Warbird Information Exchange

Randy Haskin wrote:

>On top of that, filming them such that the viewer can see and understand what is happening is VERY difficult. I used to teach dogfighting in my last assignment, and I attempted to film what some of the maneuvers looked like as a teaching aid for the students. I tried to film from the offender's aircraft, the defender's aircraft, and an outside chase aircraft. None of the attempts to film the maneuvers produced anything that made sense when it was viewed later outside the context of that specific dogfight. The biggest challenge was safely flying the photo chase aircraft around the 4G turn circle, staying close enough to the maneuvering aircraft so that the video meant something, yet staying safely clear of both jets involved.


Hi Randy,

Would those problems be mitigated somewhat by the fact that they are slower prop planes and therefore the turning circles are smaller? Or would they still be specks in the Big Sky?

If the cameraman was in the back of the T-6 and able to move the camera - say show the other a/c somewhat off to the, say, left in the circle, and then turn the camera forward for the actual T-6 yo-yo, that would still be unfathomable?

You make good points.

The problem is definitely mitigated, but nowhere near solved.

For some perspective, gun harmonization on US fighters (the point at which the bullet trajectory from the left and right wings crossed the fiselage centerline) was about 1,000 feet. In other words, the "heart of the envelope" for gunning another aircraft was about 1,000 feet behind the other.

So, even at the closest point during the engagemet -- when one aircraft has solved the angle and closure problems well enough to be shooting the other -- the aircraft are about 20 wingspans away from each other. That's a distance that is very challenging to depict from a 3rd camera airplane...the airplanes themselves are pretty small still, IMHO.



Definitely possible, but think about how small a nose-on fighter (or, probably more correctly, a fighter about 20 degrees off axis) looks while 1,000+ feet behind. That's a very, very small visual signature when you would need to have the vertical and horizontal of the Six be in the shot in order to show the maneuvering of the offender in relation to the defender.

>Definitely possible, but think about how small a nose-on fighter (or, probably more correctly, a fighter about 20 degrees off axis) looks while 1,000+ feet behind. That's a very, very small visual signature when you would need to have the vertical and horizontal of the Six be in the shot in order to show the maneuvering of the offender in relation to the defender.

Is it necessary that the maneuvers be done at the typical distances? Would it be unsafe if they were done closer and slower? Perhaps we don't need exactly true sight pictures but an idea.

thanks!

Well, doesn't that sort of damage the whole idea that started this thread -- the desire to have realistic depictions of air combat?

Either you want it to look real or you don't. "Artistic license" is how the shots in the current show ended up they way they are!

MMmmmm no I'm pretty sure I indicated that I wanted to demonstrate some concepts safely - they didn't have to be at max performance: someone's notion that the pilot'sowners of the warbirds don't want to go full out was well taken. About the only actual "true look and feel" suggestion I made was that you could put a Zero and a P-38 together out at some distnace and see how size and planform meant the 38 was seen farther off and Id'd more easily.

My original beef was that they claimed to re-enact the battles but all they did was some weaving back and forth. And if they would just eliminate the claim of re-enactment all would be well.

But then I wondered what they could demonstrate with safety. So I suggested relatively lazy 2G turns for example to show a difference in turn rate/radius....in other words you didn't have to be at corner to demonstrate the concept.

Or show how a lag roll can prevent overshoot and cut down the angle. Again not by doing one at max performance and typical dogfight distances. But so that you'd get the idea.

Maybe it's not possible.

Okay, I see your point.

That might be better...then again, that might be so arcane that the average viewer might just not care about that level of detail, I dunno.

WIXers aren't exactly "typical" viewers, even of brain-food tv like the History Channel or Discovery Channel.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The show is not aimed at WIX'ers

Another point Randy, as I'm sure you are already aware, is that from the attacker's perspective, considering the issues of aspect angle, angle off, and closure rate, what we see through the windshield as our position in relation to a maneuvering bogie presents itself as a visual cue with the bogie maneuvering through 3 dimensions (as in a barrel or lag roll for example, in my opinion wouldn't play well transposed on a video screen to the point where an uninitiated viewer could follow what was happening.
Add to this that any and all maneuvering has to be done in real time and at the speeds and control input rates necessary to produce the spatial relationship ACM wise between the bogie and the attacker and slowing down the maneuver sequence for the purpose of presentation to a viewer not only doesn't produce a positive result but could in my opinion actually become a safety issue.

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

Dudley,

I don't think you'd have to slow down the actual maneuvers. That's what slow motion and action freeze are for. Both of these were used to great effect with the animations in both Dogfights and Combat 360, so I don't see why you can't do the same in post production with the live shots.

I think the "slower speed" that was being referenced earlier was simply that most combat during WWII happened between 150 and 300mph. Now, it occurs in a range more like between 300 and 600mph. As such, you can manever at closer ranges safely with WWII fighters than with Jets, and that was the point.

As for the rest of the issues, I agree that the early episodes lacked quite a bit even in artistic delivery (i.e. using different camera angles, camera placement, digital compositing, etc to make the "fight" look more fluid), but I think that in the later episodes it's improved. I think a lot of this is that they're in unexplored territory. The last time there was an attempt of showing any sort of major WWII air combat on television using the real airplanes was "Black Sheep Squadron". Most (if not all) of the filmmakers and camera crews who participated in that have long retired, so a lot of what they learned and how they figured out how to shoot that kind of "action" has gone out the window. Then again, many of the shots in Black Sheep were very like the ones in Air Combat - a Zero Replica and a Corsair zig-zagging. Heck, I think the most "action" that they really got other than the long shots of the "first pass" was planes making passes at transports or bombers where you'd seen them pass between the "target" and the camera plane.

I still can't say that I've ever seen any film or television show that even remotely touches what actual dogfighting looks like. Anything on Baa Baa Black Sheep, or in the Battle of Britain, or any other fails to capture how actual fighter v fighter maneuvering appears.

The show "American Fighter Pilot" -- the one on CBS that spectacularly flopped circa 2002 -- came the closest that I have ever seen, as it had cameras located on jets that were actually dogfighting. Even then, the way the footage was edited failed to show how the fights actually took place.

Harry Saltzman got close back in 69 with the BoB shoot. He brought in a bunch of the guys from Harlingen Texas and had a great second unit aerial director.
The problem they faced then is the same today. You can get some great footage air to air at distance where perspective takes in the total picture and both aircraft are in frame, but in close, you lose it.
For instance, in the BoB shoot, they managed to get an absolute textbook example of a descending vertical rolling scissors between a Mk9 Spit and one of the Spanish 109's as the 109 followed the Spit down and the Spit performed a classic scissors forcing the overshoot in the vertical plane by the 109. He actually threw him out of the helix.
It was gorgeous! It was also pre-briefed! )

In close however, all viewer perspective is lost.

Pertaining to another poster referencing speeds for maneuvering WW2 fighters;
One has to consider that for the purpose of demonstrating anything on film as relates to either BFM or ACM, we're talking the left side of the envelope be it a Viper or a Mustang. Corner speed on a P51 is about 260-270mph married to 8 g's.

I know I never took the 51 out to 8g's at any time and I don't know many owners who will take their Mustangs out that far either
Assuming most warbird owners won't be maneuvering their airplanes
anywhere near corner velocities producing turn rates and radius' available at Vc, I think what we're talking about here when we discuss a possible dogfight series using actual aircraft as opposed to digital replication is just more of the same thing; that being the low energy rolling type filming they have always ended up with )))

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

Man it's been a brutal thread but I think the show and the dedication that Max, Steve Hinton, and the guys at Planes of Fame have showed is beyond reproach and I've got each show set on my DVR to watch with my boy Jimmy. I'm the guy who first soloed Max in my T6 and he is a true bro in EVERY sense of the word, an awesome pilot, and a true fan of history and the development of fighter tactics.

I think the show is great and I'm proud of Max, Steve, and everyone who took the chance to do this show. Throwing rocks from a safe station as many here believe they have is not nearly as commendable as these guys taking a shot to put together a show that represents what we all love. I hope there is a season two so I don't have to watch the crab fishermen instead. Jim B

I'm with you. Every time my wife surfs past the Discovery Channel I seem to get treated to another fishing boat scrambling about between 600 foot swells while another crew hangs on for dear life.
..........and I used to think crabbing was FUN!!!!! ))

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

I remember watching that show. It seemed like it ended very abruptly. If I remember correctly, didn't the Air Force request cancellation of one of the episode? There was something going on behind the scenes, and I never knew what happened. What's the real story on the show?

I personally like any show on tv that is related to aviation, even if it isn't perfectly accurate. A big plus on this one is being able to see inside the plane, and having people who fly them explain the differences.

A note on the episode from this last week (Wildcat vs Zero.) Sunday night after watching I happened to pick up an Air & Space Magazine with an article about that very dogfight. The article mentioned the find of the wildcat wreckage and a very interesting .50 cal shell. According to the article the wildcat's guns were jammed most likely by a shot from one of the bombers.