Axis Flaps

[TrueKill]

y is it that all axis fighters cant put thier flaps down till around 160mhp but most allied A/C 200-250MPH i think this flap stuff is BS in real life u could put flaps down at any speed. i was just in the CT in a KI-84 tryin to out turn a F4F while goin 190mph but nooo i cant put flaps down but the fricking F4F had about 2-3 nochs down. kinda funny how HTC gets mad when someone says they make the axis planes crappy so allied planes can kill them. now i wonder why ppl would say that kinda thing cuz from what i read about the 190A-8 is it was the best turnin 190 also read some stuff about 109s turnin with allied A/C cuz they used FLAPS how about makein it so u can put flaps down at any speed but at say 225mph they get jammed.

[SlapShot]

flaps on all planes not just axis will only extend within the operational evelope for the particular plane you are flying if flaps are out and you go beyond the operational envelope the flaps auto-retract this has been a bone of contention for all planes again not just axis planes the F4F is a naval plane and most naval planes were built to allow flaps to be extented at higher speeds than most other planes this is due to the fact that they needed higher speed to land on the deck of a carrier and also be able to extend flaps too so it is not surprising that the F4F was able to dump flaps and you werent its not an axis versus allied conspiracy

This no punctuation stuff is kinda neat ...

[hitech]

I see the LW conspericy idea continues.

As SlapShot pointed out all planes are treated equaly when it comes to flaps, But for some resone the original desiners decided to put different operation limits into there designs.

I belive you should dig up the orignal 190 flap designers, and tell them how they there flap desings should have been different.


HiTech

[Karnak]

TrueKill,

Flaps extend at the limits in the pilot manuals.

Personally I think that some of this is caused by different standards being reported in the pilot's manuals, but AH is correct as it is listed in the pilot's manuals.

If I could find solid evidence I'd post it and if HTC could find solid evidence I'm sure they'd change the aircraft in question.

[bozon]

Originally posted by SlapShot
...
This no punctuation stuff is kinda neat ...

lol, good one  

I don't like this flap extending being a standard procedure. Probably one of the reasons it was not used extensively in real life was that pilots were much more fearfull of the stall/spin and did not reach the near stall condition where flaps matter.

My personal view is that the stall model in AH is still too relaxed and torque in slow speeds is not pronounced enough. If more planes had the stall of the mossie, no one would bother with the flaps.

Bozon

[Kweassa]

No problem with flap deployment speeds for me.

 Just problems with how flaps make P-47s outturn 109s in a sustained turn fight, and makes the P-51 one of the deadliest fighters when it comes to rolling scissors.

 When AH2 beta came out, I loved the way how the planes felt. The more heavier, 'physical' feeling of weight compared to AH1... and the torque.. man, the torque!

 Even Zeros and Spits and Hurricanes were delicate to control when near stall - much more difficult than AH1. Had a fight against a N1K2, and I couldn't just outturn it on a whim by just pulling the stick to the max, like I used to in AH1. The plane kept wobbling and stalling when the pressure from the pilot was too high - it was cool.

 But then, it seems not all planes have become so difficult to manage.

 The wishy-washy, wobbling, near-stall destabilization that 109s and 205s, and numerous other planes meet(even Spits and Hurris and Zeros), is just plain missing from F4Us and P-51s and P47s and P-38s.

 Basically in my point of view the P-38 pilots whining of how the P-38 will snap stall violently, is like a spoiled kid's rant.

 They don't have to battle with the wobbling plane at all until they push the plane simply just too far, and it decides to stall out. As for me, it's a battle that starts from 200mph, which is at least 100mph higher than the stall speed, where the plane will wobble around like crazy each time it is on the verge of stall even with flaps out. Just go near the limit of AoA and the plane, even with flaps out, will wobble.

 However, the P-47 and P-51 - no wobbling at all, once more than one notch of flaps is out. It will just 'mush' through near-stall situations. Only when the pilot pushes too far and reaches the stall speed that it violently snap rolls. It sort of feels like the P-47 and P-51s are using the same type of flaps used in the P-38 and Ki-84 - at least, in the efficiency department.

 ..

 So, I am suspicious about these things.

 Problem is, how, and what do I test out to prove that some plane flaps are too efficient? Any ideas?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Kweassa
No problem with flap deployment speeds for me.

 Just problems with how flaps make P-47s outturn 109s in a sustained turn fight, and makes the P-51 one of the deadliest fighters when it comes to rolling scissors.

 When AH2 beta came out, I loved the way how the planes felt. The more heavier, 'physical' feeling of weight compared to AH1... and the torque.. man, the torque!

 Even Zeros and Spits and Hurricanes were delicate to control when near stall - much more difficult than AH1. Had a fight against a N1K2, and I couldn't just outturn it on a whim by just pulling the stick to the max, like I used to in AH1. The plane kept wobbling and stalling when the pressure from the pilot was too high - it was cool.

 But then, it seems not all planes have become so difficult to manage.

 The wishy-washy, wobbling, near-stall destabilization that 109s and 205s, and numerous other planes meet(even Spits and Hurris and Zeros), is just plain missing from F4Us and P-51s and P47s and P-38s.

 Basically in my point of view the P-38 pilots whining of how the P-38 will snap stall violently, is like a spoiled kid's rant.

 They don't have to battle with the wobbling plane at all until they push the plane simply just too far, and it decides to stall out. As for me, it's a battle that starts from 200mph, which is at least 100mph higher than the stall speed, where the plane will wobble around like crazy each time it is on the verge of stall even with flaps out. Just go near the limit of AoA and the plane, even with flaps out, will wobble.

 However, the P-47 and P-51 - no wobbling at all, once more than one notch of flaps is out. It will just 'mush' through near-stall situations. Only when the pilot pushes too far and reaches the stall speed that it violently snap rolls. It sort of feels like the P-47 and P-51s are using the same type of flaps used in the P-38 and Ki-84 - at least, in the efficiency department.

 ..

 So, I am suspicious about these things.

 Problem is, how, and what do I test out to prove that some plane flaps are too efficient? Any ideas?

Perhaps your complaints and suspicions would hold more weight if you at least knew that the P-47 DOES have Fowler flaps like the P-38.

As an aside, the U.S. planes pay a price for that stability, especially the P-38. It makes them less able to make transient maneuvers. But then, if you had any idea what you were talking about, especially with regards to the P-38, you'd know that. But you obviously do not.

Oh, and if you'd refrain from calling people spoiled whiners, you might even find them willing to listen to your position on flaps and stability of planes you DON'T fly and you DON'T like. But so long as you continually demand that their plane of choice be handicapped while yours is improved, I doubt you'll get much positive response. Although I HAVE actually supported the idea that the KI-84 is underpowered. I guess some of us don't feel the need to have our opponent artificially handicapped.

And if the plane you like doesn't seem to get the job done, then maybe you were so foolish as to pick an inferior plane. Maybe, just maybe, you should expect a plane to perform as it should, rather than expect it to do what it could not, just because you like it.


I know the limitations of the P-38 VERY well, I've spent two DECADES talking to the men who flew it, I know pilots who have over 3000 hours in the real thing. Two things it did not have are auto retract flaps, and nasty stall and departure characteristics. You might think it should, you might be glad it does, but that does not make it correct.

[Kweassa]

Perhaps your complaints and suspicions would hold more weight if you at least knew that the P-47 DOES have Fowler flaps like the P-38.

 So? That flap alone make a 5-ton plane outturn a plane 2000kg lighter in a sustained turn fight?

Oh, and if you'd refrain from calling people spoiled whiners, you might even find them willing to listen to your position on flaps and stability of planes you DON'T fly and you DON'T like.

 Obviously the same does not apply to the "Luftwhiner" or "conspirator" brand. Ami fanboys certainly don't seem to refrain from any of that.

 Besides, same holds right back at you. How often do you fly a 109? Or, do you even have a droplet of an idea how much the FM suffers in AH2 compared to AH1?  

But so long as you continually demand that their plane of choice be handicapped while yours is improved, I doubt you'll get much positive response. Although I HAVE actually supported the idea that the KI-84 is underpowered. I guess some of us don't feel the need to have our opponent artificially handicapped.

 If a P-47 is outturning and outmaneuvering a 109 in a constant state of low-E status then calling that suspicious is hardly a plea for an "artificial handicap". Get your facts straight.

 But then again, US fan boys do have a way of treating every thing as an 'artifical handicap' - from the ".50 too weak" whines to "auto flap retraction sucks" whines. With that amount of whining if it was a LW plane under complaint the fella would be smacked as a Luftwhiner so hard he'd circle the globe twice.

 So cut the crap if you don't intend to provide any useful insight. I'm interested in how one can test this out by what method.

 Got any bright ideas?

[Octavius]

[bozon]

CVH, you can relax. If there's any one plane that would benifit from more pronounced torque and tougher stall model it's the 38, as it did historically.

Too many people consider flaps some magical device that improve manuverability dramatically. They are not, not even the fowler flaps. All they allow is a slight increase in lift at slow speeds and delaying the stall by a few mph. Real pilots that were willing to walk this very narrow band in which you actually benifit from the flaps were risking a stall. High torque planes stalling at slow speed can get really nasty, so most pilots just avoided it and never used the flaps.

I've read about a P51B commander forbidding his pilots to use flaps during combat - he feared they will actually slow down enough to use it and meet with the nasty P51 stall (that doesn't exist in AH). In that paricular story the pilot did actually use it in a slow low circle fight with a 109.

The extreme efficiency of flaps at slow speeds we see, might be a result of a stall/spin/torque under modeling rather than an actual flaps over modelling.

This is by no means a FM rant. The AH FM is the best I've seen yet in a sim. I just hope to see it get even better, especially at the extremes of the envelope.

Bozon

[1K3]

What are these "luftwhiners" complaining about???

Don't u all notice that 109s F and G now have a better roll rate (at speeds - or + 350?) It's a huge fix and i can now roll with spits, P-51s, ect. What more do you want?

I'm also a big fan of 109s (also 190s) and love fighting them against lalas, stangs, jugs, and litening (spits are a bit challenging ) Btw those slats lalas-109s are a nuisance because they're noisy and throws you off the target sight!

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Kweassa
So? That flap alone make a 5-ton plane outturn a plane 2000kg lighter in a sustained turn fight?




 Obviously the same does not apply to the "Luftwhiner" or "conspirator" brand. Ami fanboys certainly don't seem to refrain from any of that.

 Besides, same holds right back at you. How often do you fly a 109? Or, do you even have a droplet of an idea how much the FM suffers in AH2 compared to AH1?  




 If a P-47 is outturning and outmaneuvering a 109 in a constant state of low-E status then calling that suspicious is hardly a plea for an "artificial handicap". Get your facts straight.

 But then again, US fan boys do have a way of treating every thing as an 'artifical handicap' - from the ".50 too weak" whines to "auto flap retraction sucks" whines. With that amount of whining if it was a LW plane under complaint the fella would be smacked as a Luftwhiner so hard he'd circle the globe twice.

 So cut the crap if you don't intend to provide any useful insight. I'm interested in how one can test this out by what method.

 Got any bright ideas?

You are the one who started with the "whining spoiled brat" name calling. So YOU cut the crap and produce evidence that the P-38 SHOULD snap roll violently into an unrecoverable spin. I DARE you. Because I KNOW you can't. YOU are the one making the claims you can't back up. Come back when you can come up with something better than "whiner" and "fan boy". Cause what you got ain't cuttin it.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by bozon
CVH, you can relax. If there's any one plane that would benifit from more pronounced torque and tougher stall model it's the 38, as it did historically.

Too many people consider flaps some magical device that improve manuverability dramatically. They are not, not even the fowler flaps. All they allow is a slight increase in lift at slow speeds and delaying the stall by a few mph. Real pilots that were willing to walk this very narrow band in which you actually benifit from the flaps were risking a stall. High torque planes stalling at slow speed can get really nasty, so most pilots just avoided it and never used the flaps.

I've read about a P51B commander forbidding his pilots to use flaps during combat - he feared they will actually slow down enough to use it and meet with the nasty P51 stall (that doesn't exist in AH). In that paricular story the pilot did actually use it in a slow low circle fight with a 109.

The extreme efficiency of flaps at slow speeds we see, might be a result of a stall/spin/torque under modeling rather than an actual flaps over modelling.

This is by no means a FM rant. The AH FM is the best I've seen yet in a sim. I just hope to see it get even better, especially at the extremes of the envelope.

Bozon

Oh, I am relaxed.  But the departure characteristics of the P-38 are NOT under modelled. Nor are the spin characteristics. And it should not have auto retract flaps. The same crap from the same people gets old.

[Krusty]

Now, now. Calm down, take a breath, everyone cool off a tad.

Captain Virgil Hilts, isn't it possible that the pilots you have talked to never reported any nasty stalls because they were taught to avoid them? Similar to the P51 squadron commander forbidding his pilots from using flaps to help manuver, because that meant they had slowed down too much?

For the most part, even USAAF pilots didn't know how to fly the P38 until Lindberg came onto the scene and said "gee, you should fly like this".

Chances are there IS a nasty stall but most pilots avoided it, because against zeros and IJA/IJN planes the best attack was a dive and the best defense was to keep speed up.

And Bozon, either way, there is still a burden of proof. Try doing research into the files and reports created by the test pilots and development crew. Perhaps test flight data, or flight comparisons, etc. No offense intended, I think I agree with you, but you may need to find proof before others agree.

IK3, the 109s got a roll boost in AH2 in general. It hasn't changed much recently, that I've noticed. I think spits roll rather poorly, and I'd never say a 109 rolls like a p51 (IMO they roll almost as well as a corsair), but that's all opinion.

Besides, it's not roll that kills 109s, it's inability to turn at even medium speeds without stalling under 200mph

[Kweassa]

You are the one who started with the "whining spoiled brat" name calling. So YOU cut the crap and produce evidence that the P-38 SHOULD snap roll violently into an unrecoverable spin. I DARE you. Because I KNOW you can't. YOU are the one making the claims you can't back up.

 That's the whole point. You could pull all the stick deflection you want in AH2 and the P-38L will not snaproll. Only when the pilot pushes it down the plank in most awkward angles and extreme low speeds will the P-38 stall out - and yet the P-38 pilots can't even take that and want a virtually non-stallable plane.

 Sure they can fancy and dream all they want, but it's a whine.

 Don't you think you should recognize a cynical reverse statement when you see one, instead of jumping at every little comment about your plane in a defensive mode?

Come back when you can come up with something better than "whiner" and "fan boy". Cause what you got ain't cuttin it.

 Wait a minute, I thought this was a flap reaction, stall characteristic debate, and I was here first.

 Why don't you just leave the thread and stop the hassle unless you have some clever insight on how one might test and measure these things out on an objective basis?

 Obviously despite all the smack talking you don't seem to have any clue on how this can be tested. So dude, put a sock in it and stop wasting my time.

 Do you even fly this game?