Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests

[Bronk]

Glad we got some luftwhiners back.. I was missing crump and kerfi.

[Ack-Ack]

All of these posts are you trying to say the P-51 and P-38 are overmodeled in the use of flaps and you want it more like 'TRW' consequences (which is impossible unless you really want to be SHOT when you are defeated in cartoon combat) and the reason is you want to have more of a chance in your 190. We can all see through the deception and poorly conceived/offered arguments so you might as well give up because your agenda is well defined by your actions.

Expect anything less from a Luftwhiner?


ack-ack

[mtnman]

another "elastagirl" reach there, that makes it really difficult to address your points btw.

now on to full flaps in combat, in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings.  that does not sound like a combat approved configuration to me, do you feel differently?  

I wonder if you may be guilty of some "elastagirl" reaching yourself...

The F4U POH (at least the one I'm looking at) doesn't word it that way at all...

The section on MANEUVER FLAPS says this-

"The wing flaps have been designed for possible use in maneuvering.  The flaps may be used to increase the lift and thereby decrease the radius of turns at low speeds.  The flaps are also useful in increasing the drag of the airplane so that it may be quickly decelerated to the optimum speed for a short radius turn.  In general, flap deflections of 20 degrees or less will be the most helpful in improving maneuverability.  Therefore, a setting of 20 degrees has been established as the "maneuver flap" condition.

Wow, it's amazing how close that sounds to what the most experienced F4U sticks in the game keep saying when asked about the F4U and her flaps, and how close it sounds to the results of some of the trainers' flight tests on the F4U and the performance of the plane with different flap settings.

My reading of the actual POH leads me to a different opinion than your statement would lead me to believe, had I not read the POH.  Is it possible that might be the case if I researched your other claims?  Are you mistaken in this case?  Or misleading?

And...

In this quote of yours (that Chalenge found/posted)-

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447081.html#msg3447081

You say- "since you are looking for lift and speed for turn performance it seems to me that any flap setting higher than  your "normal" (i.e. not short take off settings) take off flap setting is likely to be adding more drag than the added lift would be worth."

While the F4U POH says-

"In case of short field or runway, lower flaps "FULL DOWN," make a normal take-off run, and take off with nose high."

In a low alt, low speed setting, why would the POH recommend full flaps, and a nose high attitude, if the flaps created more drag than the added lift is worth, and then use the word "normal" to describe it?  As a matter of fact, the only warning associated with this is that it's very harmful to the engine...

Another quote from the POH states (for take-off) "Actually, any flap setting from 0 to 50 (degrees) may be used, the higher settings giving shorter ground distance".  

Hmm, is it the extreme drag penalty that causes the plane to rise up off the ground in less distance?  In all fairness, the POH recommends not doing full flap take-offs unless necessary, and states that climb rate suffers at the higher settings.  It doesn't warn against it though...

It doesn't sound like "in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings" is quite an accurate appraisal...

Are your inaccuracies limited to the F4U?  Or do they extend to any of the other planes in question as well?

[thorsim]

i have never said combat flaps did not work in so far as they were meant to work however in my complaints about the flaps being wrong in their ability to be used for combat at extreme deflections as they are often used in the video games i direct you to the actual landing restrictions from the actual POH.  i believe you had to qualify for these typed of landings in the hog because the hog had poor low speed handling characteristics, a trait it shared with many other american types.



remember it is only the extreme flap deployments and the handling problems associated with them that i have expressed misgivings about. 

i am sure you will be apologizing soon for suggesting that i was being disingenuous.

right?

t

I wonder if you may be guilty of some "elastagirl" reaching yourself...

The F4U POH (at least the one I'm looking at) doesn't word it that way at all...

The section on MANEUVER FLAPS says this-

"The wing flaps have been designed for possible use in maneuvering.  The flaps may be used to increase the lift and thereby decrease the radius of turns at low speeds.  The flaps are also useful in increasing the drag of the airplane so that it may be quickly decelerated to the optimum speed for a short radius turn.  In general, flap deflections of 20 degrees or less will be the most helpful in improving maneuverability.  Therefore, a setting of 20 degrees has been established as the "maneuver flap" condition.

Wow, it's amazing how close that sounds to what the most experienced F4U sticks in the game keep saying when asked about the F4U and her flaps, and how close it sounds to the results of some of the trainers' flight tests on the F4U and the performance of the plane with different flap settings.

My reading of the actual POH leads me to a different opinion than your statement would lead me to believe, had I not read the POH.  Is it possible that might be the case if I researched your other claims?  Are you mistaken in this case?  Or misleading?

And...

In this quote of yours (that Chalenge found/posted)-
You say- "since you are looking for lift and speed for turn performance it seems to me that any flap setting higher than  your "normal" (i.e. not short take off settings) take off flap setting is likely to be adding more drag than the added lift would be worth."

While the F4U POH says-

"In case of short field or runway, lower flaps "FULL DOWN," make a normal take-off run, and take off with nose high."

In a low alt, low speed setting, why would the POH recommend full flaps, and a nose high attitude, if the flaps created more drag than the added lift is worth, and then use the word "normal" to describe it?  As a matter of fact, the only warning associated with this is that it's very harmful to the engine...

Another quote from the POH states (for take-off) "Actually, any flap setting from 0 to 50 (degrees) may be used, the higher settings giving shorter ground distance".  

Hmm, is it the extreme drag penalty that causes the plane to rise up off the ground in less distance?  In all fairness, the POH recommends not doing full flap take-offs unless necessary, and states that climb rate suffers at the higher settings.  It doesn't warn against it though...

It doesn't sound like "in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings" is quite an accurate appraisal...

Are your inaccuracies limited to the F4U?  Or do they extend to any of the other planes in question as well?

[TequilaChaser]

i have never said combat flaps did not work in so far as they were meant to work however in my complaints about the flaps being wrong in their ability to be used for combat at extreme deflections as they are often used in the video games i direct you to the actual landing restrictions from the actual POH.  i believe you had to qualify for these typed of landings in the hog because the hog had poor low speed handling characteristics, a trait it shared with many other american types.

(Image removed from quote.)

remember it is only the extreme flap deployments and the handling problems associated with them that i have expressed misgivings about. 

i am sure you will be apologizing soon for suggesting that i was being disingenuous.

right?

t

just a question..........  do you not think the pilots of the F4U series in WWII would eventually findout exactly how far they would be able to push the envelope, repeatedly, if they had the ability to fly their plane for thousands of hours........even more so if it did not have the factor of losing their life involved?

so who is to say truely, what one can get out of the F4U? who has the most experience?

Saxman had a post, I cannot find right now, of an F4U at an airshow doing some good stuff.......

 yes this is a game, but how bout we ask the Real World pilots what they think? how about asking "Flyboy" who played this game before going into his countries airforce, and see how much this game helped him in a real plane(jet)?

~S~ no offense 

[mtnman]

I like the "bent-wing widow-maker" and "ensign eliminator" highlights.  Wonder why "Sweetheart of Okinawa" was left off?  

Did you add those?  Or are they actually in your POH?  Seems like it could be a selective use of nicknames to skew an opinion...  Of course, I'm not sure you're the one who overlay-ed them...  And of course, the "bent-wing widow-maker" could actually be seen as a very "positive" nickname, since I don't know which country the widows were from.

I'm still not seeing "in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings."

Even if they (full flaps) weren't recommended for landings, apparently they were ok with higher power settings, and a nose-high attitude (as I mentioned earlier)?  Where would we expect to find the behaviors you've expressed misgivings about?  Would low, slow, high throttle and high nose be safer conditions?  Less dangerous than low, slow, low throttle, and low nose?

Are you equating "restricted" with "recommended"?  I don't view those words as "equal", and if one was intentionally substituted for the other, I very well might be suspicious of "disingenuous" intent.  

Apologize?  I'm still not so sure your intent isn't disingenuous, so I sure wouldn't rush to apologize for suspecting you of something, until I was sure you really weren't guilty of it.  Although when you first started posting I hadn't formed any opinion of you, based on what I've seen of your posts, I, like many others, am failing to find you a neutral, helpful, or positive influence, at least so far.  I didn't start out suspecting you of anything, let alone of being disingenuous.  I had to read your posts for that to happen...  You appear argumentative, smug, and unwilling to accept anyone's point but your own.  Your "no offense" tag seems disingenuous, all by itself.  If my would change, and I felt I'd judged you incorrectly, I certainly would be willing to apologize for misjudging you.  I haven't reached that point yet.

[Raptor]

you did notice that my first post is on page 16 on that thread "i created" ...

You're right, I apologize for thinking you were the one to eventually listen to others and learn something in aeronautics. However your tenancy to hijack threads (as is the case with this thread now, going from Gaston's arguement to the exact same argument as before) made me think you created them.

[Chalenge]

Expect anything less from a Luftwhiner?


ack-ack

No... if you read through the P-51 thread you would see where I gave up trying to discuss things with this individual because he refuses to retain the pertinent points opposing him and keeps pulling out the fluffy bunny comments. It was even worse in the P-38 thread and his comments about laminar flow and how the P-51 was not the fine airplane history says it was.

I think Hitech should push the red button but its his call. 

[Saxman]

Saxman had a post, I cannot find right now, of an F4U at an airshow doing some good stuff.......

 yes this is a game, but how bout we ask the Real World pilots what they think? how about asking "Flyboy" who played this game before going into his countries airforce, and see how much this game helped him in a real plane(jet)?

This what you're looking for?

Corsair 2007

Can't get enough of that oil cooler whine.

[thorsim]

i have good things to say about all these games, what bugs me are the specific issues i bring up ...

so you are correct imo ...

i just think we push it further than TRW because i think we get away with more ...

++S++

t

just a question..........  do you not think the pilots of the F4U series in WWII would eventually findout exactly how far they would be able to push the envelope, repeatedly, if they had the ability to fly their plane for thousands of hours........even more so if it did not have the factor of losing their life involved?

so who is to say truely, what one can get out of the F4U? who has the most experience?

Saxman had a post, I cannot find right now, of an F4U at an airshow doing some good stuff.......

 yes this is a game, but how bout we ask the Real World pilots what they think? how about asking "Flyboy" who played this game before going into his countries airforce, and see how much this game helped him in a real plane(jet)?

~S~ no offense 

[thorsim]

curious, why do you assume they were ok at higher power settings, do you have some data on that because i have not seen any.  since a lot of the problems i have seen on film were on take off and "bolter" situations i have no reason to believe the plane was any less difficult with a lot of power added when the flaps were fully deployed.
 
as far as the recommendation/restriction thing goes, i guess i could be wrong, but i know you had to "qualify" to land the hog on a carrier so i expect there was some sort of testing done before you were allowed to make the attempt and probably a number of operating hours in the hog before you were even able to be instructed for high deployment approaches, at least that is what it sounds like in the recommendation.

i.e. it seems like they were recommending restrictions on pilots that were newer to the hog, if that is not how you see it we will have to agree to disagree i guess.    

well then i think we can chalk up the misunderstanding between us to unresolved semantics between recommendation/restriction and you can keep your apology until you feel compelled to extend it, or not.

thanks for listening

+S+

t  

"Sweetheart of Okinawa" is not on the page because the page is referring to its low speed handling. 
i've never heard this plane described that way in that part of its operational history.

I like the "bent-wing widow-maker" and "ensign eliminator" highlights.  Wonder why "Sweetheart of Okinawa" was left off?  

Did you add those?  Or are they actually in your POH?  Seems like it could be a selective use of nicknames to skew an opinion...  Of course, I'm not sure you're the one who overlay-ed them...  And of course, the "bent-wing widow-maker" could actually be seen as a very "positive" nickname, since I don't know which country the widows were from.

I'm still not seeing "in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings."

Even if they (full flaps) weren't recommended for landings, apparently they were ok with higher power settings, and a nose-high attitude (as I mentioned earlier)?  Where would we expect to find the behaviors you've expressed misgivings about?  Would low, slow, high throttle and high nose be safer conditions?  Less dangerous than low, slow, low throttle, and low nose?

Are you equating "restricted" with "recommended"?  I don't view those words as "equal", and if one was intentionally substituted for the other, I very well might be suspicious of "disingenuous" intent.  

Apologize?  I'm still not so sure your intent isn't disingenuous, so I sure wouldn't rush to apologize for suspecting you of something, until I was sure you really weren't guilty of it.  Although when you first started posting I hadn't formed any opinion of you, based on what I've seen of your posts, I, like many others, am failing to find you a neutral, helpful, or positive influence, at least so far.  I didn't start out suspecting you of anything, let alone of being disingenuous.  I had to read your posts for that to happen...  You appear argumentative, smug, and unwilling to accept anyone's point but your own.  Your "no offense" tag seems disingenuous, all by itself.  If my would change, and I felt I'd judged you incorrectly, I certainly would be willing to apologize for misjudging you.  I haven't reached that point yet.

[TequilaChaser]

i have good things to say about all these games, what bugs me are the specific issues i bring up ...

so you are correct imo ...

i just think we push it further than TRW because i think we get away with more ...

++S++

t

fair enough, yes we do have that luxury........  

This what you're looking for?

Corsair 2007

Can't get enough of that oil cooler whine.

yep that was one of them Saxman, Thanks!   here is another Realworld  F4U flyby I truly enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related

[thorsim]

once again i am pretty sure i did not say any of that, or anything like that actually ...

care to remind me specifically, if you can.

No... if you read through the P-51 thread you would see where I gave up trying to discuss things with this individual because he refuses to retain the pertinent points opposing him and keeps pulling out the fluffy bunny comments. It was even worse in the P-38 thread and his comments about laminar flow and how the P-51 was not the fine airplane history says it was.

I think Hitech should push the red button but its his call. 

[thorsim]

well since you seem to understand that you were wrong, i have no problem accepting your apology ...

in the same spirit that it was offered of course.

You're right, I apologize for thinking you were the one to eventually listen to others and learn something in aeronautics. However your tenancy to hijack threads (as is the case with this thread now, going from Gaston's arguement to the exact same argument as before) made me think you created them.

[Chalenge]

This what you're looking for?

Corsair 2007

Can't get enough of that oil cooler whine.

This is what I love to hear!  (P-51D)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiU3VpP2VhU&feature=related