Flaps, flaps, & flaps.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
They are asking to raise the limits.  I'm not the only one who sees it.

All the best,

Crumpp

Can you point me to a specific quote from anyone there that says raise the limits?

I just re-read the thread looking for it, and can't find it.

I think you know from other discussions that I just don't get that worked up about this kinda stuff.  All I'm looking for is to keep learning and to enjoy the exchange.

But I REALLY don't see anywhere that anyone asked for a different and higher number in the 250 mph flap extention limit.

Saying it shouldn't automatically break at 251 isn't the same thing.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Murdr]

I dont know what the old threads were now but IOI asked for exactly that.  By the way akak, savage and I disavoweled his requests, and in one case I specifically replied to IOI that I was against that.  

Since you cant seem to see what he says is there, mabey you will read the immediately previous post by me with better appriciation.

[Crumpp]

I never said that statment was somehow incorrect.

Yes you did Murdr.

Mrdr says:
Sentence two is a mischaracterization. I can see now the sencence you will snip out of the magazine to support what you said, but if you read the two paragraphs as a whole it is obvious the test pilot is refering to the loss of maneuvering options with the loss of speed, and not that the 38 has problems turning at low speeds. The 479th site has a link to Hanger Flying on the front page.

Widewing understands what I am saying:

Widewing says:
Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.

He is probably the most knowledgable individual on this board regarding the P38.  AHT only shows 1600hp max for the P 38J, Widewing.

As for the power loading, the P38 has 5.1lbs/hp from USAAF documentation.  The FW-190A8 has 4.59lbs/hp and the Bf-109G14 had 4.04 lbs/hp from Luftwaffe documentation.  Using the USAAF listed weights and Widewings PO leaves the P38 at a much better 4.75 lbs/hp.  Take off weight is used for all aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Murdr
I dont know what the old threads were now but IOI asked for exactly that.  By the way akak, savage and I disavoweled his requests, and in one case I specifically replied to IOI that I was against that.  

Since you cant seem to see what he says is there, mabey you will read the immediately previous post by me with better appriciation.

The hard part about these discussions is it so often comes down to someone's motives being questioned.

In general my dealings with Crumpp have been positive ones on this board.  I know he's a 190 fanatic, he knows I'm a Spit fanatic and now knows the 38 is a very close second if not first  now.

If I have a 190 question I'll probably ask him first as I know he's put the time in.  I'd hope he'd ask me about Spits and trust that I was telling him the truth as best I know it.

I'm not sure why the 38 stuff has to be different, so I'm confused by that.  I know that you, AKAK, Savage, and a number of other guys around here are 38 nuts like me.  And I know you've done your homework, just like Crumpp has done his on the 190.

I'm not sure why he's questioning your motives on wanting the best for the AH 38, cause I don't have any doubt that we all want the best set up possible for our bird of choice in the game, just like Crumpp wants the 190 to be as close to what he's found out about it as possible.

I think it's safe to say we've established that real 38 pilots from the new ones to the vets used combat flaps in the 38.  I think it's also safe to say it was something used only in certain circumstances such as getting bounced or while in a turn fight trying to get deflection.

I know for a fact that none of the best AH 38 drivers are abusing flaps, or 'gaming the game' with them.  You guys just aren't doing it, and in general as one who tends to get low and slow where I kick out the flaps, I get chastised for it by the better 38 sticks as it generally gets me killed

So I still don't know what the argument is about.  Wanting a flap system in AH that doesn't auto retract and leaves open the possibility that some bonehead 38 driver like me might jam em or break em by going over 250 seems like a good idea.  I also note that Hitech has his reasons for not doing it.

So what's the problem?

Bout time I head into the arena and watch you guys show how it's done in the 38

Dan/CorkyJr

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Lockheed warned that flap usage would rob the A/C of speed. Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance.

Here it is again, and the 2nd sentence still does not appear in the source you were refering too.  

Mabey we can check if Dan sees what you see, because I still did not say that loss of speed does not have a detrimental effect on turn performance.  I said the source you cited did not specifically say that.

[dtango]

If Widewing is saying that for ALL cases where you have prolonged turning with flaps in a P-38 resulting in degraded turn performance than he would be incorrect too.  This is only true for a given dynamic energy state.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Kweassa]

Guppy, yes that does answer my question.. but it does fuel more confusion as well. As it is, the summary of facts you've come up with seems to support both sides of the issue in this particular thread to an equal extent.

 Perhaps, arguably, supports my view on this even more.. because despite the few examples you've kindly brought up, your answers given to my question seems to contradict your earlier view that flap practice was for the norm.

 What I mean by this is, I am guessing you've brought up those pilot quotes at the previous post, to make a point that flap usage was not just limited to a few ace pilots... but it seems that if it wasn't a recommended tactic, even for the P-38, but still the pilots tended to attempt certain tactical maneuvers and device usage...

  It indicates that it wasn't really about the plane itself, but about what kind of mentality towards general aircombat doctrine the P-38 pilots themselves held.. and upto a certain point, indicate somewhat 'reckless' behavior in part of the P-38 pilots. Another interesting tidbit that might be brought up in this discussion is the reports of one Harold Rau, which had been sent to his superiors in June of '44, which was posted on the boards some time ago.

 It seems to show that quite contrary to the general satisfaction the PTO pilots had with their P-38s, there's a strong resentment against the P-38 in the ETO. As much as there were strong advocates for the particular plane, there seems to be equally as many objections against the plane in the USAAF during that time - on grounds of being 'not fit for the average pilot'.

 Clearly, flap use for combat was not advocated nor recommended amongst the pilots of all the airforces, especially when the immediate attention was drawn upon how one may simplify the combat process so that the experience level required for someone to become an effective combat wasn't too high.

 The tendency, SOME P-38 pilots, and ace pilots as well, had regarding this issue, goes against the basics of evolution of aircombat. And while no doubt for some of them it proved to be a success, it still wasn't something the average pilot would be willing to do.

 In the end, while I'd accept that more than just aces were willing to take such action, it still doesn't seem to justify the claims that using flaps for aggressive combat purposes were a normal thing to happen, even amongst P-38s.

[Crumpp]

You're making the claim here (as well as other places). This whole statement is aerodynamically incorrect even for the P-38 because there are certain parts of the flight envelope that you can have your flaps deployed for as long as you want and benefit from them.

For some planes YES.  For many WWII fighters, no.  I have a graph somewhere on the FW-190's flaps.  I will see if I cannot find it.  They tightenend the turn for a portion of the envelope.  For a portion of it they actually increased the turn radius.  This was true for many WWII fighters.

Please show me where Lockheed says to leave the flaps down to receive this benefit for their aircraft?

Please point out in an AERONAUTICAL engineering text NOT a gaming site.  Facts are as you get slower, the less bank angle you can devote to decreasing your turn radius.

The P 38 had the highest CD of any fighter in the ETO.



The 109 is around .20 and the FW-190 .21.

Dropping flaps adds to this drag and increases the CLmax.



The Fowler flaps do offer an advantage of varying degrees from slight to in the case of the 109's slotted flaps substantial, the L/D is remarkably close.



Given the already high CD of the P 38 I fail to see much room for advantage.

Lockheed was dead on in their instructions to P 38 pilots.

"MANEUVERING FLAPS SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLETE PARTICULAR MANEUVER AND THEN BE RETRACED IMMEDIATELY"

For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately.

http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kweassa]

ps)

 as a ps, I'd like to point out that I SPECIFICALLY remember Ack mentioning that if the flaps would be just jammed stuck when they exceeded the limit speeds, "at least the flap effects would stay and the pilot would be able to stay through the course of his action, instead of stall out".

 In my view, that's another way of saying;

 "I don't care if they will become jammed stuck. If they don't autoretract, I'll at least be able to shoot the target down and rtb with stuck flaps.. instead of having to watch my speed and bugger out if I can't hold back my speed any longer"

 ..

 Sounds like 'raise the limits please, I don't really care if the real pilots were worried about their speed. I just want to use my flaps this way so I can benefit from its effects' to me.

[Crumpp]

Planes like the P-38 with a large excess power-available margin have a broader range of the flight envelope where this case exists.

There lies the rub.  The P38 had an average power available margin for a WWII fighter.  You could make the argument with it's drag it was below average.

If I have a 190 question I'll probably ask him first as I know he's put the time in. I'd hope he'd ask me about Spits and trust that I was telling him the truth as best I know it.

I certainly would Guppy.  BTW I picked up a copy of "SPITFIRE: The History" by Morgan and Shacklady.  Excellent book, in fact I hope to emmulate it's style in my FW-190 book.  Thank you for the recommendation.

I also picked up AHT.  Great book as well.  However many of actual flight tested reports I have do not back up the traditional views of the P38.  For a twin engine fighter, it was outstanding.  The only twin which could even compete with single engine fighters of the day.  In that arena it was not completely outclassed but I definately think there was no prejudice on the ETO's part in regulating the P 38 to other duties besides pure fighter.  The other USAAF fighters were simply much better.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[dtango]

Crumpp:

You're throwing bits and pieces of data out there but need to put it all together.  It'll take me a little bit of time but I'll try another attempt at explaining it with a little bit of math.  Stay tuned .

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[killnu]

wow, cant believe i just read all this.
i may be wrong, but does any other plane in AH suffer as frequently from autoretract as the 38?  i know i dont get it to often, but i dont typically fly it that way.  i also know i dont ever suffer from it in a 190 or 109, spit, etc...
i may also be wrong here, but i dont think the suggestions from other threads were meant for 38 alone, ie.  instead of autoretract have damage instead.  i know there were some 38 sticks asking for this to begin with and not RAF or LW sticks, but i thought it was a suggestion for across the board.  so why all the drama?  its not like it was implemented or thought about by anyone that matters.  
just this not so well known 38 sticks 2 cents.

oh, i didnt interpret other suggestions as a "raise deployment speed" either.  sorry

[eddiek]

I don't see anyone asking for flap deployment speeds to be raised, anywhere.
Modelling damage for exceeding their speed limits, yes, but anything more, no at all.
Kweassa, it's all in how you WANT to perceive what they are saying.  To me, it is clear as day.
Simply put, if you are a bonehead and overstress the flaps, damage them and make them inoperable, not able to be retracted, etc.....but take away the auto-retract.  It's a crutch, and takes away from the game, IMO.  It "bonehead proofs" the planes, which is a good thing for newbies, but is a PIA for guys who know how to fly their planes to the edge of the envelope.
Ever forgot to retract your landing gear after takeoff?  They break off or are damaged.  
In my eyes, a similiar damage system for flaps is all ack ack and others are asking for.
To me, it would add to the realism and immersion, having to keep track of your speed while you fight.
They aren't asking for extras, they are asking for realism.
While we are at it, I say they should enable flaps on ALL planes to be deployed at any speed.  Deploy them at too great and speed and hear them crack or pop and become damaged.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Guppy, yes that does answer my question.. but it does fuel more confusion as well. As it is, the summary of facts you've come up with seems to support both sides of the issue in this particular thread to an equal extent.

 Perhaps, arguably, supports my view on this even more.. because despite the few examples you've kindly brought up, your answers given to my question seems to contradict your earlier view that flap practice was for the norm.

 What I mean by this is, I am guessing you've brought up those pilot quotes at the previous post, to make a point that flap usage was not just limited to a few ace pilots... but it seems that if it wasn't a recommended tactic, even for the P-38, but still the pilots tended to attempt certain tactical maneuvers and device usage...

  It indicates that it wasn't really about the plane itself, but about what kind of mentality towards general aircombat doctrine the P-38 pilots themselves held.. and upto a certain point, indicate somewhat 'reckless' behavior in part of the P-38 pilots. Another interesting tidbit that might be brought up in this discussion is the reports of one Harold Rau, which had been sent to his superiors in June of '44, which was posted on the boards some time ago.

 It seems to show that quite contrary to the general satisfaction the PTO pilots had with their P-38s, there's a strong resentment against the P-38 in the ETO. As much as there were strong advocates for the particular plane, there seems to be equally as many objections against the plane in the USAAF during that time - on grounds of being 'not fit for the average pilot'.

 Clearly, flap use for combat was not advocated nor recommended amongst the pilots of all the airforces, especially when the immediate attention was drawn upon how one may simplify the combat process so that the experience level required for someone to become an effective combat wasn't too high.

 The tendency, SOME P-38 pilots, and ace pilots as well, had regarding this issue, goes against the basics of evolution of aircombat. And while no doubt for some of them it proved to be a success, it still wasn't something the average pilot would be willing to do.

 In the end, while I'd accept that more than just aces were willing to take such action, it still doesn't seem to justify the claims that using flaps for aggressive combat purposes were a normal thing to happen, even amongst P-38s.

I think the conclusion drawn is that combat flaps were used by more then just Aces in close in combat situations.  The last 370th combat report I quoted shows that relatively low time 38 driver using the flaps to get inside the turn of that 109 so he could get the shot on target.

And I still don't know what we're debating  I don't know that anyone has said flaps were used for aggresive combat purposes.  They did get used in combat situations and ACM situations.

I don't think any fighter pilot would give up his speed advantage when his life was really on the line, yet I think that faced with a situation like that young 38 driver from the 370th, he used to tools he had to keep the 109 from getting deflection and to turn the tables to where he was able to down the 109.

As for the 38 in the ETO, remember that it was 8th AF that phased out the 38 and that didn't completly happen until August/September 44.  The 9th soldiered on with the 38 and thought the 38 was fine.  The 370th pilots DID NOT want to transition to the 51 but had to give them up as the 474th won the argument to keep 38s which they flew until the end of the war in the ETO

I think the conclusion you could draw was that the Hs and early Js were not suited to the high alt escort mission when they arrived in the ETO.  With production of the 51 being a cheaper and faster proposition it made sense on a larger scale to focus on the 51 in the escort role.  I don't think there is any question that the J-25 and L models would have done fine in the escort role but the decision had been made to go with the 51.  The 38 also soldiered on in the MTO until the end of the war with the 1st, 14th and 82nd FGs with the 82nd claiming roughly 550 air to air kills.  This matches up well with the 51 groups out of England or the Med.  The 1st wasn't far behind that.

I also still would suggest that the airwar fought by those 9th AF 38 drivers comes closest to the cyber airwar we fight in AH.  It's not high alt, it's often on the deck and it's not really a pure air to air war.

But I also think we've beaten it into the ground again

Hows about we find something else to discuss?

Dan/CorkyJr

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Kweassa
ps)

 as a ps, I'd like to point out that I SPECIFICALLY remember Ack mentioning that if the flaps would be just jammed stuck when they exceeded the limit speeds, "at least the flap effects would stay and the pilot would be able to stay through the course of his action, instead of stall out".

 In my view, that's another way of saying;

 "I don't care if they will become jammed stuck. If they don't autoretract, I'll at least be able to shoot the target down and rtb with stuck flaps.. instead of having to watch my speed and bugger out if I can't hold back my speed any longer"

 ..

 Sounds like 'raise the limits please, I don't really care if the real pilots were worried about their speed. I just want to use my flaps this way so I can benefit from its effects' to me.

Too bad you attributed that quote to the wrong person.  Please post the link to the thread with me supposedly saying that.


ack-ack