Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests

[thorsim]

wildewing sir as i stated in my first post in that much referred to (often erroneously) p-38 thread where i state how interesting the p-38 was, it may to some extent actually be the exception that proves all the rules ...

btw from what little i have seen the 38 seems to have faired rather poorly in many of those early low and slow ETO/MED engagements, but i am not a p-38 historian, my knowlege is more general, so i am looking forward to your info ...

+S+

t  

Thorism, very much depends on circumstances.

For example, a guy flying a Birdcage Corsair in the Solomons in 1943 wasn't going to deploy flaps to engage a Zeke or Ki-43. He might gain the required angle to get off a killing shot, but invariably, he would have exposed himself to any other enemy fighters present. Even in a one on one, the Corsair pilot would fly to his aircraft's strengths. Instead, he would have used his fighter's vast advantage in speed to attack and zoom back up. SOP by that time in the Pacific. The major exception to this was the F6F, which often tangled with JAAF fighters in genuine furballs.

In the ETO and Med, various rules applied. There wasn't a great difference in maneuverability between American and German fighters. In North Africa, it was not unusual for an engagement between AAF and Luftwaffe fighters to degenerate into a down-in-the-weeds brawl. I've interviewed quite a few P-38 pilots (flying F and G models) who had used flaps to gain advantage in fights.

When I have more time to dedicate to this discussion (very busy schedule today), I'll go into this in more detail.

I will summarize by stating that it was not SOP in the USAAF to use more than maneuver flaps in combat. Of course, your life is not at stake in the game, so it is SOP to deploy flaps in the game. Often, they are overused, and that usually results in predictable outcomes.

More later...


My regards,

Widewing

[Murdr]

i never said the FMs were more accurate in either sim, the area we are discussing is mostly untested so there is no way to properly test them vs. data.  we could use E/M curves if we knew all the data for all the deployment settings but i have not seen that listed anywhere for many of the types.  
what i have seen are warnings and what i have heard first hand from everyone i have talked to is that the flaps all increase lift and therefore will close up a turn but the cost is always drag and each extra degree/distance gets more and more expensive so the benefit/cost very soon starts to look very bleak.  that just does not appear to be what is happening in these games.

i am not saying all the fighters are turn fighters quite the opposite.  i am saying that some of the fighters are no longer "either or" vs. some of their opponents  i.e. they are better energy fighters when they want to be and then when they want to, they can drop some flap and are better turn fighters.  that i have never heard of anywhere.  i have always understood combat flaps to be a momentary aid to a couple of specific problems not a catch all turn "improver" that can be used continuously with so few consequences.  

It does, for instance...

You can see in this plot that flap deployment degrades rate of turn beyond 2 notches.  You can expect different characteristics with each plane model in this regard.  F4U1-D loses a little over 1/2 a degree per second in sustained turn rate at full flaps.  A P-51D loses a little over 2dps sustained over the range of flap deployment.

Issues can also get muddied when going from anicdotal to simulation.  Realisticly many US pilots flew combat missions and never saw an enemy aircraft.  That level of realism would be pretty boring.  While I wouldn't argue that flap usage in combat was anywhere near as common as you might see in AH it was done.  I've reposted an AAR a number of times of a 475th pilot who turned with an oscar at 90 mph IAS, where he says he did it because he knew had pleanty of help nearby if he needed it.  This after spending paragraphs explaining how they were told not to try to turn with enemy fighter, but pilots like McGuire often did it anyways.  But again, I would not argue that it was the norm when the situation was life and death.  Only that it did happen sucessfully when circumstances were right.  In a sim I'd expect it to happen more often.  Not that the model is perfect.  Widewing and I have discussed very specific performance issues that appear to be off by a degree, but I don't see a glaring FM wide issues as a problem.

[Karnak]

thorsim,

The problem I am having in understanding the problem you have is how vague you state it.  I am trying to follow you, but, well, I am not sure I am able to here.

What do you mean by:

yes there are turn fighters the spit 8(i guess) and ki84(i would think) should historically be two of the better ones.  however as you noted some energy fighters are very comfortable trading their envelopes for yours as you stated below.  the only reason for that is that experience in the game tells them that that is a way to achieve success.  nothing historically tells me that this should be the case.  were the envelopes more distinct this would not happen they would more often choose the energy fight as that is where their true advantages are.

It sounds to me like you are saying that there should be a bigger difference between, say, a Spitfire and a P-47 in terms of turn performance than is the case in AH.  Is that correct?

i never said the FMs were more accurate in either sim, the area we are discussing is mostly untested so there is no way to properly test them vs. data.  we could use E/M curves if we knew all the data for all the deployment settings but i have not seen that listed anywhere for many of the types.

As has been stated, it can and has been tested for many of these fighters in AH.  I agree that HTC's charts are not explicit, but players have generated more detailed information as well as E/M curves for at least some of the fighters.

what i have seen are warnings and what i have heard first hand from everyone i have talked to is that the flaps all increase lift and therefore will close up a turn but the cost is always drag and each extra degree/distance gets more and more expensive so the benefit/cost very soon starts to look very bleak.  that just does not appear to be what is happening in these games.

They do that in AH too, but it sounds like you think the impact should be more dramatic.  I have also read extensively on WWII aviation, though not nearly to the degree that somebody like Widewing or Dan (Guppy) has, and nothing I've read makes me think the physics in AH are off.  I do think that player's use of those abilities is blatantly different, mostly due to a lack of air combat training and a lack of consequences should they lose or hit the ground.  I am not a physics guy here, but none of the equations that I have seen and been able to follow were wrong.

i am not saying all the fighters are turn fighters quite the opposite.  i am saying that some of the fighters are no longer "either or" vs. some of their opponents  i.e. they are better energy fighters when they want to be and then when they want to, they can drop some flap and are better turn fighters.  that i have never heard of anywhere.  i have always understood combat flaps to be a momentary aid to a couple of specific problems not a catch all turn "improver" that can be used continuously with so few consequences. 

Why do you think that is not correct?  I can think of multiple WWII fighters that could be either/or and some don't even have to use flaps to do it.  Specifically, things like the later Spitfires, the Ki-84, the F6F can all play both games, and do them both well.  That matches up very well with the historical accounts of those aircraft.  In regards to the flaps, I don't know any player in AH who is consistently successful and who lets his flaps hang out all the way.  The lack of real death certainly allows players to do so, but I think the ones that do that, die a lot because of it when a player who knows how to fight is encountered.

[Masherbrum]

"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.

Every Marine pilot that flew the Corsair called it the "Sweetheart of Okinawa".   

[Angus]

Neither the Spit or Hurry benefitted from flaps in a turnfight. While the flaps would indeed deploy quite quickly, their purpose was drag above lift.
Imagine the whine if the Spit had some turn flaps 
FYI, land based Hurricanes were landed on a British aircraft carrier as soon as 1940. The Carrier was smaller than the U.S. ones, and the Hurricanes had no tailhooks at all. (I think they had a sandbag aft of the radio in the fuselage). The pilots had never done this before. And the landing...without a mishap. (disaster came later).
Anyway, I hope that puts some light on those flaps.

Now imagine a Corsair as a counter to that. It has tremendous power, but quite some weight. With the advanced flaps it had, it could harness the power at lower speeds. Well, my 2 cents anyway.

BTW, I recall a mock-fight between a P51-H and a F4U-4, post war, where just about every trick in the book was used. I think the F4U had the better, and the pilot was later to become an astronaut, but who it was escapes me. Glenn perhaps, or would he be too young????

[thorsim]

every plane type should have its distinct advantages and disadvantages vs. every other plane.  that is the reality of different designs. 
even in planes where something like turn performance is a very close thing historically,and where one had low deflection flaps and one did not (say the spit and 109)
the flaps did not change the relationship between the two enough to clear up the turn performance debate between the two.  in the game they seem to make quite a bit of difference.

i have never heard of a situation where combat flaps produced enough of a change to shift a relationship between two planes that is normally most defined by the size of the two aircraft in question.

big planes have never been able to fight small, not even with 2 powerful jet engines and variable geometry wings.
size of a plane is a design decision, the consequences of which can not be significantly mitigated by other features. 

whatever is going on in AH and some other sims the smell test is very off imo.

when you combine that with

The thing here is that while the stall is milder it's the case universally, so it's not just the F4Us.

a reduced difficulty and a criteria that limits the effective use of combat flaps to only a few planes the envelopes on those planes become unrealistically expanded and the historic maneuverability relationships disappear.

what it is exactly that causes this in the game i do not know, however the flaps are clearly a contributing factor.
 
which lessens the experience imo.

+S+

t

---------------------------------------------------------------------

thorsim,

The problem I am having in understanding the problem you have is how vague you state it.  I am trying to follow you, but, well, I am not sure I am able to here.

What do you mean by:
It sounds to me like you are saying that there should be a bigger difference between, say, a Spitfire and a P-47 in terms of turn performance than is the case in AH.  Is that correct?

As has been stated, it can and has been tested for many of these fighters in AH.  I agree that HTC's charts are not explicit, but players have generated more detailed information as well as E/M curves for at least some of the fighters.

They do that in AH too, but it sounds like you think the impact should be more dramatic.  I have also read extensively on WWII aviation, though not nearly to the degree that somebody like Widewing or Dan (Guppy) has, and nothing I've read makes me think the physics in AH are off.  I do think that player's use of those abilities is blatantly different, mostly due to a lack of air combat training and a lack of consequences should they lose or hit the ground.  I am not a physics guy here, but none of the equations that I have seen and been able to follow were wrong.

Why do you think that is not correct?  I can think of multiple WWII fighters that could be either/or and some don't even have to use flaps to do it.  Specifically, things like the later Spitfires, the Ki-84, the F6F can all play both games, and do them both well.  That matches up very well with the historical accounts of those aircraft.  In regards to the flaps, I don't know any player in AH who is consistently successful and who lets his flaps hang out all the way.  The lack of real death certainly allows players to do so, but I think the ones that do that, die a lot because of it when a player who knows how to fight is encountered.

[thorsim]

so it is monday and none of those statements others have attributed to me in this thread have been shown to have actually been a quote of mine.

miss quotes, miss representations, and projections are a distraction to these conversations and really tend to be unproductive so i would appreciate it if others would only address what i actually say in the future.

thanks,

t

[Karnak]

thorsim,

I understand your claims.  You need to produce evidence to support it though.  Nowhere in all the reading I have done, and that is extensive, have I found anything that supports your concept of:

every plane type should have its distinct advantages and disadvantages vs. every other plane.  that is the reality of different designs.
even in planes where something like turn performance is a very close thing historically,and where one had low deflection flaps and one did not (say the spit and 109)
the flaps did not change the relationship between the two enough to clear up the turn performance debate between the two.  in the game they seem to make quite a bit of difference.

You are, in fact, the first person I have ever seen make claims that things should be locked in stone like that.


Sorry, but for such outlandish claims, you need to post supporting evidence.

[thorsim]

not sure what is outlandish ...

the envelopes seem very different from the origin games and not really reflective of history, and that was a good thing about those games.

isolating the exact issues or combination of issues would be quite a task however, and i think i am not out of bounds noticing these things and commenting on them or asking for explanations until the specifics are rooted out.  after all someone else might have some insights that i do not.

+S+

t

[Karnak]

not sure what is outlandish ...

the envelopes seem very different from the origin games and not really reflective of history, and that was a good thing about those games.

Using earlier games as a reference isn't a great idea.  Flight models have only become more realistic, not less.

isolating the exact issues or combination of issues would be quite a task however, and i think i am not out of bounds noticing these things and commenting on them or asking for explanations until the specifics are rooted out.  after all someone else might have some insights that i do not.

You have only presented your feelings, no data.  You say the model in AH and WB3 are not reflective of history, others say they are.  Which shall we go with, the data or the feelings?  I cannot emphasize this enough, you MUST present performance data that supports your argument.  Without that, you are just shooting the breeze.

Try http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ as a starting point.

[thorsim]

Using earlier games as a reference isn't a great idea.  Flight models have only become more realistic, not less.

The thing here is that while the stall is milder it's the case universally, so it's not just the F4Us.

And this is what it states about the POWER ON, FLAPS DOWN stall;
(Image removed from quote.)

Now take an F4U-4 and replicate that stall, perhaps I'm not flying it correctly, but I could not get it to " roll-off violently" and drop 600 to 900 feet. (yes I have stall limiter off    )

To me the stall was rather gentle and easily managed with rudder, but I'd like to hear what everyone thinks, in comparing the handbook statement to how it "feels" in game.

In our game, to really succeed in some knock-down scissors fights you have to be prepared to drop full flaps and raise them up again in a number of seconds. 

i do not agree with your statement quoted above.  i stand on my observations about the set relative to previous versions and the historic reality in the specific areas in which i have expressed my reservations in regards to the FMs

please do not infer that someone needs to have all the resources of the NOAA in order to accurately state that it is raining in a discussion that is taking place outside where everyone is getting wet. 

t

[Raptor]

i have never heard of a situation where combat flaps produced enough of a change to shift a relationship between two planes that is normally most defined by the size of the two aircraft in question.

big planes have never been able to fight small, not even with 2 powerful jet engines and variable geometry wings.
size of a plane is a design decision, the consequences of which can not be significantly mitigated by other features.  

This is taken from "Hangar Flying - Issue 6"
"Compiled from pilots, for pilots"

"High speed fighters today have a high wing loading and we all know that this increases the turning radius. This condition has been improved in the 38 by the use of Maneuvering or Combat Flaps. There is a Maneuvering Flap stop on the flap controls which extends the flaps fifty percent. These should not be extended at speeds in excess of 250 MPH. There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded.

Maneuvering flaps increase your lift, thus assisting you in making tighter turns. For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately. For example, in an effort to stay on an enemy's tail, you might feel in a tight turn the buffeting which is characteristic of an accelerated stall. You can "reef" her in and tighten your turn by lowering the maneuvering flaps until you have completed the maneuver, then retract them. By doing so immediately, little air speed is lost, and the plane is set again for maximum operations.

Don't be caught with your flaps down for any length of time in combat; the reason being that with maneuvering flaps down you can unknowingly get down to such low speeds that all the power in the world won't do you much good should you need sudden acceleration. From 25,000 feet to 35,000 feet the maneuvering flaps become increasingly helpful. Due to the thinness of the air you can't turn as sharp nor can you pull as many G's as can be done below 20,000 feet. As you go higher you find that you are stalling more frequently. You will be surprised at the increased maneuverability resulting from extending your flaps at this altitude.
I am taking a moment here to explain why Ray Meskimen says not to be caught with your flaps down. You gain maneuverability in flight with the flaps extended, but you are left slow for other fighters to dive in and "pick" you off. This is true in Aces High as well, you may get into a turnfight with a spit in a P38, leave your flaps out and get the kill. But once you level off, you are going 200mph at 5k when you started at 350mph at 10k. So a plane coming in at 7k will have an advantage over you.
Usually the individual's physical and mental limitations - not the plane's limitations - are factors that govern combat maneuverability. In many cases the plane will "take" a lot more than you as the pilot can stand; therefore, recognize your own limitations-know how many G's you can stand, and for how long; be so familiar with your plane that .you automatically react to a situation despite the gray haze that creeps before your eyes in a sharp pull out.
Thomas McGuire was often noted for bending the wings on his P38 because he pulled so many G's in his P38.

One test pilot flew the P38 in mock combat against several other American fighters, he said he easily out maneuvered them "except for one shifty pilot in a wildcat."

[Stoney]

i do not agree with your statement quoted above.  i stand on my observations about the set relative to previous versions and the historic reality in the specific areas in which i have expressed my reservations in regards to the FMs

please do not infer that someone needs to have all the resources of the NOAA in order to accurately state that it is raining in a discussion that is taking place outside where everyone is getting wet. 

t

Then don't be surprised when we express contempt.  For most of us unwashed masses, we feel the model is an accurate approximation (i.e. we are not getting wet).

[Murdr]

Thomas McGuire was often noted for bending the wings on his P38 because he pulled so many G's in his P38.

One test pilot flew the P38 in mock combat against several other American fighters, he said he easily out maneuvered them "except for one shifty pilot in a wildcat."

Thinking of John Tilley maybe?

"Mac (McGuire) told those under his command never to turn with an enemy fighter in the heavy 38 but he did it anyway with great sucess, particularly at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90 mph."   Although dogfighting in the Lightning was often played down officially, it was more common than not.  Tilley remembered 'most of our fights with the Japanese started out above 20,000 feet but damned soon everyone was milling around on the deck.  And that lovely Lightning just didn't have any competition at low altitude.  Ive flown the P-51 (liked it very much) and the P-47 (disliked it very much), and Ive engaged in mock dogfights against just about all our WWII fighter planes.  The only one the ole Lockheed Rocking Chair and I had trouble staying behind was a pretty savvy Navy type in an F4f Wildcat."

[thorsim]

right, so if what the historic reference says is true in the game why would the 38 pilot enter that fight in AH unless in the game his is experiencing more success than the historic reference states that he should.

also the historic reference states ...

"For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately"

that is far less than your apparent understanding according to this statement here.

"You gain maneuverability in flight with the flaps extended"

as maneuvering flaps as your source stated only helps in some maneuvers.  

i am not sure what flaps might have to do with over-stressing your airframe, as i believe you can do that whatever your flap state.  

btw Thomas McGuire died doing those things we regularly get away with in the game because it has been made more survivable ...

WHICH HAS RESULTED IN AN ARTIFICIAL EXTENSION OF THE BIG PLANES ENVELOPE RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE SET  

the other american fighters were not the best turn-fighters of the war, and the wildcat results kind of proves my point about bigger planes not being able to beat a smaller one in the smaller planes fight.  

if we all had to fight our fights the game would be much more interesting, like they were before. IMO

This is taken from "Hangar Flying - Issue 6"
"Compiled from pilots, for pilots"

"High speed fighters today have a high wing loading and we all know that this increases the turning radius. This condition has been improved in the 38 by the use of Maneuvering or Combat Flaps. There is a Maneuvering Flap stop on the flap controls which extends the flaps fifty percent. These should not be extended at speeds in excess of 250 MPH. There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded.

Maneuvering flaps increase your lift, thus assisting you in making tighter turns. For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately. For example, in an effort to stay on an enemy's tail, you might feel in a tight turn the buffeting which is characteristic of an accelerated stall. You can "reef" her in and tighten your turn by lowering the maneuvering flaps until you have completed the maneuver, then retract them. By doing so immediately, little air speed is lost, and the plane is set again for maximum operations.

Don't be caught with your flaps down for any length of time in combat; the reason being that with maneuvering flaps down you can unknowingly get down to such low speeds that all the power in the world won't do you much good should you need sudden acceleration. From 25,000 feet to 35,000 feet the maneuvering flaps become increasingly helpful. Due to the thinness of the air you can't turn as sharp nor can you pull as many G's as can be done below 20,000 feet. As you go higher you find that you are stalling more frequently. You will be surprised at the increased maneuverability resulting from extending your flaps at this altitude.
I am taking a moment here to explain why Ray Meskimen says not to be caught with your flaps down. You gain maneuverability in flight with the flaps extended, but you are left slow for other fighters to dive in and "pick" you off. This is true in Aces High as well, you may get into a turnfight with a spit in a P38, leave your flaps out and get the kill. But once you level off, you are going 200mph at 5k when you started at 350mph at 10k. So a plane coming in at 7k will have an advantage over you.
Usually the individual's physical and mental limitations - not the plane's limitations - are factors that govern combat maneuverability. In many cases the plane will "take" a lot more than you as the pilot can stand; therefore, recognize your own limitations-know how many G's you can stand, and for how long; be so familiar with your plane that .you automatically react to a situation despite the gray haze that creeps before your eyes in a sharp pull out.
Thomas McGuire was often noted for bending the wings on his P38 because he pulled so many G's in his P38.

One test pilot flew the P38 in mock combat against several other American fighters, he said he easily out maneuvered them "except for one shifty pilot in a wildcat."

not surprised, we just want different things from the video game, it is disappointing that results in contempt from some of you though.  

Then don't be surprised when we express contempt.  For most of us unwashed masses, we feel the model is an accurate approximation (i.e. we are not getting wet).