P38

[Crumpp]

The only people I see doing that fly F4Us, and those actually used the gear as a form of airbraking. Occasionally I'll see someone hilariously try to drop the gear to bleed even more speed while slow, but I have never seen a situation where this helped rather than hurt them.

AFAIK lowering the gear on the Corsar was the airbrake/divebrake.

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

It's always interesting to see how these threads drift towards  "My AH plane is modeled incorrectly and the performance isn't as good as it should be, while your AH plane is overmodelled and should fly worse then it does"

Dan/Slack
Who can take the most overmodelled plane in AH and still die everytime

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
This is not about trying to make the P-38 even more potent than it already is.  All we would like to see is a realistic approach to how the damage is applied to flaps from over-speeding/stress.  How can this equate making the P-38 better than it already is?  All it is doing is adding a realistic feature to the game and replacing a non-realistic approach that exists now.  Why is that so hard for you guys to grasp?

ack-ack

From one perspective, yes.  From another, no.

From the perspective of the technical strength of the flaps on many/most/all? aircraft what you are asking for is more realistic.

From a combat perspective however, it is a great deal less realistic.  As Wotan's post indicates, if you loosen the restrictions people will abuse it.  You yourself may not, but can you honestly claim that somebody who thinks dive bombing in Lancasters is fine and dandy will not?  Of course you can't say that.  There are just way too many players who will gladly risk breaking, or even assuredly break, their flaps if it gets them the kill no matter what it will do to their survival in the future.  Thus you have a whole bunch of people who are using their flaps in ways not intended and at massively greater rates than in WWII.  That is where I get my "Flapfest" snide comments from.  Going back to Wotan and Il-2, there is no reason he should be having anything like a common problem witrh jammed flaps in an Fw190, yet he does.  Why?  Because flaps are being used in combat way, way more often than they should be.  In Il-2 it now seems that flaps jam, as you have requested in the past, and people abuse that by continuing to use them in combat.


Bottom line, you are more interested in technical realism, I am more interested in realistic ACM (even though I am bad at it).  At least that is how it comes across.


Now, why do people like Kweassa and I single out the P-38 fans and accuse them of wanting to get a tweak for the P-38?  Because it is only the P-38 fans that are making this request and they constantly harp about how much of a detriment it is to the P-38.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by hitech
Murdr: So your saying snapping the flaps off at the bottom of the loop does not take the control out of the pilots hands?

Im sure it does take control away.  

Or do you just wish the limit's raised so you can use flaps at higher speeds at the bottom of the loop?


HiTech

Its a common experience for me to have the flap.wav playing double  because I was at the bottom when the auto-retract took over, and Ive already started the next loop and re-deployed them.   Add a 1-2 second delay between auto-retract/deploy and its even more common.

I dont wish the limit raised.  I wish to see a result of breeching the limit that is consistant with any other mechanical/load bearing structure.  A 6000RPM rated engine could concevelably fail at 6001RPM for a 1 second duration, but its not very likely. In the same token you dont constantly run it at 6200RMP or  rev it to 7000RMP and expect to get much lifespan out of it.  I wish there was a model to that effect on flaps.  I know whether I am 1deg or 45deg from transitioning ROD to ROC, and it would be nice to make a judment call based on that knowlege.  Hence the 'control' factor.

However your 'retract them' or 'break them' policy is clear, so its more of an academic discussion than anything.

[OIO]

Originally posted by hitech
Murdr: So your saying snapping the flaps off at the bottom of the loop does not take the control out of the pilots hands?

Or do you just wish the limit's raised so you can use flaps at higher speeds at the bottom of the loop?


HiTech

HT, if you take a P-38,  fly it level... bank the plane about 45 degrees with horizon and just pull the stick up and keep it on a constant high-g turn... dropping flaps as the speed decreases you will notice that on the portion of the turn that goes below the horizon the speed indicator will hit the retract speed for a mere moment before the constant turning noses the plane up from being below horizon to being at horizon or above it.

When that marker is hit the flaps retract..and since you are pulling hard up on the stick (trying to get a lead shot on the con) in the very moment the flaps retract, the P-38 will spin out of control... and in almost every case whoever you were about to shoot down turns into you as you spin and shoots the p38 up.

In this case, in a combat situation like that, if my flaps had just snapped out i wouldnt spin out of control, id just lose my turning ability... i will definetely lose the fight if i try to keep turning but i at least would have the chance to nose down and RUN away. Currently the spin-out is guaranteed death.

I posted what I could think of would work. Some (or most) dont like it, thats fine by me. I just want that problem with the 38 gone ...my way or anyone else's way as long as it works.

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.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kweassa

 Try to understand that the "NEED" bucket does not have any connections with the "HAVE" bucket.

If you want to talk containers, try to understand I have dozens of buckets in my shop that say 5 US GALs, but you know there's actually room for another 20oz in its capacity.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Karnak
Bah.

Edit again.


What is it that the P-38 drivers want that is not rooted in an intention to make their pet fighter even more potent?

I see the rabid P-38 fans in the same exact light as the rabid Luftwaffe fans such as Barbi and RAM.  They ignore, or discount the historical records and accounts and put on a large persecution act in order to look like martyrs.

1) The P-38 is not the only fighter to get bit bad by the flaps autoretracting instead of holding out above their rated speed.

2) The historical record of combat performance by the varied WWII fighters does not match up well with the available performance data.

3) The desire to have an airframe capability modeled so as to use it in an unrealistic manner mystifies me.

Understand that recommended deployment speed and actual speed required to damage the P-38's flaps are not the same. According to P-38 pilots (Heiden, Richardson and Ilfrey), damage only became a risk as you approached 300 mph TAS. Moreover, P-38 flaps would not retract (a physical impossibility), but would bend, jam and often pop out of their tracks. Crew Chiefs did not like their pilots tearing up the aircraft, so abuse of this sort was relatively rare. Unlike, that is, abuse of engines in combat.

I do think that this would not be easy to model, nor necessary. I have very few issues with auto-retract because I pay close attention to my airspeed, pulling off power as required. Moreover, when it does occur, I have no difficulty maintaining control. As those who have flown with or against me will testify, I fly the Lightning on the ragged edge quite often, or at least when it is prudent to do so.

I agree with Grunherz, the P-38G is remarkably agile, more than capable of giving the various turn fighters a very, very hard time.

My regards,

Widewing

[Karnak]

OIO,

The solution is simple.  Don't do that.

Kick in some rudder to keep your nose higher so that you don't overspeed.


The other night I was flying the Ki-84 and was in a slow turn fight with a Spitfire.  At some point I breached the 166mph limit and my flaps autoretracted and the Ki-84 mushed out forcing me to abandon the circle and climb away.

Was that AH2's fault for autoretracting the flaps?  The Ki-84s fault for not handling the retraction well or my fault for overspeeding?

In my opinion it was my fault for not paying enough attention to my airspeed.

[MANDO]

Originally posted by Crumpp
AFAIK lowering the gear on the Corsar was the airbrake/divebrake.
Crumpp

And do the Corsair landing gear autoretract when exceeding some speed?

[Crumpp]

And do the Corsair landing gear autoretract when exceeding some speed?

So the P38's dive brakes automatically retract, the aircraft compress, and the pilot die when they are supposed too?



Crumpp

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Karnak
There are just way too many players who will gladly risk breaking, or even assuredly break, their flaps if it gets them the kill no matter what it will do to their survival in the future.  Thus you have a whole bunch of people who are using their flaps in ways not intended and at massively greater rates than in WWII.  That is where I get my "Flapfest" snide comments from.    

This comment reminded me of something that goes to the acusations of anti-autoflap equating to "overmodel my plane".  Specifically in the P38, but also in other models, the flap notch speed limits are very close to the pilots G tolerence limit.  It does me no good whatsoever to turn circles overspeeding my flaps when Im blacking out.  

That is why I cant remember when I last had a spin induced by the auto-retract.  It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.  I know by G load when Im close to the limit, and ease off the stick for the auto-retract (or retract them myself)  Hence easing off the stick, I create less drag and accelerate to a faster speed than I otherwise would have and the flaps auto-retract.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp
So the P38's dive brakes automatically retract, the aircraft compress, and the pilot die when they are supposed too?



Crumpp

It doesnt say dive flaps are in structual in jeprodry at 15-20mph of placard.  And I didnt see the spec where the pilot dies for that matter.

[MANDO]

Originally posted by Crumpp
So the P38's dive brakes automatically retract, the aircraft compress, and the pilot die when they are supposed too?

Or even better, the flaps break, the aircraft compress and the pilot also dies.

[Bodhi]

I say remove the auto flap feature, but, add a random feature that says when you over stress your flaps and they break, you get a random chance that they:

a: rip off on one side, and not the other...

b: (as in 38 and others) one side pops out of track and the other stays in.

c: one side jams in a different setting then the other.  (most likely)

d: the flap actuating mechanisms rip away and you end up with in operable hinged surfaces hanging down beating the poo out of the trailing edge structure. (very bad)

e:  the flap damage causes an over stress to the rear spar and makes the aircraft less capable of Hi G's that you are already in helping to induce failure.

[Crumpp]

It doesnt say dive flaps are in structual in jeprodry at 15-20mph of placard. And I didnt see the spec where the pilot dies for that matter.

They just arbitrarily set the limits......

If you surpass the placard limits the Pilot gets a free pizza.

This is kind of nonsense Karnak is talking about here:

They ignore, or discount the historical records and accounts and put on a large persecution act in order to look like martyrs.

Crumpp