Flaps usage in real combat

[FLS]

Brooke I believe Hitech has posted that IAS is modeled with the position errors.

[Brooke]

Brooke I believe Hitech has posted that IAS is modeled with the position errors.

Interesting.  There isn't a large difference between indicated air speed and calibrated air speed, but my compliments to HTC if they model the difference.

[Brent Haliday]

That is not correct.  Different aircraft have different mechanisms.  Some can withstand very large forces (P-51 as an example), and others cannot.  Even if aircraft have the same wing and flap dimensions, forces on internal structures can be hugely different depending on how those internal structures are designed.  They are not all similar.  Likewise, not all aircraft have the same top speed, same stall speed, same g limit, same Vne, same ability to handle high-load carrier landings, and so on.

No, you are lacking documentation.  HTC probably has documentation that lists the deployment speeds.  You are arguing that they should disregard that in favor of your preferences and your incorrect idea that all flaps should be able to deploy at the same speeds, regardless of interior mechanism and many other factors (such as pitch moment, for example).

It doesn't support anything.  No data on X > Y doesn't mean that X < Y.  X could still be > Y, = Y, or < Y -- you don't know.

Outside of compressiblity, all trim works about the same -- it changes the zero-force point.  In compressibility, there are many factors at work with regard to how the plane handles.  Trim does in some cases work differently in compressibility between trim tabs and moving the horizontal stabilizer.  This is certainly true between the 109 and the P-38 (which in compressibility has the tail in a compressibility stall as well and so trim tabs have no effect).  However, do you know that in AH, in a vertical dive in compressibility, that you can pull a Bf 109 out of it with up trim but you can't do that in a P-38?  So, in AH, that works correctly after all.

No sir you are misrepresenting what I posted.  The relationship is between the force and each structure.  Not between one structure to another. 
Your argument is also convoluted and contradictory.  You recognize that it is force and not speed that is the limiting factor but you defend the retarding of the speeds and therefore perverting force/speed relationship in cases where the speeds per deflection angle are not available in the POH.  As I stated that argument can not be defended. 
You are suggesting, without any supporting data I might add, that the strength of the same structure varies in deployment and actually falls below its POH stated safe force load.  An assumption that if it were true would make it Impossible to deploy safely at its stated safe speed when passing through your assumed weak phase while being deployed.  There is no real world rational or example of a control surface being so designed,  it is contrary to design principals of flight control surfaces.  Landing gear maybe yes but structures intended to be used for flight control, not a chance.
You make this unsupported assumption because you say you must have data to support a force load you already know from the stated limit at other deflection angles.  Yet you assume correct another deployment speed that is not found in the POH.  So no data for retarded deployment speeds is ok, but no data for deployment speeds that match the known stated force load per the POH are unacceptable?  It just makes no sense and therefore can not be defended under informed scrutiny.

[bustr]

Brent,

You are arguing with Brooke to set him up as a proxy for Hitech. You have yet to tell Hitech exactly what you want from him based on your arguments, that so far you are trying to support solely on the pedigree of your aviation engineering knowledge as your resume to pick your fight with Hitech. But, the aircraft in question are not being supported by you with specific data, rather a floating target of engineering principles your audience is versed in as well as yourself.

Would you mind telling Hitech exactly what you want from him instead of using Brooke as a shill to get away with insulting Hitech while hiding behind engineering babel. 

[Brooke]

No sir . . . 

I disagree with just about everything in that post.

Nevertheless, it is very simple:  if you think that a max flap-deployment speed in AH is wrong, post some data that shows this.

So far, your argument seems to be:  "I can't find anything contradicting my claims, so they must be true; and anyways here are my ideas on how the engineering and physics of it should work."  Both aspects of that don't work.  Just because you can't find anything contradicting your claims doesn't mean your claims are true; and your justifications based on your ideas of engineering and physics have flaws.

In addition, you keep misrepresenting or misunderstanding all of my points.  If I were your instructor in an engineering or physics course, I would give you an F (or maybe a D, since you at least listed some reasoning). 

[Brent Haliday]

Firstly you have posted no data to dispute my observations, you just keep asking me to produce numbers that the publishers did not print in the POH because I can only conclude they thought them unnecessary or they would be included, I even gave some very good reasons why that might be the case.
Secondly, I didn't start this thread or the many others on this very subject.  I just posted a way to show why people, many people (including other game designers, and reseachers) find HTC's decision on this aspect of the game suspect, and an alternative common sense method used by others to achieve a more realistic conclusion.
I wouldn't presume to ask anybody anything just offering another valid pov on things, and why it is probably correct, or at least more correct.
The force is the limiting factor, on that we agree.  Now it does not treat the same types of things differently, the same speeds and deflection angles produce the same force per sq inch so there is no argument that can be made that changes that.  A structure of this type that is safe at 100psi will always be safe at 100psi no matter the combination of angle and speed you use to get to 100 psi.  That is just how it is everywhere, except in HTC world.  For some reason on that you choose to disagree, and have yet to present your case as to why.  
Once again I feel we are at an impasse, so instead of asking for data thought not important enough to print 70 years ago.  Why don't you show me why I am incorrect about all this stuff.

[Brooke]

Why don't you show me why I am incorrect about all this stuff.

I have.  I'll summarize yet again.
1.  You feel that max flap-deployment speed for aircraft in AH is too high.
2.  You have no data giving flap-deployment speeds that contradict AH.
3.  You say that, because you haven't found a pilot's statement of flaps failing at higher speeds, this supports your claim.  (That is incorrect reasoning because the absence of an example is not at all a counterexample.  Just because you can't find statements of "X > Y" does not imply that X < Y.  It can still be >, =, or < Y.)
4.  You seem to think that, because forces on flaps are lower at lower deflections, this helps validate your claim.  (That is incorrect.  First, AH already models lower force on lower deflections, the proof of it being that deploying one notch of flaps happens at higher speeds than deploying more than one notch of flaps.  Second, this says nothing about what the low-deflection flap-deployment speed should be.)
5.  You seem to think that all planes should have about the same flap deployment speeds.  (That is incorrect.  Different mechanisms, even for the same flap area, will have different strengths.  Some planes will be able to deploy flaps at a higher speed, or higher forces if you want me to talk about it that way, than others because they certainly do not all have the same internal designs for actuator mechanisms.  This is about as straightforward as realizing why all WWII fighter planes didn't have the same stick pull per g of effect, the same roll rate, the same Vne, the same max g, etc.)

Please feel free to tell me if you actually don't think 4 and 5.  I can't tell on some things because you don't tend to answer direct questions directly.

other game designers, and reseachers) find HTC's decision on this aspect of the game suspect

I generally don't see that level of bald-faced fabrication outside of politics. 

There are, however -- posting in this topic and for certain -- people with substantial experience and backgrounds in engineering, physics, aerodynamics, and mathematical and computational modeling who disagree with you.

[FLOOB]

BUTTFACES!

[Brent Haliday]

I have.  I'll summarize yet again.
1.  You feel that max flap-deployment speed for aircraft in AH is too high.
2.  You have no data giving flap-deployment speeds that contradict AH.
3.  You say that, because you haven't found a pilot's statement of flaps failing at higher speeds, this supports your claim.  (That is incorrect reasoning because the absence of an example is not at all a counterexample.  Just because you can't find statements of "X > Y" does not imply that X < Y.  It can still be >, =, or < Y.)
4.  You seem to think that, because forces on flaps are lower at lower deflections, this helps validate your claim.  (That is incorrect.  First, AH already models lower force on lower deflections, the proof of it being that deploying one notch of flaps happens at higher speeds than deploying more than one notch of flaps.  Second, this says nothing about what the low-deflection flap-deployment speed should be.)
5.  You seem to think that all planes should have about the same flap deployment speeds.  (That is incorrect.  Different mechanisms, even for the same flap area, will have different strengths.  Some planes will be able to deploy flaps at a higher speed, or higher forces if you want me to talk about it that way, than others because they certainly do not all have the same internal designs for actuator mechanisms.  This is about as straightforward as realizing why all WWII fighter planes didn't have the same stick pull per g of effect, the same roll rate, the same Vne, the same max g, etc.)

Please feel free to tell me if you actually don't think 4 and 5.  I can't tell on some things because you don't tend to answer direct questions directly.

I generally don't see that level of bald-faced fabrication outside of politics. 

There are, however -- posting in this topic and for certain -- people with substantial experience and backgrounds in engineering, physics, aerodynamics, and mathematical and computational modeling who disagree with you.

1; nope never said that, or at least never meant to communicate that.  What I said is that the low deflection FDS are too low on most FMs in AH, And that if the low deflection FDS are not specifically stated in the POH, HTC's apparent preferred source, that the unlisted speeds could be easily calculated using the calculated force loads calculated from the "known" or in this case POH stated deflection/s safe FDS.

2; since the accepted data is limited to one type of source in this case, no I can not produce safe deployment speed statements for deflection angles that the publishers of the documents did not include.  Otoh neither can HTC, yet he does so anyway, just at substantially lower speeds than a lot of other sources of data and or information would put them.

3; the absence of reports of a problem, is strong evidence that there was no problem.  Especially when fighter pilots are involved.

4; my point is that since the wind forces are the same, and the flap is the same, then the relationship between the flaps and the wind forces should be the same. 

5; no, flaps are different size, type, have different max deflection angles, and or a deflection angle settings, all will result in different FDS for different aircraft.  However (and this is what you are not getting) the relationship  between deflection angle and airspeed and force should be the same.  The reason is this simple, each flap system does not change shape, size, or structural integrity in its deployment process.  What changes is its deflection angle into the airflow.  The limiting factor is the structural integrity of the device.  It takes much more air speed to reach the structural integrity limit at 1/10 it's fully deployed setting then it would at 10/10 it's fully deployed setting.  That is what is the same that relationship.  whatever the specific angle and speeds may be for each specific flap system the relationship should be the same (or I should say so similar as to make very little difference) I.e. if plane 1 can deploy 45 degrees of flaps at x speed and 5 degrees of flaps at 4x speed safely, then any aircraft that can deploy 45 degrees and 5 degrees should be able to use the same factors of what ever is their safe 45 and 5 degree speed, say z and 4z.
furthermore 10 - 20 degrees of deflection results in so low a force on a flap structure that that range would pretty much be available at any speed these aircraft are capable of achieving, so to deny the vast majority of aircraft with the capability to deploy 20 degrees or less until below the speed that the landing gear can be deployed is as far from realistic as one can get.

Last time I played il2 FDS was @ 300ias for most planes with low deflection flap settings, ask anyone who knows about 10 degrees of flaps vs 60 degrees and safe deployment speeds and se what they say.

Funny all I see here is you and all you do is ask for "data" and when I provide some all you do is go to extreme amounts of supposition to attempt to refute it.  Where is your army of experts that say flaps get weaker at lower deflection angles?

[FLS]

Why would you use flaps at 300 IAS? No G limits?

You mention other sources with flap speed data but you don't list them.

[BaldEagl]

furthermore 10 - 20 degrees of deflection results in so low a force on a flap structure that that range would pretty much be available at any speed these aircraft are capable of achieving

If a compressing aircraft needs trim tabs to assist control surfaces you really believe they can just drop flaps?  That's beyond silly.

[FLS]

If you learn aerodynamics from iL2 there's probably a few bits missing.

[Brent Haliday]

If a compressing aircraft needs trim tabs to assist control surfaces you really believe they can just drop flaps?  That's beyond silly.

Really? Why is that? What device stops them?  What is the structural difference between a split flap and a p38 speed flap?  FYI the plane we were discussing did not have trim tabs so you should either be more clear or re read the thread.

Why would you use flaps at 300 IAS? No G limits?

You mention other sources with flap speed data but you don't list them.

The same reasons  p51 pilots used their flaps at high speeds. 
Point being they were similar structures designed and used for the same things. 
What is the difference between a p51 flap and a 109 flap? Do you know?
No I said others came to different conclusions. when the data was not conveniently specific enough.

If you learn aerodynamics from iL2 there's probably a few bits missing.

I Was discussing il2 s different conclusions from the same data pool as HTC, not relative aerodynamic credibility.  BTW the same could be said of using HTC as an aerodynamic reference.  

[GScholz]

If a compressing aircraft needs trim tabs to assist control surfaces you really believe they can just drop flaps?  That's beyond silly.

Compressibility effects vary greatly between different aircraft. In the 109 both trim and flaps were used to pull out of dives.

"The story of Valte Estama's 109 G-6 getting shot down by a Yak-6 was also an interesting one. Their flight of nine planes was doing high-altitude CAP at 7,000 meters (23,000'). (snip) So it happened that the devil fired at him. One cannon round hit his engine, spilling out oil that caught fire. Estama noticed that it wasn't fuel that leaked or burned, just oil. He pushed the nose of the plane and throttled up. His feet felt hot, but the fire was extinguished and there was no more smoke. The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. He pulled the throttle back, but the stick was stiff and couldn't pull the plane out of the dive. Letting the flaps out little by little gradually lifted the nose. The plane leveled at 1,000 meters (3,300'). Clarification of the escape dive: "It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims). Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."

- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

[asterix]

3; the absence of reports of a problem, is strong evidence that there was no problem.  Especially when fighter pilots are involved.

The absence of reports of a problem could also mean that the flaps on some aircraft were not used the same way that they were used on others or people don`t feel the need to search for such information. Pilots in WW2 probably didn`t calculate forces and deployment speeds for flaps at lower settings based on some information found in POH. So maybe overspeed damage is missing because they were not used in such a way.