Axis Flaps

[Murdr]

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

I disagree that AKAK is saying "raise the limit".  The specs that are availble are the benchmark and I dont see anyone disputing that.  As a matter of practicallity it is not absolute that if the spec is 250mph and you reach 251mph that a failure will occur instantly.  It could very well happen, but it is not absolute.

It would be more realistic if exceeding the specs means "risking failure" as opposed to "will fail".  Name a mechanical or sturctual component that "will always fail" if the specs are fractionally exceeded briefly (whether it be psi, mph, rpm, lbs, whatever).

I posted an example failure model that is not absolute, and is more like what you would expect from abusing a mechanical or structual component.  What is being said is give us the choice to turn off auto-retract, and manage the risk (risk being the key word) of bringing mechanical problems on ourselves.

[Kweassa]

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.

 Oh come on Slap, don't you realize what you're saying here??? You've just confirmed my claims that it's the pilot who screwed himself, not the system.
 

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".

 Considering the attitude most P-38 pilots show when it comes to this matter, "screwed" is a proper term.

 None of them will ever admit that they went into something they shouldn't have, or at least misjudged the situation and thought they could safely remain inside the limits, when they actually can't.

 It's always the "flaps" which "screwed" them when they auger. Never their own poor judgement or failure to stay within the limits.

[Crumpp]

I'm not a 38 fan or anything but I kind of found this reference used by Crumpp as rather funny.

Need to update you Cobra on the P 38 flap argument.

Yes structural failure "probability" is much more realistic.  EVERYBODY including HTC knows this for a fact.

It is NOT a question of what is more realistic for the flaps but rather what is more realistic in the fights.

If we break a flap and crash, NO BIG DEAL.  Simply up another plane.

Interviewing Luftwaffe pilots and USAAF (P51) pilots for my book all say the same thing about flaps.  They were used JUST LIKE LOCKHEED RECOMMENDS!!

You drop them for a short period of time to gain angle and quickly retracted them.  If you left them down they robbed your speed.  Continous flap usage very quickly leaves you low, slow, and vunerable.

AH is not an artificial flap fest like IL2.  Why?  Hitech has designed the game so that you cannot "game the game" with them.  It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even "combat" flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights.  Hitech is right, not folks lobbying for their favourite plane!

If anything HTC should penalize you more for flap usage.  As it is your flaps just get retracted not break.  

I have to wonder:

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

How you cannot see that, Cobra.  That is exactly what is going on.  P38 pilots want to fly their plane beyond it's limits, nothing more.

Crumpp

[Kweassa]

Cobra, what you're saying may be true, but it is also a bit naive. The problem is that a game may be able to reflect certain kinds of factors of real life, except in many occasions those factors don't bring with it realistic results.

 Particularly in a simulation game often one must think about how to acheive overall realistic behavior within the game, instead of think about modelling everything into a 1:1 scale.

 A very good example is, as said before, IL-2. The IL-2 series is an excellent, excellent game, except the 1C crew took a different approach and decided to model most of the things "exactly as they were".

 Since there is very few documentation on at which point a flap would fail, the 1C crew has just set a really really absolute point the flaps would fail at a 100%. The result is, as Crumpp said and I quote, "flap fest".

 Another example is how they've modelled the prop pitch and RPM in the Bf109s. Oh yeah, it's more realistic that way. A pilot can turn off the auto-pitch governer and make it into a variable. non-auto prop.

 Except now the gamers are exploiting this and have turned manual pitch settings into some kind of "manual WEP" system.

 A better approach would have been to model it like AH. Sure, it's not realistic, but at least it keeps the people flying in a realistic manner. IL-2 modelled in a realistic system the way it was, and ended up with people flying unrealistically.

[Kweassa]

I disagree that AKAK is saying "raise the limit". The specs that are availble are the benchmark and I dont see anyone disputing that. As a matter of practicallity it is not absolute that if the spec is 250mph and you reach 251mph that a failure will occur instantly. It could very well happen, but it is not absolute.

 A failure does not occur instantly Murdr. As soon as the flap starts retracting the pilot has an option to ease off the stick and avoid the accelerated stall.

 The events leading to the often fatal destabiliztion at low alts, is usually initiated by the pilot not wanting to admit he lost the maneuvering contest. The moment he heard the flaps retract he should have let the bogey go, admit that he lost that round, and accelerate away.

 The only instances where this is impossible, is when a P-38L tries to follow something like a Hurricane or a Spitfire at a low-alt split-S. A split-S is inherently an E-gaining maneuver, and should be avoided by heavy planes at low altitudes as a rule of thumb. If the bogey you're chasing goes into such a move, you don't really have to chase him directly. There are always other, more safe maneivering options.

 Except, the P-38 pilots tend to think that they can pull it off everytime. They take the risk of a low alt split-S, and the risk sometimes catches up with them. They fail to contain the speed within the limits of flap usage, and fail to pull out of the split-S in the right time.

 Thus, Hitech's essentially correct. Whether by 1mph or even 0.1 mph, you're asking for a waiver in those sort of occasions so they can arbitrarily go over the limit by "X mph" of speed and declare it "inside realistic limits".

It would be more realistic if exceeding the specs means "risking failure" as opposed to "will fail". Name a mechanical or sturctual component that "will always fail" if the specs are fractionally exceeded briefly (whether it be psi, mph, rpm, lbs, whatever).

 It would also be realistic if AH P-38 pilots started refraining from exceeding the spec in the first place, or at least, refrain from doing it in the most dangerous situations where everything depended so much on the flaps.

 Or even better - stop thinking it'd be okay to exceed the spec in the first place. Nobody else in AH thinks that way, so why do you?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Two REAL simple questions.

Answer yes or no.

1. Did ANY P-38 have auto retract flaps?


2. Did the flaps on the P-38 fail, get destroyed, or get torn off at 251MPH, instantly, and always at 251 MPH?


Enough Bravo Sierra about it. Both questions can be easily and simply answered, factually, with either yes or no.

Remember, the manual says structural damage MAY occur. Accepted opinion was if you used the flaps too much or too long you got too slow, and slow was dangerous.

The only question in my mind is whether or not certain people have the anatomical attributes to answer the question honestly, without a bunch of whimpering crap to go with it.

[Ack-Ack]

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

So having such a gamey, hand-holding feature such as auto-flaps is just as realistic?  Now I call BS.


ack-ack

[hitech]

Ahh so you wish all fetures that assist people to learn to fly removed, sutch as auto take off, auto pilots, trims on lots of the planes, taxiing to runway, auto fuel select, radar, text channels, spawn points for vehicles, icons.  And btw if you ever crash your 38 you shouldn't get to fly again. Or better yet have to pay some one to fix your flaps.

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

[Ack-Ack]

Why not make it a togglable feature like you did with the stall limiter?


Out of curiousity, how did you model the flaps in WB?  You didn't put auto-flaps in that game, so how did you calculate the damage to the flaps from over speeding?



ack-ack

[Kaz]

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

I'm not opposing what you're saying but could you please explain the unrealistic behaviour that this would cause? Just a layman here with some basic knowledge trying to understand this discussion.

Also, I have IL2FB (offline play only and haven't played in awhile). From what I understand, combat flaps in IL2 can be deployed/retracted at any speed and also act as a speed brake. Can flaps in IL2 be abused in more ways?

I'm trying to piece together how making the flap retraction speed non absolute for all planes (maybe 20mph higher than the stated limits?) before jamming/tearing off will make AH similar to IL2's 'flap fest' in these regards.

I see the problem if the deployment speeds were to be increased but I'm not grasping the problem with the retraction speeds being higher (as it is with landing gear).

Anyone care to explain?

[Crumpp]

I'm not opposing what you're saying but could you please explain the unrealistic behaviour that this would cause?

Sure Kaz.  I would be glad too.  This is a copy from an earlier post.  Basically IL2 is unrealistic in the fact everybody drops flaps routinely and is able to keep them down for extended periods of time in a fight.

Repost:



Yes structural failure "probability" is much more realistic. EVERYBODY including HTC knows this for a fact.

It is NOT a question of what is more realistic for the flaps but rather what is more realistic in the fights.

If we break a flap and crash, NO BIG DEAL. Simply up another plane.

Interviewing Luftwaffe pilots and USAAF (P51) pilots for my book all say the same thing about flaps. They were used JUST LIKE LOCKHEED RECOMMENDS!!

You drop them for a short period of time to gain angle and quickly retracted them. If you left them down they robbed your speed. Continous flap usage very quickly leaves you low, slow, and vunerable.

AH is not an artificial flap fest like IL2. Why? Hitech has designed the game so that you cannot "game the game" with them. It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even "combat" flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights. Hitech is right, not folks lobbying for their favourite plane!

If anything HTC should penalize you more for flap usage. As it is your flaps just get retracted not break.

I have to wonder:


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


Why there are those who do not see this!
That is exactly what is going on. P38 pilots want to fly their plane beyond it's limits, nothing more.


Crumpp

[BUG_EAF322]

crump crap out.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kweassa
A failure does not occur instantly Murdr. As soon as the flap starts retracting the pilot has an option to ease off the stick and avoid the accelerated stall.
B]

Well that is very obvious Kweassa, no need for the lecture.  However that is how HT has laid the situation out: "The auto retract flaps is a very intentional choice, when they exceed there max speed they must either break,or be retracted."

Originally posted by Kweassa
It would also be realistic if AH P-38 pilots started refraining from exceeding the spec in the first place, or at least, refrain from doing it in the most dangerous situations where everything depended so much on the flaps.

Chris Herman wrote in a letter home:

"I flew with both 'Macs' {McGuire and Mac Donald} in a couple of fights now and need a new plane.  Both wings were sprung and wrinkled from racking around at excessive speeds and dive recoveries - its one hell of a job to fly with McGuire, and his plane is in the same shape....I'm usually No 3 man in his flight when he takes the Squadron out - expects me to stay for at least three of four passes, or till we get things split up and going our way.  Then he doesn't give a damn what happens, but hates to find himself suddenly all alone down on the deck!"

Realistic? if you say so.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp



Why there are those who do not see this!
That is exactly what is going on. P38 pilots want to fly their plane beyond it's limits, nothing more.


Crumpp

How is having a realistic approach to the flap modeling in the game the same as wanting to fly the plane beyond its limits?  The only limits are the ones artificially imposed by the auto-retracting flap system.  

It's time to unbunch those Lederhosen.



ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp


If anything HTC should penalize you more for flap usage. As it is your flaps just get retracted not break.



Crumpp

Penalty for using flaps?  That suggestion is way too dumb to argue.


ack-ack