P38

[Wotan]

I think Wotan pretty much revealed the true reason why most are against the removal of the auto-flaps. You guys want your hands held and don't want to have to worry about managing your flaps and gladly will let the system basically do it for you instead of letting you face the risks.

Nonsense, you AW flap flappers are the only whining about the auto retract flaps.

At least OIO was honest enough to admit his real intentions:

If the retract point was between 50 and 80mph higher for all flap retract points the problem with the 38 retract=spin would be solved at any altitude imo.

[/b]

That is exactly what these whines are about, just as Grunherz said. This is what folks are against. Most folks don't fly AH with a finger on the flap button. The real good P38 guys going back to the early days of AH never whined about flaps. Its mostly you AW types. You guys must of flown a lot RR over there or something.

What difference does it make if the flaps jam, break or retract? The same limit that you whine about in regards to auto retract would be the same limit you whine about when your flaps break or jam.

You AW 38 fan tards only want a higher limit. HT replied to the whines yet you all can't take a hint.

As for you 'hard core' and 'hand held' BS a button click here and there don't make you skilled.

Those that post well 'John American Hero P38 pilot said  we used flaps up to 60000kmh' won't get any consideration in determining how things are modeled nor should they. I can post 109 pilots claiming they could easily out turn spitfires, we all no that isn't true.

There can be no randomization because its to objective and opens the door for greater amounts of whining across the spectrum of aircraft fan bois.

You can manage your own speed and you can hit a button just like every one else. Talk about wanting your hand held...

Quit your whining and adapt.

[MANDO]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The dive flaps were electricly operated, and would deploy at VERY high speeds.

Fw190 flaps were also etectrically operated with tree small push buttons (up, down 1,  down 2) near the throttle handle.

Is that speed is limiting flap advantages instead of flap integrity?

[Murdr]

Originally posted by MANDO
Fw190 flaps were also etectrically operated with tree small push buttons (up, down 1,  down 2) near the throttle handle.

Is that speed is limiting flap advantages instead of flap integrity?

No.  In AH, flap deployment is locked out if you are above the maximum deployment speed.  In real life some planes did have such a mechanical safty feature, some did not.  Its the strucural integrity flap that is the limiting factor, higher speed transfers more stress on the hinge points and linkages of the flap.

The dive flaps hilts mentioned are a different animal, and are not on the trailing edge of the wing.

Were flaps and flap attachments so weak compared to ailerons, elevators or rudder?

Not that they are so weak, but that they are subjected to more force and they are designed to stay in fixed positions.  Being fixed in an angle that resists the airflow puts 100% the stress on the attachments.  Not so with the other control surfaces where stresses distrubute throughout the entire control system, and where they are not subjected directly to the air pressure that lifts your plane in the air.

[Crumpp]

No. In AH, flap deployment is locked out if you are above the maximum deployment speed.

I RL the FW-190A could deploy take off flaps up to 500Kph according to the Flugzeug-Handbuch.  

In fact the in the USAAF trials of EB-104 (FW-190A5/U8),  The US Pilots classified them as "manuver flaps" and listed the stall speed under G's.  According to their manufacturing tolerences, the flaps were plenty strong enough.


Crumpp

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Kweassa




 Why is it bad analogy? It's technically possible.

 It's not relevant to this topic? It is THE example that is relevant to this very topic Ack.

 If HT puts in a system in place to prevent the release of bombs past a certain angle, that means implementing an unrealistic device which limits the accessibility, which wasn't there in real life. The only thing that prevented real life Lanc crew from doing such a thing was the burden of real life itself.

 Lancs in the MA, are doing something that's technically possible, but situationally impossible. So which should be considered more important? The freedom to control their planes upto the point that freedom distorts reality? Or to put in an 'unrealistic' artificial limitation for the sake of reality?

Actually, while technically possible it was pretty much over ruled by physics.  The Lancaster was a level bomber that had a bomb bay.  If the Lancaster was at too steep if a dive angle and tried to release the bombs from the bomb bay, most likely it would end up with the bomb in its own lap.  So a mechanical system to prevent it was not needed since physics already did the job.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Kweassa


 Besides, what was the speed at the 'point' that the flaps were damaged in AW? You have any proof that AW was not using an arbitrarily set speed point?

They weren't and for the proof, I asked one of the developers of the game, Quarters recently on another message board.  AW pretty much used a system like Murdr had outlined.  I don't know what system HiTech used in WB, he never answered when I asked in another thread.


ack-ack

[Karnak]

Ack-Ack,

A Lanc would have to be in an insanely steep dive for the bombs to hit the front of the bomb bay.  It's bomb bay was wide and long, not shorth and deep like a B-17's.  I'd say that anything under a 60°, maybe under a 75°, dive would work, assuming the structure held together.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Doesn't makes sense Murdr.

 However, you insist on having the flaps still function normally over its set limit, because you think it is a technical feasibility. And at the same time you're saying I don't want the limits raised.

 The limit is set at 250mph IAS. What will happen if the plane crosses over to 251mph? Will the flaps be damaged? In all fairness, who the hell knows?

 But you don't want its effects disappearing due to autoretract when the plane is,let's say, at 251mph. You want the flaps to hold.

 How is this not wishing the limit raised?

No that is not what I said.  I said Id prefer them to possiblly break with an increasing chance to point of certanty when the limit is breached.  Where does that possiblility begin?  At the stated limit.  The limit doesnt change.  I wouldnt want the stated limits to change.  Only the model of what happens when that limit is reached.

As I stated before I am often countering the actions of the auto-retract inside of a second by re-deploying flaps.  That in and of itself is not a problem.  However, the fact that I knew I was near auto-retract and had to lessen elevator input to avoid a possible auto-retract spin.  That is a problem.  Why?  Because without the easing of elevator input, and the associated loss of turn rate and drag I likely would not have hit that limit in the first place.  The flaps should never have been retracted.  I know that, auto-retract does not.  

You may say good, it is working perfectly by keeping me in the envelope.  I say no.  It is an artifical disadvantage the plane did not have that prevents me from even considering attempting to run the ragged edge, and in principal imposes an artifically low limit.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Wotan
Nonsense, you AW flap flappers are the only whining about the auto retract flaps.

At least OIO was honest enough to admit his real intentions:

/quote]

Ahh...another reply from the clueless.  This discussion has nothing to do with 'flap flapping' as you so call it.  All that we ask is that the auto-retract feature be replaced with a system that models the effect of over speeding/stress.  You said yourself that you want to keep the auto-retracting flaps because you don't want your flaps damaged like they become in IL2 because you forget to raise them.  That sounds like to me you want to your hand held and coddled.  So I ask again, is this why you're so afraid of getting rid of the auto-retracting flaps?  


ack-ack

[Urchin]

No, he doesn't want a different system modelled because if there is a 10% chance that the flaps will function normally when the speed is 90% over the rated "limit", then for all intents and purpose, the rated limit has been adjusted upwards 90%.  

Basically all anyone who is against this is saying is it keeps the planes flying in a realistic manner.

[Fruda]

I for one think we should do away with auto-retractic flaps. It just doesn't make sense (well, it does, but not for the sake of this discussion).

In reality, there are limits. Sometimes, said limits can be pushed with a degree of success. Other times, you will not succeed. What I'm talking about is breaking the "factory-set limits" of your aircraft. If you're daring enough to go over these limits, you might come out without a scratch. The fact remains: You'll probably come out of your daring escapades with some damage.

Automatic Retracting Flaps should be taken out, period. If you're daring (or just plain stupid) enough to kill your flaps, then you should be able to do just that. There's no real reason for ARF other than the "hand holding" excuse.

[Urchin]

It is done to keep the planes flying in a realistic manner, that is all.  

If there were no limits to flap speed (or if there were limits, but they didn't actually mean anything), people would use the flaps in an unrealistic manner to gain advantage.  That should be fairly obvious if you've played any multiplayer game for any significant length of time (say, more than about 15 minutes).

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack

Ahh...another reply from the clueless.  This discussion has nothing to do with 'flap flapping' as you so call it.  All that we ask is that the auto-retract feature be replaced with a system that models the effect of over speeding/stress.  You said yourself that you want to keep the auto-retracting flaps because you don't want your flaps damaged like they become in IL2 because you forget to raise them.  That sounds like to me you want to your hand held and coddled.  So I ask again, is this why you're so afraid of getting rid of the auto-retracting flaps?  

ack-ack

I aint afraid of anything. I don't make the decision for how things are modeled. HT does and he told what he thought about making a change based on your whining.

Its only you AW types who whine about this issue.

As I said at least OIO came clean and admitted what he wanted.

If the retract point was between 50 and 80mph higher for all flap retract points the problem with the 38 retract=spin would be solved at any altitude imo.

He doesn't care about auto retract or jams or breaks. He just wants the limit set higher to suit his type of flying. Thats all you or the other P-38 Fan bois want. That quote above is exactly what this thread is about, after all it was OIO who started this thread to begin with.

The limits are there just as they were in RL. Any speculation or guesses you make about random failures or pilot anecdotes don't mean anything.

Learn to adapt and manage your speed better.

Its only a button click...

You said yourself that you want to keep the auto-retracting flaps because you don't want your flaps damaged like they become in IL2

I don't care what HT keeps. This issue is completely irrelevant in regards to how or what I fly. I never used flaps in AH. IL2 is different game, my point IL2 was to counter Karnaks point about the IL2 flapfest.

As soon as your flaps start breakng or jamming you and the P-38 fan bois will be back whining about that. So it makes no difference what happens to your flaps if they are extended beyond the limits, its the limit (as OIO abmits) that you all are whining about.

[OIO]

urchin im all for ANY sort of change to the current system. I propose raising the flap retraction point because its the damn easiest thing for HTC to do (at least i think.. raising an already set retract level has to be easier than programming a whole new damage model thingy).


"One more thing. The REAL complaint here is not the flaps autoretracting from one or two notches at 250MPH. The REAL complaint is the 3rd, 4th, and 5th notch retracting at lower speeds in high G maneuvers as speed momentarily rises 5MPH for an instant. The mere fact that you are arguing about one notch at 250MPH plus shows you don't know what you are actually arguing about."

EXACTLY virgil.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Wotan

As soon as your flaps start breakng or jamming you and the P-38 fan bois will be back whining about that. So it makes no difference what happens to your flaps if they are extended beyond the limits, its the limit (as OIO abmits) that you all are whining about.

Yep, as expected thats the kind of BS blanket statment I expected to see.  That was the only reason I initially piped in on this thread.  You can find threads from last year where hilts, akak, and I disagreed with OIO's point of view on this, but easier yet it is here in this thread.