Dazed and Confused by Boom and Zoom (please help)

[Gallo Rojo]

Cheers!

full disclosure: the following question is because I'm trying to develop a house-rule for Wings Of Glory.

(please correct me if I'm wrong about anything I'll be writing)

I've been trying to figure out which planes were better for boom&zoom tactics. Could every plane do a Boom&Zoom or some of them simply couldn't do it? (due to structural weakness, because of slow climbing rate (?)).

I've been doing my homework and learned a little about how B&Z works in real life: is an air-combat tactic where a plane trades altitude (potential energy) per speed (kinetic energy) by diving over a target (the boom part) and then climbing/bouncing back (the zoom part) trading this time the speed it had gained per altitude. Some energy is lost in the process, so the plane may never re-gain the previous altitude -- but yet it climbs faster.

I take from that (and it's supported by what I've been reading) that some planes were better than others in doing a B&Z: planes that were faster, especially with a good diving speed, structurally sturdier, and with good climb rate, were better than slower, weaker, bad climber ones. An ability to 'storage' the kinetic energy from the dive seems to be helpful too, and apparently some planes could do that while others couldn't

I've read that early war WW1 scouts design focused on maneuverability... while late war focused on speed and especially climb speed (that went hand to hand with engine development). So while early war tactics focused on turning/dogfight/turn&burn tactics, late war focused on B&Z (taking advantage of newer planes with better engines). You can see that different philosophy still at play in WW2.
I also know some planes (faster, good dive and climb speed, sturdy constitution) used B&Z tactics (ie: SE5 and SPAD) more often than others (Fokker Dr.I for example).

But I have a few specific questions that I hope some of you can help me with.

Questions are:


Firstly: Could every airplane in WWI (talking scouts here) perform a B&Z? or were some of them unable to to it?

I mean: maybe a pilot on a Fokker Dr.I would prefer to engage in a dogfight and take advantage of its scouts maneuverability rather than to use B&Z tactics for which his plane may not be so good against other scouts... but maybe a Fokker Dr.I could B&Z too (and that tactic may have been good to attack a two-seater for example).
Or maybe the Fokker Dr.I was simply not able to B&Z (due to structural weakness or bad diving speed).
Which one was it?

I wonder the same about
- Sopwith Triplane (I've read it was structurally weak and had the tendency to loose its wings in steep dives)
- Nieuport family (22 ,24, 27)
- Albatross D.V (it seems they share the same problems that nieuports had regarding its lower wing and V struts not being able to sustain maneuvers that put too much tension on them).
- What about Nieuport 28 and Hanriot DH.1? (those were good dog-fighters but maybe they were also structural stronger and could sustain the steep dive - steep clim characteristics of B&Z?)
- What about Sopwith Camel? it was maneuverable and sturdy (to my knowledge) and had a good climb rate. But think I've read something about planes with rotary engines being not so good at B&Z - compared with in-line engines.

Now, coming to some scouts I've read did use B&Z tactics with great success:

- SE5a: I think there is little dispute the SE5 series was a great B&Z plane. What made it so good?
- Fokker D.VII was a known for B&Z too, although was very maneuverable as well. Am I right? Why so?
- What about Pfalz DIII and DXII? they both had good dive speed and were sturdy. Did their pilots use B&Z tactics?
- SPAD-VII and XIII: here I have a lot of questions... there's no dispute that the SPAD was had the best diving speed of any other scout in the war. But some sources say it had a really good climb rate too, while others describe it as just good. It seems that for B&Z you have to have a good climb rate ... so the sources that say the SPAD didn't have such a great climb rate say that the tactics used by SPAD pilots were better described as Boom and RUN (keep diving), rather then Boom&Zoom (climbing back). However, to add more confusion, I've read the SPAD was good to 'storage' the kinetic energy earned during the dive (zoom) and trade it to the clim (zoom) later on ... so even if its climbing speed hadn't been so great, it could still zoom back by virtue of the 'storagged' kinetic energy.

any feedback would be really welcomed!
if someone can point me to some article/paper/or any other on-line source I can read that could help me to clarify this too

thanks in advance!

[Epee]

Just about any plane can B&Z. B&Z is more of a tactic than a special maneuver. I'm not familiar with the rules to Wings of Glory but simply not trying to follow your target's break turn, using your speed to extend to a safe distance, repeat your attack and eventually force your opponent into so low an energy state that he can no longer evade is the essence of B&Z.

While successful WW1 fighter pilots practiced good energy management by necessity, the limited speed envelope and armament of the day limited B&Z application.

[vossiewulf]

From an aircraft structural standpoint, effectiveness at B&Z is related to an aircraft's Vne speed (the don't go faster than this speed) plus its ability to take the Gs of the pull up, plus the rate at which it bleeds energy at high Gs. Your list of planes that were good and not so good in this regime seem correct to me and for the right reasons (Nieuports shedding top wing covering and leading edge, aeroelastic flutter on V-strutted sesquiplanes, etc.).

Even then though I question whether what you saw in WWI was what you think of as B&Z in WWII. In the latter case you could easily have the attacker being 200kts+ faster than the target. In WWI because of the low Vne speeds, the differential isn't going to be anywhere close to that and the induced drag of high G pullups is going to bleed the E differential to nothing very quickly. I'd guess maybe one pass that could qualify as B&Z, next is more high yoyo or wingover, then it would devolve into the straight turn fight unless the attacker has superior climb rate and uses the ascending spiral to regain the energy advantage.

Also effective B&Z really requires a high roll rate to track the bad guy (think FW-190 with its frise type ailerons, or the 51 with its really torsionally strong wing which gave it a very high aileron reversal speed and ergo comparatively good roll rate at high speeds), and few if any WWI aircraft had what we would call a high roll rate today.

My experience flying RoF and OFF bears this out, yes you can have high speed passes here and there but due to the very small envelopes of the aircraft of this period, combat was almost exclusively the knife fight.