ending up outside of them and outside of the fighter trail formation. Without pulling more Gs than the P-63 or the pilot can likely take, he’s not going to tighten that turn circle at all at his excessive speed; his turn rate will be low and his turn radius will be high. He will remain in lag pursuit and stripped from the formation he’s trying to catch up to. He either has to slow down, or maneuver up into the vertical to some degree, in order to tighten his own turn circle to match that of the P-51s and bleed off some of this speed. He failed to do that, likely because he doesn’t have the training to understand dynamic closure and angles control in relation to another aircraft.
This idea that the B-17 was somewhat out of position. Regardless of where the B-17 is, its a non maneuvering, stable platform just chugging along. The P-63 is the dynamically maneuvering aircraft, and as it is approaching from the blind spot of the B-17, has all responsibility for collision avoidance and clearance of its own flight path. Ie- responsibility to not hit chit that is in its flight path. Formation responsibilities 101 there.
The P-63 wouldn’t be a difficult airplane at all to fly formation in. Fixed wing aircraft fly formation stacked low for the successive wingmen (whereas helicopters stack high). By stacking low, the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to is always in your best field of view: slightly above and forward of your 3-9 line, as it comes to basic maneuvering. The P-63 has more than adequate visibility to accomplish that. ANY airplane where you place the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to, in a position underneath you, will have the serious difficulties in maintaining a visual. Hence why you don’t place aircraft there and you maneuver your own aircraft to ensure other aircraft don’t end up in those blind spots.
So, “good explanation”……this is anything but that in a few major areas due to lack of formation understanding. Guess he doesn’t fly much form work in the simulator.
The Simulator jockey in the video there doesn’t understand formation dynamics, and that is obvious through what he is saying. “…if the P-63 kept his turn in at that speed, he would rapidly catch up to the P-51s.” Wrong. At the speed the P-63 is moving, being much more than what the P-51s are moving, the P-63 will have a larger turn circle than the P-51s, and would end up not catching up to the P-51s, but rather ending up outside of them and outside of the fighter trail formation. Without pulling more Gs than the P-63 or the pilot can likely take, he’s not going to tighten that turn circle at all at his excessive speed; his turn rate will be low and his turn radius will be high. He will remain in lag pursuit and stripped from the formation he’s trying to catch up to. He either has to slow down, or maneuver up into the vertical to some degree, in order to tighten his own turn circle to match that of the P-51s and bleed off some of this speed. He failed to do that, likely because he doesn’t have the training to understand dynamic closure and angles control in relation to another aircraft.
This idea that the B-17 was somewhat out of position. Regardless of where the B-17 is, its a non maneuvering, stable platform just chugging along. The P-63 is the dynamically maneuvering aircraft, and as it is approaching from the blind spot of the B-17, has all responsibility for collision avoidance and clearance of its own flight path. Ie- responsibility to not hit chit that is in its flight path. Formation responsibilities 101 there.
The P-63 wouldn’t be a difficult airplane at all to fly formation in. Fixed wing aircraft fly formation stacked low for the successive wingmen (whereas helicopters stack high). By stacking low, the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to is always in your best field of view: slightly above and forward of your 3-9 line, as it comes to basic maneuvering. The P-63 has more than adequate visibility to accomplish that. ANY airplane where you place the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to, in a position underneath you, will have the serious difficulties in maintaining a visual. Hence why you don’t place aircraft there and you maneuver your own aircraft to ensure other aircraft don’t end up in those blind spots.
So, “good explanation”……this is anything but that in a few major areas due to lack of formation understanding. Guess he doesn’t fly much form work in the simulator.
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
Speaking of all this formation stuff, which I know nothing about, I'm on a contract pilot facebook page and there was a post yesterday for a company looking for Lear 31 pilots to do "formation training" on the east coast. Wonder if some people quit? That would be some pretty fun flying but scary at the same time. I'm assuming it's contract training for the military (didn't say).
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Names of the Aircrew from Texas Raiders and the Kingcobra
commemorativeairforce.org
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
No airplane, Cub or Concorde, has good visibility at 12 low.
This is why (like this crash) virtually all midair collisions are the result faster aircraft overtaking and hitting slower aircraft from behind.
roundout
VNAV monitor
but this guy is a YouTube influencer….. why are you deconstructing his or her analysis?
Worse, why are people on here buying it.
These are the modern day sim jockeys who think they know alot about whatever sim subject.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
In the cockpit tour video posted somewhere above the guy points out why the visibility is so bad - particularly because of a lot of framing parts that block sightlines in the cockpit.
There are some visibility limitations indeed on the P-39/63 series, but not limitations so numerous that they can’t be worked around. Placing the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to, in areas of the canopy where there is good/better visibility, is one of the formation responsibilities. F-117 was a plane where forward visibility generally sucked, as there seemed to be more frame than glass on the forward windscreen.
I stand corrected.Worse, why are people on here buying it.
These are the modern day sim jockeys who think they know alot about whatever sim subject.
roundout
VNAV monitor
I love Ward Carroll’s channel but I did cringe a little when he started using flight sim in his video.Worse, why are people on here buying it.
These are the modern day sim jockeys who think they know alot about whatever sim subject.
bike21
9-5 Ruins Lives
Doing adventurous things that can bring potential self harm serve plenty of productive purpose. There is more to life than a means of production comrade. Also, depending on where one lives driving is not necessary to get on with life and I'd argue shouldn't be as we need to re-tool our reliance on the automobile.
You're kidding right?
I'm with you here along with geo-fencing speeds within city limits where AP can't always be used yet.
Still a terrible organization.
I appreciate that the guy was truthful and laid out who he was and his background in the opening to his video, and I don’t think he’s deliberately trying to mislead anyone and genuinely wants to know what happened. However this seems to be a case of he simply doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and doesn’t have experience with, and hence his logic stems from invalid baselines. Thus, his contentions don’t make any sense when someone who does know what is what, hears them.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
But he actually knows what he's talking about on this stuff, so he's automatically disqualified from being a YouTube "expert."
Yeah, we simply disagree on all of this. High risk endeavors for no practical purpose when you have family that relies upon you is just selfish and irresponsible in my view, and I doubt you can convince me otherwise. As far as reducing our reliance on cars, as someone who lives an hour from the center of a major city, I always find that argument hilarious. America ain't Paris.
Definitely not, but if you're one of the very few people engaging in highly risky driving for fun, then my original point above stands: you should stop if you have people who count on you.
On many points, I'd agree. But it's the only real game in town defending my rights, so I support them.
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
We don't do that at Chino, we have a real Zero, it was captured during WWII when an airfield was overrun. Last I heard, it's the only real zero flying in the world.
Mitsubishi A6M5 'Zeke' | Planes of Fame Air Museum
View our aircraft collection and information about each aircraft.
planesoffame.org
Last edited:
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
I guess that would depend if it was in front of your, or behind you.
thevideographer
Well-Known Member
There are a number of real Zeroes still flying, that one is the only one flying with its original Nakajima engine.
