Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kweassa on June 19, 2004, 01:31:22 AM
-
A post which originally has been written for G/D forums discussion. But I believe this is something people should think over before requesting something different.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Auto-flaps, suck...wish they'd get rid of them and it's going to take getting used to them again because the spins they throw you in now are pretty much unrecoverable.
We've talked about this online before, but basically according to HT, the automatic retraction of flaps is there to enforce limits of flaps usage as stated in the pilots manuals of each planes.
Nobody seems to be sure what the realistic physical limit of flaps on the WW2 planes are - it is logical to assume that the pilots manuals have listed flap deployment speeds according to the "safety first" agenda, rather than its true limits. In real life, probably flaps could be deployed in higher speeds than in AH.
However, the problem with it is that there is no real way to implement how flaps are operated, reaches its limits, and then gets busted. Not to mention that in real life, generally the flaps were never considered as any kind of primary flight control to operate during a fight. Flaps are at best, a secondary flight surface used for limited, specific purposes in take-offs and landings, used as stability gear.
Ofcourse, some of the expert pilots did seem to have found out that in certain situations flaps can be of aid to combat - in slow speed maneuvering, stabilization of the plane, dumping E states for tighter turns, making emergency pull-outs and etc.. Walter Nowotny's account specifically mentions him using flaps as a means to gain momentarily tighter turn radius to achieve firing solution against the more nimble Soviet fighters with his 190, and many more simular cases of flap usage for all pilots of all countries.
But normally, flaps were never intended as combat equipment, and planes that were able to deploy flaps at higher speeds than usual tend to describe it specifically as a special, 'combat setting'. It remains a distinct advantages and traits to some of the planes.
....
Basically the logic behind the "remove auto-retraction" argument, is in reality a "let flaps be able to operate at higher speeds" argument.
Those who request it, especially the P-38 pilots of AH, take on the reason that at certain points of maneuvering the retraction of flaps destabilizes their plane(since retraction increases the stall speed). Thus, in essence, they want their planes to be able to hold its flap positions above the listed speeds in the pilots manual.
HT has clearly stated that according to his agenda, if the auto-retraction is removed the only thing remaining is immediate flap failure at the same level of speed the flaps would auto-retract.
That of course, would not be what the P-38 pilots want. Instead of auto-retraction when they fail to contain their speed under the maximum flap deployment speed, they want to see the flaps locked solid over the listed speed so that the plane maintains its advantages in speed inhibition(to prevent overshoots in close maneuvering) and stabilization(to keep the lowered stall speed intact).
However, to do that. AH must "assume" a certain generic point in flap failure - how much higher speed the flaps can maintain normal operation over the recommended/listed max speed for deployment. It's either that, or random failures which nobody wants to see.
That would seem fine and dandy at first, but since there's no way HT would grant such a waiver to only the P-38, it would apply to all other planes as well.
Suddenly, all the planes in AH will have higher flap deployment speeds than before, and ultimately, all the pilots would be utilizing this fact to their own profit - which would mean the air combat of AH would start to tear away from reality, as in flaps becoming a very important, primary control in maneuvering, which in real life was never the case, even for the 'experten'.
.....
In other words, in the long run it would actually hurt the P-38L, and most other US planes to even higher a degree, because one of their most distinctive traits in AH was that only they had the ability to utilize flaps as combat devices at higher speeds. The P-51s and P-47s have combat flaps deployable upto 400mph. The P-38L and the F4U starts popping flaps at much lower speed than that, but still way higher than most of the planes on AH.
I'm not an expert in any kind of US plane, but I believe that allows me to retain a much more objective view on the flap issue - since I'm only average, the distinct traits of US planes catch my immediate attention and allow me to compare with the LW planes I usually fly.
For me, one of the most impressive and envious advantages the US planes hold over my usual Messerschmitt or Fockewulf, is that despite none of the US planes are decisively better in maneuverabilty, they always seem to be able to gain an edge during maneuvering. Not because they can turn so well like a Spitfire, but because;
1) They can dump speed at a higher rate at high speed maneuvering(which lets them outturn 109s and 190s, even La-7s at speeds between 250~400mph)
and
2) greatly stabilize the planes at low speed maneuvering(between speed ranges of 150mph~250mph).
I've stated this in some other thread, but the most fearful fact about US planes when I'm facing them in a Messerschmitt, is that they can pull off a radical change of nose angle during low-speed, rolling scissors which the 109 cannot follow.
As I saddle up behind them they attempt to pull rolling scissors. If I fail to bring them down before they start that move, I have no choice but to try and follow it(unless I just cowardly zoom and accelerate away). For the first few rolls and scissors I can follow. but when the speed of both planes drop down at the critical "200mph line", the US planes rolls over high, starts popping out flaps, kicks rudders and whip their noses over into my plane. This is something no 109 can follow, much less a 190.
To counter that I must also follow it upwards, and initiate a slower roll so I can get out of the way of their guns, keep the enemy in front of me, and keep saddled up behind them - except at that critical "200mph line", my 109 cannot pull into them, because the AoA is too high while my speed is too low. That is the decisive moment where the ability of being able to use flaps while the other plane cannot, shines out like a beacon. I need to use flaps to follow my enemy, but I cannot use them because my speed is still at the 200mph borderline!
That critical moment I have met time again, against many expert US plane pilots - I've been outturned and outmaneuvered even in much more nimble Bf109F-4, fighting against a F4U corsair by that move. I've been decsively outturned in a slow, low-alt, pure sustained turning contest against P-51Ds in a Bf109G-10, G-6, and even a G-2. I've been outmaneuvered by P-47s in a much nimbler Bf109.
Were the other planes to be able to pop flaps out open at higher speeds, it would seriously hurt the US planes as their relative advantage is immediately lost. I can't say it would be everytime, but certainly in many cases a 109 or a 190 would be able to follow a P-38 in slow-speed maneuvering, where it could not have currently.
I look very highly upon IL-2/FB, but the one serious drawback they have, is they've taken the 'realistic approach' to flaps, and ironically, have made the fights more or less unrealistic as a whole.
The way IL-2/FB depicts their flaps is probably what the AH P-38 pilots would want.. But because of that, all the planes there can use full flaps and gears at least 20~30mph higher than it could in AH. Overshoot maneuvers are incredibly harder to pull off than compared to AH, because when somebody senses an overshoot coming they can simply pop full flaps out and actutate the insta-air break mode.
Everyone, including all kinds of 'dweebs' and 'n00bs' are aware of this fact, and the exploitation of flap usage during combat is so high, that usage of flaps during maneuvering has embedded itself as a mandatory lesson to be learnt when fighting.
In AH, using flaps means that we go into extreme low speed maneuvering. It takes skill and careful management to drop into such low speeds to fight. And only after we reach so low speeds, we begin to use flaps carefully, to squeeze out every possible drop of ACM possible in our planes. The US planes of AH maintain a huge and characteristic advantage over other planes of other airforces of the world.
In IL-2/FB, the flaps and gears in combat, are mandatory for all planes. They are one-touch air brakes/stability devices simply turned on/off. The only real discipline required is to not use full flaps(landing settings) over something like 350km/h(roughly about 218mph, and it's IAS, not even TAS!!) - combat or take-off settings can be used at much higher speeds and maintained that way.
Ofcourse, IL-2/FB doesn't have auto-retract. But for that piece of 'realism' the air combat has paid the price of 'unrealism'. The Messerchmitts of AH have reduced elevator authority at speeds over 300mph - over such speeds a US plane will outturn any 109. Well in FB, I simply chop throttle and pop out combat flap settings at those speeds - simple to use, simple to follow. I'd doubt any real-life pilot would feel so comfortable disregarding the warnings plane makers have issued during combat in such a manner.. where failure of a plane equipment could mean life or death.
So I must comment, "becareful what you wish for".
-
K; IL-2's flaps suck
You can pop flaps/gear and almost any speed; and every plane has combat flaps!
Then again; even good old airwarrior managed to model non auto retracting flaps that could be damaged by over speed. Can't really see why HTC can't do this.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Then again; even good old airwarrior managed to model non auto retracting flaps that could be damaged by over speed. Can't really see why HTC can't do this.
don't see why not either.
ack-ack
-
See'in double. Im gonna call it a night.
-
Ack-Ack, and other P-38 buffs,
What advantage do non-autoretracting flaps have?
The way I see it, the same things you complain about will still happen, but your flaps will be broken from that point on instead of merely retracted to be used again.
Now you can argue that it is more realistic for them to break, but it won't help the P-38 (or any other aircraft) in any way.
-
I wanna see the Jidou Kuusen Furappu (Automatic Combat Flaps) enabled on the N1K2-J as well :D
-
Who says we're going to let them break? As Seeker pointed out, in that 'other' sim, we didn't have this feature.
I don't think any other plane is as negatively effected by this as the P-38L is. And the assumption that we're not going to be smart enough to raise the flaps so they don't get damaged is kind of dumb. AW had this feature and I managed to do OK and if my flaps ever got damaged, 99% of the time was because they got shot off, not from over speeding.
ack-ack
-
ok my nose is pointed down,flaps out at 198 or what ever I want to turn inside this foolish niki, all of a sudden I reach 200mph or what ever flap speed is set at for less then a second, flaps auto retract at best I lose a few degrees in turn at worst I flip over into flat 110 stall and am dead. Niki gets freebie for yanking stick into his fat gut.
-
Who says we're going to let them break? As Seeker pointed out, in that 'other' sim, we didn't have this feature.
Doesn't make sense Ack. You're saying you want to be able to use flaps even if the speed pushes over max permitted, without suffering any penalties.
I don't think any other plane is as negatively effected by this as the P-38L is.
Not true. The P-38 is one of the blessed planes that can use flaps above typical landing speeds, in the first place. Only a handful of US fighters installed with combat flap systems with limits upto 400mph, are better than the P-38L in flap efficiency.
Basically if your plane starts auto-retracting flaps and that evokes a dangerous situation, it simply means your pushing it over the limit you should not have crossed in the first place. It's no different from a pilot trying to ride the thin edge of the envelope, and failing into a stall.
And the assumption that we're not going to be smart enough to raise the flaps so they don't get damaged is kind of dumb.
You guys are complaining because you keep pushing over the retraction speed, and there the flaps auto-retract. After what HT has said about this issue, it seems pretty clr that if auto retraction is removed, the only alternative you guys will get is that the moment the speed pushes over the line the flaps will jam.
-
ok my nose is pointed down,flaps out at 198 or what ever I want to turn inside this foolish niki, all of a sudden I reach 200mph or what ever flap speed is set at for less then a second, flaps auto retract at best I lose a few degrees in turn at worst I flip over into flat 110 stall and am dead. Niki gets freebie for yanking stick into his fat gut.
As I said, it's the same thing as falling under a stall by pushing your plane too far;
"ok my nose is pointed down,speed down to 198 or what ever Ineed, to turn inside this foolish Spitfire, all of a sudden I reach a little AoA too high for my 109G-2 to handle for less then a second, the plane shakes out of control barely a few degrees at worst, I flip over into a stall and am dead. Spitfire gets freebie for yanking stick into his fat gut."
If that ever happens to me, it is entirely my fault in that I tried to mix -up with a plane that I thought I could outturn with some clever maneuvering, but apparently could not, and failed and augered.
Again, there's no way a P-38 will be able to receive a waiver and become the only plane that will be able to use flaps over speeds written down in pilots manuals.
If you P-38 guys are made able to maintain flap position without any penalty of overspeed, so you don't fall into the situation described, the other planes will just as much be able to use flaps as much as they want, and will be able to fly even more tighter rolling scissors, with lower speed, with better stabilization than before.
In the end, the result is the same. You'll be able to stabilize the plane better and maintain a lower stall speed. So will your opponents than compared to Ah1. Who you gonna blame then?
-
I thought Air Warriors flap model was excellent. You went too fast, and they broke. I'd like to have that here.
-
Ack-Ack,
I recently posted about the Mossie's landing gear being used as a speed break (which they were at times), but the pilot's handbook says they are not permitted to be lowered above 155mph. So, in AH they break automatically if you exceed that speed.
What you are asking for is a special exception for the P-38 from stated limits and for a guestimate limit to be used instead.
Why should the P-38 have it's flap's deployable at a higher speed than is stated in it's handbook and not the Bf109, N1K2, La-7 or Mossie?
-
I don't see any one at any time asking for flap deployment over rated speed for any plane.
What I'm seeing is a request for realism - if the flap should break at 225 IAS then they should BREAK!; and not auto retract.
This goes for the Lightning; the Me109; the Mossie and even the P51.
Still; AW was always into more hardcore realism than WB; I always thought WB sold on the eye candy; that's usually what catches the kids....
-
My read on it is to make ALL planes flaps deployable at any speed. If ya pop em out to fast and they jam or tear away, your bad.
The autoretract, while I have gotten used to it, seems to be too user friendly. By that, I mean the coding "protects" the pilot from doing something stupid, like popping flaps at too high a speed, and it retracts them for the pilot.
I'd prefer to see them manually operated only, make the pilot have to pay attention to his speed to prevent damaging them, just like ya gotta pay attention to your speed in a dive so ya won't rip off your wings.
Just my $.02 worth.
:aok
-
Simply put, auto-retract flaps should be modeled like combat trim- either off or on.
Currently, when the flaps pop up in a turn fight in the 38 you pretty much a dead man as you spin out. Realism? LOL
-
Originally posted by Karnak
What you are asking for is a special exception for the P-38 from stated limits and for a guestimate limit to be used instead.
Why should the P-38 have it's flap's deployable at a higher speed than is stated in it's handbook and not the Bf109, N1K2, La-7 or Mossie?
now you guys are putting words in my mouth. I've never stated that nor is that what I want. I, along with the other dedicated P-38 drivers, want full control of our flaps. If we break them from over speeding, fine...that's our fault but let us have that control. If you're good enough to fly the P-38, then you're good enough to be free of that hand holding feature HT insists on keeping to appease the 'gamers' out there.
Only keep that auto-retracting flaps in planes that had them.
ack-ack
-
"Only keep that auto-retracting flaps in planes that had them. "
Did any plane actually have that??
-
Niki did irl - never saw it modeled well in a sim - was a pain in the arse in FA.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
"Only keep that auto-retracting flaps in planes that had them. "
Did any plane actually have that??
Seeker, the N1K2-J had the automatic combat flaps, it was attached to the pitot tube and the alt meter, measured the speed and the alt, the device automatically deployed and retracted flaps.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Simply put, auto-retract flaps should be modeled like combat trim- either off or on.
Currently, when the flaps pop up in a turn fight in the 38 you pretty much a dead man as you spin out. Realism? LOL
It would seem to me that having auto retract flaps that retract at 90% of pilots handbook values; and manual flaps that break at 101% of the hand book value would be the natural AH way?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Oh yeah, in fact the pilots had specific instructions to dismantle and destroy the device when they ditch. As far as I recall, they had this on the N1K1-J as well. It is said that the N1K2-J turned like the A6M with this device activated.
On a side note, the Ki-84 had buttons on the joystick to deploy and retract flaps. This made it much easier for the pilots to control flaps.
-
now you guys are putting words in my mouth. I've never stated that nor is that what I want. I, along with the other dedicated P-38 drivers, want full control of our flaps. If we break them from over speeding, fine...that's our fault but let us have that control. If you're good enough to fly the P-38, then you're good enough to be free of that hand holding feature HT insists on keeping to appease the 'gamers' out there.
Only keep that auto-retracting flaps in planes that had them.
If you had the ability to keep the plane's speed under the flap auto-retraction speed in the first place, then why the heck are you asking for a removal of the auto-retraction? You wouldn't need it anyway, because you'll never go over the speed which retracts the flaps..
It's because you cannot do that, that you are wanting the auto-retraction to be removed, is it not?
In all the instances where you hated the flaps auto-retracted, exactly at that speed, it will then just simply get damaged and I can't see just how this is going to help any P-38.
Of course, it would hardly matter for people like me who fly planes where flaps aren't much of tactical use anyway, but it's gonna hurt a lot of planes that do. In fact, that'll probably kill all the US planes' ability to brawl at low speeds.
-
I'm also pro-manual flap retraction.
Have them break at overspeed, and make it impossible to deploy at speeds too fast. I'd imagine in alot of the aircraft it may have been impossible to drop the flaps once speed was too high.
(depending on system of deployment)
SKurj
-
In the parallel discussion in AH G/D, we hashed out a resonable proposal for a way a manual flap option could be implimented. Kweassa threw out some "the only way it could be done fairly" thoughts and I translated that thought into an example.
Originally posted by Murdr
I dont think that anyone has a problem with the deployment speeds and being unable to deploy them above that speed should not change. Your example of a damage probability curve sounds reasonable to me. For instance.
Percent over...........Speed for..........Damage
deployment............150mph. ............Probability
speed...................deplo yment
1%..............................151.5............... .25%
2%..............................153.................. .5%
3%..............................154.5................ 1%
4%..............................156................... 2%
5%..............................157.5................ 3%
6%..............................159................... 5%
8%..............................162.................. 10%
10%............................165.................. 33%
15%............................172.5............... 75%
I would think that a higher the rate of deployment speed would be more likely to be over that deployment speed for a longer time span. So if the die rolled twice per second for random damage, there would be more die rolls at a +200mph situation than there would at a +150mph, and so on. How would something like that suit you?
Originally posted by Kweassa
Sounds reasonable, Murdr.
The 'terror factor' seems adequately high enough to stop people from attempting to pop flap-stuff at 300mph, but the margin of reasonable chance of safety, seems also good enough, so that people don't have to fear the flaps retracting the moment it hits a certain number.
If something like that is indeed what P-38 pilots want, then, I support it.
I do remember HT piping in on a previous discussion and saying 'if the auto-retraction is removed the only thing remaining is immediate flap failure at the same level of speed the flaps would auto-retract.' However, I do think something like this idea would be a reasonable substitue in light of absence of hard wind tunnel data. After all its an engineering standard to allow a margin between the failure point and recommended max/min specifications. The further you push something past its specifications, the more likely some part of its mechanism/structure will fail.
I like the idea of this kind of manual option.