Axis Flaps

[Cobra412]

Crumpp that is what Hitech is saying not yourself.  Leave out your could not arguement and you might have something.  You just contradict yourself when you say it.

Do I foresee Hitech implementing this? No. What does it really do for the overall game except make a few fights "lucky" by allowing them to exceed POH recommendations for a few seconds. Planes will be able to do things they "normally" could not.

It is in black and white from Lockheed. Are you saying they are wrong about their own design?

So we are back to the limits we can use our flaps. You just want to be able to exceed the limits once you have the flaps down! Hey that is the same thing as having your plane do something it could not!

Last but not least quoting the credible Lockheed P-38 manual "Hangar Flying" Volume 1/Issue 6 regarding flaps above 250.

There is a Maneuvering Flap stop on the flap controls which extends the flaps fifty percent. These should not be extended at speeds in excess of 250 MPH. There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded.

No different than what you replied to Murdr earlier, it's in black and white.  Myth busted.

And as far as your latest post.  Again variables which you fail to account for regarding a situation that is dynamically changing have failed to be accounted for.

 

You COULD NOT drop flaps, continuously maneuver with them down, and hope to win a fight.

Your making an assumption.  Again it's a possibility not a guaranteed fact.  Considering you have no variables to add in except for continous  maneuvering with with flaps down means you can only assume you'd die not guarantee that you would die.  Variables mean everything.

[Crumpp]

Cobra,

You concentrate on:

What does it really do for the overall game except make a few fights "lucky" by allowing them to exceed POH recommendations for a few seconds.

And minimize this:

Planes will be able to do things they "normally" could not.

You want a built in chance to get lucky.

I don't agree that would add anything to the sim.

Crumpp

[Cobra412]

Crumpp again it is you who stated "could not normally do" and have absolutely no black and white facts to prove it.  The black and white facts you have produced do not state anywhere that it could not normally go over that limit just that you shouldn't.  

And even in your first quote you have absolutely no black and white proof that you could only go over that limit for a few seconds either.  Without any failure rate how exactly would you determine that the structure in question couldn't handle x amount of overload, x amount of times before failure would occur?  Or are you just making speculations?

Is not life in general a bit of luck?

[Crumpp]

The black and white facts  you have produced do not state anywhere that it could not normally go over that limit just that you shouldn't.

Exactly why Hitech should not change the flap modeling.

Because people will take a "should not" and turn it into a "normally".

Crumpp

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Exactly why Hitech should not change the flap modeling.

Because people will take a "should not" and turn it into a "normally".

Crumpp

Those "people" should "normally" find themselves with a broken flap system then.

[Cobra412]

Crumpp and people such as yourself will take a should not and turn into a could not.  So basically you are just as guilty as the rest of them wanting it with out having any real data to go off of.  

You specifically said "you want it to do something it could not normally do" when referring to the P-38 folks but yet you have no facts either on just how much usage over that limit actually happenend or how much it could take during test trials or even in combat.

Without conclusive data on the LW birds stating exactly how many degrees and at what speeds could be dialed in on the flaps should be left alone too then.  Your fight is no different than theirs.  Produce absolute confirmed data from multiple different sources on these parameters and it'll be changed.  Otherwise the LW birds will continue to be as they were originally designed by HTC.  

Just sounds to me like the old saying "the pot calling the kettle black".  To many assumptions and not enough irrefutable data to confirm the actual peformances of these particular systems.  Basically without the data needed for either of these birds they can't be modeled to the most accurate levels that anyone here may like.  So therefore this whole discussion is a waste of time.  

Does the data still exist? Maybe.  Does anyone here have that data? Possibly.  Has that data surfaced yet even after 155 posts? No.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp


You COULD NOT drop flaps, continuously maneuver with them down, and hope to win a fight.



Crumpp

But yet there are numerous pilot stories that were posted in this thread that says they did just that.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Exactly why Hitech should not change the flap modeling.

Because people will take a "should not" and turn it into a "normally".

Crumpp

Then they pay the price by having their flaps damaged for exceeding the limits.  What's wrong with that?

And if you read HiTech's second post, the auto-flaps has more to do with making the game easier to learn than any other reason.


ack-ack

[Crumpp]

Without conclusive data on the LW birds stating exactly how many degrees and at what speeds could be dialed in on the flaps should be left alone too then. Your fight is no different than theirs. Produce absolute confirmed data from multiple different sources on these parameters and it'll be changed. Otherwise the LW birds will continue to be as they were originally designed by HTC.

Exactly.  Without that data they should stay.

IMO you should have to show:

1.  Ample anecdotal evidence they were used in combat.

2.  Be able to produce hard documentation on the forces required to break the flap.  In otherwords is the design strong enough.

3.  Be able to produce documented speeds the flaps could be deployed.

The P38 has met all these requirements and can use it's flaps at 250 mph and below.  Almost 100 mph faster than the LW fighters can deploy their flaps.

Crumpp

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Crumpp
The P38 has met all these requirements and can use it's flaps at 250 mph and below.  Almost 100 mph faster than the LW fighters can deploy their flaps.

Crumpp

Here in lies Crumpp's real problem with removing autoretract flaps from the P-38, despite the fact that it should never have had them in the first place. The P-38 can already use its flaps at a speed almost 100 MPH faster than Luftwaffe planes due to the design (of an aircraft he steadfastly believes was inferior to every Luftwaffe plane ever built, in every way), and Crumpp feels this is already more advantage than the P-38 should have. The truth comes out.

[tikky]

The director has already made an obvious "decision"l

Do not try to pick one specfic thing and call it relistic or not, because your exact argument applies to a huge volumn of things to AH. All things must be looked at in the context of the gamming enviroment.

HiTech

HTC clearly defines "sim" and a "game" in a no-nonsense appproach

[Urchin]

I'm no expert, but I always thought people had a problem with the flaps on the LW planes because they won't come out at speeds they did in real life?  

I could be wrong, I pretty much stopped paying attention to the "This is broke" threads a couple years ago.  

I think what Crumpp is trying to say is that if one looks at the P38 manual which says "250 mph should not be exceeded because it may cause structural damage" and says "Well, it doesn't say it WILL cause structural damage, so we should be able to drop flaps at whatever speed" then that is what people will do.  If the manufacturors specs said 250 mph, then it outta be 250 mph.  

Human nature, especially in games, is to "bend" (if not outright break) the rules.  

Personally, I don't much care, but if HTC decided to model the 250 mph limit as a "suggestion" rather than a limit then I can guarantee you that 99.99% of P-38 pilots would find out where the new "limit" was (where the flaps will actually break), and completely ignore the 250 mph "suggestion".  That is a guarantee.  I'm 100% confident that is exactly what would happen.

I do kind of like the percentage method for determining damage, but I think it is probably to much work to ever be implemented.

[tikky]

Not all planes have switches to deploy flaps. some planes have hand-cracked (physically demanding) flaps like I-16 and F4F-4. There's no way you can deploy them while in combat except landing.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Urchin
I think what Crumpp is trying to say is that if one looks at the P38 manual which says "250 mph should not be exceeded because it may cause structural damage" and says "Well, it doesn't say it WILL cause structural damage, so we should be able to drop flaps at whatever speed" then that is what people will do.  If the manufacturors specs said 250 mph, then it outta be 250 mph.  

Just to reitterate, nobody (at least hilts akak and I) want to see flaps being "dropped" at a higher speed than they are rated for.  Deployment should be locked out if its above deployment speed.  Nor has a "new limit" been suggested, no matter how much Crumpp wants to characterise it that way.  Judging by your final comment on the "percentage method" you got the jist that we would like to see a checkbox for auto-retract, and a realistic penalty for those who would try to game that option.

[Kweassa]

Just to reitterate, nobody (at least hilts akak and I) want to see flaps being "dropped" at a higher speed than they are rated for.

 Except somebody wants to see flaps being dropped, and then maintained at higher speed than they are rated for, which the rating coming from the manufacturers themselves.

 

Deployment should be locked out if its above deployment speed. Nor has a "new limit" been suggested, no matter how much Crumpp wants to characterise it that way.

 
 A new limit is being suggested Murdr. An arbitrary point which you guys think "should be safe", that exceeds the recommended normal limitations.

Judging by your final comment on the "percentage method" you got the jist that we would like to see a checkbox for auto-retract, and a realistic penalty for those who would try to game that option.

 Like I said, personally I'd like to see that kind of thing too. But I have no beef with the current system also.