Flaps usage in real combat

[BaldEagl]

J.A.W., why have you chosen to pollute our aircraft and vehicle forum with your unsubstantiated claims?

I find it curious how everyone else is wrong about everything and you are always right.  You have lost all credibility here if you had any to begin with.

Now run along before you're banned from the AH BBs for your incessant trolling.

[J.A.W.]

Well now Baldy, them's  purty bold words to choose for a smoke screen ol' buddy..

How 'bout jest lettin' the facts speak, 'stead of gettin' all ornery & ad-hominem, again - huh?

[BaldEagl]

Well now Baldy, them's  purty bold words to choose for a smoke screen ol' buddy..

How 'bout jest lettin' the facts speak, 'stead of gettin' all ornery & ad-hominem, again - huh?

ad-hominem?

The facts have spoken in every tread you've posted in yet you refuse to believe them or post any substantiating references of your own.

Like I said, no credibility.  You're just another simple minded internet troll.

[J.A.W.]

Hey Baldy - why not actually post some useful data - instead of repeating your useless trolling?

& do you really read - or even comprehend  - the data?

If so, kindly contribute to the discussion, rather than produce blather..

[BaldEagl]

Hey Baldy - why not actually post some useful data - instead of repeating your useless trolling?

I might ask you to do the same.

[J.A.W.]

Point out some of your posts that reference valid data sets then, please,  Baldy..

I'll gladly critique them..

All I've seen in your 'contributions' so far - is mindless filibuster..

So, sadly - unless you can step up - then perhaps it would be best to set you on 'ignore'..

[Golfer]

Yeah he knows everything and will stand on his assumptions when dead nuts wrong.

Case in point, the Space Shuttle.  Nearly everything white you see is fabric covered. His explanation was it's some sort of protective blankie. Or they don't fly with it. Or when shown a photo in orbit they were avionics blankets.  What about the upper wing surface, fuselage, tail, engine cowl?  Or....if...but...

Told me all I needed to know about the bozo.  I'll take the community here in A&V over this Jaw flapper any day.

[Saxman]

Here's a relevant question to hopefully move closer to topic: Should flap deployment speeds be based on TAS or IAS?

I've seen this plenty of times: The first notch of flaps in the Corsair always deploys at 250mph IAS, regardless of altitude. End result, that first notch of flaps comes out at a wide array of airspeeds. While I don't fly many of the other aircraft, they seem to function the same way, and flap deployment speeds are based on IAS.

[Golfer]

IAS.

[Brooke]

& how difficult is it for you Brooke, ( in order to allay suspicion & establish valid data)..

- to fly a Tempest test & compare A-H virtual performance with that actual test chart posted?

& then - how would any significant difference be resolved?

It takes a time investment in the flying and, depending on what is being tested, possibly some calculation as well.  Also, it takes having the data, keeping in mind that not all data is of the same quality and that there will be variability in the data, source to source.

I haven't done that except for a couple of aspects for the F4U (because there was so much unsubstantiated complaining about the F4U's turning ability with full flaps some years back).  My testing, data, and calculation matched how the plane is in AH, so I didn't see any discrepancy.

For anyone, if they spot a discrepancy vs. some credible data, they can send their observation and the data to HTC, and HTC will look at it.

[Brooke]

Here's a relevant question to hopefully move closer to topic: Should flap deployment speeds be based on TAS or IAS?

I've seen this plenty of times: The first notch of flaps in the Corsair always deploys at 250mph IAS, regardless of altitude. End result, that first notch of flaps comes out at a wide array of airspeeds. While I don't fly many of the other aircraft, they seem to function the same way, and flap deployment speeds are based on IAS.

IAS is more relevant.  Air density varies with altitude, and various properties and forces (lift, drag, etc.) are dependent on air density.  IAS approximately normalizes everything to how it is at the same air density.  So, lift, drag, etc. are approximately the same at 250 IAS at 10k or 1k, even though TAS is much different at 10k vs. 1k.

One caveat for those truly interested in small picky details.  Real aircraft have true airspeed (the speed they are really going relative to the atmosphere), indicated airspeed (what their airspeed indicators say in the cockpit), and calibrated airspeed (what their airspeed indicators in the cockpit would say if they didn't have various calibration errors as a result of things like where the pitot tubes are placed, airflow into them that isn't perfectly in line with the tube, etc.).  Most pilot's manuals I've seen for WWII aircraft have a table in them that allows a person to convert from IAS to CAS.  CAS is probably what we see on our airspeed indicators in Aces High, as otherwise, they would have to model the inaccuracy of the system on each plane (which would be a hassle for not a lot of benefit, in my opinion).  Sometimes in manuals, it isn't clear when they give an airspeed (such as stall speed, for example) whether it is given in IAS or CAS, and you have to check some different sections of the manual to make sure which they mean.  The difference between IAS and CAS is typically about a couple mph.

[Brent Haliday]

Here's a relevant question to hopefully move closer to topic: Should flap deployment speeds be based on TAS or IAS?

I've seen this plenty of times: The first notch of flaps in the Corsair always deploys at 250mph IAS, regardless of altitude. End result, that first notch of flaps comes out at a wide array of airspeeds. While I don't fly many of the other aircraft, they seem to function the same way, and flap deployment speeds are based on IAS.

Which should tell any person reasonably familiar that the FDS is a air FORCE issue, not an air speed issue so the safe deployment speeds is easily calculated at all the design allowed deflection angles when you know one deflection/ias relationship because the safe force limit will not change when the deflections and air speed are adjusted, as long as the new relationship meets the force limit.

Btw Brooke nice math but not really pertinent are they. lift calculations are not really applicable to safe airspeed limit calculations like we were discussing are they?

Still no real world overspeed damage reports posted either I see.

And there are consequences to trim tab vs. adjustable stab trim, differences HTC does not take into account as it treats all systems the same as you all have stated.

TAS and IAS have consequences they are just on different aspects of flight.  Pretty sure Brooke will or should agree. 

[Brooke]

Which should tell any person reasonably familiar that the FDS is a air FORCE issue, not an air speed issue so the safe deployment speeds is easily calculated at all the design allowed deflection angles when you know one deflection/ias relationship because the safe force limit will not change when the deflections and air speed are adjusted, as long as the new relationship meets the force limit.

Btw Brooke nice math but not really pertinent are they. lift calculations are not really applicable to safe airspeed limit calculations like we were discussing are they?

Of course things depend on force.  No one said otherwise.  However, since force is about the same at a given IAS (as a result of the physics and math behind aerodynamics), that is why everyone (we here, and pilot's manuals, and flight tests) talk about what the IAS is when you can deploy flaps.

All you need to know is at what IAS can you deploy flaps to a given setting.  What you seem to think is that some source said "60 degrees of flaps can be deployed at X" and that HTC is then using X as the speed at which 10 degrees of flaps can be deployed.  They don't do that.  As you can easily verify with many aircraft in AH, you can deploy the first notch of flaps at a higher speed than for the 2nd notch, and the 2nd notch at a higher speed than full flaps.  So, they are already taking into account that less deflection of flaps is less force.

You seem to feel that the speed at which that first notch of flaps can be deployed is too low.  Find some credible references that say otherwise, and you are all set.

Still no real world overspeed damage reports posted either I see.

Just because you can't find any references that say "I deployed flaps at higher than X and damaged my flaps or crashed and died" doesn't mean that a game that models aircraft should take what is posted in a pilot's manual, which says "don't deploy flaps at speeds higher than X", and ignore it.  That would be, in my opinion, stupid.

And there are consequences to trim tab vs. adjustable stab trim, differences HTC does not take into account as it treats all systems the same as you all have stated.

Oh?  What are those that result in different behavior in AH?

[Brent Haliday]

Of course things depend on force.  No one said otherwise.  However, since force is about the same at a given IAS (as a result of the physics and math behind aerodynamics), that is why everyone (we here, and pilot's manuals, and flight tests) talk about what the IAS is when you can deploy flaps.

All you need to know is at what IAS can you deploy flaps to a given setting.  What you seem to think is that some source said "60 degrees of flaps can be deployed at X" and that HTC is then using X as the speed at which 10 degrees of flaps can be deployed.  They don't do that.  As you can easily verify with many aircraft in AH, you can deploy the first notch of flaps at a higher speed than for the 2nd notch, and the 2nd notch at a higher speed than full flaps.  So, they are already taking into account that less deflection of flaps is less force.

You seem to feel that the speed at which that first notch of flaps can be deployed is too low.  Find some credible references that say otherwise, and you are all set.

Just because you can't find any references that say "I deployed flaps at higher than X and damaged my flaps or crashed and died" doesn't mean that a game that models aircraft should take what is posted in a pilot's manual, which says "don't deploy flaps at speeds higher than X", and ignore it.  That would be, in my opinion, stupid.

Oh?  What are those that result in different behavior in AH?

The planes we were discussing did not state deployment speed  limits on their low deflection flap settings, so your stupid/opinion comment does not apply.  Landing is a setting, as is maneuver, flight and takeoff.

The credible data is the deployment speeds of other aircraft stated in their POH ... 

I.E. no argument can be made for accuracy when one set of flaps can deploy 3x faster at 1/6 their full flap deflection
While another aircraft is limited to 1.3x faster at 1/6 it's full deflection (when their relative deflection ranges are very similar) because it is all force related and the forces are the same.  So the situation that exists is that the force loads that are generated by the same airspeeds, and air density, and degrees of measurement of deflection are treated differently because of the lack of documentation that is not at all a factor.  Not at all a factor in the forces being represented, or in the ability for anyone to figure out the limits.  I.E. htc is missing nothing required to figure out the true limits.  The resulting incorrect representation in the game is simply a choice by HTC. 

Not finding any reports of overspeed damage supports the fact that FDS was not limited as strictly by real world forces as it is by the game, and since the data selected by HTC has different priorities determined by the original operators those different priorities causes a resulting reduction of capabilities in some aircraft in the game compared to others.  Those reduced capabilities have no relationship to history or real world physics, they only exist in the game because of what one operator thought was important to include in their POH compared to what other operators thought was important enough to include in their POH, and of course since it is one of the few aspects of the FMs HTC decided to strictly adhere to POH data as their data requirement.

At some point airflow over surfaces (consequences of TAS) becomes more of a limiting factor that resistance forces. (Consequences of IAS) at least for a while (VMAX/CSF) this is one of the situations where different types of trim systems have different consequences real world wise.  Why flaps and trim would not recover a compressing 38 and may recover a compressing ME-109 or FW-190.

[Brooke]

I.E. no argument can be made for accuracy when one set of flaps can deploy 3x faster at 1/6 their full flap deflection
While another aircraft is limited to 1.3x faster at 1/6 it's full deflection (when their relative deflection ranges are very similar) because it is all force related and the forces are the same. 

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.

So the situation that exists is that the force loads that are generated by the same airspeeds, and air density, and degrees of measurement of deflection are treated differently because of the lack of documentation that is not at all a factor.  Not at all a factor in the forces being represented, or in the ability for anyone to figure out the limits.  I.E. htc is missing nothing required to figure out the true limits.  The resulting incorrect representation in the game is simply a choice by HTC. 

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).

Not finding any reports of overspeed damage supports . . .

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.

At some point airflow over surfaces (consequences of TAS) becomes more of a limiting factor that resistance forces. (Consequences of IAS) at least for a while (VMAX/CSF) this is one of the situations where different types of trim systems have different consequences real world wise.  Why flaps and trim would not recover a compressing 38 and may recover a compressing ME-109 or FW-190.

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.