Cobra, what you are saying is totally irrelevant of this discussion. We're not discussing pure physics - we're discussing how a certain factor can effect gameplay to what degree.
As I have said before, I also do not think a flap will fail the moment it crosses 1 mph over its limit. That is why as a result I agree that a better compromise point may be reached. However, it doesn't mean I don't understand the logic behind current implementation of the flaps - because, IT MAKES SENSE.
People routinely abuse "possibility" of real life and turn them into "normality" of game represantation and that is a FACT, de facto, FACT.
Certain things are no doubt possible in real life, but implementing such possibilities into a game without IMPLEMENTING THE TOTAL CONTEXT of it is an open hand invitation for total abuse as seen in IL2/FB.
A Bf109 could lay off automatic pitch control and go manual - which will turn the prop into a manual/variable pitch control.
In IL2/FB this has been abused into a sort of manual initiated WEP system, where the pilots will micro-control the prop pitch so the engine RPM pushes over its limits, but stays under the "breaking point" of the engine.
Oh this was possible in real life, since 109 pilots actually did this in limited situations such as short runway take-offs. Except the context is that no real fighter pilot would go manual and increase workload into double, triple of normalcy and risk an unnecessary danger properly avoidable by better overall tactical management. Not to mention to do that in the cockpit the pilot would have to go off HOTAS, and it would also shorten the engine life span.
So what's the big darned problem with IL2/FB's 109s, when it was possible in real life, and they implemented it exactly as in real life?
The same big darned problem with people wanting to hold flaps down for their own combat purposes, when it should not be down.
Otherwise you could always present a combat report of pilots routinely engaged in a prolonged close-combat with flaps held down, and wading in and out of the speed limits, and prove this was not just a possibility but normalcy. I've seen Ak mention one except I've never actually seen one from him.
This is not a discussion on technical readings or findings. It's a discussion on gameplay and how it can force pilots to act within realistical limits.
Just look at what Ak's saying. Look at what SlapShot is saying, for crying out loud.
They don't care even if it busts their flaps, as long as the flap effects stay constant and they could kill their enemy. If autoretraction is gone and they get what they want, they'll start abusing it immediately in a classic game-the-game.
Currently, autoretraction FORCES THEM to abide by the limits, watch their speed, and perhaps refrain from going into a real slow fight which they might have to risk tight flap usage - because if they go over the edge it will retract, and immediately give them a harsh penalty.
It limits their way of flying to at least certain basic outlines of realistic circumstances and context. If there are dangers of flaps retracting and augering, they'll pull off the enemy and not risk the stall.
But they don't want to do this. They want to just leave the flaps down, and risk a damage willingly, just so they can shoot the damn bastar* out of the sky.
They don't care about the context of a certain thing. They only care about how immediately they can use it in the game to their own benefit.
They will abuse a realistic implementation by using it in unrealistic circumstances likely only inside the game, and not in real life.
In short, regardless of up to just exactly how much speed the flaps would have held, no real life pilot would willingly want to just kill his flaps or risk damage on purpose, just because he's so desparate to get a kill at hand.
The autoretraction does EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOULD. It stops people from doing those stuff.
