Flaps, flaps, & flaps.

[eddiek]

Kweassa, and others,

The thing you all seem to be missing is......IF you damage your flaps, you are not going to be able to get back up to speed, you are going to limit what you can and cannot do from that point on.
That's the thing I cannot understand how folks can miss.....I have in the past forgotten to raise my flaps and felt like a total doofus when my plane would not accelerate back up to speed.  Raised them and the plane started accelerating normally again.  If you damage them and they are in a deployed position, they will cause drag and not allow your plane to reach normal speeds, thus your boneheadedness narrowed your flight envelope.
Just having the flap rip off would not much of a penalty.  Just keep fast and don't turn and you would be alright.
As a note, those who remember when I was an AH regular know that my favorite plane was not the Lightning, it was the P-47, so I cannot be considered a pure Lightning advocate.  And I also would like to see the damaged flaps on ALL planes, including my beloved Jugs.
Crumpp,
Who was the 109F4 pilot?
There are too many variables in fights for anyone to just make a blanket statement about what could have or might have happened in your situation.
I've been in a lightly loaded Jug and surprised a few 109 and 190 pilots, and been in the other seat, in a 109 and got shot down by the heavier Jug.
IMHO, it all depends on who is flying the other plane, what is the fuel state of each plane, altitude, etc.  
From what you say and from my own stick time in the Jugs and other planes, you were pretty slow.  Don't know how slow the 109 was, but a pilot with any experience would have taken you vertical in the fight and gained the upperhand relatively quickly, assuming you, in the Jug, had no altutude under you to convert back into speed.  I've messed around in the MA in the 109F4 before, and the thing is amazing......I am not a good 109 pilot by any means, but I remember commenting to hblair that I could not believe how steep the thing climbed......even at 100mph I was holding a tight spiral turn and the thing was climbing far faster than a Jug can at that same speed, even with 3 notches of flaps out.
I am gonna HAVE to find some pedals and get back into the arenas.  This time off is killing me.....

[Guppy35]

Murdr's hitting it on the head.  Very dependent on the situation.

Looking through all the 38 group histories I have, I only see the 370th mentioning flaps use often and they are down low and always the one getting bouced as their job was ground attack, not air to air.

Since putting the nose down to gain speed isn't much of an option at 1000 feet, I imagine any edge you can get in the turn is going to help as those guys showed.

I asked two real 38 drivers about this today and this is their response.  Both flew early model 38s F.G Hs and didn't use the combat flaps.

First comment is from Marion Kirby, an 80th Headhunter and later an ace with the 475th FG in the Pacific.

"From what I have heard my old tent mate, Tommie McGuire, got very proficient using flaps in combat...BUT HE IS DEAD AND I AM ALIVE... "

Kinda speaks volumes to what Kweassa was asking.

Second from Robert Vrilakas, who's been putting up with my 38 questions since my AW days.  He flew with the 1st FG in the MTO

"All that the combat flap feature amounted to was that it positioned the regular landing flaps as a specific position.  Can't remember exactly, but it was somewhere between 10 and 20 degrees.  This did permit a better turning radius, but at the expense of airspeed because they caused more drag.
 
We avoided combat involving tight turns with the enemy, because most e/a could turn inside of us.  Sometimes it became unavoidable and, in my view, that would be the only time they might be used.  I don't think there was a general feeling among P-38 pilots that the combat flap provided sufficient additional turning radius to provide an edge over a 109 or 190.  The procedure you mentioned of droping combat flaps and turning when attacked may have been used, but it would be very difficult to coordinate this when turning a flight into an attack.  Varied application of the flaps would pretty much break up a formation flight of 4, or even 2, aircraft.
 
The dive brake, which was introduced on the L model was a much more practical device and would have been invaluable on the earlier models when they were engaged in more air to air combat. "


First impression is that obviously the use of the flaps was with the later model Js and Ls.  That would explain the common use by the 370th FG guys down low anyway.  They started in Js

Just more food for thought

Dan/CorkyJr

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kweassa
HT did reluctantly suggest a different price, in the form of 'flaps breaking off', which would also sufficiently penalize flap misues for ALL planes, in that it would remove flap effects over the limit, albeit permanently. Except no P-38 pilot agrees to this one. They seem to want 'jamming' as an alternative.

 Why specifically jamming? Why not auto-retract or breaking off?

 That 'why' is self-evident, is it not? It's because if the flaps are jammed tight in that position, the future functionality ceases but the effects(stabilization, lift increase, speed brake) still remains for the time being.

We discussed that too.  I, and Cobra wanted to see whatever the realistic damage would be for that particular flap type.  I think akak and savage were also fine with that idea.  

As of now all we get is jamming.  You may visually see a flap shot off a plane in AH, but as far as the FM is concerned that flap is jamed in place.  If the flap was retracted at the time of damage, those 2 things are consistant.  However if I have my flaps down, and you and I both see you shoot it off, my plane will fly as if its still there jammed in the extended position.  That is not a major problem for me until I need to change the flap setting.  If I exceed the speed of that setting the good flap will auto-retract, giving me asemetrical lift, and a plane that is virtually incapable of making combat maneuvers.  That may be part of why jamming is assumed.

[Kweassa]

The thing you all seem to be missing is......IF you damage your flaps, you are not going to be able to get back up to speed, you are going to limit what you can and cannot do from that point on.

That's the thing I cannot understand how folks can miss.....I have in the past forgotten to raise my flaps and felt like a total doofus when my plane would not accelerate back up to speed. Raised them and the plane started accelerating normally again. If you damage them and they are in a deployed position, they will cause drag and not allow your plane to reach normal speeds, thus your boneheadedness narrowed your flight envelope.
Just having the flap rip off would not much of a penalty. Just keep fast and don't turn and you would be alright.

 eddie, I fully understand that. But the problem is the overall situation concerning flap use. Like the great AH P-38 pilots mention, if the flap autoretracts it is often very deadly in some cases. It could be quite stable in flat turns, but imagine the same thing happening when you attempt a split-S under 1k altitude.

 The problem is this;

 In such a dangerous situation, would real pilots do it? I'm willing to bet that they'd dare not. Would game pilots do it? If the flap effects were retained, despite flap jamming, and they see a certain need to do so, then they'd do it.

 Currently, autoretract, its unstability, forces a certain amount of decorum and carefulness, even hesitation, before pilots would dare attempt such a thing. Because, it cannot be trusted. They could try to contain their speed under 250 IAS with very tight radius, or they might fail in the process and the flaps would retract, causing a spectacular crash. This uncertainty offers a certain risk which people would not want to dwell upon.

 However, a 1vs1 situation rises, and this great pilot(it could be any plane) sees an opportunity. If he can pull through a certain very risky tight maneuver, he'll have a great chance in shooting the enemy down. The time comes for that split-S. What will the pilot do? If he is confident that that single maneuver will ensure him the kill, he'll engage the flaps, just let it get jammed stuck, and will attempt the dangerous move because he knows that the flaps can be totally trusted - it loses all future functionality, but its effects remain intact for that situation.

 
 The problem is not the 'harshness' of it all. The problem is the immediate effects - upto which point should the flaps retain its effects? Should the effects be forcibly be cancelled out if the limit is crossed? Or should the effects be maintained with 'jamming' as the price to pay?

 If the 'price' is considered lower than the effect, then people won't care if its jammed or not. It is because with the autoretraction that a certain level of uncertainty exists, that people may be hesitant to enter combat recklessly.

 HTC chose the former, and I think they are right.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Guppy, randomness is a source of all sorts of problems in a game.

 That's not a what-if. It's a fact.

 Take the 88mms for example. People can't stand the fact that a random burst chance of a 88mm killed them in a single ping. I get killed by 88mms something like only once a month or so, and I imagine it really can't be that different to others, except others just cannot cope with the fact that some randomness caused them death.

 When random chances dwell inside the game, unlike RL there is a strong tendency for people to dwell in risky business. It's like internet card games with fake money. When playing poker or blackjack on the internet, most people take bets and risk chances that they'd never do in real life. They'd say, "hit me" when the cards are reading already "19" in a black jack game, because there is nothing to lose.

 In a sense this draws out a certain need to regulate the conditions, albeit artificially if necessary, so the illusion of the game remain true to the real life combat doctrines in a sense.

If a random chance is involved with something like flap usage, people will risk that chance aggressively, unlike in real life. If for any reason the random probability itself is a low one(like 88mm hits) then the scope of the game could be warped and twisted. If the random chance is too high, then the 'randomness' is useless.

 Whatever the case, people will complain about it, and much more harshly. They will come up with complaints that somebody was able to pull 50mph over the limit without failure, and they themselves met problems the moment it crossed 1mph over the limit.

 The line has to be drawn somewhere, and very clearly. And that line, as HTC sees fit, is the flight manuals. Crumpp's being mentioning 109s or 190s using flaps upto 400mph, except there's currently no real documented technical evidence that it's possible - and that's why I can't support it. I'd love to see it, but if the planes I like must remain under its documented limits, there is no ther way. That's about as much I expect from the great experienced P-38 pilots you, Ackack, Murdr, Tac and etc etc..

I have no problem with the system as it is now.  Hitech seemed clear he wasn't changing it in that other thread.

I posted it as an example of what AKAK and others were suggesting.  It wasn't to raise the limit, but to acknowledge that the line was not absolute.  In searching for more realism the idea of random failure if they passed the 250 mark was what was being suggested.  And again, these guys are not abusing flaps at all so trying to imply(And I'm not suggesting you are) that there is some gaming the game to it, doesn't fit for them.  They are class acts in the game, and don't need to game the game to do what they do in 38s

Dan/CorkyJr

[dtango]

Widewing:
=======
I agree with your statements including the tactical philosophy.  I'm just trying to make sure people don't get mislead by Crumpp's when it comes to technical aerodynamics regarding effects of flaps on turn performance.

Gripen:
=====
- Good point.  Unfortunately Crumpp doesn't see it.  I'm having trouble trying to come up with a different way to help him see it.  I thought the EM chart (even if it basis analysis of a sim) would illustrate the principle to him but it didn't.

This is my last attempt.  My wife is getting on me for the diversion this is causing me for the evening!

Crumpp:
======
Let's assume a P-38 with the following parameters:
* sea level
* 17,500 lbs
* 52 ft wing span
* 327.5 ft^2 wing area
* 98 mph 1g stall speed clean
* Clmax = 2.16 clean
* CD0=.027
* BHP=2850 hp Mil power (2 x 1450 hp)
* PE =.75

Let's evaluate the excess-power margin at a couple of different airspeeds at 1g level flight, clean configuration:

098 mph: 2138 hp - 559 hp = 1579 hp excess power (this is at Clmax)
120 mph: 2138 hp - 544 hp = 1593 hp excess power
150 mph: 2138 hp - 617 hp = 1520 hp excess power
170 mph: 2138 hp - 721 hp = 1461 hp excess power
200 mph: 2138 hp - 962 hp = 1175 hp excess power

So what this tells us is that between 98mph - 200mph at military power the P-38 has in the range of 1593hp-1175hp (specific to the velocities in that range) of excess power that could be used to offset additional drag as a result of a turn, dropping flaps, both, or whatever WITHOUT losing any airspeed.

For grins lets assume that with 1 notch of flaps we get the following hypothetical variables for illustrative purposes:
90 mph 1g stall
CD0: tripled due to flap parasite drag (this is a pretty ridiculously high assumption but good for illustrative purposes)

Let's evaluate the excess power margin just for our hypothetical Clmax case at 90 mph 1 notch flaps deployed:

90 mph: 2138 hp - 648 hp = 1489 hp excess-power

With even our ridiculously high tripled CD0 values we're in the neighborhood of having 1489 hp in excess that could be used for a turn without losing any airspeed.  In another words I could hold a turn that resulted in an induced drag--> additional power required of 1489 hp INDEFINITELY at 90 mph with 1 notch of flaps.

We could get into a lot more precision etc. but it wouldn't change the principle of this illustrative example.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Kweassa]

Guppy, thanks for your troubles. Some very goud source of info there.



 Murdr(and Guppy too, again,),

 Once Ack asked me "what are you I afraid of?"

 Was I afraid that the P-38 would become a super plane? No, ofcourse not. I already have troubles in facing P-38s and their excellent pilots, so whether it becomes more proficient or not is not much of a concern to me, since I suck anyway.

 If there is something I am afraid about, is like mentioned in the other flap threads. To paraphrase Murphy's Law, "If there is room for abuse, then people will abuse it".

 At that thread I mentioned IL2/FB. In a sense, IL2/FB flap depiction is a combination of Tac's suggestion + 'jamming' as an alternative. What happens in that game, is when people start a fight from high speeds then they will mandatorily engage flaps to get an edge in the first merge.

 If things go bad, and there are some friendlies nearby, people will engage landing gears and flaps and just let them jam or break away. It becomes a miracle working speed brake. The plane behind you will overshoot, and while your friendlies come to your aid you can run off and go belly land your plane in that miserable condition.

 All planes in that game, flop around at all kinds of speeds, because people can engage flaps at all speeds. Even if the flaps are jammed, its effect still remains. All planes fly with a state of increased stability in low speed maneuvers.

 In a sense, that's more 'realistic'. But in the general combat sense, that's purely gaming-the-game.

 We can't do any of that in AH because it is prohibited by the system. And despite the frustration of its limitations, it keeps the game realistic in the situational sense, not technical sense. Technical realism is IL2/FB, which, because of it such a great game in so many ways have been ruined so.

 I'm sure experts like you guys wouldn't abuse it, because ultimately, it does more harm than good in the long term. But what of the general public? The rookies and averagers? If I had to chase down a P-38 and then see him starting an incredible speed reduction and causing an overshoot by just popping out flaps and letting it get jammed, then that would be more frustrating then anything else combined.

 You can't do that - risk damage purposely to achieve a specific combat goal(such as pursuit or evasion) - in the current AH because the system will not let you.

 But what if it lets you?

 You or Guppy, Ack, killnU, or others won't do that. But what of the rest? The rest of the dweebey dorks in P-38s that auger lawndart? In a multi-engagement environment, I see a certain plane that is flying at certain speed. I know he can't just miraculously slow down at a certain rate, so I retain certain speed to take a shot at him and then get away.. except he sees me, and just pops a flap and enters a really tight turn which he wasn't able to do before, since the speed limit was inadequate.


 That kind of thing, is what I'm afraid of.

 And it, happens.

[Kweassa]

So what I'm saying is, unless there is some other alternative to make sure that people don't game the game in that manner, the current limits have to be maintained.

 Purely theoretical question, but what if the pilot had to pay heavy prices for the damages his plane has sustained when he lands? That would probably make sure nobody would just willingly damage their plane systems for the sake of a single combat.

[Murdr]

I doubt it would be an issue with 38 jocks if the accelerated stall was consistant with this.

Tony Levier:  One of the finest characteristics of the '38 is the accelerated stall. Such stalls, accompanied by normal buffeting, occur on any ship when the angle of attack is increased to the point that the airflow over the wing becomes turbulent.

As you know, this can happen in sharp turns, pull-outs or other severe maneuvers. The '38 is designed to take the buffeting of the stall and has no tendency to fall off on either wing at any altitude. If combat necessitates, you can hold it in the accelerated stall as long as you can take the buffeting -- the ship will take it much longer. To get out of an accelerated stall immediately, ease up on the stick, permitting the airflow to reestablish normal lift.

As it is, and acclerated stall in the 38 is virtually and instant spin.  If I induce and acclerated stall, I get enough feedback from the plane to avoid the accompanying spin.  When auto-retract does it you dont get that feedback.  

I did find at least one incident where the 38 reacted exactly like it does in AH.  Of course the pilot was on his first combat sortie, didnt train on the 38 before he left the states, and did not know he was being bounced until he realized he was being shot at.  He tried to pull a split-s, went into a spin he couldnt recover from and bailed out.

The last I talked to a 38 pilot he told me pretty much what is quoted above.  Savage has much more pilot/documented resources than I and confirms that also.

Im not whining about it.  Thats the way it is, and its better than the AH1 model.  I use it to my advantage when I can.  Just saying, cause and effect as far as the AFR subject.

[Guppy35]

Try this one Murdr,

 While hunting for info on the flaps I came across a comment by an 82nd FG P38 pilot regarding something he did in combat.  He's flying a P38G in the action he's describing.

"I was in a maximum performance turn to the left and extreme cross controlled skid to the right.  This was a trick I had learned and used in combat many times.  When enemy fighters were trying to hit me I would bank violently while cross-controlling, standing on the inside rudder and racking the aircraft into a turn.  This caused the plane to slide sidewise and fly erratically in a somewhat different flight path from the direction it appeared to be going.  This technique probably saved my life again, because even though all four enemy aircraft were right on top of me and the water just below was churning from cannon and machine gun fire, they all missed completely-Thank God!"

His attackers were Me 109s and like those 370th guys he was on the deck.

Wonder if he was the original stick stirrer?

Dan/CorkyJr

[Murdr]

Deceptive skids are a wonderful thing, at times Ive went from trying not to get shot to hoping I dont get rear ended.

Good find. Thx

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Guppy, randomness is a source of all sorts of problems in a game.

 

Which was the 2nd reason HiTech stated for not adding such a system for the flaps.  Curious though since he did have such a system in Warbirds.


ack-ack

[agent 009]

Hawk 75 could & did outturn 109 in battle of France, is this correct? outroll to. Yrs ago saw something on this. Hydraulics mentioned too for Hawk.

[niklas]

Originally posted by Crumpp

nice image. Letīs consider it based on some measurments though they write drag estimations.

It confirms what i said about the drawbacks of a fowler:
- It has the highest lift
- It has much more drag than a split or plain flap
this can be seen by the L/D value, which is equivalent to cl/cd . Becaue the fowler has approx. 50% higher Cl value, with same value of Lift to drag the CD (drag coefficient) must be also 50% higher than that of a plain or split flap!!!!! And i bet at lower deflections the plain and split flap have way better L/D values!

- the pitch down moment
The fowler has by far the highest momentum coefficient Cm. Imagine: in a 4G turn your weight is 4 times higher, thus the moment due to the backshift of COL!! you have to compensate this by your elevator, in case of a fowler i doubt that you are strong enough at 250mph!

But P-38 in AH are ridicolous anyway, even without flaps they already have lift coefficients of over 1.6....  Though you never should forget that wing area includes the area covered by the body and engine cells, and a twin fighter has three intersections where no lift is actually produced. So effective wing area is lower, what in turn means that when you base the lift on effective wing area the corresponding lift coefficient without flaps of the P-38 in AH is probably 20% higher than for any other fighter lol.
Lol you can hang 70° banked in a turn below 150mph with flaps that has nothing to do with reality.

niklas

[Schaden]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
thinks so, smoke in cockpit and bailed out only to fall face first into the ground.  I guess he had parachute problems, crappy way to go. I wonder if anyone else shot down 8 planes in 10 minutes like he did once?


ack-ack

He was clipped by his tail plane as he bailed out.