Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GScholz on July 22, 2004, 12:02:21 AM
-
The modelling of flaps in AH seems very "generic", and I see no reason why HTC cannot model flaps more accurately since pilot's manual reprints of most if not all aircraft are available for purchase.
While some planes like the Spit has two-stage flaps modelled the F6F does not. The F6F-3 had two-stage flaps electrically operated by an on-off switch located near the throttle. I cannot find any information on the F6F-5 having a different flaps setup. The Nikki should have automatically operated combat flaps (auto extend/retract by G-loading). The Mosquito should be able to use its landing gear as an air brake.
The number of stages and the degrees of each stage also seems generic on most planes, and there is that big debate about flap extend/retract speeds. Some planes didn't even have staged flaps, but hand cranked.
I'm no expert, and I may be wrong in everything I've said here, but to me it seems that the flaps in AH has received less attention than the rest of the modelling when accuracy is concerned. This would be understandable for a new game, but given AH's age and its designers "heritage" from earlier games I find this rather disappointing. Especially if it gives some planes unhistorical advantages, and robs other planes of their historical advantages.
Just my $.2
-
sounds hard to model..
how would one "deploy" hand cranked flaps? there has to be "stages" because of the nature of keymapping.
as for the other stuff i have no knowledge on or comment LOL....
just wanted to point out my first gut reaction to how it could be changed.
-
RPM settings are not "staged" and they are keymapped. By holding the key down the flaps could be deployed smoothly. The speed in which they extend could even vary with speed since cranking them out would be harder as speed increase.
-
I would think it would require more time/energy to crank the flaps out. Especially at high speeds
-
In the lower-left corner of this 109 cockpit picture you can see two wheels. One was for the flaps, the other for elevator trim. Perhaps they were power-assisted, they look kind of small for hand power alone.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0519.jpg)
I'm sure many planes had similar setups, especially early war planes. Russian planes were known for their (typically Russian) simplicity, so I expect most of them to have hand-cranked flaps.
-
The Focke-Wulf's flaps are modelled incorrectly for instance. They should only have three settings: retracted, take-off, and landing.
"The flaps have two settings, 13 degrees and 58 degrees (+ or - 3 degrees of calibration).
The first setting of 13 degrees is used in take off. They are retracted once level flight is reached up to a speed of 500 Km/h.
The second setting of 58 degrees is used in landing and should be deployed between 220 - 300 km/h."
Info courtesy of Crumpp, who bought the 190-A8 pilot's handbook.
I'm pretty sure there are many more planes that have incorrectly modelled flaps settings and speed limitations.
-
"they look kind of small for hand power alone. "
You can do a lot with gears.
I agree with GScholz.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by GScholz
RPM settings are not "staged" and they are keymapped. By holding the key down the flaps could be deployed smoothly. The speed in which they extend could even vary with speed since cranking them out would be harder as speed increase.
yes that could work for some planes, but still what about those planes that did have staged flaps?
there would have to be a seperate code for them, so the keymapping would put down 1 notch, 2 notches and so forth....
also would that mean the FM would have to be "fluid" relative to how much of the flaps were down in planes that you could in theroy crank down 1-1,000,000 different positions. in theroy every millimeter would effect the lift somewhat....
and sadly modeling that you know there would be some realism nazi comming along saying that at 57% flaps the planes if not flying right, but at 62% it is... why can't HTC get it right LOL.
GS sir i am not in disagreement with you, just pointing out the inherent problems with doing it in a flight sim that i see.
if there was a way to do it "realistically" as in historically accurate, i am all for it.
-
Your making the problem unnecessary complicated. Obviously there would be some stepping, say one-degree steps. It works fine with RPM, it works fine with zoom and view movement, it works fine with throttle, it works fine with ailerons, elevators and rudder ... AND it already works fine with flaps. The effect of the flaps begins immediately and gradually as they deploy in AH now! When you deploy the binary flaps on the Spit for instance the effect of the flaps increase gradually, they don't just jump down. We just don't have the correct choices of when, how and by how much they deploy.
-
true, never thought of it that way lol
like i said just saying what poped to mind.
.. see the site yet? what you think so far?
-
Looks good ... a bit empty at the moment, but good. :)
-
Good idea Gscholtz. I would imagine that flaps are done as a continuous function now, in the flight model. All that needs to be added is the control and user interface, as well as perhaps modeling for the different geometries of flaps.
-
Just FYI, the wheels pictured are trim wheels. NOT flaps. The flaps are activated by a lever on the upper left side of the instrument panel. It is obscured in this pic by the red-handled lever sticking out of that side of the cockpit.
-
"Pilots verbatim impressions of some features are of interest. For example, the DB 601 engine came in for much favourable comment from the viewpoint of response to throttle and insusceptability to sudden negative 'g'; while the throttle arrangements were described as 'marvellously simple, there being just one lever with no gate or over-ride to worry about'. Suprisingly though, the manual operation of flaps and tail setting were also liked; 'they are easy to operate, and being manual are not likely to go wrong'; juxtaposition of the flap and tail actuating wheels in an excellent feature.
-
While I can understand that interpretation of the matter, I read it as the flaps are manual, as opposed to another post recently ( :) )which stated that the N1K2 had automatic flaps (that deployed without pilot input).
One of the wheels is for elevator trim, the other for aileron. I have seen similar setups in lighter-than-air aircraft as well. Two wheels, one controls one axis, the other controls another axis.
That is why I interpret it as so.
-
Ok, then is it the switch labeled "B5" in this photo?
(http://www.aircraftmilitaria.com/For%20Sale/Aircraft%20&%20Cockpit/Luftwaffe/Cockpit%20Items/20030218%20Me109%20Instrument%20Panel%20Complete.2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The modelling of flaps in AH seems very "generic", and I see no reason why HTC cannot model flaps more accurately since pilot's manual reprints of most if not all aircraft are available for purchase.
While some planes like the Spit has two-stage flaps modelled the F6F does not. The F6F-3 had two-stage flaps electrically operated by an on-off switch located near the throttle. I cannot find any information on the F6F-5 having a different flaps setup. The Nikki should have automatically operated combat flaps (auto extend/retract by G-loading). The Mosquito should be able to use its landing gear as an air brake.
The number of stages and the degrees of each stage also seems generic on most planes, and there is that big debate about flap extend/retract speeds. Some planes didn't even have staged flaps, but hand cranked.
I'm no expert, and I may be wrong in everything I've said here, but to me it seems that the flaps in AH has received less attention than the rest of the modelling when accuracy is concerned. This would be understandable for a new game, but given AH's age and its designers "heritage" from earlier games I find this rather disappointing. Especially if it gives some planes unhistorical advantages, and robs other planes of their historical advantages.
Just my $.2
If HiTech won't dump the coddling auto-retracting flaps, I don't think they'll model flaps for each individual plane. I do hope he does see the light one day and gets rid of the auto-flaps and model the flaps accurately for each plane.
ack-ack
-
GScholtz, yes that is the one I am refering to.
I have been doing some research. Not long ago I detailed an Airfix 1/24th 109E cockpit, and needed some references. I believe this is the flaps switch, but am not certain.
-
Thanks, I learn something new every day. :)
-
While that is what I believe is the flaps control, there is also another switch down and to the right a bit. There are other switches that could be used for flaps. However that one has lines marked on it with some writing I've never had a clear picture of on it. I think it's a flaps level indicator.
-
Gscholtz is correct. One wheel IS the trim for the elevator trim. The other is for the flaps. There is a chain connecting the flap wheel to a mechanical postion indicator which was simply a counter affixed to the side of the cockpit.
The B5 switch is the Magneto selector switch. Magneto positions would be M1+2 for both, M1 and M2 for the individual magnetos and 0 for none or off.
I downloaded Warbirds III and flew it for about a day. Waste of time. They had the magneto switch tied to the flaps! Kinda bugged me to watch the magetos moving when I dropped flaps.
Crumpp
-
If HiTech won't dump the coddling auto-retracting flaps,
I agree that flaps should be modeled IAW their individual A/C settings and deployment speeds. However I don't want to see AH turn into an artificial flap fest like IL2.
The autoretract is a geat way to keep players "honest" about certain settings. The flaps should either retract or break if the deployment speeds are exceeded.
No percentage crap, no fudging, and no "pushing the limits" on flaps.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ok, then is it the switch labeled "B5" in this photo?
(http://www.aircraftmilitaria.com/For%20Sale/Aircraft%20&%20Cockpit/Luftwaffe/Cockpit%20Items/20030218%20Me109%20Instrument%20Panel%20Complete.2.jpg)
Crump is right
B5 is the magneto switch.
Normal operation is M1 + M2
M1 is one set
M2 is the other
0 will shut down the engine.
In FB you can see how it works.
The Spits flap switch is in a similiar position on the Spit cockpit. This maybe what you are thinking. Spit flaps had just 2 position flaps up or down.
In FB you can put flaps on an axis and dial in degrees just like you can with trim in AH.
-
So I was right? The 109's flaps are operated manually by one of the wheels?
-
yes, I didnt realize that was in question...
-
Ok, thanks. Back and forth is twice as far. I relearn something old every day. ;)
-
May I ask 2 questions then...
1) What is your source stating the wheel moves the flaps?
2) What trims the ailerons?
-
Heres a short snip about flying the 109 E
Stalling speeds on the glide are 75 mph flaps up, and 61 mph flaps down. Lowering the flaps makes the ailerons feel heavier and slightly less effective, and causes a marked nose-down pitching moment, readily corrected owing to the juxtaposition of trim and flap operating wheels. If the engine is opened up to simulate a baulked landing with flaps and undercarriage down, the airplane becomes tail-heavy but can easily be held with one hand while trim is adjusted. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph the glide path is reasonably steep and the view fairly good. Longitudinally the airplane is markedly stable, and the elevator heavier and more responsive than is usual in single-seater fighters. These features add considerably to the ease of approach. Aileron effectiveness is adequate; the rudder is sluggish for small movements.
I would suggest better research if you came to the conclusion that the magnetos switch operated the flaps.
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/bf109cockpit/CockpitPortMap.html
-
Longitudinal Trim
Five three-quarter turns of a 11.7 in diameter wheel on the pilot's left are needed to move the adjustable tailplane through its full 12-degrees range. The wheel rotation is in the natural sense. Tailplane and elevator angles to trim were measured at various speeds in various condition; the elevator angles were corrected to constant tail setting. The airplane is statically stable both stick fixed and stick free.
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9378/flybf109.html
This book also covers the Me-109 controls and instruments in detail.
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-190322327x-0
Crumpp
-
Where are the aileron trims then?
-
I don't think it had aileron trim. Only fixed tabs.
-
It must have had something.... There were tabs on the ailerons, I don't think they moved, but some trim systems just moved the entire aileron up or down.
Anyways, almost all planes of the era had trim, I'd assume the fighters needed it more than bombers (for the accurate shot).
Hrm....
-
No not really. The 109G had an autopilot though, so the trimming was less important for cruising and climbing. Only in combat was trimming an issue, and then the elevator trim is the most important.
-
It had fixed trim tabs on the rudder and alierons.
Crumpp
-
oops yup fixed aileron tabs and ruddder tab. These were set on the ground for cruise.
Only in combat was trimming an issue,
You must be referring to combat in these games. In rl combat didn't involve a lot of trim.
The reason folks focus on it in these games is we don’t feel stick forces and as such instead of relieving stick pressure folks think trim helps them turn or maneuver better.
Even aircraft with adjustable aileron trim never really "used it" to help them fight.
In AH I would use CT all the time if it weren't for a few issues with some planes. It would be about as real as it was in rl.
-
Elevator trim was useful in combat. Some 109 pilots used it to great effect.
-
Quote an anecdote. All the interviews of pilots I have read where the specific question of trimming is asked they all have replied that their ac was set before the engagement and not touched until after.
The only exception has been dive recovery.
All trim does is relieve stick forces, its not a primary control surface even with the whole horizontal tale plain moving.
-
Yes they set the trim before entering combat ... but that DOES require adjustable trim. The more experienced 109 pilots used to trim the nose up so that the 109's heavy stick force was less of an issue in high-speed manoeuvring. Of course this required constant forward pressure on the stick to stay in level flight.
-
this and the Karnak post are the most i have posted i this forum ever in my 2.5 years here LMAO.
i'll bet maybe 10 posts total in last 2 years... now this LOL
just wanted to say that
-
This is an excerpt from the first chapter of Bud Anderson's book, "To Fly and Fight" It describes using trim in a P-51B.
--------------
"There were three little palm-sized wheels you had to keep fiddling with. They trimmed you up for hands-off level flight. One was for the little trim tab on the tail's rudder, the vertical slab which moves the plane left or right. Another adjusted the tab on the tail's horizontal elevators that raise or lower the nose and help reduce the force you had to apply for hard turning. The third was for aileron trim, to keep your wings level, although you didn't have to fuss much with that one. Your left hand was down there a lot if you were changing speeds, as in combat . . . while at the same time you were making minor adjustments with your feet on the rudder pedals and your hand on the stick. At first it was awkward. But, with experience, it was something you did without thinking, like driving a car and twirling the radio dial."
--------------
I still don't see why they even bother to model trim in AH since.....the stick forces in my own joystick never change (this makes it harder to trim your plane in AH than in a real A/C since you have nothing to feel it with). Considering that the entire POINT of having trim in an airplane is to make stick forces more comfortable....having it doesn't seem to make sense to me. It just adds workload for no benefit. But they do have it, so I guess CT is a decent if imperfect compromise.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes they set the trim before entering combat ... but that DOES require adjustable trim. The more experienced 109 pilots used to trim the nose up so that the 109's heavy stick force was less of an issue in high-speed manoeuvring. Of course this required constant forward pressure on the stick to stay in level flight.
Well I didn't no one ever trimmed, what I said was based on the pilot anecdotes I have read (mostly lw) trimming was done before hand. This was in response to
Elevator trim was useful in combat.
I took that to mean while in the fight.
But JAB did quote Bud saying he trimmed.
JAB,
That is the reasoning behind combat trim. However there are quirks in some planes. I guess HT couldnt force himself to get rid of trim all together.
In FB/AEP trim has been so poorly modelled that it has went through several fixes and now there is a delay response. Even so trim actually allows you to roll better, turn better etc...
Folks even write scripts for their js so it matches their pitch / roll axis then goes to nuetral as you center the stick.
They even go as far as to put flaps on an axis so that planes like the spitfire end up with multi posistion flaps.
But anway.....
I think trimming is over rated as it relates to these games.
-
Lateral Trim
There is no procounced change of lateral trim with speed of throttle setting provided that care is taken to fly with no sideslip.
Directional Trim
Absence of rudder trimmer is a bad feature, although at low speeds the practical consequences are not so alarming as the curves might suggest, since the rudder is fairly light on the climb. At high speeds, however, the pilot is seriously inconvenienced, as above 300 mph about 2 1/2 degrees of port (left) rudder are needed for flight with no sideslip and a very heavy foot load is needed to keep this on. In consequence the pilot's left foot becomes tired, and this affects his ability to put on left rudder in order to assist a turn to port (left). Hence at high speeds the Bf.109E turns far more readily to the right than to the left.
Longitudinal Trim
Five three-quarter turns of a 11.7 in diameter wheel on the pilot's left are needed to move the adjustable tailplane through its full 12-degrees range. The wheel rotation is in the natural sense. Tailplane and elevator angles to trim were measured at various speeds in various condition; the elevator angles were corrected to constant tail setting. The airplane is statically stable both stick fixed and stick free.
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9378/flybf109.html
Crumpp
-
Regarding flaps, I have seen some people claim that the F6F has incorrectly modeled flaps.
Some have claimed that the F6F has two-position flaps, up and down. This, however, is incorrect.
The F6F's flap position indicator has 5 positions incremented from full up to full down. It appears that the increments are full up, 10 degrees, 20 degrees, 40 degrees and full down (48 degrees).
For the F6F, flaps would be set at 20 degrees for short-field takeoff and 48 degrees for carrier landing.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Where does that information come from Widewing? That is in conflict with--among other things--the F6F's manual.
J_A_B
-
Same with the 190. Not only are the flap "auto-retract" speed the same for both the landing and takeoff flaps but the incremental settings are wrong. In AH the 190 has about five flap settings instead of three.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Where does that information come from Widewing? That is in conflict with--among other things--the F6F's manual.
J_A_B
I had the opportunity to sit in one recently and simply looked at the flap indicator. Also, photos of war-time F6F cockpits show the same indicator, with the various flap settings (a pointer aligns with the marks on the indicator face). Even Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" defines different settings for takeoff and landing, as well as showing the indicator.
My regards,
Widewing
-
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190cockpit/lgact.html
Crumpp