Axis Flaps

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I see no one has developed the attributes to answer the question.


What is really hilarious is those saying "it's not realistic to fly around low and slow with your flaps out", all the while  complaining about getting below 225 in their favorite plane and having it become unstable. Typical Bravo Sierra from the exact same people again and again.

The same people who think one of their favorites is too unstable at low speeds INSIST that someone else's plane be destabilized by a feature it did not have. You may deny this all you like, but the truth is printed all over this thread, posted by those very people.

I do not have the slightest problem with the instability of the 109 being investigated thoroughly, and if it is wrong, I WANT it fixed. I don't want to fight anyone who has one hand tied behind their back, artificially. I have advocated the investigation into the performance problems of the KI 84 as well.

The same can most certainly not be said for the other side. How terrible it must be to live in fear of the P-38 having autoretract disabled (it's an unfounded fear, HiTech couldn't stand the moaning, wailing, and gnashing of teeth from all of those who demand a feature be added to the P-38 to keep it destabilized).

Here are the facts, live with them:

The P-38 did not have autoretracting flaps.

P-38 pilots did use them heavily in some cases and situations.

Some P-38 pilots were perfectly willing to use flaps and get slow when they felt they could get the kill. It's the aggressive pilots who got the kills.

The flaps on the P-38 will NOT instantly break off, jam, or be otherwise destroyed at 251MPH.

Not one of the group of people asking for autoretract to be disabled is asking for the speed at which flaps can be deployed to be raised. They are asking for instant autoretract at 251 MPH to be disabled. They would all be willing to accept the possibility that the flaps be damaged when you exceed 250 MPH, and for the possibility to increase for every MPH over 251, until at some point flap damage was inevitable. They would also be perfectly willing to have the flaps not deploy at all above 250 MPH (meaning that if you are above 250 MPH and try to deploy them, they simply won't deploy).

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Crump, I've asked more P-38 veterans than you'd care to listen to, you won't like what they said.

The pilots manual, and even McGuire's own indoctrination article for combat in the SWP, are merely suggestions and information. Nothing there is set in stone. You could dive the P-38 well into the realm of compression and recover it, even at speeds above 500 MPH, and you could have your flaps out a few MPH past 250 MPH and not suffer a catastrophic structural failure. You could drop below 200 MPH in combat and not instantly be shot down and killed.

[Dispair]

As far as I read the ww2 memories of fighter pilots, it was mostly gank fests and BnZ fights, dogfighting was discouraged. If a fighter gets slow and low , almost sure death. Most fights lasted 3-5 mins.

[BUG_EAF322]

Only focke wulfs where able to fly low and slow.

Quote :Uberstaffelbefhelfuhrendengel bwebel:

Heinz unterhosenbradwurst JV44251210

"Meiner Fokchenwullfchen zerstort immer wieder aller auslandieschen unterflugzeuge, unbedingt keiner anderen moglichheid"



please pyro correct this

Aufwiederschnitzel

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp
BS.  Read Lockheeds warning again.  Read the POH.  Ask a veteran.

Tilly is full of bs?  How very typical of you to ignore anything that doesnt fit your position.  Blindness strikes again.

[Crumpp]

Tilly is full of bs? How very typical of you to ignore anything that doesnt fit your position. Blindness strikes again.

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

Crumpp

[Murdr]

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

Crumpp

Yea, ok, the guys that flew them in combat are liars, and everything that happened in combat went completely by USAAF doctrine, and manufactures guidlines.  Whatever you say.

[Crumpp]

Yea, ok, the guys that flew them in combat are liars, and everything that happened in combat went completely by USAAF doctrine, and manufactures guidlines. Whatever you say.

Ok, If that is the standard for AH why are the 109's not able to drop flaps at any speed?  There is plenty of anecdotal evidence.  In fact the Luftwaffe pilots I interview all say the Bf-109 could keep it's flaps down for a longer period of time than the FW-190 due to the design of the 109's flaps.

Where is the cut off?  At what speeds can you "realistically" exceed the manufacturers limits and not ruin the realism of the fight's themselves?

Any limits you set above the manufacturer's recommended speeds are in fact arbitrary "guesses".   The Standard is what you can document as fact.  If we took all the anecdotal evidence and used it, FW-190F's would be diving to speeds in excess of 1000kph and FW-190A8/R7's outturning yaks.  Did it happen? Sure, those pilots are not lying but any means.  What were the conditions?  We don't know but under some conditions those events are entirely possible.  They are not the norm and it would be completely unrealistic to model them as such.

Be careful too with some of the anecdotes.  Good example is one pilot told me always turn fought his FW-190A.  He was very successful with that tactic.  Later on, when pressed for details it came out that he did not level turn at all.  He used energy tactics by conducting yo-yos not turns.

Crumpp

[Murdr]

Geez, you are all over the map.  You said:

It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even "combat" flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights.

I posted brief examples of that not being the case, but also agreed that it was not prefered or endorsed officially.  To which you replied:

BS. Read Lockheeds warning again. Read the POH. Ask a veteran.

You seem to be fond of the quote:

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.

.....To support your first statment.  Tactical suggestions like this by the manufacturer or the USAAF by no means are a documentionation of its actual use in the field or in combat.  

That is a completely different matter than "the manufacturer's recommended speeds" which you now want to bring back into the discussion.  To the contrary, I quoted Tilly in regards to fights with speeds near 90 MPH, which according to you is "stupid, and totally unrealistic"

Where is the cut off? At what speeds can you "realistically" exceed the manufacturers limits and not ruin the realism of the fight's themselves?

Any limits you set above the manufacturer's recommended speeds are in fact arbitrary "guesses". The Standard is what you can document as fact.

On this topic I already stated numerous times that I have no quarrel with the "manufacturer's recommended speeds", but only with HTs binary logic of 'they must auto-retract' or 'they must break'.  Where Lockheed says "There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded."  I would like to see a realistic "danger of structural failure" as an alternative to mandatory auto-retract.  

I also specifically said many times I do not want to see the speeds at which you can deploy flaps changed.  I am only looking for a better, or alternative approach to what happens when the speed limitation is reached in any model plane.

[Crumpp]

I posted brief examples of that not being the case, but also agreed that it was not prefered or endorsed officially. To which you replied:

What part of be careful with pilot anecdotes was confusing?

Geez, you are all over the map. You said:

NO,  I have never changed.

 

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.

Is a true statement and dictated by the laws of physics.

 

Tactical suggestions like this by the manufacturer or the USAAF by no means are a documentionation of its actual use in the field or in combat.

Which is why the manufacturers make these recommendations.

That is a completely different matter than "the manufacturer's recommended speeds" which you now want to bring back into the discussion. To the contrary, I quoted Tilly in regards to fights with speeds near 90 MPH, which according to you is "stupid, and totally unrealistic"

Please point out where I have said hard dogfights never got low and slow?  I said pilots did not keep their flaps down for very long in a dogfight.  Big difference.   They drop them for short periods to gain angle on a gun solution.

"There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded." I would like to see a realistic "danger of structural failure" as an alternative to mandatory auto-retract.

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!
 

I also specifically said many times I do not want to see the speeds at which you can deploy flaps changed. I am only looking for a better, or alternative approach to what happens when the speed limitation is reached in any model plane.

How about the flaps go away since the pilot is violating the limits?  Wait we have that system now.

Crumpp

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Please point out where I have said hard dogfights never got low and slow?  I said pilots did not keep their flaps down for very long in a dogfight.  Big difference.   They drop them for short periods to gain angle on a gun solution.

dogfight+low+slow in regards to a 17,000lbs+ fighter means flap usage.  I doubt you see that since you seem to think that operations in heavier US fighters should be limited by how 5,000-8,000lb fighters operate.

Hey that is the same thing as having your plane do something it could not!

No they already do somthing they could not as Hilts pointed out:

Here are the facts, live with them:

The P-38 did not have autoretracting flaps.

P-38 pilots did use them heavily in some cases and situations.

Some P-38 pilots were perfectly willing to use flaps and get slow when they felt they could get the kill. It's the aggressive pilots who got the kills.

The flaps on the P-38 will NOT instantly break off, jam, or be otherwise destroyed at 251MPH.

[Cobra412]

Crumpp I hate to say this but you keep repeating "could not do" when your referring to flaps down above 250.  Exactly where in that manual does it say you "could not do" opposed to you "should not" put them down above 250 because "there is a danger" of structural damage?

You contradict yourself by saying the manufacturers make "recommendations".  A recommendation is not the same as "could not" as you keep stating over and over.  It's a recommendation and that is all.

The reference material your posting to prove a point actually contradicts what you keep trying to say.  Again it's "should not" and not "could not".  If your going to post a manual that you see as credible to all of the data contained in it then maybe you should read it thoroughly.  Your arguement is busted (as they'd say on Mythbusters) based purely on the manual you have posted stating its a credible source for information on the P-38.

[Crumpp]

based purely on the manual you have posted stating its a credible source for information on the P-38.

Your claim is the manual is not credible?

dogfight+low+slow in regards to a 17,000lbs+ fighter means flap usage

Of course it does.  For just about any hard dogfight flaps are used.  Flaps are not used continously however as would be the case in AH.  

Exactly where in that manual does it say you "could not do" opposed to you "should not" put them down above 250 because "there is a danger" of structural damage?

Exactly, for AH where is the "should not" limit?  It cannot be set and realistically model the fights.
which is exactly what Hitech is saying!

Hitech says:

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.

BTW Hitech S-P-E-L-L-C-H-E-C-K...

Crumpp

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your claim is the manual is not credible?
 

No, his claim is you are citing it as a credible source and then claiming fact that it does not state (ie. "should not" as "could not"

[Crumpp]

No, his claim is you are citing it as a credible source and then claiming fact that it does not state (ie. "should not" as "could not"

Let me clarify.

You SHOULD NOT lower your flaps until you are 250mph or below.

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

Not unless you have the luck of the Irish.

Crumpp