Question about a P-51 maneuver

[Lusche]

which hurts the games credibility and emerson factor.

as long as the Lake & Palmer factors are modeled right, I'm willing to give HTC some leeway in modeling the Emerson factor 

[mtnman]

Thorsim-

Poor choice of video to support your theory.  

Beyond the already mentioned aspects, I'd like to add that those planes weren't representing the way the AH planes are being flown in the game instances you refer to.  Near stall speed, flaps fully deployed, throttle set low, intending to land is different than slow, full throttle, with flaps deployed, with no intention to land.

Getting caught in a suddenly life-threatening situation, that you have probably never experienced and now only get one try to survive, is different than trying to cut inside a cartoon plane for a shot...

In your response to colmbo, you give the two possible causes for those crashes as lack of control, or pilot "suckage".  Awful narrow-minded...  Could it have been anything else?  Could it have been pilot fatigue, illness, distraction, obstructed view (which was the explanation given for the P51 crash here in Oshkosh, unless that's been amended?) lack of experience, damage to the plane, etc?  

Planes like that are and were landed quite commonly with full flaps.  Normally, it didn't result in a crash.  The vast majority of the time everything turned out all right...  The flaps were designed to "help" at those speeds, not create a way to kill the pilot.

RC is a bit different I suppose, but doing barrel rolls with full flaps doesn't destroy my plane, or make me crash...  Of course, I'm not trying to fly inverted and maintain altitude then, but I'm not in the game (rolling scissors), either...

I fly a "flap-adjustable plane" in AH, almost every single time I fly.  Going full flaps is not a great thing.  They create a huge amount of drag, and make it very difficult for me to control exactly where I point my nose/guns.  I'm using 20 degrees or less the vast majority of the time.  When I deploy more, it's brief, and out of desperation or an "all or nothing" shot opportunity, ESPECIALLY if I'm low.  My plane stalls around 76mph, and the full 50 degrees drop at 150mph, in case that question pops up.

I tend to agree with you, that excessive flap use is "normal" in AH.  But as others mentioned, the "higher-skilled" crowd don't use them that way.  That would seem to show that there may be an advantage to not using them as most folks do in the game...

As a trainer, I seldom see folks come to me who are using flaps "optimally".  They're either not using them at all, or over-using them, or using them at the wrong times, in the wrong situations, etc.  That type of use gets them killed, even though it may be from bullets instead of hitting the ground.

[mtnman]

and the way flaps work in these games artificially expands the envelopes of some planes so that the
match-ups are skewed and out of balance, which hurts the games credibility and emerson factor.

The envelopes are also expanded by the ease of access to controls in our virtual cockpits, IMO anyway.

For example, I can manipulate flaps with one finger, while simultaneously operating throttle, landing gear, manual trim, aileron and elevator, firing guns, looking all around, and probably something(s) else, regardless of G-forces.  This enables me to EFFICIENTLY manipulate flaps, in situations where only a six-armed pilot could do it in RL... 

In the F4U at least, from what I've seen of the cockpit, I think I should realistically be able to only operate flaps OR throttle at one time.  Not both, And certainly not both while doing several other things...

[thorsim]

as long as the Lake & Palmer factors are modeled right, I'm willing to give HTC some leeway in modeling the Emerson factor 

thanks corrected ...

col suggested it was only pilot error not me ...

i was asking him if he was sure about that, and suggesting the state of flight might have compounded the problem ...

Thorsim-

Poor choice of video to support your theory.  

Beyond the already mentioned aspects, I'd like to add that those planes weren't representing the way the AH planes are being flown in the game instances you refer to.  Near stall speed, flaps fully deployed, throttle set low, intending to land is different than slow, full throttle, with flaps deployed, with no intention to land.

Getting caught in a suddenly life-threatening situation, that you have probably never experienced and now only get one try to survive, is different than trying to cut inside a cartoon plane for a shot...

In your response to colmbo, you give the two possible causes for those crashes as lack of control, or pilot "suckage".  Awful narrow-minded...  Could it have been anything else?  Could it have been pilot fatigue, illness, distraction, obstructed view (which was the explanation given for the P51 crash here in Oshkosh, unless that's been amended?) lack of experience, damage to the plane, etc?  

Planes like that are and were landed quite commonly with full flaps.  Normally, it didn't result in a crash.  The vast majority of the time everything turned out all right...  The flaps were designed to "help" at those speeds, not create a way to kill the pilot.

RC is a bit different I suppose, but doing barrel rolls with full flaps doesn't destroy my plane, or make me crash...  Of course, I'm not trying to fly inverted and maintain altitude then, but I'm not in the game (rolling scissors), either...

I fly a "flap-adjustable plane" in AH, almost every single time I fly.  Going full flaps is not a great thing.  They create a huge amount of drag, and make it very difficult for me to control exactly where I point my nose/guns.  I'm using 20 degrees or less the vast majority of the time.  When I deploy more, it's brief, and out of desperation or an "all or nothing" shot opportunity, ESPECIALLY if I'm low.  My plane stalls around 76mph, and the full 50 degrees drop at 150mph, in case that question pops up.

I tend to agree with you, that excessive flap use is "normal" in AH.  But as others mentioned, the "higher-skilled" crowd don't use them that way.  That would seem to show that there may be an advantage to not using them as most folks do in the game...

As a trainer, I seldom see folks come to me who are using flaps "optimally".  They're either not using them at all, or over-using them, or using them at the wrong times, in the wrong situations, etc.  That type of use gets them killed, even though it may be from bullets instead of hitting the ground.

just bugs me, as do the arguments for it "realistically".

i will let the "experts" defend it if they want, i just think that if it was more "normal" for something bad to happen when the flaps were used unwisely then there would be fewer eyebrow raising dogfight results.  after all if history proves anything it is that low and slow vs a better maneuver fighter is a very unhealthy place to be.

no offense ...

+S+

t

[thorsim]

The envelopes are also expanded by the ease of access to controls in our virtual cockpits, IMO anyway.

For example, I can manipulate flaps with one finger, while simultaneously operating throttle, landing gear, manual trim, aileron and elevator, firing guns, looking all around, and probably something(s) else, regardless of G-forces.  This enables me to EFFICIENTLY manipulate flaps, in situations where only a six-armed pilot could do it in RL... 

In the F4U at least, from what I've seen of the cockpit, I think I should realistically be able to only operate flaps OR throttle at one time.  Not both, And certainly not both while doing several other things...

that is a good point, i don't see a fix but it is a good point none the less ...

[Chalenge]

my looking for the pony gives you about 90 mph to play with between stall speed and 40 degrees of flaps.

if you are at max flap deployment that buffer is only 60 mph ...

If anyone is using max flap deployment and trying to turn tight they are doing it wrong anyway. You cant argue with stupid as we all are reminded everyday. Now if you can look up the effect flaps has on aircraft flight and find one aspect that is out of whack please post it. Just one that you can prove is clearly wrong and wrong absent of anecdote but wrong by imperical evidence will do. Use the math if you have to at least a few of us can understand that.

Like mtnman says our controls and cockpits are much more efficient and we have many many more times the (virtual) flight experience of actual combat pilots so you would expect different approaches in use particularly because it doesnt matter (at least to some of us) that our cartoon airplane falls to pieces because the taxpayers have another one waiting for us in the hangar.

[Ack-Ack]

as long as the Lake & Palmer factors are modeled right, I'm willing to give HTC some leeway in modeling the Emerson factor 

LOL!


ack-ack

[morfiend]

 If I may comment here,first "dive brakes" do bleed speed in this game,try them on the 88 or SBD.

 Oh right those are true dive brakes,secondly the 38 has a "dive recovery flap" that produces little or no drag ingame and RL.

 Secondly,I understand what Thor is saying,he'd like the LW planes to be able to use flaps at higher speed just like the US birds.Unfortunately the LW birds use the stated speeds in the POH and it's compound by the fact most fights in AHII are on the deck where IAS and TAS are to close to allow that to happen.

 Now take a LW bird up to 30K and things change,the IAS and TAS have a large gap and suddenly at 300 mph TAS you can use flaps because the IAS is around the POH operating speeds.

 I've read about LW pilots dropping flaps to engage and I know they had a limited amount of deflection that a pilot could use,but remember they were at considerable alt when doing so!


 And lastly I concur with Dan,if it was 1 live and outta the game like "TRW" I'd fly completely different as well.

   

 ps: the OP was about the "flat plate" move and it can be done in several planes in AHII,the Mossie and 110 are quite capable of doing it.Would I use it?Well as a last ditch desperate move,why not,your going to end up in the tower if you dont try something,,,As Dan's AAR have already stated.

[Guppy35]

do you think if it was more difficult and players were less able to avoid departing in these circumstances ...

do you think that fewer pilots would choose to get into those situations?

because that is my point ...

along with the fact that this type of flying is very unrealistic ...

and the way flaps work in these games artificially expands the envelopes of some planes so that the
match-ups are skewed and out of balance, which hurts the games credibility and immersion factor.

Look at your avatar.  You are a CARTOON pilot.  Talk about selective realism.  Shall we get that discussion going?  OK you want credibility.  I'm going to expect you to put your computer in a freezer along with yourself.  I want you on Oxygen for at least half the flight.  I want random mechanical failure.  I'll expect you to fly missions assigned by someone else in the airplane you are assigned.  You may or may not see a bad guy in 250 or so hours of your tour.  You may be in an attack plane or in less then the latest and greatest.  Think P40E out of Clark Field at the beginning of the US involvement in the war, or potentially a Stuka over England.  Maybe a 39 out of New Guiniea or an I-16 at the beginning of Barbarossa.  You may be assigned to fly tail end charlie.

To be honest, at this point I think you are arguing for the sake of seeing your own words on the screen.

What's interesting to me is you talk about immersion.  I've got 40+ years of WW2 aviation history under my belt, and I don't seem to have any trouble finding times where I'm 'in the cockpit" as far as my imagination and history interest can take me.  Low level 25s,  P38s or P39s winging it.  Again I mention scenarios as the last one I flew was as close as I will probably ever get to experiencing what I've spent most of my life researching.

My suggestion is you get your perspective back and enjoy AH for what it is, a game.  In the end it's your imagination that will allow you to enjoy it or not enjoy it.  All the technobabble excuses in the world ends up just being a cover for your inability to find the fun yourself. 

It's a game after all.  It's meant to be fun.

[thorsim]

If I may comment here,first "dive brakes" do bleed speed in this game,try them on the 88 or SBD.

 Oh right those are true dive brakes,secondly the 38 has a "dive recovery flap" that produces little or no drag ingame and RL.

 Secondly,I understand what Thor is saying,he'd like the LW planes to be able to use flaps at higher speed just like the US birds.Unfortunately the LW birds use the stated speeds in the POH and it's compound by the fact most fights in AHII are on the deck where IAS and TAS are to close to allow that to happen.

 Now take a LW bird up to 30K and things change,the IAS and TAS have a large gap and suddenly at 300 mph TAS you can use flaps because the IAS is around the POH operating speeds.

 I've read about LW pilots dropping flaps to engage and I know they had a limited amount of deflection that a pilot could use,but remember they were at considerable alt when doing so!


 And lastly I concur with Dan,if it was 1 live and outta the game like "TRW" I'd fly completely different as well.

  

 ps: the OP was about the "flat plate" move and it can be done in several planes in AHII,the Mossie and 110 are quite capable of doing it.Would I use it?Well as a last ditch desperate move,why not,your going to end up in the tower if you dont try something,,,As Dan's AAR have already stated.

not exactly i just don't think the use of combat flaps changed the situation that much ...

if what happens in the game was correct then there would have been little argument about which plane turned better spit or 109, as it is even with the 109s low deployment flaps the reality was a very close thing ...

i think the flaps in game are much more of a help and much less of a hinderance than they actually were in TRW.

although equity in flap deployment speed decisions would be nice in game.

[Chalenge]

Pilot added to custom squelch list per user request as defined in 'no valid argument given.'

[morfiend]

not exactly i just don't think the use of combat flaps changed the situation that much ...

if what happens in the game was correct then there would have been little argument about which plane turned better spit or 109, as it is even with the 109s low deployment flaps the reality was a very close thing ...

i think the flaps in game are much more of a help and much less of a hinderance than they actually were in TRW.

although equity in flap deployment speed decisions would be nice in game.

 I'm not sure what the first statement means.

 The spit 109 debate will go on as long as people are aware of both A/C and what they represent.

 As has for flaps ingame and real life,as has been said opinions vary.

 And lastly if there was equity between A/C flaps,I ask you "why bother to create different A/C" equity could be achieved by everyone fly the same plane,isnt that the point of different A/C,each has it's own strengths and weaknesses.As far as I'm aware HTC strives for as close to "realistic" A/C performance,given the paramiters of the computer sim would allow.

 Is it prefect,no,several minor details need addressing.That said it's the best flight modeling I've come across in the few years that I've been flying flight sims.

   

[thorsim]

the first statement is about the change in the envelopes caused by the use of combat flaps ...

my point about the spit 109 is that the 109 had low deflection flaps and the spit did not, yet in the real world although the flaps did improve things slightly it seems not to have clearly made the 109s far superior in turning i see no reason to expect that they would, it seems different in here ...

i was not discussing equality in operation i was pointing out the apparent disparity in the methodology as some planes are deploying their low deflection flaps at over twice the speed as their POH says is safe, while others are 10% less than what their POH says it should be able to be deployed. 
also many of the POH expressly discourage large deflection angles for flight, some even for landing.
there are other force/deflection angle/speed arguments that are ignored in favor of the POH yet there are other parts of the POH that are ignored in favor of other criteria.  consistency of criteria should be consistent imo.

i am having fun and the FM is not any worse than many others i have experience with, my problems with it are pretty much what i have stated. 

+S+

t

 I'm not sure what the first statement means.

 The spit 109 debate will go on as long as people are aware of both A/C and what they represent.

 As has for flaps ingame and real life,as has been said opinions vary.

 And lastly if there was equity between A/C flaps,I ask you "why bother to create different A/C" equity could be achieved by everyone fly the same plane,isnt that the point of different A/C,each has it's own strengths and weaknesses.As far as I'm aware HTC strives for as close to "realistic" A/C performance,given the paramiters of the computer sim would allow.

 Is it prefect,no,several minor details need addressing.That said it's the best flight modeling I've come across in the few years that I've been flying flight sims.

   

[rvflyer]

That move is do-able in-game and is very fun!  Kind of disorienting the first few times you do it.  Like Steve said though... it's really quite a last ditch thing, you lose all your speed and at least 2k in altitude before you can start to pull up again.

I've found the maneuver works best with one notch of flaps in-game.  You really have to pick your moment with this move too cause it lines you up for a very easy shot if they are far enough behind you.  I only use it when they are 200 or less off and we are moving at a pretty good clip.

Please!!!!! do the maneuver and film it and post film, this maneuver is impossible to do as depicted by the video, you may do some maneuver but not that one.

RV6flyer
40 years flying 31 years flight instructor

[rvflyer]

that is an exact example of my point that you just previously said wasn't ...

all the rest are examples of poor maneuverability and controllability, lack of options in a very flap extended "dirty" airframe. all the bad landings were unable to be corrected or successfully aborted because of the pilots lack of alternatives in that extreme flap deployment configuration at low speeds ...
(the very condition the same planes excel at in AH)

Just proves you are muttering through your mush, have you read the NTSB reports?