For those who request non-auto retracting flaps - Think about this:

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Karnak

What you are asking for is a special exception for the P-38 from stated limits and for a guestimate limit to be used instead.

Why should the P-38 have it's flap's deployable at a higher speed than is stated in it's handbook and not the Bf109, N1K2, La-7 or Mossie?

now you guys are putting words in my mouth.  I've never stated that nor is that what I want.  I, along with the other dedicated P-38 drivers, want full control of our flaps.  If we break them from over speeding, fine...that's our fault but let us have that control.  If you're good enough to fly the P-38, then you're good enough to be free of that hand holding feature HT insists on keeping to appease the 'gamers' out there.

Only keep that auto-retracting flaps in planes that had them.



ack-ack

[Seeker]

"Only keep that auto-retracting flaps in planes that had them. "

Did any plane actually have that??

[_Schadenfreude_]

Niki did irl - never saw it modeled well in a sim - was a pain in the arse in FA.

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by Seeker
"Only keep that auto-retracting flaps in planes that had them. "

Did any plane actually have that??

Seeker, the N1K2-J had the automatic combat flaps, it was attached to the pitot tube and the alt meter, measured the speed and the alt, the device automatically deployed and retracted flaps.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by Delirium
Simply put, auto-retract flaps should be modeled like combat trim- either off or on.

Currently, when the flaps pop up in a turn fight in the 38 you pretty much a dead man as you spin out. Realism? LOL

It would seem to me that having auto retract flaps that retract at 90% of pilots handbook values; and manual flaps that break at 101% of the hand book value would be the natural AH way?

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by Seeker

Oh yeah, in fact the pilots had specific instructions to dismantle and destroy the device when they ditch.  As far as I recall, they had this on the N1K1-J as well.  It is said that the N1K2-J turned like the A6M with this device activated.

On a side note, the Ki-84 had buttons on the joystick to deploy and retract flaps.  This made it much easier for the pilots to control flaps.

[Kweassa]

now you guys are putting words in my mouth. I've never stated that nor is that what I want. I, along with the other dedicated P-38 drivers, want full control of our flaps. If we break them from over speeding, fine...that's our fault but let us have that control. If you're good enough to fly the P-38, then you're good enough to be free of that hand holding feature HT insists on keeping to appease the 'gamers' out there.

Only keep that auto-retracting flaps in planes that had them.

 If you had the ability to keep the plane's speed under the flap auto-retraction speed in the first place, then why the heck are you asking for a removal of the auto-retraction? You wouldn't need it anyway, because you'll never go over the speed which retracts the flaps..

 It's because you cannot do that, that you are wanting the auto-retraction to be removed, is it not?

 In all the instances where you hated the flaps auto-retracted, exactly at that speed, it will then just simply get damaged and I can't see just how this is going to help any P-38.  


 Of course, it would hardly matter for people like me who fly planes where flaps aren't much of tactical use anyway, but it's gonna hurt a lot of planes that do. In fact, that'll probably kill all the US planes' ability to brawl at low speeds.

[SKurj]

I'm also pro-manual flap retraction.

Have them break at overspeed, and make it impossible to deploy at speeds too fast.   I'd imagine in alot of the aircraft it may have been impossible to drop the flaps once speed was too high.
(depending on system of deployment)


SKurj

[Murdr]

In the parallel discussion in AH G/D, we hashed out a resonable proposal for a way a manual flap option could be implimented.  Kweassa threw out some "the only way it could be done fairly" thoughts and I translated that thought into an example.

Originally posted by Murdr
I dont think that anyone has a problem with the deployment speeds and being unable to deploy them above that speed should not change.  Your example of a damage probability curve sounds reasonable to me.  For instance.

Percent over...........Speed for..........Damage
deployment............150mph. ............Probability
speed...................deplo yment
1%..............................151.5...............  .25%
2%..............................153..................  .5%
3%..............................154.5................ 1%
4%..............................156................... 2%
5%..............................157.5................ 3%
6%..............................159................... 5%
8%..............................162.................. 10%
10%............................165.................. 33%
15%............................172.5............... 75%

I would think that a higher the rate of deployment speed would be more likely to be over that deployment speed for a longer time span.  So if the die rolled twice per second for random damage, there would be more die rolls at a +200mph situation than there would at a +150mph, and so on.  How would something like that suit you?

Originally posted by Kweassa
Sounds reasonable, Murdr.

 The 'terror factor' seems adequately high enough to stop people from attempting to pop flap-stuff at 300mph, but the margin of reasonable chance of safety, seems also good enough, so that people don't have to fear the flaps retracting the moment it hits a certain number.

 If something like that is indeed what P-38 pilots want, then, I support it.

I do remember HT piping in on a previous discussion and saying 'if the auto-retraction is removed the only thing remaining is immediate flap failure at the same level of speed the flaps would auto-retract.'  However, I do think something like this idea would be a reasonable substitue in light of absence of hard wind tunnel data.   After all its an engineering standard to allow a margin between the failure point and recommended max/min specifications.  The further you push something past its specifications, the more likely some part of its mechanism/structure will fail.  
I like the idea of this kind of manual option.