Dropping Flaps??

[moot]

All 109s' flaps in AH take 8 seconds to fully travel.
20 seconds in that video; but he's in no hurry.

[BnZs]

how do you figure that was difficult at all ...

the whole 60 degree flaps during combat so common and apparently successful in the arenas here is far more unlikely than any other topic in this thread ...

60 degrees is too much most of the time. Most planes modeled in here maximize their rate of turn at 1 or 2 notches.

[moot]

What's the second wheel for?

[thorsim]

60 degrees is too much most of the time. Most planes modeled in here maximize their rate of turn at 1 or 2 notches.

right but they don't get very twitchy at full flaps either, after all the difference in max speed and stall speed at those deflections is not very much, hard maneuvers in such a state should be very very dangerous.  however even the aircraft notorious for poor low speed handling such as the p-51s and the f4Us float around like fairies giddy with aerobatic silliness in extreme flap deflection states ...

i mean if one is going to be so stringent with data, what is with all the no alt heavy escort aerobatic success, i know there are warnings about that in those hand books as well.  

after all flap deployment effects more than just speed and at full deployment the lift/drag relationship will have gotten pretty dismal, the bigger your flaps the worse it gets.  
it is just not a state where you want to mess with the airflow over your wing by pulling hard maneuvers, and that is certainly noted in the pilots informational material.

What's the second wheel for?

 
el trim

[thorsim]

you see i am just wondering if the germans just did things differently ...

i.e. why publish flap deployment speeds ...

(other than the low speed stall warnings included in the FW data)

i mean with the wheel in the 109, and the variable ground adjustability in the 190
(and maybe in cockpit as well, hence the need for the deployment indicator on the FWs wing)

it could be just that the flaps were deployed when they could be and retracted automatically when the forces pushed them up, or they determined that they were robust enough to handle any likely speeds or speeds at which the actuators could deploy them, and they trusted that the pilots needs would cause him to pay attention to or notice that his performance was "different" than what he expected so the flaps would then be set to a more efficient or desired state, because you see in my research i saw no high speed warnings on the low flap deflections at all, pretty strange unless it was engineered so as not to be a concern, or shown not to be a concern through experience.  

if that is the case than the only flap instructions could possibly be the landing procedures.  which would sort of explain the situation in the 109s and 190s in the game.  i.e. HTC had not found any specific data other than the max deflection speeds (maybe where the actuators were extended in a manner for landing which one would think that they were not intended to retract easily hence the warnings) so HTC without the benefit of other published numbers used those landing flap limit speeds for all the flap settings and thereby severely limiting the usefulness of the combat flaps in the german aircraft.

i know that is a lot of conjecture but it does address all the strangeness in the situation.  i just think as in trim the germans just saw and approached things differently.

[moot]

Well, there's two aspects that I see.. Mechanical and regulations.  The service regulations might be inaccurately represented due to incorrect or missing documentation.. But as soon as you have complete blueprints, it's only a matter of modeling.. e.g. finite element analysis; there's no room for mystery there.

[Grendel]

What's the second wheel for?

Trim wheel.

The basic idea was that when you lowered flaps for landing, you also at the same time turned the trim wheel, so the plane was all the time at optimal trimming. You can turn both wheels at the same time.

Or then just use the trim wheel or the flaps wheel.

[moot]

Thanks, didn't seem convenient to have to independent controls so near each other.

[hitech]

Burden of proof is usually on the affirmative.  If anyone wanted to, they could reasonably doubt the authenticity of those numbers until evidence was presented to show their correctness.

I doubt that statement is correct can you prove affirmatively that your statement is correct?

Thorsim: Welcome to our board.

It appears to me from your post you are doing two classic mistakes when looking into modeling.

1. It appears to me you are showing a bias in wishing the planes you like to be better then they are.
2. You are looking for data to support you position rather than looking for data to find out what your position should be.

HiTech

[Anaxogoras]

Although the burden of proof is not a piece of formal logic, it is axiomatic for those who want to remain within the bounds of rational argument.  So, you can't prove it like you can prove modus ponens, but even a proof for modus ponens isn't going to convince anyone who isn't convinced by modus ponens in the first place.  Asking for proof (like a logical proof) for the burden of proof is a category mistake.  Its real justification is going to be found in epistemological considerations and what counts as knowledge in a community that has standards of evidence for beliefs.  Most importantly, we require that someone making a statement has evidence to support it, whereas violating the burden of proof is asking someone to find facts to disprove a statement that was unsupported in the first place.

Edit:  Maybe important: which part of the statement?  The part about the burden of proof being on the affirmative?  Or that one can reasonably doubt until they are shown evidence?

[thorsim]

that is quite possible, however i still fail to see the common sense in low deflection flap settings that can not be deployed until the landing gear can be deployed.  why not just have a simple landing flap like the spitfires?

the same thing for the 109s ...

the numbers in game just make no sense, and i was curious how you came about selecting those limits.  

no offense, but the feature does make a great difference in a lot of common situations in the game.

thank you for the welcome.

as far as the burden of proof i am fairly comfortable questioning these things since there seems to be a lot of inaccuracy in much of the popular history surrounding this part of our past.

i think i explained my concerns pretty well above and stand on my confusion over your numbers for the reasons i stated.

after all i am sure you are aware that some people very close to the aircraft in question have posted numbers over twice as high as yours in other similar discussions.

I doubt that statement is correct can you prove affirmatively that your statement is correct?

Thorsim: Welcome to our board.

It appears to me from your post you are doing two classic mistakes when looking into modeling.

1. It appears to me you are showing a bias in wishing the planes you like to be better then they are.
2. You are looking for data to support you position rather than looking for data to find out what your position should be.

HiTech

[Saxman]

that is quite possible, however i still fail to see the common sense in low deflection flap settings that can not be deployed until the landing gear can be deployed.  why not just have a simple landing flap like the spitfires?

If it makes you feel any better the F4U can't deploy its flaps until BELOW speeds at which the landing gear can be extended.

[thorsim]

there is a reason for that ...

one that in game results in an advantage, not a disadvantage as in the case of the FW ...

so i guess i get your joke, or you just learned something

If it makes you feel any better the F4U can't deploy its flaps until BELOW speeds at which the landing gear can be extended.

for the record i have looked around quite a bit and i have only found speed warnings or published limits for the FWs landing settings.  

i have found no published limits for any of the other flap settings in the FW.  i admit to not being currently privy to all the historic records others apparently have socked away someplace.  

it is somewhat disturbing that the data in these articles of our history have apparently been hoarded and made a commodity for a lot of reasons, none of which seem to involve a common accurate understanding of the aircraft in question.  aircraft that contributed to our history and had a pretty significant part in shaping the world we live in today.  it is a shame.

[moot]

Thorsim you should give the exact AH plane models and historical documents or other real sources you're referring to.

[thorsim]

did you miss the part where i asked for HTC's data?  if i had the data i would post it.  

what i have are data place holders on discussions with the numbers, but without the data sheets because they have been removed. the quotes are as follows ...

"Sent XXXX a copy of the Flugzueg-handbuch page with the take off instructions.
(removed data)
Here is the tolerences of the FW-190 flaps from this report:
(removed data)
You can see the flaps were certainly strong enough to deploy at 500 kph:
(removed data)
The USAAF certainly classified them as manuverflaps when they conducted their tactical trials:
(removed data)"

maybe removed for space for other data.

maybe removed to make the information a commodity to be sold to game developers or whomever, who can then say they have all this "better" information (that we can't review) which is "better" than anyone else's "better" information (that we can't review) ...

if all HTC has is the same pilots book that i have that only refers to the landing flap deflection speed warnings, then what information did they user to conclude that the same speed limits should apply to 1/6 to 1/4 of the deflection and the lower stresses those deflections put on the actuators than the full flap deployment does? ...

because that makes no sense at all, and certainly contradicts whatever was posted above and not contested in that discussion ...

point is i am looking for the data and a satisfactory explanation for the physical inconsistencies and confusing situation in the game.  although i would expect a company that has a vested interest in the most accurate data available would know enough to answer my question right off instead of questioning my motives and outlook.

btw the same source says this about the 109s combat flaps ...

"I agree they should break. If you lower more than 10 degrees of flap at speeds faster than 770kph (478.456 Miles (statute) per hour) @ 6 km altitude in a Bf-109, your flaps should break off."

which also makes sense since they are manually actuated so there is nothing to break except for the structure of the flaps itself and 10 degrees deflection should not be much more stress on the structure than the CSF limits on the structure as a whole clean and not deployed.  

do you see, how that makes sense?

Thorsim you should give the exact AH plane models and historical documents or other real sources you're referring to.