Axis Flaps

[Karnak]

Ack-Ack,

That is true of all aircraft, not just the P-38.  You talk as though the P-38 is special in that regard.  I do agree with you that the absolute limits in AH are not realistic, but getting rid of the autoretracting flaps will not result in what you desire.  There will be no change other than flaps being torn off at 251mph instead of retracted.  You will still enter the stall.

Virgil,

That is not true as modeled in AH.  All that would happen is that the flaps would be torn off instead of retracted.

As modeled in AH.

HiTech said as much.

[warmcocoroos]

since its so hard to come to a decision, i say it should be an option like auto take off, and auto combat trim.

[bozon]

If the P-38 had flaps deployed at 250mph, they will not break once you hit 251mph.

ok, but at what speed will they? what is the rule?

do fowler flaps have a larger safty margins than slotted flaps? Do certain manufacturers published figures using larger safty margins? Did americans used superior steel or is the german hydraulics more robust?
you see where I'm getting at...

Bozon

[Crumpp]

ok, but at what speed will they? what is the rule?

Probably need to find something like this for the P 38.

FW-190 manufacturer's breaking pressure for the flaps:



Crumpp

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kweassa
However, I do not object to the random failure idea at all. It's the compromise point we've reached when this very specific discussion was going on.

Ahh, here it is.

Posted 06-27-2004 04:22 AM by 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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.[/b]

Im glad real life engineering standards arnt like AH, Id never made it to my 20's if S rated tires failed when you drove 1 second at 113 MPH.

[SlapShot]

That is not true as modeled in AH. All that would happen is that the flaps would be torn off instead of retracted.

And where is it written that the flaps would be RIPPED off at 1 mph over the limit ... I would think that maybe the hydraulic system might get jammed (MIGHT) ... but rip the flaps off ... I don't think so.

Im glad real life engineering standards arnt like AH, Id never made it to my 20's if S rated tires failed when you drove 1 second at 113 MPH.

Excellent point !!! I too would not be here to have this discussion.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Karnak
Ack-Ack,

That is true of all aircraft, not just the P-38.  You talk as though the P-38 is special in that regard.  I do agree with you that the absolute limits in AH are not realistic, but getting rid of the autoretracting flaps will not result in what you desire.  There will be no change other than flaps being torn off at 251mph instead of retracted.  You will still enter the stall.

Virgil,

That is not true as modeled in AH.  All that would happen is that the flaps would be torn off instead of retracted.

As modeled in AH.

HiTech said as much.

Ummm...that's why we're asking for a more realistic modeling approach to this problem.  In RL, if the flaps were deployed at 250mph, they didn't break or get damaged at 251mph.


ack-ack

[Kweassa]

It's not that we're criticizing the validity of a more reasonable modelling.

 We're criticizing the grounds for advocating such a model in the first place. We agree to the results, but don't agree on the process.

 AH2 can indeed, benefit much more realistic with a more sophisticated flap modelling, but basically when a P-38 pilot falls into a spin when the flap auto-retracts, it is not because of the system. It's is a problem that can be avoided by the pilot.

 The conditions are same and equal for all planes in that all of them in AH, are limited to the numbers. I use the Ki-84 a lot. Sometimes the flaps retract when I'm about to close into the rear-end of a Spitfire. I lose control, and spin out.

 So, did I auger because the system screwed me?

 Frankly, no sane AH gamer would think the system screwed him. The only people who thinks the system screwed them in this case are specifically P-38 pilots.

 There were tons of alternatives possible when I faced that Spitfire. However, I thought the Spit pilot was a poor one, and thought I could shoot him down before I reached my limits and lost control of speed. A lot of planes in AH depend on the flaps. However, I see none of those pilots complaining.

 The P-38 pilots have a habit of thinking  they and their planes are special. I'm not saying it in a bad way, but the tendency is clearly visible. Most of them tend to think facing a superb turning plane at their own game is the only way to fly a P-38, and boy do they brag about it - a lot.

 Except, while most of them may indeed fall prey, some don't. Basically nobody forced any P-38 into a situation where so much was dependant on the flaps.

 The choice was his to make. Call it sissy or timid or whatever - he could have played the BnZ game. Or, he could have went into a bit more sparing E-fights with a lot of safe high-yoyos and stuff, going into harsh maneuvering only for the final coup-de-grace.

 But nooooo, he had to show the other guy what a good plane the P-38L is, and what a good pilot he was. He goes into an all-out rolling scissors contest against a more light and nimble plane, loses a bit of ground, and the speed pushes over limits. Bam, the plane spins.

 So, did he auger because the system screwed him, or was it because he became too greedy?

 I mean, why couldn't he just remain 1 mph inside the limit? Did somebody force him to step outside of that limit?

 
 I'd gladly support a better flap modelling , but I agree to none of the reasons given by any of the P-38 pilots.

[hitech]

Ummm...that's why we're asking for a more realistic modeling approach to this problem. In RL, if the flaps were deployed at 250mph, they didn't break or get damaged at 251mph.

I call BS on that it would be a more relistic. Namly because the consiquences are much different in how you would use the flaps then they would in real life. Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.

2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.


HiTech

[Crumpp]

Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.

Exactly.  If it's not provable in the POH or documentation then it will cause unrealistic behavior.  AH will become the flap fest IL2 is now.

If it was used somebody documented the tolerances somewhere.

Crumpp

[Tilt]

Auto retracting flaps..........

We do not have auto retracting gear (with repect to air speed)...we can break it...........

It would seem to me that a player setting (auto retract yes/no)

Would allow either to have nice safe flaps or (if you want to push that edge a little further and risk breaking them) non auto retract.

Whilst at it you do the same for gear...........

This approach would then be consistant with AoA, combat trim etc etc. and give all camps what they want.........

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by hitech
I call BS on that it would be a more relistic. Namly because the consiquences are much different in how you would use the flaps then they would in real life. Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.

2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.


HiTech

Then just cause them to jam at 251 mph wherever they are (1 notch, 2 notches) ... I would much prefer that than the auto-retract/snap-spin/auger outcome.

[SlapShot]

AH2 can indeed, benefit much more realistic with a more sophisticated flap modelling, but basically when a P-38 pilot falls into a spin when the flap auto-retracts, it is not because of the system. It's is a problem that can be avoided by the pilot.

If I am working a bandits 6, I don't really have time to keep looking down to see if I am just about to pop over the 250 mph limit ... so in most case, it can't be avoided.

So, did I auger because the system screwed me?

Frankly, no sane AH gamer would think the system screwed him. The only people who thinks the system screwed them in this case are specifically P-38 pilots.

Screwed ? ... I haven't seen that term used in this thread at all in reference to what we are talking about.

When I am effected by the auto-retract, I don't think that the system "screwed" me ... I think about what would be a better way to handle the situation without breaking the "rules"/"limits".

Like I said before ... jam them ... much better and more realistic outcome than what we have at the moment.

Tilt brings up an excellent point with regards to gear ... why not handle the flaps with the same notion. When approaching the jam/break point, start the stress wave ... if you don't back off/retract ... SNAP !!!! ... your jammed.

[Crumpp]

Looks to me like huge whine from the P 38 crowd.  Frankly you want your aircraft to do things it could not in real life.

The Lockheed specifically warns against leaving the flaps down for any length of time as they will quickly bleed the energy from it to a point the plane is helpless and cannot recover.

Don't be caught with your flaps down for any length of time in combat; the reason being that with maneuvering flaps down you can unknowingly get down to such low speeds that all the power in the world won't do you much good should you need sudden acceleration .

Guess, as proven in the flight tests, the P38's "great accelleration" is a piece of modern fiction.

http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm

Now if the P38 crowd was complaining that application of assymetrical power was not producing the turn results it should I would wholeheartily support that.
So buy yourself a throttle quadrant and start whining.

http://www.fscentral.com/chthqu.html

Crumpp

[Cobra412]

Crump seems that everything written on paper is an absolute to you.  Considering this statement you made.  

Looks to me like huge whine from the P 38 crowd. Frankly you want your aircraft to do things it could not in real life.

I'm curious though where exactly in this link (James Reese P-38) does it state you cannot do this?


I'm not a 38 fan or anything but I kind of found this reference used by Crumpp as rather funny.  You can see what I've highlighted in bold letters.  Opposed to reading it as an absolute which some folks tend to do.  I read it as it's a good possibility.  

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.

I've seen some nasty damage done to flap assemblies on the F-15 and one that stands out the most is our - 7G incident.  Flap assemblies can withstand alot of damage.  But the limits aren't set in stone.  And there is nothing there in that article that says you can't extend them above 250 only that there is a danger of structural failure if you exceed that speed.  

Like anything manufactured out there you will have those items that can withstand very little of what they are designed for and you'll have those exact same items that can withstand alot more than they are technically designed for.  Hence why they put limits on these items.  It may have been found that out of 10 tests 4 of those items tested failed above 250 mph.  If this were the case then the engineers would continue the tests until a lower percentage of structural failures would occur.  Once they found a failure rate that was acceptable then they would set their limits to that or just short of it.  They wouldn't set the limits down so low to a point that there would be an absolute 0% chance of failure.  They also wouldn't set their limits so high that it's a guarantee that if the limit is exceed the system will surely fail.  There is no black and white to setting limits.  They allow for operator error so that if in the event the limit is exceeded there won't just be a catostrophic failure.  It's not an absolute guarantee either that the system couldn't withstand an exceeded limit over x amount of time per flight and over it's life span.  Engineers design airframes so they can have longevity. Hence by adding written limits and not absolute physical limits.  If catastropic failure was highly possible then there would be physically limitations too.      

There are very few things in this world that do exactly as they are written on paper regardless of how much testing you do on them.  I know that from personal experience from working in the flight test world for the F-15