Offset on plane manual’s CV, as a consequence of additional load.
I see you call that “optimal” speed, so that may be so in USAF, or to whomever terminology you refer to.
Anyway, such things are commonly given to pilot, prior to take off particularly on a combat mission.
USAF(?) doesn’t do that?

I see that the MG-21 chart didn’t post initially…in it and in the F-4 chart, you can see the vertical line labeled “opt turn”. Whomever did that diagram intended that line to show the “optimal” combination of g and speeds to gain an “optimal” performance. Not “best” performance, or “max” performance, or even “sustained” performance. That line intends to show how to minimize radius and maximize rate, while conserving energy. The term is “optimal turn”, not optimal speed.

What would those be (apart from the situation in which structural limit of the plane can’t meet lift limit of the plane at CV, as mentioned earlier)?

CV by definition is limited by placard g (maximum authorized g loading). It is likely that the aircraft could pull more than this g limit under the given conditions…but it doesn’t matter. This is why CV is an academic term more than anything else.

Unless your structural limit is lower than your lift limit, velocity corner offers best turn. I’m not sure what do you mean, here?

What I mean is that corner velocity is an academic term in air combat discussions. It is not a tactical concept. You will have to define what you mean by “best turn”…for a given weight, configuration, power setting, and altitude, there will be a sustained turn speed and a lowest speed where max g can be pulled, typically instantaneously. More often than not, when we speak of best turn, we think of sustained conditions.

Hm, I see you made a distinction between Barrel Roll and High G Roll, so I’m not sure what exactly do you mean, since those two are the same here and I’ve translated it directly.

I realize that language can be a problem in these discussions, particularly when discussing air combat maneuvering.

The Barrel Roll is a “low g” maneuver. If we were to use the words “high g roll” in reference to air combat rolling maneuvers, we would be referring to the Vector Roll.

The High G Roll is more of a “spin” along the flight path with the aircraft rotating not around the longitudinal axis as in other types of rolls, but more along the vertical axis (the axis aligned with the rudder).

FW190 and Spitfire.

Can you expand on this a little? I’m not sure i understand what your point is.

The maneuver that epitomes this is a Barrel-Roll and the faster the plane can roll while pulling even more g, the more agile it is.

You have the Barrel Roll confused with something else. The Barrel Roll maneuver in air combat maneuvering is a slow rolling maneuver that reduces aspect angle. The closest air combat maneuver to what you describe is the High G Roll (over the top or underneath) which is typically flown as a last ditch guns defense.

In civilian aerobatics, you may be thinking of a Snap Roll.

Some planes can roll but can’t turn and some planes can turn, but can’t roll.

Neither are agile, in spite of one characteristic being pronounced and only the plane that combines both (lateral and longitudinal) at the same time, is considered agile.

That’s an interesting statement. Can you think of any examples?

The roll rate does give the ability to change direction in an controlled way.

Good grief! Roll rate by itself does not affect a change in direction.

In air combat terms, roll rate means the ability to orient the lift vector fast enough to achieve a tactical objective. The change in direction comes from the following addition of g force (the lift vector) in the new direction.

It has been quite a while since roll rate was a player in fighter comparisons. Ever since the Korean War, opposing fighter aircraft all had comparable roll rate capabilities. Going into the Vietnam War era and beyond, the issue became the ability to generate and sustain high rates of turn at relatively slow speeds.

…it is not even important to bank into a horizontal maneuver when starting a turn, but it is even much more important to avoid negative Gs during maneuver.

Too simplistic. We routinely use less than one g when performing an acceleration maneuver. True enough, there are few times when more than one negative g is appropriate…as you said, it’s far easier, when doing a split S, to roll inverted and then pull. Negative g can be very uncomfortable and disorienting…usually there are other ways of getting the job done. One maneuver where negative g may be effective is in a gun jink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fighter_maneuvering_-_tactical_egg.jpg

This diagram has no place in this discussion and has zero relevance to roll rate. The “egg” diagram is nothing more than an illustration of the additive effects of gravity on “cockpit g”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_scissors_with_instruction_diagram_symbols.jpg

While a slow roll rate could be a factor in a scissors, the basic point of the maneuver is to capitalize on an overshooting and faster opponent. The defender gains the advantage as a result of his smaller turn radius, not a better rate of roll (remember, today’s fighters all have about the same roll capabilities).

Such exercises are of limited value, when they were not taken seriously and pushed to the limits.
In the end you got a mainstream of average pilots from that.

There have been times when training restrictions have affected the overall quality of pilots…the USAF and USN experience of the 50s and 60s is an excellent example.

During this time, dissimilar training was prohibited and training in general, particularly in the USAF, over-emphasized safety and suffered from outmoded formations and tactics. It took the lessons of Vietnam to put an end to that training environment. Since then, the emphasis on safety (ROE) has moved back and forth but never to the extent that the quality of training returned to that of those earlier years.

What is the reasons that f-18 can’t go over mach2? It has 2 engines with combined thrust more than what F-16 had and more than twice of what the Mig-21, Mirage3 and F1 had. Does F-18 had more than 2 times the drag as the mirages?

How do you explain F-18a has the same Max speed as F-18C, even 18C had more powerful engines?

There can be any number of reasons why…one of the more common is an increase in aircraft weight or drag profile.

But, more to the point, from a pilot’s perspective, “top speed” is seldom an interest. Usually, this is a mach number associated with absolute optimal conditions at high altitude…parameters that have little resemblance to what is seen in typical daily operations.

Having flown two of the US fighters with mach 2 performance, I can tell you that this performance meant absolutely nothing in the real world. It may have sold jets to potential buyers, but it didn’t translate into superior tactical performance.

For pilots of fighters such as the F-18, what is more important is top speed in IAS (indicated airspeed), the airplane’s ability to accelerate to that speed, and its ability to sustain high speeds in a turn.