Spit 16

[Knegel]

Benny,

with FULL flaps(no fowler effect anymore), the P38 do this extreme turns!!

Full flaps of the P38 did cause a extreme nose down behaviour, high drag and more lift at slower speed, same like its in almost all planes!!

Specialy the nose down effect was needed to provide a better sight while landing.

In AH the F4U and P38 flaps (full flaps), work the other way around, they cause a incredible nose up behaviour, which, in combination with a banked plane, result in a very nice smooth tight turn, without the need to pull the elevator.

Such a behaviour simply is unreal, its magic!!

Full flaps are made to lower the stall speed and to provide a better sight(nose down) at same time, but the MUCH increased drag dont allow a increased turnrate with this setting!!


ITS MADE FOR LANDING!!

Even the P38 manual give the hint that the usage of the flaps make the plane nose heavy!!


Strangewise the fowler flaps (only the 1st steps work like fowler flap, afterward they pitch down like normal flaps) in AH dont work like fowler flaps. At higher speed with 1 step flaps, the turnrate dont improve, like it should.

But at slowspeed the turnrate improve and specialy the turnspeed get reduced by 35%.



Ack-Ack,

the boosted alerons mainly did help at highspeed, not at slow speed. All roll datas regarding the P38 i saw dont show a improved rollratio at slow speed.  At slow speed the pilot already was able to pull the stick to its maximum, so here was nothing to gain than a more light stick.

I know that the G should have the fowler flaps, but it looked to me that the AH G dont have them, now i had a look from a different angle, and closer distance and found they are displayed as fowler flaps.

But anyway, i talk about FULL flaps, not the normal manouver flap setting.


Greetings,

Knegel

[Benny Moore]

That's better.  You now say 35% improvement in game instead of 200% improvement; that I can buy.  You're right that the real Fowler flaps were more efficient at the manuever extension than when fully deployed, but remember that they're still Fowlers.  Whether they're extended eight degrees (the maneuver setting) or fully deployed, the wing area of the wing is still greater than if the flaps were retracted.  That cannot be said of conventional flaps, which do not ever change the wing area.  Thus, the full flaps on the P-38 should be more effective than full flaps on an airplane with conventional flaps.  You may be right that full flaps are too effective in turning - I've often wondered this myself.  However, if that is so, it is true of all ships in the game, not just the P-38.

Where did you hear that the full flaps on the P-38 caused a nose down pitching movement?  I've never found any such statement in either the Pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning or the Pilot Training Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.  However, even if it does (not unbelieve as flaps can cause nose down pitching in some airplanes), that doesn't mean it affects the sustained turning ability.  The dive flaps ("airbrakes") caused a nose up pictchig movement (which pilots did use to their advantage in short-term turns, usually when leading a target); but would this create a better sustained turn?  I doubt it.  Nose down pitch from flaps should not mean the airplane turns worse sustained any more than nose up pitch from the dive flaps makes the ship turn better sustained.

I do know that some P-38 pilots used full flaps when turn fighting Zekes, so it must have provided at least a marginal improvement over the maneuver setting (at the expense of speed, of course).  Was it a recommended tactic?  Of course not, but sometimes you don't have a choice.  Point is, it allowed the pilot do do something he could not with the maneuver flap setting.  And the pilots manual states that it's impossible to strike the tail on the ground unless full flaps are deployed.  This clearly means that, for the real P-38, a higher angle of attack is possible with full flaps than without.  Objectively, I must also point out that it does indicate that the Aces High P-38 may be able to pull too high of an angle of attack near the stall speed when the flaps are not deployed; in Aces High, the P-38 can strike its tail on the ground even with flaps fully retracted, at military power as well as at war emergency power.  Fuel load does not seem to have a bearing on this.

As for the roll rate, I believe you're again wrong.  I have a chart created by an associate from NACA data; he's a FW-190 fanatic and not a P-38 nut, so you need not fear American bias.  I am not sure of the reason for the discrepancy in P-38 roll rates at slow speed.



By the way, according to German Me-109 aces, the Me-109 versus P-38 situation was the exact opposite of what you say.  You say that the P-38 might turn better instantaneously but the Me-109 should turn better sustained; German aces, however, said that the Me-109 turned better in the short term but the P-38 would catch up as the speeds went down.  They advocated never flat turning with a P-38 but rather changing directions often, taking advantage of the P-38's relatively poor roll rate.  This was, of course, before the boosted ailerons.

[Benny Moore]

I just did a few calculations based on Dokgonzo's and Mosq's testing at Netaces.  I have no idea what calculations and tests you're using, Knegel, because here's what I got.

Turn radius:
Me-109F-4 with full flaps has 74% of the radius of a no flap turn.
Me-109G-2 with full flaps has 73% of the radius of a no flap turn.
Me-109G-14 with full flaps has 73% of the radius of a no flap turn.
Me-109K with full flaps has 75% of the radius of a no flap turn.
P-38G with full flaps has 73% of the radius of a no flap turn.
P-38L with full flaps has 73% of the radius of a no flap turn.

Turn time:
P-38L with full flaps has 94% of the turn time of a no flap turn.
Me-109K with full flaps has 99% of the turn time of a no flap turn.

According to these caculations, the improvement in turn radius that full flaps give the P-38 is no more than what the Me-109 gets, and the improvement in turn time that full flaps give the P-38 is only 5% better than that of the Me-109.  Since real Fowlers give 30% more lift than conventional flaps, I don't think a Fowler-equipped ship having a 5% improvement over a crate with conventional flaps in a full flap turn is an unreasonable figure.

However, it appears that full flaps are indeed too effective in Aces High II, for both flap types.  According to Mosq's tests, full flaps improve the turn times for both the P-38 and the Me-109.  In reality, only Fowlers could possibly improve turn times (and even then I doubt that they would if they're fully deployed).  By all sources, conventional flaps should hurt the turn time, only giving a benefit in turn radius.

P.S.  Mosq's tests are not standard sustained turn tests.  However, judging by his method description, the results should not be off by more than a few percent.  If you have a better set of tests, by all means direct me to them.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Serenity
Oh, and yeah. the Spixteen has issues, again in the vertical. THats where its screwed up. Its VERY easy to kill. It really is. Any turn fighter, and any P-40E can easily incinerate one. Just never challenge it in the vertical. Thats why the kill stats are down. n00bs TnB, and thats where they get eaten. As soon as they learn to climb they are unstoppable.

lol Guppy. Im not so sure. Im more afraid of mk IXs than spixteens, because the only ones who fly the mk IX, are the ones who know how to fight. The same WOULD go for the V, but I know a lot of n00bs who are knowlageable (Yeah, I spelled that wrong, its been a long day) enough to recognize the V, and have been warned not to fly the Spixteen then go to Vs and are again baby seals. There are many more good pilots in mk Vs than in XVIs, I find. Id like to see the XVIe though. The non-clipped. Im curious as to if it too would be a UFO here.

Here we go with its the plane not the pilot again.  Someone knows how to work it so it must be a UFO.

I'm average at best and I'm 13-1 vs the 16 in my 38G and I go vertical with em all the time.  I'm 30-2 vs Spits in general.

So does that mean my 38G is more uber or do maybe I just know how to use my 38G fairly well?

You guys want to change a flight model because you've run up against someone who can clean your clock in a Spit 16.

Ya know what?  I have run up against those guys too.  Stang can, FX1 can to name a couple.  I've not reached their level of ability so they eat me up.

They can take the good qualities of the 16 and add their skill and it's just about unbeatable.

But it's not a UFO.

[FX1]

The 16 just like any other plane it has disadvantages. Its not a super plane by any means. What the 16 is good at is vert fighting. The 16 disadvantage is fighting nose down. I never really have a problem with that because i fight at low alt and only use alt advantage if capping a field.

I think the 16 gets a bad name because people dont understand that a 16 can go from the deck to 6k nose up. People get picked our try and bnz with a 16 and you just cant do it under 10k.

A newb in a 16 is a newb in a nikki so on. I have never had a problem fighting the 16 because i understand its flight characteristics. A good pilot in a 38 can kill a newb in a 16 9/10 times.

You know at one point i hated the la7 reallllly disliked the plane. Called people la la dweeb and everything under the sun. Then as i got better i started to perfect my overshoots and guess what i dont have a problem with the LA anymore. Hell i will fly one a couple times each camp to get a feel for it.


BTW the F4u's will eat a 16 today in AH.

Today i fly the f4ua1 and f4u4 because it is the most dominant plane in the game.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Here we go with its the plane not the pilot again.  Someone knows how to work it so it must be a UFO.

I'm average at best and I'm 13-1 vs the 16 in my 38G and I go vertical with em all the time.  I'm 30-2 vs Spits in general.

So does that mean my 38G is more uber or do maybe I just know how to use my 38G fairly well?

You guys want to change a flight model because you've run up against someone who can clean your clock in a Spit 16.

Ya know what?  I have run up against those guys too.  Stang can, FX1 can to name a couple.  I've not reached their level of ability so they eat me up.

They can take the good qualities of the 16 and add their skill and it's just about unbeatable.

But it's not a UFO.

But damnit Dan, he saw this on the History Channel and he's got back seat time in a glider!  And even though he's never flown the Spitfire XVI in game, he knows all about the flight model and how its was supposed to be because he watched the Battle of Britain on late night TV!


ack-ack

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
But damnit Dan, he saw this on the History Channel and he's got back seat time in a glider!  And even though he's never flown the Spitfire XVI in game, he knows all about the flight model and how its was supposed to be because he watched the Battle of Britain on late night TV!


ack-ack

Don't forget his hundreds of game films Ack-Ack.


Bronk

[FX1]

Also the 16 can turn very well you just need to understand the throttle to get the most out of the plane.

[Knegel]

Hi Benny,

you be right regarding the flaps of other planes in AH, and i must say iam shocked!!

I rarely did use the flaps of the 109īs and 190īs and Spitīs for now, cause iam used to lose turnperformence by them, but since one of the lasts patches it seems that all planes got this magical flaps.
You be absolut right that normal flaps shouldnt result in a turnrate gain, at least not at max position!

Oh my god, this turn AH to be a arcade game.  

btw, the turn radius of the P38G with full flaps is 194m, without flaps its  around 320m.  The lift gain by full flaps must be by around 100% to archive this!!

And now most, if not, all planes behave like this.  

Also the 109K now turn full banked with full flaps 5mph above stallspeed, big balloons would have such a effect, but not flaps.

If a plane stall out in a strait flight at 100mph, where does the lift comes from to keep a level turn with 45° or more banking angle at 105-110mph??

Afaik while a horizontal turn with a 45° bank angle,  the lift force get shared in 50% upward and 50% toward the  turn center, to be able to keep a horizontal turn with 45° bank, there is a lift increasement of 100% needed!! And that within 5-10mph??

Thats what i call magic!!


Greetings,

Knegel

[Benny Moore]

It does explain why my efforts to turn at best sustained turn speed are always foiled by someone turning with full flaps.  It frustrates me to be forced to go to full flaps; I don't mind using full flaps, as real pilots did it sometimes, but it should not be more efficient than turning at best turn speed.  The result should most probably be a temporary gain which would hurt you in the long run if you didn't make your shot.

However, before I state with certainty that the modelling is wrong, I need to find a better set of tests.  Mosq's test method is somewhat questionable; for one thing, he doesn't quite turn at the best turn speed when not using flaps.  There is a possibility that the results are skewed as a result.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Knegel
Snip

You want uber flappen fest Fly the IL2 series.

There my friend is where the magic flaps are.

Bronk

[Kweassa]

Just wait a moment, Knegel.

 I feel a bit awkward here, because I generally agree to the premise that some planes are just too efficient with their usage of flaps, particularly the heavier US 'Pursuit' birds and Navy/Marine planes. However I don't think what you are saying can be just generalized as it is.

 For example;

I rarely did use the flaps of the 109s and 190s and Spits for now, cause iam used to lose turnperformence by them, but since one of the lasts patches it seems that all planes got this magical flaps.

 Statements like these are extremely questionable because under the same circumstances my 'feel' is entirely different from yours.

 For example, the 109s in particular have received a very slight raise in accessible speeds where the first notch of flaps are allowed with the last few versions, however flying the 109 almost exclusively for many years I've never really felt that they truly increased the turn rate. The most obvious use for flaps when combating (for example) a US plane in the 109s is when the enemy pilot knows what he is doing. He engages in a series of very harsh vertical maneuvers leading into a rolling scissors situation which is incredibly difficult to follow for a German bird, because the stability factor kicks in very hard for the 109. When the plane is forced into high AoA the roll axis stability decreases dramatically, and only with the use of flaps can the 109 be stabilized enough to follow the enemy plane throughout the maneuver. In those situations the 109 pilot is forced to engage flaps despite its detrimental effect to speed. It is not because he wants the 109 to "turn better", but simply because it is a necessity to stabilize the plane.

 The same holds for the 190s and 109s. The plane seems to turn better, but not truly better as some do. It simply allows the plane stabilize better, which makes it "easier to turn harder", as opposed to truly "turn better". The 109s and 190s were always like that.

You be absolut right that normal flaps shouldnt result in a turnrate gain, at least not at max position!

Oh my god, this turn AH to be a arcade game.  

btw, the turn radius of the P38G with full flaps is 194m, without flaps its around 320m. The lift gain by full flaps must be by around 100% to archive this!!

And now most, if not, all planes behave like this.  

 Here I notice a strange confusion, if not yours at least on my part. Why do you equate the concept of "smaller turn radius" with "better turn rate"?

 Those two concepts are sometimes joined but in many cases far apart. A plane may be able to turn extremely tight, but at the expense of turn speed and efficiency. Most combat situations validate the importance of the "turn radius" as opposed to the "turn rate", and I can see why some people may consider this as "turning better", as a loose expression of explaining the situation. However, just because a plane has engaged into an extremely tight turn, utilizing fully extended flaps, it doesn't automatically mean that plane is truly "turning at a better rate".

 The P-38 may be able to turn at a 320m radius with flaps up at a certain speed and certain power setting. If he engages full flaps, the stability of the plane will go up, the stall speed goes down, and he will be able to keep the plane in a state of very high AoA which will make it turn at a 194m radius, but at a considerably slower speed in exchange. Is this really so unbelievable? For one thing, I don't consider this situation as the "P-38 gaining a better turn rate". I consider it "P-38 gaining a tighter turn radius"[/u].

Also the 109K now turn full banked with full flaps 5mph above stallspeed, big balloons would have such a effect, but not flaps.  

If a plane stall out in a strait flight at 100mph, where does the lift comes from to keep a level turn with 45?or more banking angle at 105-110mph??

 From the camber, and the subsequent stabilizing effect.

 Having full flaps out doesn't necessarily mean the lift from the plane will be gone. It merely means the drag caused by the flaps is so high that the additional lift provided by the high flap angle cannot compensate for the drag. At that point, when the plane goes over the 'equilibrium' the drag overcomes all lift, the speed drops considerably, and the plane will "mush" into a stall. However, my take is that it is entirely possible for a plane with high power loading and tremendous engine power, to keep it at a better state of extreme turning even with very high flap angles. After all, turning is a horizontal climb. The more power, the better the plane can compensate for the drag.

 One good comparison might be the Spitfires in the game. At least, in my own experience, using the flaps in the Spitfires are almost a 'last resort' manuever. If the situation calls for me to try and turn this already tight-turning plane even tighter, then I will momentarily drop flaps down and then immediately bring them back up. To me, the plane doesn't feel like it is actually "turning better". In a last-resort attempt to turn the Spit as tight as possible, I will let the flaps deflect down maximum angle - and when that happens, it only feels like turning tighter, not turning better. The speed is so low that there is considerable amount of anxiety in regards to the plane just 'mushing down' out of control.

 Clearly, to me, this is an indicator the flaps are working as they should. Full flaps are warranted only when the importance of an absolutely smaller turning radius greatly outweighs the importance of generally better turn rate. Only in those situations where both you and the enemy are locked into a dead-heat turning contest, where giving even the slightest ground to the other will result in giving him a gun solution, do we really need to go into full flaps, even if we are loathe to do it (since being locked into a duel that requires full-flaps to win, means you are totally committed to that fight where only one of you will walk out alive).

 

Afaik while a horizontal turn with a 45?bank angle, the lift force get shared in 50% upward and 50% toward the turn center, to be able to keep a horizontal turn with 45?bank, there is a lift increasement of 100% needed!! And that within 5-10mph??  

Thats what i call magic!!

 
 Not if that '100%' is already within the limits of the plane. I'm no expert in aerodynamical physics so this is but a speculation, but IMO your analogy would only be correct when a plane has only enough lift to keep the plane just level. This would mean the comparative ratio of drag to excess thrust would be 1 : 1, or only slightly in favor of the thrust (not withstanding the amount of thrust already required to move the plane forward in the first place). Then the plane would produce just enough speed to fly level, and therefore, if it goes into a 45d bank angle, there would be no way to flat-turn the plane without losing alt.

 However, what if the plane has an engine already powerful enough to produce the amount of lift required to turn the plane, without having to lose alt at all?

 I'm sure those who are better educated in aerodynamics could offer a better explanation, but even to me your analogy of this 'magic' seems a little strange.

[Benny Moore]

Kweassa, the problem is that using full flaps in Aces High II does result in an improved turn time and not just an improved turn radius.  That is if Mosq's test results are correct, which I am unsure.  If using full flaps improves turn radius but degrades turn time, then it is as it should be.  If, however, conventional flaps are improving both turn radius and turn time, then there is a big problem.

Also, you may have missed my statement about the numbers.  According to the numbers, the Me-109 and FW-190 get the same turn radius benefit from using full flaps as the P-38 and P-47, and a lot more than the P-51.  So I don't know what you mean about "too efficient with their usage of flaps, particularly the heavier U.S. birds."  The F4U, of course, is the exception, and I would agree fully that something's fishy about it.

[Kweassa]

Kweassa, the problem is that using full flaps in Aces High II does result in an improved turn time and not just an improved turn radius. That is if Mosq's test results are correct, which I am unsure. If using full flaps improves turn radius but degrades turn time, then it is as it should be. If, however, conventional flaps are improving both turn radius and turn time, then there is a big problem.

 Benny, a "turn rate" is the ratio of the circular angle travelled during a turn in accordance to time it has taken. A direct comparison of turn rate is only meaningful when the plane travels the same distance.

 If a plane flies without flaps at a certain turn rate, and then it flies the exact same course again at the same power setting (but with full flaps engaged this time), and the results show a better turn rate, then something is clearly wrong. However, when a plane engages full flaps the turn radius is minimalized. And therefore, this turn rate cannot be compared with the turn rate of the plane flying at a larger radius.

 A turn rate is calculated at degrees/second =  360 / ( ( 2 x pi x r ) / v )

 Therefore the turn rate is in inverse proportion to the radius barring the effect of the plane's speed. A smaller turn radius automatically means a better turn rate, unless the turning speed becomes sufficiently low enough to actually cut down the entire turn rate. If the speed difference is not enough, or in other words, if a certain plane has so much excess power that the plane is able to hold a certain amount of speed despite the great drag increase caused by flaps, then even with full flaps engaged the plane will show a better turn rate because it is travelling a considerably shorter distance at a comparable time.

 In a general sense, it would seem that the more powerful, late-war aircraft with better power loading and lots of excess thrust will typically show a better turn rate even when using high flap deflection, but an early war aircraft with a relative worse power loading should show worse turn rate when high flap deflection is used. If there is one thing for certain, it is not impossible to have a bette turn rate despite full flaps. It is a matter of the individual plane.

(contd.)

[Kweassa]

(contd.)

 Another key factor in this discussion that must be brought up, is the possibility that the initial tests might be wrong or inadequate. Take for example the data extracted by my own testings. This data is a few versions old so absolute accuract cannot be guaranteed, but it will show as an example that different sets of data may be reached by different testers.

......

-Results Format-

Type (SL angle used)
- time to complete under normal setting (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under one notch of flap (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under full flap (average turn speed), radius

*Individual Notes

A6M2 (0.05)
- 14 seconds (123mph), 122.3m
- 14 seconds (115mph), 114.5m
- 14 seconds (105mph), 104.6m


A6M5b (0.05)
- 15 seconds (130mph), 138.7m
- 14 seconds (125mph), 124.5m
- 15 seconds (108mph), 115.3m


Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
- 17 seconds (152mph), 183.9m
- 18 seconds (138mph), 176.8m
- 18 seconds (118mph), 151.1m


Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 16 seconds (162mph), 184.5m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.1m
- 18 seconds (138mph), 175.5m


Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 17 seconds (167mph), 202.1m
- 18 seconds (160mph), 205.0m
- 17 seconds (148mph), 179.0m


Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
MG151/20
- 18 seconds (163mph), 208.8m
- 18 seconds (160mph), 204.9m
- 18 seconds (134mph), 171.6m
MK108
- 18 seconds (168mph), 215.2m
- 19 seconds (158mph), 213.6m
- 18 seconds (137mph), 175.5m


Bf109G-10 (1.0/1.3/1.3)
MG151/20
- 18 seconds (176mph), 225.5m
- 19 seconds (163mph), 220.4m
- 19 seconds (142mph), 192.0m
MK108
- 18 seconds (179mph), 229.3m
- 19 seconds (167mph), 225.8m
- 19 seconds (149mph), 201.5m


Bf110C-4 (0.05)
- 20 seconds (139mph), 197.8m
- 19 seconds (119mph), 161.0m
- 16 seconds (100mph), 142.3m


Bf110G-2 (1.0)
- 22 seconds (145mph), 227.0m
- 22 seconds (131mph), 205.1m
- 20 seconds (105mph), 149.5m


C.202 (0.05)
- 20 seconds (142mph), 202.1m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.0m
- 18 seconds (129mph), 165.2m


C.205 (1.0)
- 19 seconds (168mph), 227.2m
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 20 seconds (136mph), 193.6m


F4F-4 (0.05)
- 21 seconds (125mph), 186.8m
- 20 seconds (118mph), 167.9m
- 20 seconds (98mph ), 139.5m


FM-2 (0.05)
- 18 seconds (133mph), 170.4m
- 16 seconds (129mph), 146.9m
- 18 seconds (100mph), 128.1m


F4U-1 (1.0)
- 20 seconds (154mph), 219.2m
- 21 seconds (138mph), 206.2m
- 20 seconds (106mph), 150.9m


F4U-1D (1.0)
- 19 seconds (160mph), 216.4m
- 19 seconds (149mph), 201.5m
- 19 seconds (110mph), 148.7m


F4U-1C (1.0)
- 21 seconds (162mph), 242.1m
- 20 seconds (150mph), 213.5m
- 20 seconds (110mph), 156.6m


F4U-4 (1.0)
- 19 seconds (168mph), 227.2m
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 18 seconds (113mph), 144.7m


F6F-5 (1.0)
- 20 seconds (160mph), 227.7m
- 19 seconds (145mph), 196.1m
- 19 seconds (118mph), 159.5m


Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5)
- 21 seconds (180mph), 269.0m
- 21 seconds (162mph), 242.1m
- N/A

Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5)
4xMG151/20
- 23 seconds (181mph), 296.3m
- 21 seconds (171mph), 255.6m
- N/A
2xMG151/20, 2xMK108
- 23 seconds (181mph), 296.3m
- 23 seconds (172mph), 281.6m
- N/A


Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5)
- 22 seconds (181mph), 283.4m
- 21 seconds (172mph), 257.1m
- N/A


Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5)
- 23 seconds (179mph), 293.0m
- 22 seconds (171mph), 267.8m
- N/A

* Fw190s cannot maintain a turn tight/slow enough for full flaps


Hurricane Mk.Ia (0.05)
- 15 seconds (126mph), 134.5m
- N/A
- 15 seconds (104mph), 111.0m


Hurricane Mk.IIc (0.05)
- 15 seconds (136mph), 145.2m
- N/A
- 15 seconds (116mph), 123.8m


Hurricane Mk.IId (0.05)
- 16 seconds (146mph), 166.2m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (116mph), 140.3m

* Hurricanes and Spitfires have only landing flap positions available


Ki-61-I-Tei (0.05)
- 18 seconds (151mph), 193.4m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.0m
- 19 seconds (131mph), 177.1m


Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05)
- 17 seconds (153mph), 185.1m
- 17 seconds (130mph), 157.3m
- 16 seconds (117mph), 133.2m


La-5FN (0.05)
- 18 seconds (156mph), 199.8m
- 17 seconds (150mph), 181.5m
- 17 seconds (126mph), 152.4m


La-7 (0.05)
ShVAK
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 18 seconds (153mph), 196.0m
- 17 seconds (127mph), 153.6m
B-20
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 17 seconds (151mph), 182.7m
- 17 seconds (126mph), 152.4m


Me163B (0.05)
- 17 seconds (210mph), 254.1m
- 17 seconds (196mph), 237.1m
- N/A

* Me163B flies too fast at full throttle turn, for full flaps to be used


Me262A (0.05)
- 27 seconds (204mph), 392.0m
- 28 seconds (190mph), 378.7m
- 31 seconds (153mph), 359.6m


Mosquito Mk.VI (0.05)
- 21 seconds (149mph), 222.7m
- 18 seconds (140mph), 179.3m
- 20 seconds (118mph), 167.9m


N1K2-J (0.05)
- 17 seconds (167mph), 202.0m
- 16 seconds (153mph), 174.2m
- 15 seconds (134mph), 143.0m


P-38G (0.05)
- 19 seconds (174mph), 235.3m
- 20 seconds (157mph), 223.5m
- 18 seconds (116mph), 148.6m


P-38J (0.05)
- 21 seconds (180mph), 269.0m
- 19 seconds (170mph), 229.9m
- 19 seconds (116mph), 156.8m


P-38L (0.05)
- 21 seconds (184mph), 275.0m
- 19 seconds (169mph), 228.5m
- 19 seconds (119mph), 160.9m


P-40B (1.0)
- 21 seconds (139mph), 207.7m
- 21 seconds (131mph), 195.8m
- 21 seconds (112mph), 167.4m


P-40E (1.0)
- 19 seconds (154mph), 208.2m
- 19 seconds (140mph), 189.3m
- 19 seconds (124mph), 167.7m


P-47D-11 (0.05)
- 23 seconds (153mph), 250.5m
- 23 seconds (136mph), 222.6m
- 22 seconds (120mph), 187.9m


P-47D-25 (0.05)
- 23 seconds (157mph), 257.0m
- 23 seconds (143mph), 234.1m
- 23 seconds (120mph), 196.4m


P-47D-40 (0.05)
- 24 seconds (159mph), 271.6m
- 22 seconds (151mph), 236.4m
- 23 seconds (124mph), 203.0m


P-51B (0.05)
- 23 seconds (149mph), 243.9m
- 21 seconds (143mph), 213.7m
- 23 seconds (118mph), 193.1m


P-51D (0.05)
- 23 seconds (158mph), 258.6m
- 21 seconds (150mph), 224.2m
- 22 seconds (121mph), 189.4m


Spitfire Mk.Ia (0.05)
- 17 seconds (117mph), 141.5m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (97mph) , 117.3m


Spitfire Mk.V
- 16 seconds (137mph), 156.0m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (105mph), 134.5m


Seafire Mk.II (0.05)
- 16 seconds (140mph), 159.4m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (106mph), 135.8m


Spitfire Mk.IX (0.05)
30cal
- 16 seconds (144mph), 164.0m
- N/A
- 16 seconds (118mph), 134.3m
50cal
- 17 seconds (141mph), 170.6m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (121mph), 146.4m


Spitfire Mk.XIV (0.05)
30cal
- 16 seconds (165mph), 187.9m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (119mph), 152.4m
50cal
- 17 seconds (166mph), 200.8m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (118mph), 151.1m


Ta152H-1 (1.0)
- 20 seconds (184mph), 261.9m
- 20 seconds (173mph), 246.2m
- N/A

* Ta152 cannot maintain a turn tight/slow enough for full flaps


Typhoon Mk.Ib (0.05)
- 20 seconds (163mph), 232.0m
- N/A
- N/A


Tempest Mk.V (0.05)
- 18 seconds (168mph), 215.2m
- N/A
- N/A

*Typhoon and Tempest flies too fast at full throttle turn, for flaps to be used


Yak-9T (0,05)
- 20 seconds (144mph), 205.0m
- 19 seconds (132mph), 178.5m
- 19 seconds (116mph), 156.8m


Yak-9U (0.05m)
- 19 seconds (152mph), 205.5m
- 18 seconds (144mph), 184.5m
- 19 seconds (129mph), 174.4m

 ...

 Out of 53 plane types, 20 planes are recorded as having a better turn rate at full flaps. However the differences in turn times are hardly more than 1~2 seconds apart in each ase. The majority of the planes either have a worse off turn rate, or basically an unchanged turn rate when turning with full flaps. Some of them can't even fly a turn tight/slow enough to use full flaps in a full 360d turn in the first place.

 The list of the planes that have a better turn rate at full flaps is as follows;

Bf110C-4
Bf110G-2
C.202
F4F-4
F4U-1C
F4U-4
F6F-5
Ki-84-I-Ko
La-5FN
La-7
Mosquito Mk.VI
N1K2-J
P-38G
P-38J
P-38L
P-47D-11
P-47D-40
P-51D
Spitfire Mk.V
Yak-9T

 Some of them are strange, but other are as expected.

 For instance, the Ki-84 has an even more efficient Fowler flap layout than the P-38s. The N1K2 is a very well handlong plane equipped with an automatically engaged combat flap system. The Soviet Lavochkin fighters are among the best accelerating planes in the game, and all your precious P-38s have also made it in the list.

 On the contrary, all the Spitfires have a one-stage flap that deploys fully at a very extreme angle. As you can see only the Spit5 made it into the list, and all the rest of the Spits show a worse off turn rate at full flaps.

 The 110s or Macchi fighters are quite a surprise, but what's even more surprising is the number of US fighters on the list. Almost all of them have show a better turn rate with full flaps engaged.



 In conclusion, aside from a few unexpected anomalies (and extremely suspicious situation concerning US fighters using highly deflected flap settings), most of the fighters do have a worse turn rate with full flaps. Knegel's comment, at least from my point of view, is either a clear exaggeration of what's really going, or a misinformation from questionable test data, or maybe even both.