# The High Yo-Yo



## Smokey (Sep 1, 2005)

*"Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it -- for in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less-maneuverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit."

Major Robert S. Johnson, USAAF
27 victories, WWII*

Johnson, Robert S., with Martin Caidin. Thunderbolt! New York: Ballantine Books, 1958; p. 148

http://www.musketeers.org/Hiyoyo.htm







*Also I seem to recall Bob Johnson describing using a "high yo-yo", a kind of turning barrel roll, to effectively turn inside German fighters known to have a superior rate of turn to his P-47.* Don't know if this type of maneuver would work for Hurricane vs Zero, as I believe power-to-weight ratio would be important to the successful outcome, but if all else fails ---

http://www.j-aircraft.com/faq/A6M.htm#Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon


What evidence is there other than Johnson's that this maneuver worked?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2005)

It would work in almost any engagment providing your adversary stays on the horizintal plane.......

I've done it in an L-29 vs a T-33. I smoked em! 8)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Smokey (Sep 1, 2005)

Cool!

Peeling off and smoking a cigar while doing a slow turn, and meanwhile your opponent is sweating pulling high Gs in the tightest possible turn. Then you just latch onto them. Nice!

Must have been a bit of a shock for the Spit driver  8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2005)

If you notice, when in the vertical inthe yo-yo the top is an oval. you could do the same thing on the bottom (low yo-yo), letting the opponent stay above you, but managing your energy so you could still get a firing solution. The whole thing is centered around the shape of an "egg."


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 1, 2005)

The roll rate of the plane is also critical. To do a good high yo-yo you need to be able to pull up hard and then roll quickly into a firing solution as you dip the nose.

The P-47 was one of the few planes that did not loose much roll rate when under G's, making it ideal for such a manuver as the pilot could pull up hard and roll in one manuver, where most planes had to pull up hard and then let off and roll.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> The roll rate of the plane is also critical. To do a good high yo-yo you need to be able to pull up hard and then roll quickly into a firing solution as you dip the nose.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



To a point...

The object is to keep you're energy up, like a roller coaster after to goes down its first hill and has the momentum to climb back up another hill.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 1, 2005)

Hey smokey, nice information.


----------



## Smokey (Sep 1, 2005)

Thanks elmilitaro

The FW190 had a good roll rate, but did its roll rate fall badly when under G's ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2005)

Smokey said:


> Thanks elmilitaro
> 
> The FW190 had a good roll rate, but did its roll rate fall badly when under G's ?



This was discussed on some other threads but from I have read the -190A and Dora had one of the better high speed roll rates of WW2 aircraft. I think some Marks of the Spit were close below say 380 mph. 

I feel the roll rate is secondary if you keep "within the egg" when commencing the maneuver. Depending how high you are on top will dictate how many Gs you induce when you unload.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 1, 2005)

I believe the clipped-wing Spitfires were the closest aircraft to the roll rate of the Fw-190.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 2, 2005)

Actually P-38L's had the best high speed roll rate.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 2, 2005)

Define high speed.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 2, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Define high speed.



The P-38 could roll fairly well and was close to many of the single engined aircraft of the time being 5-10 deg/sec slower with just ailerons. At 325mph the P-38L was about as good as most fighters of the era, by 350mph the P-38L was faster than the Fw-190 and by 450 mph the P-38 was more than 30deg/sec faster than the Fw-190.

At ~290mph the 190 is ~145deg/sec to the 38s ~80deg/sec
At ~325mph the 190 is ~100deg/sec to the 38s ~90deg/sec
At ~350mph the 190 is ~82deg/sec to the 38s ~92deg/sec
At ~450mph the 190 is ~65Deg/sec to the 38s ~98deg/sec

From ~380mph the P-51B was also faster than the 190.

This is off a graph so the numbers are approximate and of course aircraft trim/load will vary the numbers a bit. Also the P-38 was credited with much better roll/turn rates when differental throttals were used.

Before power boosting the 190 was better everywhere. Does anyone have the roll rates of the 109 or the Spit?

wmaxt


----------



## Smokey (Sep 2, 2005)

What other aircraft apart from the p38 had power boosting?


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 2, 2005)

Smokey said:


> What other aircraft apart from the p38 had power boosting?



I don't think any other plane in WWII had power boosting, even the B-29 had direct controls. The C-69 Lockheed Constalation did (thats where the P-38s controls came from) but was only operational in the late war period and I don't know if it was classified as seen action. 

wmaxt


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 2, 2005)

Nice information Smokey!


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 3, 2005)

that was some nice info about the P-38, wmaxt.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

Great stuff wmaxt! And with that, a high yo-yo is a perfect maneuver for a large aircraft, or an aircraft with a "not so great" turning radius....


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 3, 2005)

Thanks Guys,

I think the P-38 was especialy good at such maneuvers. It was exceptional at high speed short term dives and climbs. The F model was, as reported by the AAF in '43 equal or better than any AAF single engine fighter in turns (the L was much better) and these tactics just enhance those abilities.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Thanks Guys,
> 
> I think the P-38 was especialy good at such maneuvers. It was exceptional at high speed short term dives and climbs. The F model was, as reported by the AAF in '43 equal or better than any AAF single engine fighter in turns (the L was much better) and these tactics just enhance those abilities.
> 
> wmaxt



 Right on - I also understand that this was a common manuever for the P-61 as well!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Thanks Guys,
> 
> I think the P-38 was especialy good at such maneuvers. It was exceptional at high speed short term dives and climbs. The F model was, as reported by the AAF in '43 equal or better than any AAF single engine fighter in turns (the L was much better) and these tactics just enhance those abilities.
> 
> wmaxt



 Right on - I also understand that this was a common manuever for the P-61 as well!


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 6, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Thanks Guys,
> 
> I think the P-38 was especialy good at such maneuvers. It was exceptional at high speed short term dives and climbs. The F model was, as reported by the AAF in '43 equal or better than any AAF single engine fighter in turns (the L was much better) and these tactics just enhance those abilities.
> 
> wmaxt



Early model P-38s, specifically the E and F model were not fitted with "maneuver flaps". This is a setting incorporated to improve turn rate and radius without a severe drag penalty. These first appeared on the P-38G. Using flaps, the P-38 could out-turn anything in the luftwaffe inventory with relative ease. Indeed, even the Spitfire IX and XIV were hardpressed to hang with a Lightning under those conditions. Those Fowler flaps really improved agility and the absolute lack of torque made flying on the edge far less dramatic than in single-engine fighters.

Vertical performance was the best of major USAAF fighters (Rivaled by the P-63). 

I've spoken with many P-38 pilots over the years. Most of those who served in the ETO also flew the P-51. To a man, if forced into a low-speed, slug-it-out brawl, they would rather be flying the P-38. However, at 30,000 feet, chasing German fighters, each would rather fly the Mustang. This is simply due to the problems P-38s suffered with compressibility and a relatively low critical Mach of 0.68 (P-51 was 0.75). While dive recovery flaps would later make the P-38 much easier to fly at high-speeds, few later models (P-38J-25-LO and P-38L-1-LO) fitted with these were in service when the last 8th AF P-38 group transitioned to Mustangs (only the 56th FG would be flying anything but P-51s at the surrender, these being P-47Ms). By the fall of 1944, the only Groups flying Lightnings were in the 9th Tactical AF, and they spent most of their time well below 15,000 feet. 

Over in the MTO, 15th AF fighters were generally divided between P-38s and P-51s. Flying from Italy, the P-38s units had a much better combat record than the 8th AF Lightning groups, which suffered serious engine reliablity issues (usually blamed on lousy fuel, rectified by Doolittle's order to blend custom fuel for the P-38 units).

As to the High Yo-Yo... It works well when the enemy cooperates. If E states are nearly equal, the enemy can work the vertical too. Where the High Yo-Yo really helps is when you have a lot more speed than the enemy. Pulling nose-high, burns off that speed, while storing potential E. A series of High Yo-Yos bracketed around slashing attacks will cause the enemy to burn off more speed maneuvering to avoid you. Eventually, he will have no E in the tank and becomes an easy target for the fighter hovering above like a starved hawk. You may find that the enemy is using nose-low turns to retain his speed. That will work until he runs out of altitude, which is the same place his luck runs out too.

Roll rate comments: Roll rate is important, but superior roll rate can be offset by superior flying. At low speeds, a bootful of rudder can substantially boost roll-in. Naturally, there's a downside. The yaw associated with large rudder displacement will eat up airspeed. So, you have to balance gains against loss and that requires experience. At low speeds, the P-38 was not a good roller, due to smallish ailerons and the issue of momentum. Getting those outboard engines and associated hardware rolling takes time. 

Most WWII fighters suffered a loss of roll rate as speed increased. There were aerodynamic reasons (wing twist and such), but the largest factor was extreme control forces. Simply stated, the pilots lacked the strength and leverage to obtain large control surface deflection. This was not the case with the P-38J-25-LO and the P-38Ls. Hydraulic boost meant that the pilot could get full deflection at almost any speed. As mentioned by someone else, differential throttle and rudder could be used to speed up low-speed roll, but were not needed above 200 mph. 

Oddly enough, the P-38's ailerons were more effective at low speeds than several well known contemporaries. This was due to the P-38's wing stalling from the root on out as opposed to stalling from the tips on in. For example, at 100 mph the ailerons of the Typhoon were all but useless, with roll being more a function of rudder (and torque). Not so in the P-38, which had good rudder authority and aileron effectiveness right through complete stall. Rudder authority came from the rudders being in the propeller slip stream and ailerons that were still biting the air even after the main span of the wing had stalled. P-38s could be rolled around their longitudinal axis, nose up, hanging on the props, with zero forward velocity. Not a common practice to be sure, but it could be done and was frequently demonstrated at post-war air shows. 

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 6, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> This is off a graph so the numbers are approximate and of course aircraft trim/load will vary the numbers a bit. Also the P-38 was credited with much better roll/turn rates when differental throttals were used.



Did you get them from NACA Report 868?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

Great stuff NAVAIR and welcome! Are you former Navy?


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 7, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > This is off a graph so the numbers are approximate and of course aircraft trim/load will vary the numbers a bit. Also the P-38 was credited with much better roll/turn rates when differental throttals were used.
> ...



No, I don't have access to that one. These were from Lockheed and can be accessed through the Planes and Pilots of WWII. The statement about turn radii was from the Warren Bodie and he didn't mention the report number.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 7, 2005)

Good stuff NAVAIR, the P-38s rudders were also further back giving some additional control authority.

wmaxt


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 7, 2005)

Very nice information guys!!


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great stuff NAVAIR and welcome! Are you former Navy?



Thanks for the welcome!

Yes, I was a Naval Aircrewman crewing the Grumman C-1A, C-2A, HU-16 and the Douglas C-118 and Convair C-131. Logged 332 traps.. every one an adventure. I left the Navy in 1979.

You guys may know me from my websites (Plane and Pilots of WWII being but one), my magazine articles or from Aces High, where I'm a Trainer and go by the handle Widewing. That user name was already taken here.. 

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Great stuff NAVAIR and welcome! Are you former Navy?
> ...



Very cool and welcome again! I'm a former AD, spent 6 1/2 years with VP-65. In the 1980s worked for Lcokheed and built 130 P-3Cs.

lesofprimus is a former seal, good guy, right now he's dealing with Katrina, but he's a great guy!

You'll enjoy it here, lots of real good folks, enjoy!

FBJ


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 8, 2005)

Yo, welcome NAVAIR.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 8, 2005)

I have visited the website you mentioned. We have a C-131 at the museum where I volunteer and I actually got to see a C2A at the air show this year. Welcome aboard.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 8, 2005)

excuse me FBJ, you forgot to introduce me


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 8, 2005)

I see atleast he warned him about me..... Minister of Whoopass....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> excuse me FBJ, you forgot to introduce me



Sorry Lanc, ole buddy, I thought my introduction was all inclusive, but I figured heavy bomber talk would soon transpire enabling you to make your Grand Entrance! \/  




lesofprimus said:


> I see atleast he warned him about me..... Minister of Whoopass....



Yup - the WMD of Aviation Forums


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 8, 2005)

that aint no introduction-fool!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that aint no introduction-fool!



*"Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages, allow me to introduce the incomparable, Master of Lancaster, the legacy of ARVO, the Wizard of Merlin - Powered Bombers, the one and only Mr.,"*

*LANCASTER - KICKS - ASS!*

                hows that?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 8, 2005)

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 8, 2005)

HIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!


----------



## evangilder (Sep 8, 2005)

Who?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 8, 2005)

I want my money back!

And welcome, NAVAIR.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 9, 2005)

i dunno, i kinda liked it............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i dunno, i kinda liked it............


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 9, 2005)

well it's better than you writing a lonely hearts colum for me


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 9, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 9, 2005)

"wanted, a large 4 engined beauty to help launch my deep penitration weapon"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> "wanted, a large 4 engined beauty to help launch my deep penitration weapon"



"And I do put my weapon on target."


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 9, 2005)

NAVAIR,

Those pilot you interviewed, if they transitioned into P-51s they may have never flown the late Js and L models. Did they mention model and what exactly was their preference for the P-51? I've read a number of accounts where the P-38 (at least the Ls) was prefered at all altitudes, (Art Heiden for example). So far the main gripe I've heard was engines (bad fuel incorrect operating proceedures), lack of heat and dive flaps in the early models, granted, at 60deg below thats a pretty big deal.

Just curious, I'd like to know all about the P-38 in particular and WWII aircraft in gereral.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

If we're talking about lanc, he's bombing in 1941. At best he's gettin' in the 5 mile radius of the target.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 10, 2005)

why 1941??


----------



## plan_D (Sep 10, 2005)

Because before 1941 we were hardly bombing them. Mostly through 1940 we were reeling back from the German onslaught on France and then their attack on the homeland. After 1941 we were actually hitting the targets because the targets were cities.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 10, 2005)

are we talking about my lonely hearts column here or seriously?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 10, 2005)

No, you've completely missed the target. 

The original statement was an extremely vague crack at you being off target (target being women - keep with the programme). I don't know how, or why I'd include a serious statement about the Bomber Command being 5 miles off target, when the thread is about a fighter manoevre. But then, anythin' goes on here.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 10, 2005)

so, you were trying to say that i'd miss??


----------



## plan_D (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes, lanc. Yes, I was.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 10, 2005)

you took your time doing it.......


----------



## plan_D (Sep 11, 2005)

No. You took your time understanding.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 11, 2005)

pD and Lanc    Where are their hands and what are they doing?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 11, 2005)

typing


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 11, 2005)

Looks like some


the lancaster kicks ass said:


> typing


 on the one eyed snake, or for some that would be the one eyed worm.


----------



## dobs (Sep 28, 2015)

"Yo Yo's" are closure control maneuvers taught in Basic Fighter Maneuvers. The High Yo-Yo is used when you have excess closure, and you roll into lag and go up (controlling closure by transferring kinetic energy into Potential energy), then over-rotate and place lift vector in lead and pull inside the bandit using the additional vertical altitude as turning room to turn "inside" the bandit. 

A Low Yo-Yo is used to generate closure...when trapped in lag, you over-rotate and place the lift vector in lead, predicting WHERE the bandit is going and using Gods-G, aka gravity, to help increase your turn radius, maintain your speed, and help you use the vertical turning room to turn "inside" the bandit.

Realize both of these can be countered by an aware bandit who can re-orient his lift vector and deny you the opportunity to take advantage of the vertical. 

Obviously roll-rate plays a part in this, but more importantly is the early recognition of the problem and applying the correct maneuver to the situation.

Cheers!
Dobs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2015)

dobs said:


> "Yo Yo's" are closure control maneuvers taught in Basic Fighter Maneuvers. The High Yo-Yo is used when you have excess closure, and you roll into lag and go up (controlling closure by transferring kinetic energy into Potential energy), then over-rotate and place lift vector in lead and pull inside the bandit using the additional vertical altitude as turning room to turn "inside" the bandit.
> 
> A Low Yo-Yo is used to generate closure...when trapped in lag, you over-rotate and place the lift vector in lead, predicting WHERE the bandit is going and using Gods-G, aka gravity, to help increase your turn radius, maintain your speed, and help you use the vertical turning room to turn "inside" the bandit.
> 
> ...



You do realize that the last response to this thread was 10 years ago?!?!?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 29, 2015)

He's probably just a two finger typist...

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 29, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> He's probably just a two finger typist...



Joined Oct 2014, and this is his second post. Maybe only one finger?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 30, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you notice, when in the vertical inthe yo-yo the top is an oval. you could do the same thing on the bottom (low yo-yo), letting the opponent stay above you, but managing your energy so you could still get a firing solution. The whole thing is centered around the shape of an "egg."


 
True - But -The number one rule however is get altitude if possible to trade altitude potential energy to kinetic energy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ottobon (Oct 3, 2015)

Well besides real life evidence it works in every single air-combat game that has ever been, even the goofy ones like the "Battlefield" series 

its simple geometry and "energy" states, so long as its performed correctly it works


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 3, 2015)

Holy resurrections...

It's always great to read some of the old threads...but this has to be a record of some sort

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 4, 2015)

Stop hijacking the thread! 

It's been on-topic for 10 years now ...


----------



## herman1rg (Oct 4, 2015)

Was he looking for some colour pictures?


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 10, 2015)

I assume the high yo-yo was not a common maneuver used in WWII?


----------



## Greyman (Nov 10, 2015)

I'm sure it was, it just didn't have a specific name - just a manoeuvre that experienced pilots executed when the situation called for it.


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 10, 2015)

Greyman,

Was it used by all sides or just by the USAAF? It seemed the RAF was quite surprised by it in the description


----------



## Greyman (Nov 10, 2015)

All sides ... it's one of those moves that isn't particularly mysterious or counter-intuitive, and I'm sure was used by plenty of pilots everywhere with enough experience to 'get it'.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 10, 2015)

It's a good maneuver but easily countered, both low and high with training and or knowledge of what is occurring.

From the defenders point of view, looking back he sees his adversary over-rotate (over bank), and start descending faster while still maneuvering against or in relation to the defender. Or he will continue to turn with you but using Gods G tighten his turn circle as compared to yours. Once he bottoms out (gets to the floor or determines he has enough of an advantage) he will start coming back up to get you.

All you have to do is over rotate your aircraft to keep him near the horizon (while continuing to pull) from your perspective and he will never get there.

Same with a high. If a guy is stuck in lag, and he either goes high or low, and his plane is close to yours in performance, just match him and he will usually end up stymied!

That is basically a summary of "mirror BFM".

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Nov 10, 2015)

Didn't this type of turn originated with Doolittle during the Schneider Cup races in the 1920s?


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 11, 2015)

I thought these maneuvers were pretty much discovered or devised in ww1.


----------

