P-38 Still has Problems

[Murdr]

I disagree on the reasoning.  As I eluded to before, the 38 has an E cap.  Partially from compressibility issues, and partially from drag.  The La's 109s and 51's can out E the 38 on a dead run, even when the 38 may have had more E to start with.  If you dive a 38 10K to the deck, you can get around 500, but after leveling it will bleed down to its normal max speed.  No different than any other plane, but these factors make it more likely for the 38 to be put into a position of having to use flaps.
Given the population of the above mentioned planes, I dont think its valid to blame every low speed situation on the pilot.  I have a film of myself RTBing in a shallow decent from 12K over 15 miles.  1K off the deck a la7 tries to HO, reverses, and runs me down in 15 seconds.  From the film data from his slow point of 279 while reversing, he accellerated to 388 in 12 seconds.  Like I said, I had been decending, and had done no manovering the entire time.  Is that the limitations of the 38?  Yes.  Is the limitation the fault of the pilot?  No not in that situation, I had already done the maximum that could be done to economise E.

Wanted to touch on the flaps, but gotta get back to work, mabey later.

[hitech]

OIO: You are not making a case for auto v manual retract: You are simply stating that you belive the max flap speed for the 38 is incorect.


HiTech

[Murdr]

...continued...
The point I am trying to get at, for the benefit of those who dont often fly the 38 is:  The characteristics I described lead to the 38 being put into the situation of relying on flaps more often than average for other planes.  That is, the bnz aircraft with good E managment typically arnt forced to rely on flap usage, but its a valid option.  The tnb aircraft typically have a large window of speeds where they can achieve a good turn rate without flap usage, and typically arnt forced to rely on them.  Hence 38 drivers are the loudest complainers of auto-retraction.

As far as 'special' flaps, the 8deg setting for quick deployment on the 38 was innovative at the time it was added to its design.  The Fowler flaps are unique in that they add area to the wing surface in addition to the airflow changes characteristic with other flap designs.  Fowler flaps have a higher lift coeficent that other designs at the same degree setting.  That comes at a price because it also causes more drag than other designs.  The split flap design is actually more efficent when its lift coeficent to drag ratio is taken into account.  At the very least they are unique, and I would believe, a good choice for such a heavy fighter.  Not trying to make a point with that, just adding to a sub-plot that has been tossed around here.

Not much else to add.  Cases have already been stated.  I think an idea with potential has already been floated for opting out of auto-retraction.  One can always hope

[OIO]

Neg hitech.  Im stating the real P-38L did not have its flaps retracted by force of wind (which is what the current system simulates for all purposes imo). To my knowledge all other fighters and planes in the set did. Not the 38L.

With that in mind, why does this feature affect the P-38 in the same way it affects all other planes when the real 38L did not have such issues ? The answer imo, is because its just one plane out of dozens and not worth the effort to make a system to jam/rip off the flaps of just the P38.

So instead of asking you for a separate system for just the P-38, which im pretty sure you'll reject, I ask to merely adjust the 38's retract speed limit on the current system so that it does not penalize the airplane for merely touching the retract mark and spinning out of control on its own...something which other airplanes in the set would suffer from in real life but not the 38. Less work and same result imo.

+100mph to current retract settings would more closely resemble what ive read about the 38's using flaps in combat. That is my opinion. If you would like a number from a much more informed source you can always consult with Widewing on this issue... he's waay more qualified than any of us on this hehe

[hitech]

Your first statment is incorect OIO: I'm Not sure if any planes had had auto retracting flaps. But Im fairly sure almost all did not.

So don't mix the 2 things in your argument, one is the max speed flap speed.

2nd is if all planes should have auto retractible flaps, or they should be damaged at the max flap speed.

3rd if some should have auto retracts and some not auto retract.


Anyone know of any plane that had auto retracting flaps?


HiTech

[Murdr]

N1K2-J according to the guys in the sister thread in gp/fb  
For those who request non-autoretracting flaps...

[OIO]

"Your first statment is incorect OIO: I'm Not sure if any planes had had auto retracting flaps. But Im fairly sure almost all did not."

Nor am i saying any had automatic flap retracting as a mechanical feature in the airplanes. im saying the flaps retract in the game because either the wind blew them up or because you dont want to have people flying around with full flaps out at 500mph.. i believe its both. right?

"2nd is if all planes should have auto retractible flaps, or they should be damaged at the max flap speed."

And the game already has the auto retract system. Which is why,  again, I'd rather ask this be 'tweaked' in the 38's retract speed settings instead of asking you to make up a whole new system. The current one would work nicely if the 38's flap retract speeds were increased so that it does not penalize the plane for something that it did not suffer from.

A P51's flaps would be blown upwards by the wind if it had them all out and entered a dive down to 500mph... a P-38's would not..they would either have to be retracted by the pilot or risk structural damage or flap jamming. So instead of making a wing damage/flap jamming to be added to game, just increase the speed at which flaps retract in the 38.. anything from +50mph to +100mph  from current settings would do nicely.

"3rd if some should have auto retracts and some not auto retract."

ill skip this since i think i already answered in above.

Anyone know of any plane that had auto retracting flaps?

The N1k-2 had automatic flaps. Weird butterfly flap system, though im not sure if it retracted on its own.. i think they deployed automatically. Ask widewing

[Murdr]

Originally posted by hitech

2nd is if all planes should have auto retractible flaps, or they should be damaged at the max flap speed.

Oops, that query doesnt allow for my engineering safty margin argument.  Ive driven over 112mph on "S" rated tires...nothing happened when I hit 113mph, but in the same token I would never have felt comfortable maxing out my old 5.0 Mustang at 155mph with anything less than its "Z" rated tires.
I have seen building mechanical systems relocated even though the numbers said the structual steel would hold it because the engineer couldnt get the safty margin percentage out of the structual steel.  I would expect if I had an engine rated for 6000rpms to survive if it spiked at 6001rmp.  I would not expect it to hold up for a long period of time at 6500rpms though.  

Is aeronautical engineering that different?

3rd if some should have auto retracts and some not auto retract.

on/off control like combat trim for those that want it.

[OIO]

Murdr i think that the autoretract is in the game so that people dont fly around with full flaps out at 400mph with no penalty.

In my view the autoretract simulates the air pushing the flaps back into the wing after certain speed is reached. My argument is that the fowlers could not do this since they are set up in a foward/backward rail system, so the wind cant possibly push them back inside the wing. And in the game right now the flaps are retracting, as you say, the instant it goes from 249mph to 250mph (for example)..BAM! flap up in the middle of a high-g turning fight and fight is lost due to a spin or losing angles.

I think that perhaps it would be nice to have something that makes your plane shake violently the moment it hits the retract speed mark.. and if the plane kept the flaps down, at some point between 50mph or 100 mph above the current retract speed points in the game the flaps would get damage/jam/rip off.

But like i said, that may be a lot of work HTC may not be able to put in the game at this point. And the 38 is the one and only plane that gets royally screwed by this retract issue so just up the limits a bit on the 38 until a better system in is place.

[Murdr]

It is not a simulation of a real mechanical action.  Its "retract them in leiu of breaking them"

CC, its just one of those situations.  HT is a pilot himself, and appearently strives for realism ballanced with playablitly.
The problem is the only hard data avalible is the maximum flap deployment speeds for the aircraft in the set.  So, with that as the only hard numbers what do you do when those specifications are reached?  Break them or make them retract?  

After the discussion with kweassa, I say break them in a reasonable manner.  Just because X deg of flaps is rated at Ymph does not mean that at Ymph+1 it will break.  It could break at Y+1, but there is a better chance that it will break at Y+10, and greater the higher it goes.

If you had wind tunnel data or reports on the P38 that say the flap mechanism will fail at a certian pressure distribution load, you might have an argument.  Then HTs other question would apply that should some planes have auto-retract, and some not.

Im with you on how it affects the P38, but no data, no exemption for only the 38, as I understand it.

The suggestion Id like to be considered could apply to any/all planes, could be optional, with the right numbers would act as could be expected in RL, and helps with the problem we run into with the 38.

[TheManx]

Can't say I've ever had problems with auto-retracting flaps kicking the plane into an unrecoverable stall like others have. I've had them retract now and then, but nothing too severe as to decide more than one out of every 30 or so quick turnfights. I tend to be a bit more careful with throttle nose down than most players though.

I came on last night after a lengthy absence to do a bit of test driving of AH2 and to be honest, I don't mind the 38. It handled well, even though I was terribly rusty. As the night went on, I was able to get some of the snap back in the turns and pull some of the nose up maneuvers I'd used in the past. Overall, I think my Typhoon took more of a performance beating than the 38 did in the turnfighting department. Either that, or I'm even more out of practice in it than in the Lightning. I'd personally rather keep the retracting flaps than introduct damageable ones.

And also, I do some flying in the Mustang too and it requires flaps almost as much as the 38. The Jug in my experience requires them to be flown well, and even the Typhoon and the Mossie need them when speeds get extremely slow.

[TheManx]

And the 38 is the one and only plane that gets royally screwed by this retract issue

Not even close. The 51's stall is much more severe than the 38's when flaps autoretract. Even then, if you're careful you can pull out of it very quickly without losing too much control. The 38 is one of the most gentle stalling planes in the game, and one of the hardest to get to do that.

[Morpheus]

have you tried the 38 in AH2 Manx?

PS- Good to see ya still kickin it ol tymer

[J_A_B]

"Anyone know of any plane that had auto retracting flaps? "

-------------

The N1K2 had fully automatic flaps.  They would both deploy AND retract on their own with no input from the pilot required.  The N1K2's system was operated by a mercury manometer.  It measured the plane's angle of attack and deployed/retracted flaps accordingly.   Due to the simplicity of this system, and its effect of making the plane that much easier to fly, it wasseldom removed from operational N1K's, as best as I can tell.

Unfortunately, I have never found definitative documentation on exactly what AOA would trigger the mechanism, which would make modeling this a "best guess".  Of course I am also unable to read japanese, so there's a huge amount of possible info out there which is simply unavailable to me because of the language barrier.



The F4U Corsair featured automatically retracting flaps to prevent damage if left down at high speed.   This proved troublesome and was frequently removed in the field (there are many accounts of F4U's equipped with this system retracting flaps at bad times, such as on final landing approach--doubtlessly contributing to it's "ensign eliminator" reputation).

I can see why the F4U's automatic flaps system was unpopular...from full flaps they would start to blow up at only about 100 knots.  Nonetheless, this system was factory equipment even on late-model Corsairs like the F4U-5.


Both of those are by-design automatic flaps, which are NOT to be confused by unintentional speed-induced blowback (damaging condition created when airspeed exceeds the hydraulic/electric system's ability to keep flaps down).

Oh, and while we're discussing flaps, the F6F should only be able to use its flaps as up or down, same as the Spitfire.


J_A_B

[Delirium]

Originally posted by TheManx
Not even close. The 51's stall is much more severe than the 38's when flaps autoretract.

It should! The 51 has more torque than most single engine planes. The P38 has next to no torque at all, there is no comparison between a 38 and 51 in that regard.

Originally posted by TheManx
The 38 is one of the most gentle stalling planes in the game, and one of the hardest to get to do that.

If your flaps auto-retract on you while you are in a turn in a P38, you better hope you have alt otherwise you are a dead man.

Sorry, thats not realism... thats as gamey as it gets.