How superior climb rate is used in air combat ?. (1 Viewer)

[mig-31bm]

The application of a superior turn rate is fairly intuitive: you simply stay in a turning fight with your opponent and, over time, work your way onto their six. This makes it a very direct offensive advantage. Superior speed and dive performance are also easy to visualize, you extend away from an enemy who is behind you, forcing separation, which makes these traits especially valuable defensively. Superior Roll rate is also somewhat useful since you can roll out of plane and inverse your turn .
However, how is a superior climb rate often used in air combat?
For example, the Hornet Mk I has a climb rate of around 5,500 ft/min, while the Spiteful is closer to 4,900 ft/min. In practical terms, how would a Hornet pilot best exploit this climb advantage against an opponent like the Spiteful?

 

[ThomasP]

At least 2 ways that I can think of.

1. In a boom-and-zoom attack the aircraft with the higher climb rate will be able to regain altitude quicker and thereby have a better chance of avoiding any attack by the target aircraft.

2. If the enemy is on your six but not yet in firing range, and does not have a particularly superior speed (ie there is a slow closure rate), you may be able to use the higher climb rate to extend away from the fight and either leave the area or gain enough height advantage that you can then re-engage on your terms.

 

[GregP]

Higher climb rate is just like higher top speed or better turn rate. If you have a bit more, you can gain an advantage when using it, assuming you can avoid getting shot down in the process of doing so.

Practically, if you are within range of your opponent, higher climb rate cannot help you if the opponent is close to a firing solution. But, if you are NOT within firing range of your opponent, you can get higher quicker than he can with your higher climb rate. Higher is generally a better position to be in, mostly. I can't think of a time when being higher is NOT an advantage unless the higher aircraft is MUCH slower than the lower one at that time.

Speed can be traded for altitude and if the lower aircraft is much faster, he can rapidly become the higher aircraft. Given a choice, I'd awlays start with more altitude and more airspeed than the oppponent. Naturally, you don't always get a choice, so don't give up either altitude or airspeed willingly in a combat zone. Today, we can tell if anyone is there and how high and fast they are, assuming no really effective Stealth fighers are prowling about. In WWII, that wasn't usually the case. If it was, it was almost by accident, from a good pilot report, or a good guess by an early radar operator who also had a radio that happened to be on your radio channel at that time.

 

[mig-31bm]

At least 2 ways that I can think of.

1. In a boom-and-zoom attack the aircraft with the higher climb rate will be able to regain altitude quicker and thereby have a better chance of avoiding any attack by the target aircraft.

this make me wonder, in case of Spiteful vs Hornet, Hornet climb about 500 ft/min (2.5 m/s) faster but about 19 mph (8.5 m/s) slower on straight line. Which would be better in a zoom climb?

2. If the enemy is on your six but not yet in firing range, and does not have a particularly superior speed (ie there is a slow closure rate), you may be able to use the higher climb rate to extend away from the fight and either leave the area or gain enough height advantage that you can then re-engage on your terms.

This sound reasonable, though I'm curious, if your aircraft have superior climb rate at low altitude, yet inferior engine performance at high altitude ( for example: P-51H vs F8F or Hornet vs spiteful), would it be a bad idea to climb in that case?. Since the enemy who follow you will eventually get faster and faster while you are getting slower and slower?

 

[mig-31bm]

Higher climb rate is just like higher top speed or better turn rate. If you have a bit more, you can gain an advantage when using it, assuming you can avoid getting shot down in the process of doing so.

Practically, if you are within range of your opponent, higher climb rate cannot help you if the opponent is close to a firing solution. But, if you are NOT within firing range of your opponent, you can get higher quicker than he can with your higher climb rate. Higher is generally a better position to be in, mostly. I can't think of a time when being higher is NOT an advantage unless the higher aircraft is MUCH slower than the lower one at that time.

Speed can be traded for altitude and if the lower aircraft is much faster, he can rapidly become the higher aircraft. Given a choice, I'd awlays start with more altitude and more airspeed than the oppponent.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if higher is almost always better, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to fly as high as your aircraft physically capable of from the start instead of only start climbing once you saw the enemy?.
Also wouldn't things like P-51, P-47, Ta-152 massively better than other consider that they both operate very good at extreme altitude?

Another thing that always very confusing to me is how useful is speed for attacking. In defense, it makes sense, speed lets you extend away from an opponent who's behind you. But in attack phase. If you dive at a slower target, they could aways point their nose toward you as well (since lower altitude would mean they turn faster and slower speed basically mean smaller turn radius).It collapses into a head on engagement anyway. So in that case, what is the actual advantage of having higher speed when initiating the attack?.

 

[GregP]

The main advatnage is that you can hit, run, and get back up to the high perch. The objective is not to die for your country in glory, it is to make the other guy die in glory for his country, leading to eventual inability to continue to wage war.

 

[bada]

The application of a superior turn rate is fairly intuitive: you simply stay in a turning fight with your opponent and, over time, work your way onto their six. This makes it a very direct offensive advantage. Superior speed and dive performance are also easy to visualize, you extend away from an enemy who is behind you, forcing separation, which makes these traits especially valuable defensively. Superior Roll rate is also somewhat useful since you can roll out of plane and inverse your turn .
However, how is a superior climb rate often used in air combat?
For example, the Hornet Mk I has a climb rate of around 5,500 ft/min, while the Spiteful is closer to 4,900 ft/min. In practical terms, how would a Hornet pilot best exploit this climb advantage against an opponent like the Spiteful?

Hi Mig-31Bm.

I see that you have a lot of questions, and that's good , very good actually.
But just as an advice, i recommend to buy the following book (use the amazon publicity links here on the forum, you'll help the forum):

A detailed analysis and comparison of the Spitfire Mk I’s and Bf 109 E’s flight performance utilizing computer simulations.

Without exaggeration, there are probably hundreds of books that already diligently detail the history of the Spitfire Mk I and the Bf 109 E during the Battle of Britain time period. So isn't this just adding another one to the pile? Well no, because this book is rather different: And while...

ww2aircraft.net

This is a great book to learn aerodynamics, even if you understand the basics, it's so clearly written , it's just like" aerodynamics for dummies".
...without being submerged in full pages of theoretical equations , the calculations are shown but everything is clearly explained.
With this book you'll learn a lot, and everything is based on the comparaison between the spit1 and the bf-109, put in different situations.
It's so well written, it's easier to read than harry potter...each chapter fits into the following and after the "historical" parts (filosophy of each plane and how the engeneers got there),
the author start slowly to introduce the different parameters related to "performance/handling" of both airplanes.
No political or nationalist biais and BS,
no eternal regurgitation of "the spit as the best" or "109 über alles", nothing of sort, the math do the talking.
This book is really worth it and it's such a shame we don't have more books like that.
Really recommend.

And getting back to your subject:
The climb rate is not the only factor, you also have the climb speed. if you have an airplane able to climb at 20m/sec at 200km/h and another at 15m/sec but at 300km/h. the higher climb rate will not serve much. And then you have the immediate climb rate, the ability to add altitude for few seconds; look at the 190 vs spit. Spit having a higher climb rate but the 190 having a very short ability to gain more altitude than the spit....sooooooo much parameters to take into account

Buy the book, it's worth it.

 

[Engineman]

The application of a superior turn rate is fairly intuitive: you simply stay in a turning fight with your opponent and, over time, work your way onto their six. This makes it a very direct offensive advantage. Superior speed and dive performance are also easy to visualize, you extend away from an enemy who is behind you, forcing separation, which makes these traits especially valuable defensively. Superior Roll rate is also somewhat useful since you can roll out of plane and inverse your turn .
However, how is a superior climb rate often used in air combat?
For example, the Hornet Mk I has a climb rate of around 5,500 ft/min, while the Spiteful is closer to 4,900 ft/min. In practical terms, how would a Hornet pilot best exploit this climb advantage against an opponent like the Spiteful?

You have posed your question WRT late piston fighters, just after WW2. The specifics of air combat performance factors varies hugely with the type of aircraft being considered and the weapons. So, with your choice of combat aircraft and only the quoted climb performance it is impossible to be specific, as some replies have said, and an engagement can start from a myriad of opening scenario's. Additionally, are those climb figures at low, medium or high altitude? Are they at operational weights? Etc, etc.
In ideal war fighting situations, the pilots would hope to have knowledge of his aircraft advantages over possible enemy machines and that would help with pre-planning responses to fighting situations when flying in a war situation. This is well understood where, as stated, pilots have used superior sustained climb performance to escape an enemy. You should also understand that Zoom climbing from high speed will generate very high climb rates for short periods, trading speed for height. Some military test flying included comparative climbs from cruising or fast speed, converting to sustained climb performance at climbing speed to help with fighting tactics.
Stating whether fighters should always climb to maximum altitude is a bit of a mixed idea, like always flying at max speed! These things are totally varied. Fighters optimised for low, medium or high altitude may be tasked within their best altitude, but this is not guaranteed and again tactics are used to try and avoid being a sitting duck!

Cheers

Eng

 

[Engineman]

Superior Roll rate is also somewhat useful since you can roll out of plane and inverse your turn .

Reversing in a turning fight is only advised if your chasing opponent has flown-through!

Eng

 

[YavorD]

Another thing that always very confusing to me is how useful is speed for attacking. In defense, it makes sense, speed lets you extend away from an opponent who's behind you. But in attack phase. If you dive at a slower target, they could aways point their nose toward you as well (since lower altitude would mean they turn faster and slower speed basically mean smaller turn radius).It collapses into a head on engagement anyway. So in that case, what is the actual advantage of having higher speed when initiating the attack?.

For a late war fighter aircraft the speed is an asset if the attacker is equipped with guns able to cause a significant damage within a second or less from a distance of several hundred yards, a gyro-stabilised gun sight helping to estimate range and corrections necessary for deflection shooting. The attacker can have few tenths of a second to destroy the target or decide how to disengage without harm from return fire. Without ability to locate the target, to obtain favourable position for attack, and to deliver a heavy blow, the speed will be useful only to move from a point A to point B without high probability of becoming a target.

For the defender, turning against an opponent coming fast from above means sharp turn in a nose-high attitude, and if the aircraft is in cruising mode and the engine needs a time to deliver full power, there are couple of seconds before the defender is able to return fire.

 

[Shortround6]

High climb rate is an indication of high power to weight.
P-40s were actually fairly low drag, large heavy plane that was fast in a straight level line.
A lighter plane of about the same speed that had a higher climb rate as more flight options. It can both turn AND climb for one thing
Or it can turn tight without losing as much altitude as the slower climbing fighter.
There are other combination maneuvers where a high climb rate would come in handy without actually doing much change in altitude.

 

[mig-31bm]

Hi Mig-31Bm.

I see that you have a lot of questions, and that's good , very good actually.
But just as an advice, i recommend to buy the following book (use the amazon publicity links here on the forum, you'll help the forum):

A detailed analysis and comparison of the Spitfire Mk I’s and Bf 109 E’s flight performance utilizing computer simulations.

Without exaggeration, there are probably hundreds of books that already diligently detail the history of the Spitfire Mk I and the Bf 109 E during the Battle of Britain time period. So isn't this just adding another one to the pile? Well no, because this book is rather different: And while...

ww2aircraft.net

This is a great book to learn aerodynamics, even if you understand the basics, it's so clearly written , it's just like" aerodynamics for dummies".
...without being submerged in full pages of theoretical equations , the calculations are shown but everything is clearly explained.
With this book you'll learn a lot, and everything is based on the comparaison between the spit1 and the bf-109, put in different situations.
It's so well written, it's easier to read than harry potter...each chapter fits into the following and after the "historical" parts (filosophy of each plane and how the engeneers got there),
the author start slowly to introduce the different parameters related to "performance/handling" of both airplanes.
No political or nationalist biais and BS,
no eternal regurgitation of "the spit as the best" or "109 über alles", nothing of sort, the math do the talking.
This book is really worth it and it's such a shame we don't have more books like that.
Really recommend.

And getting back to your subject:
The climb rate is not the only factor, you also have the climb speed. if you have an airplane able to climb at 20m/sec at 200km/h and another at 15m/sec but at 300km/h. the higher climb rate will not serve much. And then you have the immediate climb rate, the ability to add altitude for few seconds; look at the 190 vs spit. Spit having a higher climb rate but the 190 having a very short ability to gain more altitude than the spit....sooooooo much parameters to take into account

Buy the book, it's worth it.

thank you for the suggestion, seem like great book, though is there a PDF version that I can buy? due to nature of my works needing me to move around quite a lot, pdf version often more connivence for me

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Reversing in a turning fight is only advised if your chasing opponent has flown-through!

Eng

I think mig-31 is correct, it is a good tactic (and often used as a "rolling scissor" historically) if you have a significantly better roll rate than your opponent. But that requires you to correctly identify your opponent and know your relative agility

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I think in general, it's helpful to look at climb (broken down into climb rate, climb speed, zoom climb, and climb angle) two ways, one which is kind of 'strategic' in a fight and the other which is kind of 'tactical' or more immediate.

For the immediate, high speed climb rate, especially zoom climb, and a steep climb angle, can put you above your opponent, help you evade them, and give you an attack angle on them. The most extreme example of this is the famous Hineri Komi maneuver that the Zero pilots used. It's notable that this short distance climb / loop relied much more on climb angle than climb rate. Zero pilots could successfully perform Hineri Komi against enemy aircraft which had a better overall rate of climb, simply due to their much steeper climb angle in the short term.

Most WW2 fighters best climb rate was only achievable at very slow speed. So this generally meant that maximum climb rate mattered mostly before or between battles.

A shallow, high speed climb could be performed closer to enemy aircraft, or within combat, if the aircraft was fast and could achieve some separation. P-38s famously used a shallow high speed climbing turn to disengage from A6M and Ki-43 fighters in the Pacific and CBI.

A zoom climb, converting speed and momentum to altitude either in a high speed or high angle climb (the latter bleeding off speed very quickly) could also work to achieve separation, to perform what the Soviets called "vertical turns", which could mean something subtle and uncanny like the Hineri Komi or a simpler loop, Immelman turn, or hammerhead turn. Or the 'zoom' part of a 'boom and zoom' attack such as frequently used by German pilots in the BoB, and in the Western Desert, by US fighters like P-51s and F4Us in the later war, or by the Spitfire Mk VIII against the Ki-43 in Burma.

Some heavy aircraft which didn't have great maximum rate of climb, like early Fw 190s, P-39s, P-40s, P-47s, and P-51s, could still zoom climb quite well because weight is also momentum. It was possible to gain speed in a dive (such as in an escape maneuver, to disengage from an enemy) and then convert that speed to climb back to altitude, or even (depending on the aircraft and how much power was available at the given altitude) to gain an energy advantage, especially if drag was fairly low (like in the P-51).

I think it's generally helpful when thinking of climb to look at it in terms of the modern concept of 'E' (for energy). Altitude is energy, because it can quickly be converted to speed. Most WW2 fighters strait line acceleration is much less than the rate at which they can accelerate in a dive (though obviously this varies by type). So altitude is speed, and with the zoom climb etc., the reverse is also often true.

 

[Engineman]

I think mig-31 is correct, it is a good tactic (and often used as a "rolling scissor" historically) if you have a significantly better roll rate than your opponent. But that requires you to correctly identify your opponent and know your relative agility

"Reversing in a turning fight is only advised if your chasing opponent has flown-through!" This is what I said and it is correct, if you are being chased and reverse before the fly-through
then you are very likely to simply offer a better angle to your opponent.
There are lots of variables, but if you reverse too early in a situation you become an easier target. Of course, if the attacking aircraft is a high speed barge with no manoeuvring capability you may well be able to reverse just as soon as he can't pull his sight on you, but if his overtake is not as bad as you think and he is more agile than you, he will possibly not fly through and you have just helped his lead solution.
As an attacker with energy advantage, entering any scissors or high-G barrel roll is not advised as it is a last-ditch energy-killing defensive act of a weaker target that having started often only resolves through luck of the draw.
Good examples of related Tactics are those where faster aircraft were advised to avoid entering turning fights with known more manoeuvrable enemy aircraft because as soon as you have lost your high speed advantage to dis-engage, you are in a simple pilot ability and aircraft manoeuvrability contest and you have already lost the manoeuvrability part of the contest!

Eng

 

[Holtzauge]

thank you for the suggestion, seem like great book, though is there a PDF version that I can buy? due to nature of my works needing me to move around quite a lot, pdf version often more connivence for me

Sorry, only paperback and no pdf planned. I did think about publishing it in digital format as well, but unfortunately, some other aviation authors have had bad experiences with this and their pdf versions have leaked, thus basically destroying their book sales.

PS: B bada: Thank you for the glowing review, and glad you like it.

 

[Holtzauge]

About the value of climb performance, here is an excerpt from a paper I've done comparing the P-40E and A6M2 Zero, and which is available in pdf format here:

"A strong point for the P-40E is that it can still climb when the A6M2 is at its top speed, which is an observation that is valid from sea level all the way up to almost 9 km in altitude. And what this means in practice, is that a P-40E can maintain its distance from any pursuing A6M2 while at the same time adding energy by climbing. As an example, at 4500 m altitude, if the P-40E maintains the A6M2's top speed at this altitude it can still climb with an impressive 3 m/s (circa 600 fps). Consequently, a very useful and safe tactic for the P-40E would be to attack from an altitude advantage and then extend at a speed slightly higher than any pursuing A6M2 while still climbing, and then return and repeat the process as necessary when a sufficient altitude advantage has been built up. Properly executed, the A6M2 has basically no effective way to combat a P-40 E flown in this way since the P-40E can both attack with impunity, and then choose to either repeat the process or leave the area depending on how the A6M2 pilots respond. And if the A6M2 pilots are foolishly aggressive, they may attempt to pursue the extending P-40E's, thus setting them up for a repeat attack. However, a more wisely flown A6M2 would on the other hand not pursue the P-40E's directly, but instead initiate a maximum rate climb. And since the A6M2's climb rate is so superior to the P-40E's as the figure above shows, the A6M2's could simply climb faster than the P-40E's, thus building up an energy advantage which would preclude the P-40E's from any repeat attack. But this is a rather passive response, since while it certainly saves the A6M2's from any repeat attacks, the Zero pilots cannot take the fight to the P-40E's unless the pilots of the latter are foolish enough to return to the fight without an altitude advantage.

Another thing that we can conclude from the climb rate versus altitude chart is that at any altitude above 1500 m, then the Zero is vastly superior in climb. And what this means from a tactical perspective is that while a flight of Zeros cannot force un-cooperating P-40Es to do battle, they can however still dominate an area, as in establishing air superiority there, and leave any attacking P-40Es only a single slashing attack, after which they would be forced to leave given that the Zeros not only out-climb them, but have a higher ceiling as well. However, the above scenario of course assumes that the P-40Es had an altitude advantage to begin with, since they otherwise would be forced to leave the area immediately."

 

[MIflyer]

When a kid is playing with a model airplane and climbs, he points the nose up and the airplane climbs along that vector angle.

Real airplanes do not climb that way. You can climb just by adding power without pulling back on the controls to change your pitch angle. And that is normally how it is done.

The Zero was praised not just because it could outclimb the US fighters of the early part of the war but could climb very steeply. There are two "best climb" airspeeds for any airplane. One is Best Rate, the fastest vertical ascent and the other is Best Angle, the steepest vertical ascent. Obviously, Best Angle is useful when you have an obstacle to get over and have a limited amount of horizontal space, like taking off from a runway with trees at the end. Best Angle airspeed usually is a significantly slower airspeed than Best Rate airspeed.

So just because you can climb faster that does not mean you can line up behind a slower climbing airplane and blow him away. Among other things you have to pull enough of a lead on the other airplane to make him fly into the slugs. The BF-109 versus P-51 dogfight described by Bud Anderson at the beginning of his book comes to mind. Those were pretty closely matched airplanes, and climbing was just about the whole combat, but the P-51 was just a bit better and got the lead on the 109 on the 2nd climb.

Reportedly, a Grumman F3F-3 could climb at a higher rate than a Merlin Mustang, but there is no doubt that would be at a much slower airspeed than the Mustang. How the F3F pilot could use that capability to beat a Mustang is not clear, unless he was trying to make it into some clouds to escape. Of course the F3F could also easily out turn the Mustang and that would be useful if he could sucker the Mustang into a turning fight. Of course the Mustang could just keep his speed up and make high speed slashing attacks on the F3F, and the outcome would not be in doubt. Unless the Mustang pilot was dumb. A trick used in training was an experienced instructor would say he was going to dogfight the newly minted Mustang pilot using a Piper L-4. The L-4 would turn sharply to stay out the Mustang's way, the new mustang pilot getting more and more frustrated and adding more power and speed, overshooting worse and worse each pass, until the instructor landed the L-4 in a field and pulled it under a tree.

I suppose a better climbing fighter that was not as badly mismatched as a P-51 versus F3F could use a high speed yo-yo to defeat a more maneuverable opponent. The better climber could not try to turn with the target but instead turn only part way, then zoom upwards above the target, and using the fact that he is slower at the top of the zoom and has more room to maneuver with the added altitude, dive on the target, which probably has lost sight of him anyway.

 

[bada]

PS: B bada: Thank you for the glowing review, and glad you like it.

Well, damned yes i liked it!!! it's a refreshing way of telling the "other" part of history without biais.

Now , if you do not do the same for the 190A3/4 vs spit9 vs 109G2 vs mustang1 (why not do it for 4 airplanes????) i'll be sadly desappointed

 

[Holtzauge]

Now , if you do not do the same for the 190A3/4 vs spit9 vs 109G2 vs mustang1 (why not do it for 4 airplanes????) i'll be sadly desappointed

Well, I've shelved writing books for now in favor of trying my hand at videos to see how that goes.

But for WW2 Fighter Performance Vol 2 I was thinking P-51 versus Fw 190 in the Battle of the Reich era would be the most low hanging fruit?

The base would be P-51D versus Fw 190 D-9, and then add as much on top of that as can fit in, e.g. more P-51 versions and the A8 and Ta 152 H maybe? The Ta 152 would be interesting to add, since Kurt Tank argued that you needed fundamentally different aircraft to dominate low to medium altitude, from high altitude, and hence the Ta 152 H. But more aircraft add more permutations and there is only so much you can squeeze into one book......