P38

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Just FYI, for the less informed here. There is no published structural limit for the DIVE FLAPS, at least that I can find. The DIVE FLAPS are good to go until the whole plane comes apart. The placard is for the plane, not the flaps.


In fact, there are only loose SUGGESTIONS for the MANEUVERING FLAPS. It says speeds over 250MPH MAY damage the flaps if they are deployed. It says use of the MANEUVERING FLAPS in excess will result in the danger of being slow. Doesn't say it will damage the plane. The SUGGESTIONS are TACTICAL, and not STRUCTURAL.


How this got from MANEUVERING FLAPS to DIVE FLAPS I'll never know. But given the participants in the thread I'm not at all surprised. How they got here is obvious.

AH II ain't IL2, and it ain't Warbirds either. Just because things happen there doesn't mean they'll happen here.

There's no tactical advantage to deploying flaps above 250MPH. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the plane knows that.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Karnak
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.  

Bad analogy with the Lancasters as the only reason they are allowed to that is there isn't an a system in place to prevent the release of bombs past a certain angle.  If there was a system in place that prevented bombs from being released if a plane was a certain angle, then  you'd no longer see diving bombing buffs.  Must like the system eagl had suggest awhile ago but that's not relevant to this topic.

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.


ack-ack

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp
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:

 

Crumpp

No, its the kind of nonsense where you point at a source and claim it says what you want it to say when it does not.  As to the rest hilts already covered.

[Cobra412]

This discussion seems oddly familiar.  Airframes are constantly stressed over there "factory" set limits.  They were over stressed in WWII and they are over stressed in todays modern fighters.  We've already discussed the links that some have tried to post to fit their pro auto flaps stance.  

Fact is that factory set limit is not a critical breaking point.  It's a point in which the risk of damage to the system has increased to a point in which the manufacturer deems it necessary to post a placard to warn aircrews that damage to the system is probable beyond that point.

Todays airframes have builtin fail safes so that pilots can't over stress some systems.  There are 2 systems on the F-15 that have these fail safes, 1 is the flaps and the other is the speed brake.  Flaps use a device that monitors airspeed and opens the circuit to take away the voltage from the actuators.  The speed brake uses a blow back valve that once enough pressure builds on the surface of the speed brake the valve opens to relieve the pressure and the speed brake is forced down by the airflow.

Not many WWII aircraft were using these types of fail safe devices.  I'm sure that there were many instances of items being over stressed and damaged because aircrews went beyond "factory limits".  Look how many airframes from WWII were taken beyond these limits in dives and some airframes stood up to it and some didn't.  Key here is the failures were random to say the least above even the critical limits set by manufacturers.  This means you are taking a chance once you are above these to damage your airframe which is in fact realistic.  It's not about gaming the game.  People can do that already and they do it on a daily basis.  If realism is what you want then random critical limit failures is the way to go.  If gaming the game is what your worried about then I'm sure many folks can come up with a list of items that need to be fixed.

Military equipment has always been driven beyond its factory limits and always will be.  It's not always about pressing those limits just for a kill it's also about pressing those limits to survive.  Something that is as old as war itself.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Cobra412
This discussion seems oddly familiar.  Airframes are constantly stressed over there "factory" set limits.  They were over stressed in WWII and they are over stressed in todays modern fighters.  We've already discussed the links that some have tried to post to fit their pro auto flaps stance.  

Fact is that factory set limit is not a critical breaking point.  It's a point in which the risk of damage to the system has increased to a point in which the manufacturer deems it necessary to post a placard to warn aircrews that damage to the system is probable beyond that point.

Todays airframes have builtin fail safes so that pilots can't over stress some systems.  There are 2 systems on the F-15 that have these fail safes, 1 is the flaps and the other is the speed brake.  Flaps use a device that monitors airspeed and opens the circuit to take away the voltage from the actuators.  The speed brake uses a blow back valve that once enough pressure builds on the surface of the speed brake the valve opens to relieve the pressure and the speed brake is forced down by the airflow.

Not many WWII aircraft were using these types of fail safe devices.  I'm sure that there were many instances of items being over stressed and damaged because aircrews went beyond "factory limits".  Look how many airframes from WWII were taken beyond these limits in dives and some airframes stood up to it and some didn't.  Key here is the failures were random to say the least above even the critical limits set by manufacturers.  This means you are taking a chance once you are above these to damage your airframe which is in fact realistic.  It's not about gaming the game.  People can do that already and they do it on a daily basis.  If realism is what you want then random critical limit failures is the way to go.  If gaming the game is what your worried about then I'm sure many folks can come up with a list of items that need to be fixed.

Military equipment has always been driven beyond its factory limits and always will be.  It's not always about pressing those limits just for a kill it's also about pressing those limits to survive.  Something that is as old as war itself.

Dammit man, common sense ain't allowed here. The "experts" are "educating" the P-38 people.

[Widewing]

There's one note in the P-38 pilot's manual seems to have been overlooked. Speed limitations for flaps are listed on page 21, section 1, paragraph b, Airspeed limitations, as:

Full flaps: 150 mph IAS
50% flaps: 250 mph IAS

Is the 8 degree "Maneuver" setting less than 50%?

My regards,

Widewing

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Widewing

Is the 8 degree "Maneuver" setting less than 50%?

The Maneuvering flap position is 50% entention.

[Crumpp]

No, its the kind of nonsense where you point at a source and claim it says what you want it to say when it does not. As to the rest hilts already covered.

The Dive Flap limits are clearly set and were posted in reply to a point brought up about the Corsairs Dive Brakes.

I did not know the P38 was the first airplane on the moon.

Crumpp

[Kweassa]

Again, we've reached another full circle, and have to start all over again.

 Karnak hit the nail on the head. Kudos for explaining things in such a simple and direct-to-the-point matter(it is a quality I seriously lack). We're talking about technical feasibility vs. situational realism. Sometimes, increasing technical realism coincides with situational realism, other times it does not.

 Karnak's example on the Lancaster is right on the spot - many people have been complaining to HT about divebombing buffs. HT commented that he wished not to take away the possibility of shallow angle bombing in four-engined buffs.

 So, in a Lancaster with horizontally set bomb bays, would it be possible to divebomb? Technically, no reason why not. Except, such things hardly, if ever, happened in real life. As opposed to 'real life', what do we have in the game? 3~4k buffs in a suicidal non-markered dive bomb run, time and time again.

Bad analogy with the Lancasters as the only reason they are allowed to that is there isn't an a system in place to prevent the release of bombs past a certain angle. If there was a system in place that prevented bombs from being released if a plane was a certain angle, then you'd no longer see diving bombing buffs. Must like the system eagl had suggest awhile ago but that's not relevant to this topic.

 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?

 This, is where it exactly connects with the autoretract issue.

Not at all since I ran the risk of having my flaps become damaged from over-speeding/stress and I'd retract them before it got to that point. Sometimes I wasn't paying attention and allowed them to get jammed a few times and it cost me big time. Lesson learned and probably had my flaps jam less than a half a dozen times in AW and never had them jam in WB.

 So what's keeping you from doing the same thing in here? Retract your flaps and ease out on the angle, if you think an autoretract might happen that might stall you.

 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?

[Kweassa]

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.

 Doesn't makes sense Murdr.

 If your intentions are purely in having full control authority of the flaps, the alternative HT mentioned should still be enough for you. If the set limit is crossed, the flaps will break off.

 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?

 You, are wishing the limit to be raised, to assist your needs in combat, instead of accepting the fact that the flaps will cease to function over its recommended limits AH2. Why is it modelled that way? It's all been discussed above - to prevent AH from turning into a flapfest.

 Oh, and btw, the very example you used in the above paragraph I quoted from you - that's exactly what's happening in IL2/FB. People overrev planes with direct manual prop-pitch control in Il2/FB.

 Will the engine fry because it went over its sanctioned boost pressures and RPMs? Probably not. But will the pilots ever do something like that? No.

 But alas, in Il2/FB, in the virtual skies, people overrev their engines everyday. All the Bf109s and Fw190s are flying something like 15~30km/h faster than its listed speeds. Because, the engine will not fry the moment you put it over its normal sanctioned settings. People exploit this control to their advantage in combat.

 Compare to what HT did to the 190s and 109s in AH. It uses a generic constant-speed prop system to control RPM. In AH, its impossible to overrev the engine above its normal combat setting. The 109s and 190s in AH, fly at their real listed speeds in AH, thanks to the fact that HT did not give us realistic controls.

[MANDO]

A general question about flaps.

Which is that "force" that prevents the deploiment of flaps (even minimum angle) at speeds where you can move the ailerons/elevators/rudder freely up to their maximum angle up and down? Were flaps and flap attachments so weak compared to ailerons, elevators or rudder?

[Kweassa]

In fact, there are only loose SUGGESTIONS for the MANEUVERING FLAPS. It says speeds over 250MPH MAY damage the flaps if they are deployed. It says use of the MANEUVERING FLAPS in excess will result in the danger of being slow. Doesn't say it will damage the plane. The SUGGESTIONS are TACTICAL, and not STRUCTURAL.

 So let's imagine this scenario:

 A real flesh and blood P-38 pilotwith only one life given to him by God, finds himself combating a nimble Zero. The Zero enters a Split-S to evade fire. The pilot checks his airspeed, which indicates about 200mph IAS.

 Following the Zero's every move is clearly not the only option given to him, but the pilot does not wish to give up the chase. However, he remembers what the flight manual has suggested to him: speeds over 250MPH MAY damage the flaps

 Will this pilot:

a) seeing that the speed is already near 200mph IAS, grudgingly decides not to keep the flaps down and chase the Zero..  because, the speed-gaining maneuver of Split-S might accelerate the plane over the speeds suggested in the manual.. and it might damage the flaps... He will gives up the chase, and prepare for another attack pass by repositioning himself.

 or

b) think to himself, "Well.. the flap probably won't really get damaged just because I go over 250mph.. I think I'll play a little gamble with my life and risk unnecessary damage.. and follow the Zero.. even if that's not my only option in this engagement".. and go merrily chase the Zero with his flaps popped out.


 Oh I'm sure some real life pilots might choose b)... but I'm kinda thinking that the guys who choose b), are usually the guys who get killed. What do you think?

AH II ain't IL2, and it ain't Warbirds either. Just because things happen there doesn't mean they'll happen here.

 Do you really believe in what you wrote above? Because, that's probably the funniest comment I've ever heard from you. Are AH P-38 pilots Saints or something?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Crumpp
The Dive Flap limits are clearly set and were posted in reply to a point brought up about the Corsairs Dive Brakes.

I did not know the P38 was the first airplane on the moon.

Crumpp

In regards to the first remark, show me. No test pilot or combat pilot, to my knowledge, ever reported the dive flaps failing, and I've never seen a structural limit for the dive flaps. Levier topped 550MPH with them out. He also hit .75 Mach. The placard is for the plane itself, and not the flaps.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by MANDO
A general question about flaps.

Which is that "force" that prevents the deploiment of flaps (even minimum angle) at speeds where you can move the ailerons/elevators/rudder freely up to their maximum angle up and down? Were flaps and flap attachments so weak compared to ailerons, elevators or rudder?

The elevators, rudders, and ailerons were operated by controls with a significant mechanical advantage, and later the ailerons had hydraulic boosted assist as well. The dive flaps were electricly operated, and would deploy at VERY high speeds.

The maneuvering flaps were not operated by controls with a great deal of mechanical advantage. Besides, no pilot in his right mind would actually try to deply the flaps at speeds over 250MPH, they'd only slow you down.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Kweassa
So let's imagine this scenario:

 A real flesh and blood P-38 pilotwith only one life given to him by God, finds himself combating a nimble Zero. The Zero enters a Split-S to evade fire. The pilot checks his airspeed, which indicates about 200mph IAS.

 Following the Zero's every move is clearly not the only option given to him, but the pilot does not wish to give up the chase. However, he remembers what the flight manual has suggested to him: speeds over 250MPH MAY damage the flaps

 Will this pilot:

a) seeing that the speed is already near 200mph IAS, grudgingly decides not to keep the flaps down and chase the Zero..  because, the speed-gaining maneuver of Split-S might accelerate the plane over the speeds suggested in the manual.. and it might damage the flaps... He will gives up the chase, and prepare for another attack pass by repositioning himself.

 or

b) think to himself, "Well.. the flap probably won't really get damaged just because I go over 250mph.. I think I'll play a little gamble with my life and risk unnecessary damage.. and follow the Zero.. even if that's not my only option in this engagement".. and go merrily chase the Zero with his flaps popped out.


 Oh I'm sure some real life pilots might choose b)... but I'm kinda thinking that the guys who choose b), are usually the guys who get killed. What do you think?






 Do you really believe in what you wrote above? Because, that's probably the funniest comment I've ever heard from you. Are AH P-38 pilots Saints or something?

The answer to your first scenario depends entirely on how good the pilot is, how good he thinks he is, and how agressive he is. A lot (at least more than a few) of pilots DID pursue in those situations, some succeeded, some died, and some barely escaped with their lives. But all had the choice, that is REALITY, whether YOU like it or not. He might even pull the split S, and when his speed dropped from the G's he pulled, drop MORE flaps to keep his speed down and his turn tight, knowing he can pull them up and dive away at full throttle, should the need arise.


As far as my statement, no, P-38 pilots are not saints. But good P-38 pilots are not fools. They are not going to drop the flaps at high speeds because there's no advantage to it. The idiots in P-38's you'll kill anyway, especially when they do stupid things with their flaps.


Your problem is that you already hate the fact that the P-38 (and the P-47 for that matter) already have Fowler flaps that deploy at higher speeds, and make them more stable at lower speeds with more flap, and Axis planes, which were designed with a different philisophy, do not. Those flaps make those planes more stable. Axis planes were designed to be lighter and more nimble, but along with the advantage of being more nimble comes the disadvantage of being less stable. So, in reality, when the Allied pilot had a choice about his flaps, even if the wrong choice would get him killed, in the game you want his choice taken away, because you don't have the same choice in your plane of choice. But you want to call THAT reality. You've been bawling and whining about U.S. planes being more stable and Axis planes being less stable since the first time I saw you post. This perpetual whine about keeping autoretract is simply an extension thereof.

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.