Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: TrueKill on November 11, 2004, 01:53:09 AM
-
y is it that all axis fighters cant put thier flaps down till around 160mhp but most allied A/C 200-250MPH i think this flap stuff is BS in real life u could put flaps down at any speed. i was just in the CT in a KI-84 tryin to out turn a F4F while goin 190mph but nooo i cant put flaps down but the fricking F4F had about 2-3 nochs down. kinda funny how HTC gets mad when someone says they make the axis planes crappy so allied planes can kill them. now i wonder why ppl would say that kinda thing cuz from what i read about the 190A-8 is it was the best turnin 190 also read some stuff about 109s turnin with allied A/C cuz they used FLAPS how about makein it so u can put flaps down at any speed but at say 225mph they get jammed.
-
flaps on all planes not just axis will only extend within the operational evelope for the particular plane you are flying if flaps are out and you go beyond the operational envelope the flaps auto-retract this has been a bone of contention for all planes again not just axis planes the F4F is a naval plane and most naval planes were built to allow flaps to be extented at higher speeds than most other planes this is due to the fact that they needed higher speed to land on the deck of a carrier and also be able to extend flaps too so it is not surprising that the F4F was able to dump flaps and you werent its not an axis versus allied conspiracy
This no punctuation stuff is kinda neat ... :D
-
I see the LW conspericy idea continues.
As SlapShot pointed out all planes are treated equaly when it comes to flaps, But for some resone the original desiners decided to put different operation limits into there designs.
I belive you should dig up the orignal 190 flap designers, and tell them how they there flap desings should have been different.
HiTech
-
TrueKill,
Flaps extend at the limits in the pilot manuals.
Personally I think that some of this is caused by different standards being reported in the pilot's manuals, but AH is correct as it is listed in the pilot's manuals.
If I could find solid evidence I'd post it and if HTC could find solid evidence I'm sure they'd change the aircraft in question.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
...
This no punctuation stuff is kinda neat ... :D
lol, good one :D
I don't like this flap extending being a standard procedure. Probably one of the reasons it was not used extensively in real life was that pilots were much more fearfull of the stall/spin and did not reach the near stall condition where flaps matter.
My personal view is that the stall model in AH is still too relaxed and torque in slow speeds is not pronounced enough. If more planes had the stall of the mossie, no one would bother with the flaps.
Bozon
-
No problem with flap deployment speeds for me.
Just problems with how flaps make P-47s outturn 109s in a sustained turn fight, and makes the P-51 one of the deadliest fighters when it comes to rolling scissors.
When AH2 beta came out, I loved the way how the planes felt. The more heavier, 'physical' feeling of weight compared to AH1... and the torque.. man, the torque!
Even Zeros and Spits and Hurricanes were delicate to control when near stall - much more difficult than AH1. Had a fight against a N1K2, and I couldn't just outturn it on a whim by just pulling the stick to the max, like I used to in AH1. The plane kept wobbling and stalling when the pressure from the pilot was too high - it was cool.
But then, it seems not all planes have become so difficult to manage.
The wishy-washy, wobbling, near-stall destabilization that 109s and 205s, and numerous other planes meet(even Spits and Hurris and Zeros), is just plain missing from F4Us and P-51s and P47s and P-38s.
Basically in my point of view the P-38 pilots whining of how the P-38 will snap stall violently, is like a spoiled kid's rant.
They don't have to battle with the wobbling plane at all until they push the plane simply just too far, and it decides to stall out. As for me, it's a battle that starts from 200mph, which is at least 100mph higher than the stall speed, where the plane will wobble around like crazy each time it is on the verge of stall even with flaps out. Just go near the limit of AoA and the plane, even with flaps out, will wobble.
However, the P-47 and P-51 - no wobbling at all, once more than one notch of flaps is out. It will just 'mush' through near-stall situations. Only when the pilot pushes too far and reaches the stall speed that it violently snap rolls. It sort of feels like the P-47 and P-51s are using the same type of flaps used in the P-38 and Ki-84 - at least, in the efficiency department.
..
So, I am suspicious about these things.
Problem is, how, and what do I test out to prove that some plane flaps are too efficient? Any ideas?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
No problem with flap deployment speeds for me.
Just problems with how flaps make P-47s outturn 109s in a sustained turn fight, and makes the P-51 one of the deadliest fighters when it comes to rolling scissors.
When AH2 beta came out, I loved the way how the planes felt. The more heavier, 'physical' feeling of weight compared to AH1... and the torque.. man, the torque!
Even Zeros and Spits and Hurricanes were delicate to control when near stall - much more difficult than AH1. Had a fight against a N1K2, and I couldn't just outturn it on a whim by just pulling the stick to the max, like I used to in AH1. The plane kept wobbling and stalling when the pressure from the pilot was too high - it was cool.
But then, it seems not all planes have become so difficult to manage.
The wishy-washy, wobbling, near-stall destabilization that 109s and 205s, and numerous other planes meet(even Spits and Hurris and Zeros), is just plain missing from F4Us and P-51s and P47s and P-38s.
Basically in my point of view the P-38 pilots whining of how the P-38 will snap stall violently, is like a spoiled kid's rant.
They don't have to battle with the wobbling plane at all until they push the plane simply just too far, and it decides to stall out. As for me, it's a battle that starts from 200mph, which is at least 100mph higher than the stall speed, where the plane will wobble around like crazy each time it is on the verge of stall even with flaps out. Just go near the limit of AoA and the plane, even with flaps out, will wobble.
However, the P-47 and P-51 - no wobbling at all, once more than one notch of flaps is out. It will just 'mush' through near-stall situations. Only when the pilot pushes too far and reaches the stall speed that it violently snap rolls. It sort of feels like the P-47 and P-51s are using the same type of flaps used in the P-38 and Ki-84 - at least, in the efficiency department.
..
So, I am suspicious about these things.
Problem is, how, and what do I test out to prove that some plane flaps are too efficient? Any ideas?
Perhaps your complaints and suspicions would hold more weight if you at least knew that the P-47 DOES have Fowler flaps like the P-38.
As an aside, the U.S. planes pay a price for that stability, especially the P-38. It makes them less able to make transient maneuvers. But then, if you had any idea what you were talking about, especially with regards to the P-38, you'd know that. But you obviously do not.
Oh, and if you'd refrain from calling people spoiled whiners, you might even find them willing to listen to your position on flaps and stability of planes you DON'T fly and you DON'T like. But so long as you continually demand that their plane of choice be handicapped while yours is improved, I doubt you'll get much positive response. Although I HAVE actually supported the idea that the KI-84 is underpowered. I guess some of us don't feel the need to have our opponent artificially handicapped.
And if the plane you like doesn't seem to get the job done, then maybe you were so foolish as to pick an inferior plane. Maybe, just maybe, you should expect a plane to perform as it should, rather than expect it to do what it could not, just because you like it.
I know the limitations of the P-38 VERY well, I've spent two DECADES talking to the men who flew it, I know pilots who have over 3000 hours in the real thing. Two things it did not have are auto retract flaps, and nasty stall and departure characteristics. You might think it should, you might be glad it does, but that does not make it correct.
-
Perhaps your complaints and suspicions would hold more weight if you at least knew that the P-47 DOES have Fowler flaps like the P-38.
So? That flap alone make a 5-ton plane outturn a plane 2000kg lighter in a sustained turn fight?
Oh, and if you'd refrain from calling people spoiled whiners, you might even find them willing to listen to your position on flaps and stability of planes you DON'T fly and you DON'T like.
Obviously the same does not apply to the "Luftwhiner" or "conspirator" brand. Ami fanboys certainly don't seem to refrain from any of that.
Besides, same holds right back at you. How often do you fly a 109? Or, do you even have a droplet of an idea how much the FM suffers in AH2 compared to AH1?
But so long as you continually demand that their plane of choice be handicapped while yours is improved, I doubt you'll get much positive response. Although I HAVE actually supported the idea that the KI-84 is underpowered. I guess some of us don't feel the need to have our opponent artificially handicapped.
If a P-47 is outturning and outmaneuvering a 109 in a constant state of low-E status then calling that suspicious is hardly a plea for an "artificial handicap". Get your facts straight.
But then again, US fan boys do have a way of treating every thing as an 'artifical handicap' - from the ".50 too weak" whines to "auto flap retraction sucks" whines. With that amount of whining if it was a LW plane under complaint the fella would be smacked as a Luftwhiner so hard he'd circle the globe twice.
So cut the crap if you don't intend to provide any useful insight. I'm interested in how one can test this out by what method.
Got any bright ideas?
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/52_1088748432_achtung-luftwhiner.jpg)
-
CVH, you can relax. If there's any one plane that would benifit from more pronounced torque and tougher stall model it's the 38, as it did historically.
Too many people consider flaps some magical device that improve manuverability dramatically. They are not, not even the fowler flaps. All they allow is a slight increase in lift at slow speeds and delaying the stall by a few mph. Real pilots that were willing to walk this very narrow band in which you actually benifit from the flaps were risking a stall. High torque planes stalling at slow speed can get really nasty, so most pilots just avoided it and never used the flaps.
I've read about a P51B commander forbidding his pilots to use flaps during combat - he feared they will actually slow down enough to use it and meet with the nasty P51 stall (that doesn't exist in AH). In that paricular story the pilot did actually use it in a slow low circle fight with a 109.
The extreme efficiency of flaps at slow speeds we see, might be a result of a stall/spin/torque under modeling rather than an actual flaps over modelling.
This is by no means a FM rant. The AH FM is the best I've seen yet in a sim. I just hope to see it get even better, especially at the extremes of the envelope.
Bozon
-
What are these "luftwhiners" complaining about???:D
Don't u all notice that 109s F and G now have a better roll rate (at speeds - or + 350?) It's a huge fix and i can now roll with spits, P-51s, ect. What more do you want?
I'm also a big fan of 109s (also 190s) and love fighting them against lalas, stangs, jugs, and litening (spits are a bit challenging :)) Btw those slats lalas-109s are a nuisance because they're noisy and throws you off the target sight!
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So? That flap alone make a 5-ton plane outturn a plane 2000kg lighter in a sustained turn fight?
Obviously the same does not apply to the "Luftwhiner" or "conspirator" brand. Ami fanboys certainly don't seem to refrain from any of that.
Besides, same holds right back at you. How often do you fly a 109? Or, do you even have a droplet of an idea how much the FM suffers in AH2 compared to AH1?
If a P-47 is outturning and outmaneuvering a 109 in a constant state of low-E status then calling that suspicious is hardly a plea for an "artificial handicap". Get your facts straight.
But then again, US fan boys do have a way of treating every thing as an 'artifical handicap' - from the ".50 too weak" whines to "auto flap retraction sucks" whines. With that amount of whining if it was a LW plane under complaint the fella would be smacked as a Luftwhiner so hard he'd circle the globe twice.
So cut the crap if you don't intend to provide any useful insight. I'm interested in how one can test this out by what method.
Got any bright ideas?
You are the one who started with the "whining spoiled brat" name calling. So YOU cut the crap and produce evidence that the P-38 SHOULD snap roll violently into an unrecoverable spin. I DARE you. Because I KNOW you can't. YOU are the one making the claims you can't back up. Come back when you can come up with something better than "whiner" and "fan boy". Cause what you got ain't cuttin it.
-
Originally posted by bozon
CVH, you can relax. If there's any one plane that would benifit from more pronounced torque and tougher stall model it's the 38, as it did historically.
Too many people consider flaps some magical device that improve manuverability dramatically. They are not, not even the fowler flaps. All they allow is a slight increase in lift at slow speeds and delaying the stall by a few mph. Real pilots that were willing to walk this very narrow band in which you actually benifit from the flaps were risking a stall. High torque planes stalling at slow speed can get really nasty, so most pilots just avoided it and never used the flaps.
I've read about a P51B commander forbidding his pilots to use flaps during combat - he feared they will actually slow down enough to use it and meet with the nasty P51 stall (that doesn't exist in AH). In that paricular story the pilot did actually use it in a slow low circle fight with a 109.
The extreme efficiency of flaps at slow speeds we see, might be a result of a stall/spin/torque under modeling rather than an actual flaps over modelling.
This is by no means a FM rant. The AH FM is the best I've seen yet in a sim. I just hope to see it get even better, especially at the extremes of the envelope.
Bozon
Oh, I am relaxed. But the departure characteristics of the P-38 are NOT under modelled. Nor are the spin characteristics. And it should not have auto retract flaps. The same crap from the same people gets old.
-
Now, now. Calm down, take a breath, everyone cool off a tad.
Captain Virgil Hilts, isn't it possible that the pilots you have talked to never reported any nasty stalls because they were taught to avoid them? Similar to the P51 squadron commander forbidding his pilots from using flaps to help manuver, because that meant they had slowed down too much?
For the most part, even USAAF pilots didn't know how to fly the P38 until Lindberg came onto the scene and said "gee, you should fly like this".
Chances are there IS a nasty stall but most pilots avoided it, because against zeros and IJA/IJN planes the best attack was a dive and the best defense was to keep speed up.
And Bozon, either way, there is still a burden of proof. Try doing research into the files and reports created by the test pilots and development crew. Perhaps test flight data, or flight comparisons, etc. No offense intended, I think I agree with you, but you may need to find proof before others agree.
IK3, the 109s got a roll boost in AH2 in general. It hasn't changed much recently, that I've noticed. I think spits roll rather poorly, and I'd never say a 109 rolls like a p51 (IMO they roll almost as well as a corsair), but that's all opinion.
Besides, it's not roll that kills 109s, it's inability to turn at even medium speeds without stalling under 200mph :rofl
-
You are the one who started with the "whining spoiled brat" name calling. So YOU cut the crap and produce evidence that the P-38 SHOULD snap roll violently into an unrecoverable spin. I DARE you. Because I KNOW you can't. YOU are the one making the claims you can't back up.
That's the whole point. You could pull all the stick deflection you want in AH2 and the P-38L will not snaproll. Only when the pilot pushes it down the plank in most awkward angles and extreme low speeds will the P-38 stall out - and yet the P-38 pilots can't even take that and want a virtually non-stallable plane.
Sure they can fancy and dream all they want, but it's a whine.
Don't you think you should recognize a cynical reverse statement when you see one, instead of jumping at every little comment about your plane in a defensive mode?
Come back when you can come up with something better than "whiner" and "fan boy". Cause what you got ain't cuttin it.
Wait a minute, I thought this was a flap reaction, stall characteristic debate, and I was here first.
Why don't you just leave the thread and stop the hassle unless you have some clever insight on how one might test and measure these things out on an objective basis?
Obviously despite all the smack talking you don't seem to have any clue on how this can be tested. So dude, put a sock in it and stop wasting my time.
Do you even fly this game?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
And Bozon, either way, there is still a burden of proof. Try doing research into the files and reports created by the test pilots and development crew. Perhaps test flight data, or flight comparisons, etc. No offense intended, I think I agree with you, but you may need to find proof before others agree.
Yeh, that's the problem. I don't belive accurate or even not-so-accurate data, save some anacdotes, exists. I always make certain to note that it's only my opinion that I exspress.
I base my opinion on general aerodynamic plane behaviour. While my physics education is good, my specific aerodynamics knowledge is lacking. I have only a few flight hours, devided between several plane types and non include 'extreme' flying save the standard "stall" practise. But one thing my instructors stressed to avoid is stalling with the nose pointed high, full throttle and uneven wings - and that's with very weak, high wing, stable A/C.
I hope some of the true flight engineers and experienced pilots here can comment about how torque kicks in at near stall speeds and how "deep stall" and spins develop. From this perhaps, extrapulate the results to WWII very high powered fighters.
Bozon
-
I really don't give a damn if you were here first, you're still wrong.
You CAN'T pull all the stick deflection you want in a P-38 and not snap roll, in fact, it WILL snap into an unrecoverable spin. You can snap roll and spin out while pulling straight back on the stick, and the real plane will NOT do that if both engines are running. If it is flying straight, it will NOT stall one wing first, it will simply quit flying and drop nose down. The AH P-38 WILL stall one wing first flying straight, with just back pressure on the stick.
Not only that, the AH P-38, even with two perfectly operating engines, suffers from torque effects in both stalls and spins. You often MUST pull the engines back to idle, and sometimes even shut them down, in order to recover from a spin. That is PURE Bravo Sierra, nothing more, nothing less.
Captain Stan Richardson Jr. USAF ret., was an advanced instructor in the P-38 with over 3000 hours in the plane. His job was to teach P-38 pilots to fly on one engine, to do advanced aerobatics, and to recover from stalls and spins. He took pilots up and taught them to force a P-38 to stall and spin. And he said FORCE was the word to use. In over 4 years of correspondence he has said repeatedly that you should NOT have to do ANYTHING to the engines to recover from a spin. Far from being ordered to avoid stalls and spins, Stan taught himself how to FORCE stalls and spins, and how to recover from them.
According to everything Stan has told me, not to mention Art Heiden, Don Rheimer, Bill Capron, and any number of other P-38 pilots, the P-38 spin model is completely wrong.
Oh, and it is easy to test the flaps. Go find the pilots manual and the test pilot data, and then fly the plane to see if it matches. The test pilot data reports and the pilots manual will tell you the speed at which the flaps can be deployed, and will also tell you what the stall speed is for each notch of flaps is. If you can duplicate that performance with the AH plane, then that is all the testing you can do. That tells you whether or not the flaps add the proper amount of lift.
The biggest single problem here is the expectation that U.S. planes should have the same stall and departure characteristics as the Axis planes, and that is simply wrong, for a very obvious and important reason.
Simply take a look at the basic design of the planes, and the thought process behind the planes.
With the possible exception of the P-51, U.S. planes were designed to be larger and heavier, to provide a rugged airframe. The solution to the added weight and mass was more horsepower and more directional stability.
The U.S. planes were designed specifically to be more stable and forgiving, at the cost of maneuverability. This makes them mush out before they depart in a nasty manner.
The Axis planes were designed to be light and agile, to have greater climb rates and be more maneuverable, they were designed to dogfight. They sacrificed directional stability in order to make the plane more maneuverable. This makes them tend to depart with a great deal less warning, and earlier than they would if they had more mass, more intertia, and more directional stability. They will be far less forgiving to any error in pilot input, no matter how slight. They also require the pilot to be much more attentive to catch the plane at the first hint of a departure.
The more maneuverable you make a plane, the less stable it becomes, because maneuverability comes from the lack of stability that allows a plane to make fast transient directional changes.
The problem with a less stable plane is that when it reaches the edge of its flight envelope, it becomes far less forgiving, and far more prone to spin out and snap roll.
As far as the P-51 and the P-47 responding like a P-38 at those speeds and under those circumstances, that's a crock. At least half the time I engage one of those planes and get them into a slow turning fight I'm able to easily break them down into a stall followed by a spin. And I'm a lousy pilot in AH.
A lot of U.S. fighter pilots I have either talked to or read the books and reports from have specifically mentioned exploiting the tendencies of Axis plane to depart or at least become unstable as speed dropped or maneuvers became more agressive. Bud Anderson and Erv Ethell come to mind rather quickly, as I remember Bud mentioning several times how he'd get a 109 to try to follow him in his P-51 knowing full well he'd get the 109 to depart sooner, and he could roll over and shoot him as he spun out. It was a favorite tactic of Erv Ethell in the P-38 as well. Both scored multiple victories over German planes specifically exploiting the exact thing that seems to be the complaint here, Axis planes being less stable than U.S. planes. Go figure.
-
Oh, and by the way Kweassa, I DO fly in Aces High, some months as many as 40 hours or more. I've seen you online hundreds of times.
-
The FW-190 had manuver flaps just like the P51 and P38. At least according to the USAAF that tested it.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100134296_manuverflaps.jpg)
Not really. It's flap settings were:
1. retracted
2. Take Off - 10 degrees (+/- 3 degrees)
3. Landing - 58 degrees (+/- 3 degrees)
It is obvious that they could be dropped while in flight and were used in combat.
The Flugzueg-Handbuch says they could be deployed anywhere below 500 kph.
They were certainly strong enough:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100657293_flapbreakpressure.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Doesnt matter you will all meet the same fate at the end of my guns!
-
Crummp....
you highlight the problem yourself....a 190 will spin out at just 2G's at moderate speed. The LW actually prohibited any type of "turn fighting" in the 190 in 44 below 2000M due to excessive pilot loss's due to spin in's. Even with flaps it will spin at 140....
Based on my limited time in the 190 I'd say the modeling in AH is very lienient in this regard.
Truekill.....
This is about the 100th time this garbage has been brought up. There is no "conspiracy"....simply the reality that different nations had different design goals....as for trying to turn a Ki-84 with an F4F....well thats a more fundemental problem related to varying capabilites in pilot choice....simply go back to hanger and pick "expertan" instead of "baby seal" and that will solve the problem.
-
humble no1 was talkin to u so shut up...
and i just swiched to bish in the CT and looked at the planeset and allies dont have an F4F its the FM2 now i know y it was out turning me but y is it that the FM2 is labeled as the F4F??? HT could u change this so ppl dont get mixed up.
-
F4F would of out turned you even better than FM-2. Basically you let the other guy drag you into the only fight he even had a chance to win. You had no business manuevering in plane with him at all....instead of blaming the plane go look in the mirror...even better go spend some time in the TA...
BTW....
The 190-8 was the worst turning of all the non "jabo" or "bomber killer" 190's...the 190 A4 was considered to be the best pure 190 fighter with the A5 not far behind...
You do a fine job of making yourself look kind of stupid...:aok
-
if i remember one of the pilots that crumpp talked to was an ace in the A-8 and HE said the 190A-8 was the best turning the the A's. i heard the most test records of axis AC where tested with (i could be wrong) 100 octain but the axis planes used different grade of gas and that would make the plane fly different.
and y do ppl say go spend time in the TA. i should go spend some time with u in the MA cuz it looks like u know everything huh
-
::sigh::
TK, you've been hangin with storch again havent you?
-
Truekill.....
Trust me, 190-A8 was not a T&B bird at all. Basically its an up armoured A-6/7. The added weight hurt its handling and climb but made it more survivable vs Buffs. Later they went further and created an even more armoured A-8. This one actually had to be escorted by fighters to the bomber stream.
As for the suggestion regarding the TA.... Did the thought ever cross your mind that I'm actually trying to help you out? It's obvious that you have a lot of growing up to do, but you seem to enjoy the game...why not work on improving? In a place long ago far far away there once was a little snot nosed brat named Oopsey.....
Gee wonder what ever became of him:)....
As for me, I'm better than some and worse than others....
-
Originally posted by TrueKill
humble no1 was talkin to u so shut up...
and i just swiched to bish in the CT and looked at the planeset and allies dont have an F4F its the FM2 now i know y it was out turning me but y is it that the FM2 is labeled as the F4F??? HT could u change this so ppl dont get mixed up.
The FM2 is an F-4F but with a different powerplant. They both turn the same and they both would have eaten your lunch in a turn fight.
A competent F4-F pilot (Sax) can easily chew up SeaFires and Spit Vs if not taken seriously. Even if a real decent pilot behind the stick of those Spits, the F-4F is still a viable threat.
I'll bet whoever was flying the F4-F/FM2 had more stick time in that plane than you had in the Ki-84 ... hence the beating.
Trimming elevators and using flaps in an F-4F/FM2 makes them real nasty in a turn fight ... heck ... trimmed elevators alone, without flaps, they will turn inside most planes with ease.
-
Truekill....
Tactics are both plane & position dependent....
The "right" move in one fight will get ya killed in another. When an experienced stick reads some of your comments its pretty clear your still on the the steep part of the learning curve. Plenty of folks will help you out if you ask........nicely.
Now, unless the F4F has bounced you with an awful lot of E he's fighting a difficult fight. The Ki-84 is faster & climbs better. In order to win the F4F has to draw you into a true turn fight. It's the only way he can win the fight against a pilot with any skill. Invariably the goal is/will be to set up a "reversal" kill....I'd almost bet he drew you into a decending right hand turn (that way engine torque with him on rev) throttle chopped and a bit of flaps...basically he's not slowing down (although he may be) but he's speeding you up...as you pull tighter and tighter he'll reverse ya nad catch you in the overshoot. Once your locked in if he's kept any speed you cant get out of range andhave to turn with him...and die.
The counter is really pretty simple....as you feel him drawing you in...roll 90 degree's away from his lift vector (basically arrow up thru his cockpit from floor)...and pull to vertical.
-
Trust me, 190-A8 was not a T&B bird at all. Basically its an up armoured A-6/7. The added weight hurt its handling and climb but made it more survivable vs Buffs. Later they went further and created an even more armoured A-8. This one actually had to be escorted by fighters to the bomber stream.
You are correct BTW in that the FW-190 was an energy fighter. It was however very agile and capable of holding it's own in the angle fight against any of the USAAF fighters.
There is NO difference at all in the armour between an FW-190A3 (late) and an FW-190A8 for the fighter variant.
Only armour changes to the FW-190A series for the fighter variant are:
1. In the FW-190A3 the pilots headrest armour was widened and made thicker.
2. In the FW-190A9 the oil cooler ring was made thicker.
FW-190A3:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100731275_pro_190_survey_c_2.jpg)
FW-190A8:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100731326_fw190a8armour3.jpg)
Over it's lifecycle the FW-190A gained less weight and just as much power as the Spitfire did over it's wartime lifecycle. No one claims the Spitfire became unwieldy.
The worst performing variant of the FW-190A series was the FW-190A5. It gained lots of weight and NO horsepower over the FW-190A3. The FW-190A8 on the other hand gained a little weight but added almost 300hp at 1st Supercharger gear FTH over the FW-190A5. All the pilots I have interviewed who flew the FW-190A8 thought it was the most nimble varient of the FW-190A series. There was a good reason the pilots were skeptical and did not relish giving up their Antons for a Dora at first.
you highlight the problem yourself....a 190 will spin out at just 2G's at moderate speed. The LW actually prohibited any type of "turn fighting" in the 190 in 44 below 2000M due to excessive pilot loss's due to spin in's. Even with flaps it will spin at 140....
Nowhere did the Luftwaffe prohibit turning. In fact Galland did not like the fact the Luftwaffe emphasized turning as much as it did. He wanted to move the JG's away from it.
You need to understand the effects of G's on turn performance. Let me put it in perspective to help you.
At 140mph the Bf-109E was barely capable of pulling 2 G's. It was very close to the stall when it reached that point.
The Spitfire MkI was better but not by much when it came to pulling 2G's while going as slow as 140mph.
Hope that helps to put the USAAF evaluation into better perspective.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100731974_spit109turn.jpg)
I encourage you to educate yourself more on this subject. Please take the time and join our foundation:
http://www.White1foundation.org
All donations are tax free. We have a very extensive library of technical documentation which is available for our members to examine at the museum and by appointment.
Thanks Humble!
Crumpp
-
According to US flight evaluations the 190 was clearly inferior to both the F4U and F6F with regard to turn performance and overall handling but superior to both in the climb. The stall came on very suddenly at 127 mph with no warning. That equates to 311 mph at 6G's at sea level. The plane also had a tremendous tendency to "flip" out on the pilot in a tight turn. This significantly limited its turn fighting capability's vs allied planes.
Obviously climb and roll are equal or more important to an accomplished E fighter than low speed turn and handling are. Simply pointing out to truekill that trying to "T&B" a 190 is a misuse of its strengths.
Kind of like trying to stall fight a F4F in a Ki-84:)
I'm certainly not trying to argue the "technical details" with an expert:)....
-
According to US flight evaluations the 190 was clearly inferior to both the F4U and F6F with regard to turn performance and overall handling but superior to both in the climb. The stall came on very suddenly at 127 mph with no warning. That equates to 311 mph at 6G's at sea level. The plane also had a tremendous tendency to "flip" out on the pilot in a tight turn. This significantly limited its turn fighting capability's vs allied planes.
Read the condition of the aircraft. Then read all the Luftwaffe reports, bullitens, and manual warnings on improperly adjusted alierons and their effect. The FW-190A5 in the USN test was a recovered crash that needed fairly extensive repairs. Including a main wing bolt. Judging form the description of the aircrafts behaviors, there is no doubt the ailerons were out of adjustment.
At the very bottom:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100739802_fw190_and_me109quirks1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100739883_fw190_and_me109quirks2.jpg)
Or this exerpt from a Rechlin report:
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/aleirons.jpg
I could even show you the various hinges (there were 3 different hinges corresponding to different performance bands) and the adjustment blocks. The FW-190 had many great design innovations especially in the area of maintenance. It's alieron adjustments and their importance to turning performance is not one of them. Basically two smooth blocks of duraluminum are bolted together. The alieron hinge block has oblong holes that the bolts can slide in to adjust them. This is placed on the smooth alieron mounting block afixed to the wing. When in the correct position simply tighten the bolts. Even with a lock washer I imagine they needed frequent checking and adjustment.
I encourage you to join. Many of our technicians have worked on warbirds such as P51D's, P 38's, P 40's, and Me-109's. They have a wealth of knowledge about the details of these aircraft.
Crumpp
-
fasinating stuff....TY....
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Basically in my point of view the P-38 pilots whining of how the P-38 will snap stall violently, is like a spoiled kid's rant.
They don't have to battle with the wobbling plane at all until they push the plane simply just too far, and it decides to stall out. As for me, it's a battle that starts from 200mph, which is at least 100mph higher than the stall speed, where the plane will wobble around like crazy each time it is on the verge of stall even with flaps out. Just go near the limit of AoA and the plane, even with flaps out, will wobble.
Kind of funny seeing the immersion/realism system lobbiest saying in effect "Realism be damned. My plane has some crappy flight characteristics, so its ok for your plane to have completely inaccurate characteristics in its model. You cry baby."
-
Kind of funny seeing the immersion/realism system lobbiest saying in effect "Realism be damned. My plane has some crappy flight characteristics, so its ok for your plane to have completely inaccurate characteristics in its model. You cry baby."
Comparative cynicism.
The perceived seriousness of the wackiness inherent in the 109 FM is nothing compared to what the P-38 pilots complained about.
The "snap rolls" in the P-38 only happen when heavy rudders are engaged at extreme low speeds - usually during rolling scissors - which is a normal course of events the P-38 pilots are complaining about.
Without any kind of disturbance in the roll/yaw axis you can pull all you want and the P-38 will refuse to stall out violently. It resists any kind of destabilization in the roll/yaw axis.
The plane is the most stable one of them all in the entire plane set, which only the Ki-84 with full flaps out can match, and yet they want more stability.
Now, compare this to a 109 - many sources indicating this plane can at least outturn a P-47 and be on par with the P-51 - which in AH2 is outturned by the P-47 due to the immediate destabilization met when speed reaches under 200mph.
My apologies to the P-38 pilots and Virgil Hilts, but frankly, the desperation and frustration met by the P-38 pilots is a source for scorn, when compared to some of the other planes in AH reacting strangely.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The "snap rolls" in the P-38 only happen when heavy rudders are engaged at extreme low speeds - usually during rolling scissors - which is a normal course of events the P-38 pilots are complaining about.
While I have no doubt you've see a complaint to this effect to form that opinion, that is not the condition Hilts, other 38 pilots, and I are upset about.
There is a sudden, violent tail round spin that is induced simply by reaching an appearent accelerated stall while comming out of the verticle. Consider how often a tight split-s is used in a fight, then consider the implications of having to tip-toe through that maneuver constantly for fear of sudden instant departure into a maple seed fall. You dont need to be slow, you dont need rudder input, you dont need to be poorly trimmed, you dont need flaps, you dont need to be skirting black out Gs. Believe me, Ive eliminated lots of plausable balance and control causes. The last 2 times I experienced this was following 109's in my fwd+up view through a series of yo-yos with both planes at comparable intermediate speeds.
That said, Ive only experienced this about 15 times since about 2.0patch10, but in part that is due to avoiding the condition that causes it. Prior to that I never induced that particular spin that way. Still its a real pisser to lose or drag out fights due to a quark in the model that would not happen in the real plane.
-
Crump & Kweassa, where are both of you from? er where you live at/in what part of the world?
just curious........
lots of people on this bbs post but you never know what side of the world they live in........
and as for the Germans documents vs the USN documents how does one know which is correct? both countrys prob would like their particular plane to outpreform the opponent on paper ya know.......
I would bet for ever document someone might come up with another could come up with a document that counters the first......
and as far as AH goes, I find the 190A5 to be the most agile / manueverable of all the 190s, but according to Crump it should be the worst...........
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
and as far as AH goes, I find the 190A5 to be the most agile / manueverable of all the 190s, but according to Crump it should be the worst...........
My feelings also.............
is it a load out thing?
-
Interesting report here re 109 vs p51 in Flight Journal.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136439
Says the 109 should out turn the pony at lower speeds.
Note: the 109 they used was the 109g10 against a P51D.
Note: I seem to recall the 109g10 we have isn't really just a G model but kind of a cross between the late G models and the K models. So this articale may not apply.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Interesting report here re 109 vs p51 in Flight Journal.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136439
Says the 109 should out turn the pony at lower speeds.
Note: the 109 they used was the 109g10 against a P51D.
Note: I seem to recall the 109g10 we have isn't really just a G model but kind of a cross between the late G models and the K models. So this articale may not apply.
did that P-51D had 100% fuel when mock fight that 109?
-
Actually I just saw the word that our G10 is really a K4 with the ability to run with a 20mm instead of a 30mm as the hub cannon.
-
The FW-190A5 gained substantial weight and no horsepower. It's boost ratings are the exact same as the FW-190A3.
Compared to the FW-190A8 which gained a little weight over the FW-190A5 but added lots of horsepower. Even in the early BMW-801D2Q powered versions.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Not only that, the AH P-38, even with two perfectly operating engines, suffers from torque effects in both stalls and spins. You often MUST pull the engines back to idle, and sometimes even shut them down, in order to recover from a spin. That is PURE Bravo Sierra, nothing more, nothing less.
I've met this stall in both P38 and 110. I can't claim to have flown either plane (or any plane), but I have taken enough physics to smell something really wierd.
Both planes will get into a "stall" (if you can call it that), where it will have 0 airspeed, and sit flat and level, while falling. As long as throttle is not reduced, no control action will have any effect. Once throttle is reduced, it is possible to get the nose down and recover. I just can't imagine either of these planes falling straight down, while flat, level, and not spinning on any axis.
I've read the F16 will fall like this, but I just can't imagine one of these old birds doing it. Or perhaps I'm ignorant.
- SG
-
I've read the F16 will fall like this, but I just can't imagine one of these old birds doing it. Or perhaps I'm ignorant.
Nor can I.
Spins are badly developed stalls, while stalls are defined as a condition where a plane cannot stay a constant altitude.
Now, in many cases a plane has a tendency of stall developing into a spin due to torque, but somebody with aerophysics knowledge please enlighten me - is torque the only factor contributing to a spin?
If the answer is no, then there's no reason a P-38 would not spin. The pressures and forces working on a plane does not remain constant at all times, and depending on various factors such as bank angle and rudder input there may be factors that aggravate a normal stalling status and develop it into a fatal spin.
Now, in a level flight status where theoretically all forces are equal, you can pull all you want in the P-38L in AH2, and it will not spin. It lifts nose, gives off the buffeting sound(I have my stall.wav sound to that) and then just drops nose.
However, most of the instances under question are a result from harsh maneuvering - as per the flap autoretraction problems.
A P-38L enters into very harsh conditions at low speeds with lots of angles and stickpulls rudder inputs. The plane holds on to the edge provided by the flaps - and when the flaps retract the stall speed goes up, and the plane finds itself already in a physical state which cannot sustain any kind of normal or gentle behavior. How can a plane in this state not be expected to spin?
Now, I've noticed some occasions considering extreme lowspeed verticals - this is a problem that plagues almost all AH2 planes and not just the P-38L.
It's the status where the plane falls into a flat, or an inverted flat spin during a straight vertical. In the case of the Ta152, when you go vertical upto too low a speed, the plane will start a tailslide downwards and refuse to nose-over - sort of like a giant curcifix falling from the sky, the Ta "slides down" in an almost irrecoverable stall status.
I've noticed simular things with the P-38L which in certain instances the plane will refuse to nose over, and just fall flat, straight down on its belly. Since the plane has no torque, it doesn't even flip over to one side.
Somehow, in some planes when a plane stalls out vertically, it will refuse to nose over. Among them the P-38L has one of the deadliest stalls in this regard, and this I'd like to see fixed, if it is wrong.
-
It can happen, and it has. When Jeff Ethell stalled Bruce Pruett's P-38 at Tillamook several years ago, it fell straight down, moving neither forward nor backward, nor spinning. It fell so straight that when it struck the ground, it did not move more than 12"-24" in any direction.
Now, the thing is, Jeff Ethell stalled the plane at 1500 feet and about 75 knots. With one engine out.
All I can tell you is what Captain Stan Richardson Jr. told me. He said that it was never necessary to adjust the throttles in a P-38 with two healthy engines to recover from a stall. He said it was nearly impossible to force a P-38 with two healthy engines into a spin. He said that the P-38 would go nose down after stalling so long as you did not pull back on the yoke, and at around 80 knots or so, it would begin to fly and respond to control input. He said nothing more than neutral pressure on the yoke, and opposite rudder was necessary to recover from a spin, and that no throttle adjustment was necessary. He said as long as you followed instructions, the P-38 would go nose down, and recover, within 3 revolutions. The man was an advanced instructor in the P-38. His job was to teach single engine techniques, and both stall and spin recovery. With around 3000 hours in the P-38, I can't think of anyone who would know more about it.
-
Kind of funny how the P38 discussion is taking place in the axis flaps thread while simultaniously in the P38 thread they are arguing Luftwaffe operational strength :)
-
is torque the only factor contributing to a spin?
no.
high torque leads into spins by creating roll and yaw momentum while the plane looses forward speed. But other factors like stick inputs and orientation also count.
The prop shaft transferes rolling torque to the plane. normally this is countered by the ailrons increasing the lift on one wing and reducing it on the other. when you reach the stall, if you deflect ailrons, the "rising" wing will stall before the "lowered" wing and the plane will be fliped in the other direction of the intended roll - both due to the loss of lift on one side and due to engine torque which work in the same direction.
stalling one wing before the other also creates an un-even yaw momentum. In addition, the prop's P factor is significant at slow speeds and high angle of attack and also act on the yaw axis (with or against the other yaw). So in addition to fliping over, you also start spining in the yaw direction - the dreaded inverted flat spin.
once a plane starts falling in a direction not with a "nose into the wind", the aerodynamic effects are unpredictable. it may not drop its nose and recover as fast as expected. it might be thrown and flipped due to the air flow going in, say, the 7-2 oclock direction instead of the normal 12-6 direction. I suspect that forward thrust with no torque like the P-38 has can hasten the recovery considerably, but not before a few flips.
Bozon
-
Okay...
I'm getting tired of people complaining that the stall speeds need to be higher(aka stall at more than 200)! For example a BF-109E has a stall speed of 75-85mph NOT 120 or 200 IN A TURN!!!!!
sigh...
Another example,
The FW 190 A-4 was around 95-105 mph NOT 225 IN A TURN!!!!
pant pant pant......
FIX THE FREAKING STALL SPEEDS BACK TO REAL SETTINGS!! This stupid "oh planes need more torque and need to stall more" BS whining is rediculious! I want some more reality, no WWII aircraft felt like it was on ice on take off.
:mad:
-
Originally posted by Mad0Max
Okay...
I'm getting tired of people complaining that the stall speeds need to be higher(aka stall at more than 200)! For example a BF-109E has a stall speed of 75-85mph NOT 120 or 200 IN A TURN!!!!!
sigh...
Another example,
The FW 190 A-4 was around 95-105 mph NOT 225 IN A TURN!!!!
pant pant pant......
FIX THE FREAKING STALL SPEEDS BACK TO REAL SETTINGS!! This stupid "oh planes need more torque and need to stall more" BS whining is rediculious! I want some more reality, no WWII aircraft felt like it was on ice on take off.
:mad:
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings for you, but that 75-85 MPH stall speed is for level straight ahead flight, at 1G, with an angle of attack of zero. So was the 95-105 MPH. It has nothing to do with stall speed in turns during combat, pulling high G's, a high angle of attack, and dealing with torque at WOT.
Oh, and the 109 was notorious for takeoff and landing accidents. There are any number of people on this board who can list dozens of examples of fighter planes crashing on takeoff due to torque, so I won't bother with that. Takeoff accidents that occurred due to torque when power was applied were very common.
It takes nearly 4000 foot pounds of torque at 2800 RPM to make about 2000 HP. That amount of shafted torque exerts an extremely large twisting force on the airframe.
To get an idea of how much force, and the effects it has, find yourself a V8 powered rear wheel drive car, put it in gear, put your foot on the brake, and rev the engine. Notice how the car twists up from left to right. The average V8 rear wheel drive car has about 275-300 foot pounds of torque, and weighs about 3500-4000 pounds. The torque to weight ratio is about 1:10 at best.
Now the average WWII fighter plane has about 3600 foot pounds of torque (over ten times that of the car above) and only weighs about 10,000 pounds, or just a little over twice what the car weighs. The torque to weight ratio is about 1:3. Now, add to that the fact that the propellor is also exerting that same force in a twisting motion just like the torque of the engine, unlike the car, where the motion of the axle is pushing the car forward, in an entirely different direction that the torque generated by the engine. That should explain why torque has so much effect on single engine propellor driven aircraft handling in high performance aircraft. They aren't like a Cessna 172 with 180 HP and weighs 3000 pounds or so.
-
Lots of good info CVH, thanks.
-
Solution to all stall spin problems. 100% works every time.
When your making your turn at whatever speed your at in whatever plane your in. When you start to hear the stall horn and you feel it wiggle just do this.
DONT PULL SO HARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
in AH world, i can still turn with spit IX - '51s below 220 and get a shot while in 190 without using flaps (or 109Fs but not Gs)... but not foe long (obviously)
Summary. LW FM-ing is aight (for now) and remember DONT PULL THE STICK TOO HARD!
:)
-
Summary. LW FM-ing is aight (for now) and remember DONT PULL THE STICK TOO HARD!
I really don't want to go thru it again but it is off. It is off because if we are going to have a simulation then we need to "simulate" actual events. Some of the features that the real aircraft could do, cannot be done in AH at this time.
Pyro is redoing the FM. I am sure he will make a great model even more realistic.
Crumpp
-
I agree the FM for the 109 is not quite on. Maybe close but the aircraft will not preform some manuver it was reportedly able to do. It instead flounders about or snaps into unusual angles when those manuvers are tried.
Noticed this floundering about in some other aircraft as well.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Basically in my point of view the P-38 pilots whining of how the P-38 will snap stall violently, is like a spoiled kid's rant.
Oh...a comment from the clue-less.
The complaint we have about the P-38 is not the violent snap rolling stall but the auto-retracting flaps that cause them. Unlike our ignorant Luftwhiner, Truekill, the P-38 did not have this feature in real life and it does, despite your clueless comments, have a negative impact on the P-38 in AH.
So please, when you write your rebuttal, please try to keep it less than 500 words and not the usual manifestos you like to post so much.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by bozon
CVH, you can relax. If there's any one plane that would benifit from more pronounced torque and tougher stall model it's the 38, as it did historically.
Bozon
Why do people that know so little about the P-38 always insist on making comments on it?
1) P-38 had counter-rotating props. This negated the torque. The only P-38s that had torque were the few Model 322s that were shipped to England and France (France never received them as they were occupied by the time the planes were shipped) in the early part of the war. These were the "castrated P-38s".
2) The P-38 had a very gentle stall characteristic in real life. If you have any doubt, you should watch the P-38 flight training film on Zeno's Warbird site. That World War II training film shows the gentle stall characteristics of the plane. There are also numerous other sources of information that confirm this widely known fact.
ack-ack
-
Unlike are ignorant Luftwhiner, Truekill, the P-38 did not have this feature in real life and it does, despite your clueless comments, have a negative impact on the P-38 in AH.
Please read the thread before you run around accusing folks of being "ignorant Luftwhiners". It's a major turnoff and quite frankly speaks of ignorance. Reading a few books does not make anyone an expert. Truekills claims are based off original documentation which was posted earlier in this thread.
The P-38 had a very gentle stall characteristic in real life. If you have any doubt, you should watch the P-38 flight training film on Zeno's Warbird site. That World War II training film shows the gentle stall characteristics of the plane. There are also numerous other sources of information that confirm this widely known fact.
Like all stalls, it depends. It might shock you know the FW-190 had a gentle stall as well. The same stall left unchecked developed into a spin. The FW-190 also recovered very quickly. The P38 did have gentle stall but could become violent under certain circumstances. Read up on how Tommy McGuire died.
Going to the aid of another pilot who was under attack, McGuire was making a sharp turn at low speed when his P-38 shuddered and then stalled. His plane plunged into the jungle, exploding in a fiery crash. McGuire's death came within a month of his scheduled return to the U.S., and just two victories shy of matching America's leading World War II Ace, Maj. Richard Bon, who had downed 40 Japanese aircraft.
I have to dig for it but Avaition History ran an article a few years back. I won't claim it as a fact just yet, but IIRC, the crash of McGuires P38 did not have the drop tanks on it. If that was the case the article speculated McGuire was using his engines to increase his turn and misjudged his speed.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Like all stalls, it depends. It might shock you know the FW-190 had a gentle stall as well. The same stall left unchecked developed into a spin. The FW-190 also recovered very quickly. The P38 did have gentle stall but could become violent under certain circumstances. Read up on how Tommy McGuire died.
I have to dig for it but Avaition History ran an article a few years back. I won't claim it as a fact just yet, but IIRC, the crash of McGuires P38 did not have the drop tanks on it. If that was the case the article speculated McGuire was using his engines to increase his turn and misjudged his speed.
Crumpp
Actually, it is you that should read up more on how McGuire died.
1) McGuire did have his drop tanks on when he went down, violating his own dicta.
2) When using differential throttle control in the P-38, if you do not advance both throttle together after powering one throttle down, the plane had a very nasty tendency to get into the spin that caused McGuire's death. In the P-38, if you chop throttle to one engine, you need to chop throttle to the second engine and advance them both together.
Savage, Widewing and/or Slack have a more detailed report into the death of McGuire. I think Widewing's website also has the report posted. You should read it, might learn something.
ack-ack
-
Actually, it is you that should read up more on how McGuire died.
Well we can all read the crap you put out. IF you can comprehend what I wrote then MAYBE you might understand that I KNOW the popular circumstances of his death.
I was initiating a discussion and going to look for the article.
Until then you can chew on this bit of info on the "wonder 38"
The P38 for the most part was not that great. The USAAF had good reason to concentrate on other designs. P38 fans can cry til the cows come home. Facts are the end USER, the USAAF withdrew the P38 from the fighter role in the European theater and regulated it to the attack role. They had good reason. You can check out the power loading, drag, wingloading and other characteristics. It's an overrated and overhyped design as a fighter.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101873588_p38drag.jpg)
Crumpp
-
And yet the P-38 was flown by more USAAF aces in the PTO than any other USAAF airplane.
Of course, you also fail to point out the major reason the 8th AAF pulled the P-38 as a front line fighter was more due to short sighted thinking on the part of 8th AAF high command than any other reason. The 8th AAF was the only one to pull them from front line service, which isn't surprising since most of the 8th AAF high command had a bomber's mentality.
ack-ack
-
Of course, you also fail to point out the major reason the 8th AAF pulled the P-38 as a front line fighter was more due to short sighted thinking on the part of 8th AAF high command than any other reason. The 8th AAF was the only one to pull them from front line service, which isn't surprising since most of the 8th AAF high command had a bomber's mentality.
Interesting, because the USAAF say's it was due to the P38's "rough" handling by Luftwaffe fighters. The Luftwaffe did not have a high opinion of it.
So far the P38 fans are long on crying big crocodile tears and short on producing flight tested documentation.
So simply produce some flight tested documentation supporting your argument.
Crumpp
-
Crump, I've studied Major Thomas B. MacGuire's crash for over 20 YEARS.
You need to either learn the facts or keep your ignorance to yourself.
McGuire not only had tanks, but had full 310 gallon tanks, and made a conscious decision to keep them.
What caused McGuire's crash was a high speed stall at low altitude, most likely caused by ASYMETRICAL POWER APPLICATION .
According to the report filed by Weaver, McGuire's wingman, and subsequent comments and interviews, McGuire had probably throttled back his engines to tighten his turn, cutting the inside engine more than the outside engine. It was NOT McGuire's personal plane, and apparently, as it began to shudder, McGuire firewalled the throttles, and the inside engine did not respond. It snapped inverted and spun in, from well under 1500 feet AGL. It was absolutely and most certainly NOT an stall of the type anyone not using asymmetrical throttle application would experience in a P-38, UNLESS they had trouble with one engine.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Interesting, because the USAAF say's it was due to the P38's "rough" handling by Luftwaffe fighters. The Luftwaffe did not have a high opinion of it.
So far the P38 fans are long on crying big crocodile tears and short on producing flight tested documentation.
So simply produce some flight tested documentation supporting your argument.
Crumpp
So far you are full of more Bravo Sierra than anyone but those Luftwaffe apologists who wrote the crap you're reading.
The 8th AF reports were written to cover the total incompetence and gross negligence of the 8th AF from 1942 to early 1944.
As far as the Luftwaffe roughing up the P-38 because of the performance of the P-38, perhaps you should ask any number of families of German pilots who died in front of the guns of Lowell, Olds, Ilfrey, Blumer,and at least a half dozen other P-38 aces. Try reading Steinhoff instead of Galland. You want ot read about Galland vs. a competant pilot in a P-38? Read "Top Gun" by CMH winner Joe Foss. You'll find an interesting story about Galland admitting to Lowell smacking his bellybutton all over the sky after Galland bounced Lowell with every advantage.
The ones crying crocodile tears are the ones who lost the the P-38 in Europe at a ratio of about 6 German planes destroyed in the air for every 1 P-38 lost in combat, including the records of the worst performing P-38 groups of the 8th AF.
-
I have to dig for it but Avaition History ran an article a few years back. I won't claim it as a fact just yet, but IIRC, the crash of McGuires P38 did not have the drop tanks on it. If that was the case the article speculated McGuire was using his engines to increase his turn and misjudged his speed.
How in the HELL do you get any inkling that I am not familiar with the popular circumstances of his death CVH from the above??
Next time I guess I will just explain the popular line first then say the new information.
You P38 fans are FAR worst than the 109 crowd when it comes to leaping on any percieved slight against your favourite plane.
You need to either learn the facts or keep your ignorance to yourself.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101957923_shuttfup.jpg)
You need to learn some reading comprehension.
As for the P38:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101957863_whinehi.jpg)
So far NOBODY has produced any flight tested facts.
Crumpp
-
So far you are full of more Bravo Sierra than anyone but those Luftwaffe apologists who wrote the crap you're reading.
Kind of General, Captain....
Let have some specifics from any of the claims I wrote in this thread and I will back it up with original documentation.
THAT IS A LOT MORE THAN YOU CAN DO....
Crumpp
-
The ones crying crocodile tears are the ones who lost the the P-38 in Europe at a ratio of about 6 German planes destroyed in the air for every 1 P-38 lost in combat, including the records of the worst performing P-38 groups of the 8th AF.
You got those docs because I have never seen those kind of losses from the Luftwaffe records to the P38. I have a copy of the USAAF claims as well. They certainly don't match up.
Please produce the proof because otherwise that is a nice story.
I have the Luftwaffe claims for the entire war as well. Post yours and we can match them up.
Crumpp
-
The only thing I see from those that fly the P-38 are the posting of known facts. All I see from yours and Kweassa posts are as Savage so politely labeled as "Bravo Sierra".
ack-ack
-
First of Crumpp, pour that cup for yourself.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of the circumstances of McGuire's crash knows the plane he was flying (NOT his plane) had drop tanks, and he specifically ordered the other three pilots to hold their tanks as he did.
As far as any "new" information on McGuire's crash, the latest research was done by Captain David Mason, USAF ret., with some help from myself, a half dozen World War II veteran P-38 pilots, and Warren Bodie. Some excerpts from Mason's research were published over two years ago. Mason contacted me in late 1999, and asked me to work with the P-38 pilots I knew on the actual flying characteristics and combat flying to see if we could gain a better understanding of what lead up to the crash, and why it happened. What resulted was a six month email discussion with Stan Richardson, Art Heiden, Don Rheimer, Ken Lloyd, Bill Capron, Bill Safarik, and half a dozen other pilots each with at least one full tour of combat flying in the P-38 and with an average of at least 1000 hours of P-38 seat time. Warren Bodie was brought in because of his expertise as a Lockheed engineer, and his knowledge of the structural limits of the P-38.
By the way, ONLY the 8th AF withdrew the P-38 from frontline fighter service, and even then there were still units of the 8th AF flying the P-38 in multi role missions as late as June 1944. The p-38 outnumbered the P-51 in numbers deployed with the 8th AF until around April of 1944.
The 8th AF was the ONLY AF in the entire European theatre to have any real difficulties with the P-38 that were not solved quickly. The 8th AF was for all intents and purposes a bomber AF with fighters only as an afterthought for escort duty. The entire upper eschelon of 8th AF staff was comprised of heavy bomber officers. According to the USAAF records I've seen, the WORST P-38 group in the 8th AF had a kill to loss ratio of 1.2 German planes destroyed in the air for every 1 P-38 lost for ANY reason, including combat, navigation, mechanical failure, and accidents. Remove the accidents, navigation, and mechanical losses, and it becomes 2.5:1 in favor of the P-38, combat loss to combat loss.
At least one or two groups of the 9th AF kept their P-38's all the way to VE day, and they were not assigned nor restricted to attack or ground interdiction. The 9th AF P-38's had a ratio of about 6:1 in favor of the P-38.
You might do a little research on Larry Blumer. He managed to wax about 5 or 6 Luftwaffe pilots in less than 15 minutes (likely including Luftwaffe experten Rudy Dassau), and his squadron mauled that particular JG badly enough that they were withdrawn from service. I'd say it was the Luftwaffe that got roughed up by the P-38's there.
I believe it was Steinhoff, who later went on to be the NATO commander in Europe, who said in several interviews, and in one book, that he and his pilots felt the P-38 was possibly the most dangerous fighter they faced, because it was fast, and extremely maneuverable for a plane of its size. He said that in his experience, and that of his pilots, the P-38 was the fighter they found was most likely to be able to get on your six without warning, and was difficult to evade.
-
One of the Luftwaffe's top aces, when asked which American fighter he thought to be the most dangerous surprised many by not even mentioning the P-51 Mustang. Johannes Steinhoff's answer was, "At high altitudes, 8,000 meters or higher, the P-47 was the most dangerous foe. [cut] Below 4,000 meters, the Lightning was untouchable. You could not out-turn them, or out-run them. It was suicide to try to climb out of a fight because the Lightning could quickly overtake you. I did shoot down several P-38's. This was largely because the pilot was not aware of my presence. Had they seen my approach, I do not believe that I would have been able to achieve a suitable firing position before the American would have turned onto my tail. If I was detected, I would dive away to safety. The early models of the Lightning were dangerous to dive from altitude because they accelerated too quickly. I believe this problem was overcome in later models."
-
You might do a little research on Larry Blumer. He managed to wax about 5 or 6 Luftwaffe pilots in less than 15 minutes (likely including Luftwaffe experten Rudy Dassau), and his squadron mauled that particular JG badly enough that they were withdrawn from service. I'd say it was the Luftwaffe that got roughed up by the P-38's there.
You might want to some more research on "Ace in a Day" incidents before you start jumpin around over Blumer.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of the circumstances of McGuire's crash knows the plane he was flying (NOT his plane) had drop tanks, and he specifically ordered the other three pilots to hold their tanks as he did.
Exactly. Old Knowledge hotrod. Again read what I wrote.
Lets see what the Luftwaffe says about the P38:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101782014_gafopinions.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101782240_baropinion.jpg)
Seems to me the AF did have good reason to withdraw it from fighter duties. Being a big target and a "lack of manuverability" is probably a hinderance in a dogfight.
We can look at the P38's tactical trials later.
Enjoy!
Crumpp
-
You whine about us not comprehending but it's you that seems to lack this ability.
The USAAF never pulled the P-38 from front line service. The 8th AF was the only air force unit to do so and one unit did not make up the entire air force. The other air force units that Savage mentioned continued to fly the P-38 in Europe and the Med, were it was quite successful. It was also the premiere USAAF fighter in the Pacific.
You can argue the opposite all you want, it still doesn't make you right. All it shows is that you're just another typical Luftwhiner who's got his lederhosen in a bunch.
ack-ack
-
More drivel from Galland and Milch. The same Luftwaffe apologists over and over again. Gee whiz, those guys were so brilliant, they lost the air war over Germany, lets ask them about fighter planes.:rolleyes:
-
Professor Klump wrote: I have to dig for it but Avaition History ran an article a few years back. I won't claim it as a fact just yet, but IIRC, the crash of McGuires P38 did not have the drop tanks on it. If that was the case the article speculated McGuire was using his engines to increase his turn and misjudged his speed. [/I]
Hilts replied: Anyone with a passing knowledge of the circumstances of McGuire's crash knows the plane he was flying (NOT his plane) had drop tanks, and he specifically ordered the other three pilots to hold their tanks as he did.
Professor Klump replied: Exactly. Old Knowledge hotrod. Again read what I wrote.[/I]
I DID read it. You'll notice you DID NOT remember correctly. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd have certainly remembered that he DID have his tanks, as it was a big part of the story. I read what you wrote, evidently you didn't. All you were doing is guessing.
Is it "old knowledge"? Not really. I read dozens of articles and reports for years. I do not remember seeing anyone in any article, before Mason's stuff was released, saying that asymmetrical power was the cause of the actual departure from controlled flight.
And eventually, Mason published Doug Thropp's (he was the most junior pilot, and flew the mission as Jack Rittmayer's wingman) theory that McGuire was actually shot down by the plane he was attacking. That could not have been the case, and by his own admission Thropp was too far away to have seen it. The truth was that Weaver had evaded the attacking Japanese plane, and McGuire was behind the Japanese plane, inside Weaver's turn nearly abreast with him, and pulling around for a gun solution on the Japanese plane. That's how Weaver saw and heard what happened, and he reported it as such to the CO, Mac MacDonald.
The drop tanks, and the decision to keep them, is the biggest single contributing factor, and you specifically stated the plane didn't have drop tanks. Had McGuire released the tanks, he would not have reached the stall speed, because 500 gallons of avgas added about 3000 pounds to the plane, and the rest would not have mattered. In any case an error in judgement killed McGuire, and the nasty snap roll into an inverted spin was most likely caused by asymetrical power. It isn't really speculation, as Weaver (McGuire's wingman, and the pilot under attack as well) HEARD the change in engine sound before McGuire's plane departed.
The most likely cause of the engine problems on the plane McGuire was flying is the "tune up". While McGuire and his crewcheif were up all night getting the plane ready for the muission, there was no testing of the plane before the mission. It was checked over and fueled up. It is very doubtful the engines were in the same state of tune as the engines in McGuire's own plane, and likely the plane had never been tossed around anywhere near as hard as McGuire was accustomed to. McGuire was notoriously hard on his planes. The decision not to take Pudgy V up for that mission proved to be a fateful mistake, made because McGuire felt his luck was running out.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Why do people that know so little about the P-38 always insist on making comments on it?
ack-ack, I may know less about the P38 than you do, but it seems I read english better than you do. And it's not even my 1st language.
I said torque is not pronounced enough in AH. If planes had a more pronounced torque, the P38 will BENEFIT just BECAUSE it has none. T
Then you go explaining me about counter rotating props.
Bozon
-
Crumpp says:
withdraw it from fighter duties
is NOT the same as:
Ack-Ack says:
from front line service.
Check your local community college, they probably offer continuing education classes.
I DID read it. You'll notice you DID NOT remember correctly. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd have certainly remembered that he DID have his tanks, as it was a big part of the story. I read what you wrote, evidently you didn't. All you were doing is guessing.
The article examined the crash itself and as I CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE YES I WAS GUESSING since I don't have the article at hand! Not in the habit of making claims without the ability to back them up with documentation. Be nice if the P38 crowd could do that…guess if it is written on the BBS it must be true. Especially from a fan.
You immediately jump to bait with NO NEW INFORMATION. Do you understand that there was no challenge to story in the first place? Or has your P38 fandom blinded you to the point that you know longer even try to comprehend. The "P38 attack Lights" go off and it's leap to the defenses!!
Worse than any "Luftwhobble" the P38 click leaps to the attack even on guys like bozon who just happen to write a good scientific DEFENSE for the P38's benefiting from greater torque modeling!! Unbelievable!
Why do people that know so little about the P-38 always insist on making comments on it?
Bozon. I did not realize it either but you must be willing to take a written test and be of the correct mindset in order to comment on the P38. Only those willing to bend the laws of physics and stretch the truth like rubber can apply. You simply are not one of them.
Now I have laid out FLIGHT TESTED FACTS that speak to the P38J's performance.
1. The claim of "great acceleration" is crap. The scientific facts say with poor power loading and high drag make for poor acceleration.
2. High drag and Poor Power loading make for a horrible zoom climb.
3. High wing loading makes for poor turning ability. The P38 had the highest wing loading of the USAAF fighters and it's power loading is not looking too good for making up for it.
The Science points to the Luftwaffe pilots being correct in their assesment. The P38 did not have the maneuverability needed for a top notch fighter according to the science.
Crumpp
-
Ack-Ack,
I still don't understand why you think getting rid of the autoretracting flaps would help the P-38.
I think that Spitfire drivers in AH would absolutely love it if HTC got rid of the autoretracting flaps as flaps in combat are a feature that can only be used by their oponents and anything that reduces their ability to use their flaps helps the Spitfire.
If HTC removed the autoretracting flaps most people would shortly stop using flaps in combat after having them fail and become damaged.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crumpp says:
withdraw it from fighter duties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is NOT the same as:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ack-Ack says:
from front line service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check your local community college, they probably offer continuing education classes.
Crumpp
The P-38 was initially introduced as a front line fighter and later on removed from that role by the 8th Air Force. The 8th AF P-38s were then delegated to a secondary role as primarily ground attack and interdiction missions. So yes, being removed as a front line fighter is the same as being removed from front line service since it was delegated to secondary role other than what its main purpose was for.
ack-ack
-
So yes, being removed as a front line fighter is the same as being removed from front line service since it was delegated to secondary role other than what its main purpose was for.
It is huh? What color is the sky in your world?
Don't pick up a copy of:
http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764304046
You will probably have health issues after reading it. Might even start a fury of letter writing explaining to the pilots and engineers how they are wrong in slighting the P38.
Again more blustery crap. Got Facts??
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101873588_p38drag.jpg)
1. The claim of "great acceleration" is crap. The scientific facts say with poor power loading and high drag make for poor acceleration.
2. High drag and Poor Power loading make for a horrible zoom climb.
3. High wing loading makes for poor turning ability. The P38 had the highest wing loading of the USAAF fighters and it's power loading is not looking too good for making up for it.
The Science points to the Luftwaffe pilots being correct in their assesment. The P38 did not have the maneuverability needed for a top notch fighter according to the science.
Crumpp
-
Where do you get the idea that the P-38 had poor power loading?
Guess again.
Look more closely at the chart above. The P-38 has BETTER power loading in that chart. Better than the P-47, better than the P-51, better than the F4U (except the F4U-4), and better than the F6F. That does not even take into account the P-38L engines were rated at 1750HP in WEP (notice you never see published WEP ratings for the P-38L, EXCEPT in Lockheed documents, you ONLY see METO, which by the way is the same rating as WEP for a P-38J).
Drag? Sorry dimwit, but there is not an extreme difference between 0.22 and 0.28. Now, the P-51 DID have a decided advantage, IF that 0.17 is factual.
No, the p-38 was not the slowest accelerating U.S. fighter, not by a long shot. And it enjoyed a climb advantage over the P-51, the P-47, the F4U, and the F6F at most altitudes. With regards to U.S. fighters deployed to Europe, the P-38 was the fastest accelerating fighter from cruise to about 375 MPH.
Only the P-38 and the P-47 could maintain sea level power up to anything near 30K feet. The rest were sucking wind. Even with the supercharger in high gear, the P-51 was still lagging behind in power.
Properly operated, the P-38J and L had a greater combat radius than any other U.S. fighter.
The P-38 did suffer from maneuverability restrictions and dive restrictions above 25K before the installation of the dive flaps.
By the way, if you knew anything at all, you'd know that comparing wingload by area and weight alone is a total joke. That ASSUMES (ASS being the key word in your case) that the wings share the exact same airfoil type and profile, and they most certainly DO NOT. The P-38 had a broad chord high aspect ratio wing. It provides significantly more lift per square inch of area than the wings of other fighters. The airfoil profile selected for the P-38 is the reason it reaches compression at a lower speed than other fighters. Because the air flows faster and provides more lift. Kelly Johnson wanted to use a thinner profile, but the requirements of range, lift, and climb rate (the P-38 was originally designed specifically to intercept bombers) set forth in the USAAF specifications required the high aspect ratio profile that was used.
And the definitive work regarding the P-38 is "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning", by Warren Bodie. Bodie is regarded as one of the top historians in the World War II aviation field, and is a retired Lockheed engineer. It has all the facts YOU will NEVER want to read, backed up by USAAF documments, Allison documents, and Lockheed documents. It has been recognized by Johnson, Levier, Meyer, Mattern, Kelsey, and a laundry list of others, as the most accurate work on the P-38, period.
-
Well let's check it out Captain!
Looking at the Zeke tactical trials and comparing the P38 against it's USAAF brethern we see:
P51:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037753_p51accelleration.jpg)
P47:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037823_p47accelleration.jpg)
P38 hanging in the back dead last:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037906_p38accelleration1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037958_p38accelleration2.jpg)
Once again. Facts vs hype. To coin a phrase, the P38's "outstanding" abilities as a fighter are a MODERN creation.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Ack-Ack,
I still don't understand why you think getting rid of the autoretracting flaps would help the P-38.
I think that Spitfire drivers in AH would absolutely love it if HTC got rid of the autoretracting flaps as flaps in combat are a feature that can only be used by their oponents and anything that reduces their ability to use their flaps helps the Spitfire.
If HTC removed the autoretracting flaps most people would shortly stop using flaps in combat after having them fail and become damaged.
then there are some of us that have been flying the P-38 for many, many years and know how to use the flaps. AH has been the only online fight sim I've played that has this gamey feature put in. All other flight sims you had to know how to use them, not only to deploy them but to retract them as well or risk damage. So I really don't see that as a valid argument considering the experience of some in here.
ack-ack
-
Ack-Ack,
What is stopping you from manually raising them now? I know that when I fly the Ki-84 I raise my flaps manually about half the time. I also know that without the autoretract feature in AH I would practically never use them because it is too easy to go over 167mph and break them.
In the P-38's case the speed may be higher before failure, but regardless if the failure happens it happens and it does not matter at all whether it is via autoretracting flaps or destroyed flaps. Both events have the same exact effect on your P-38, except in one case you can't use your flaps again.
If you're combining your request to get rid of the autoretracting flaps with a request for flaps that withstand much higher airspeed you're going to have a very tough sell. I ran into that in regards to the Mossie landing gear which are listed in the pilot's handbook as having a airspeed limit for deployment of 165mph and yet were used as airbrakes (with occasional resulting jams) by pilots in WWII at speeds well in excess of 300mph. In AH you hit 166mph and the landing gear are destroyed.
-
With regards to the autoretracting flaps I believe this may have been brought up before:
How about an option like Combat Trim or Stall Limiter where people can choose what they want, autoretract or non autoretracting flaps?
The problem I see with this is as Karnak mentioned, the safety zone for the flaps. How much above the stated limits can they remain undamaged and will this be enough time in most situations to manually retract the flaps before they are jammed or break off?
I'm guessing that the safety margin would vary from plane to plane (I could be wrong). Which may more than likely produce more whining about favoritism for certain planes.
I guess the diehard pilots won't have much of a problem and they'd probably be the majority using this if it's ever implemented.
Just trying to look at it from both sides.
-
Karnak,
None of the P-38 pilots want anything other than autoretract removed, and replaced with some sort of reaonable damage model. We do not want the speed raised or anything of the sort. The speeds at which they are deployable is fine, and after that threshold is crossed, some sort of damage model that deals with the possibility/probability of damage to the flaps that would be caused by having them deployed at too high a speed would be fine with ALL of us. None of us wants some sort of gamey crutch. We've NEVER asked for that. We simply want the autoretract feature removed, as it was not on the real plane. This is a realism request and nothing more.
Regarding the damage, it would not render the flaps useless, but rather it would either jam them in the deployed position, or tear them off, or something in between. The penalty for having your flaps deployed at too high a speed would likely be more severe (damage and the attending drag and handling issues) than having them rendered unuseable, and also more severe than the stall that often results from an unexpected autoretract.
And yes, we would be fine with an option much like the Stall Limiter that allowed the individual pilot to select autoretract on/off as part of the flight preferences. This would be fair to both the experienced pilot and the new pilot.
Oh, and I think that deal with the Mossie gear is wrong. The gear should not automaticly be destroyed at 1 MPH over the stated limit, that's pretty dumb. For it to jamb in the down position is plenty of penalty, I'd think it would likely take a lot more than 1 MPH to destroy the gear, probably more like 100 MPH. That is exactly the type of sillyness most would like to see removed.
-
Virgil,
That may be true for you, but I do not believe it to be so for many P-38 fans. The general context of the request is that autoretracting flaps cripple their fighter and they think the P-38 would be more usable without them.
There are only two ways I can see this being believed, A) they expect the speed at which they are destroyued to be raised (and I seem to recall Ack-Ack saying as much to be in an earlier thread) or B) are thinking in real world terms, not computer programing terms and expect that getting rid of the autoretracting flaps would help hold their P-38's speed down.
All that would change, and HiTech said this directly, is that instead of retracting the flaps would be destroyed. They would not stay on at higher speeds and they would not hold the P-38s speed down any more than the current flaps do.
I do agree that I'd like to see some limits raised. I remember in Silent Service II that the subs could exceed their maximum listed allowed depth by 10% to 50% (randomly determined) as a fudge representation of engineering claims being conservative. The safety limits listed in pilot's manuals are not hard limits, but limits that leave plenty of room for error.
-
Karnak,
For Ack Ack, Mrdr, myself, and any number of other diehard P-38 pile-its, that is EXACTLY what we want. There may be some out there looking for some sort of gamey Bravo Sierra, but not those listed above, and not anyone that any of us fly with or talk to. And having it selectable is a good compromise as well.
At least we agree on the sillyness of having parts of the plane ripped off or destroyed when exceeding the listed limits in the manual by one mile an hour.
If HiTech thinks they should just fly off instead of retracting as soon as you exceed the manual specs by a mile an hour, then he's just as wrong about that as he is autoretract.
The problem with autoretract that we are annoyed with is that the instant you get to that speed, for even 0.1 seconds, the flaps instantly retract, even if you don't stay at or above that speed for more than a second. The idea is LUDICROUS. You can hit that speed for just a split second during an maneuver, and immediately drop well below it, if you are pulling very hard. But the flaps will retract just at that instant. It just doesn't make sense. And we all know there was a cushion of as much as 20 MPH or more before damage would result, not 1 MPH. But with autoretract, you can't take your chances and ride that cushion. Because there is no cushion.
-
The idea is LUDICROUS. You can hit that speed for just a split second during an maneuver, and immediately drop well below it, if you are pulling very hard. But the flaps will retract just at that instant. It just doesn't make sense. And we all know there was a cushion of as much as 20 MPH or more before damage would result, not 1 MPH. But with autoretract, you can't take your chances and ride that cushion. Because there is no cushion.
The idea is VALID.
Think of the main contendor of AH - the IL2 series, which has a seriously warped represantation of air combat which in every turn at every speed starts with a mandatory deployment of flaps. Deploying flaps is a way of life for IL2 planes. Every combat is associated with flap.
The P-38, as you claim, might be a different case, but for the majority of the fighter crafts of WW2 flap deployment was never a combat practice in the first place. It was more of a one-trick pony, a risky maneuver which only in desparate circumstances would serve its purpose.
The only thing that's keeping that reality alive in AH is that there are set limits to the flaps, which is enforced harshly.
The only thing which makes the combat flaps on P-38s, P-47s and P-51s special in AH, is that none of the other planes can use flaps at those speeds, due to the strict enforcement of flap speed limits. The P-38s, P-47s and P-51s are not exempt from this rule - but they have different limitations and margins of flap use speeds, which are accurately represented and kept to the coin, by this rule.
Take out the auto-retraction and it's not gonna make any kind of differance at all. As much as the P-38s can hold on to the flaps a little longer, the other planes will also be able to hang on to their flaps a little longer, or deploy them a little earlier.
Removal of auto retraction just isn't gonna give what you want. The only thing which can give an actual tactical performance boost is by raising only the P-38's flap limitations, like Tac suggested before - now that is ludicrous, if any.
However, I do not object to the random failure idea at all. It's the compromise point we've reached when this very specific discussion was going on.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Ack-Ack,
What is stopping you from manually raising them now? I know that when I fly the Ki-84 I raise my flaps manually about half the time. I also know that without the autoretract feature in AH I would practically never use them because it is too easy to go over 167mph and break them.
Nothing, and I do. But the problem is that the P-38 will enter into a what is a fatal spin the majority of the time if you're maneuvering hard when the flaps auto-retract. The flaps auto-retract as soon as you get 1 mph over the rated speed for that setting. In AH, where the P-38 is dependent on the flaps for maneuverability, this is a hinderance nor is it realistic. If the P-38 had flaps deployed at 250mph, they will not break once you hit 251mph. It's a gamey feature and should be removed.
With all the cries of players wanting realism in this game, I'm really surprised on how many demand this gamey, hand-coddling feature remain in the game.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Karnak
There are only two ways I can see this being believed, A) they expect the speed at which they are destroyued to be raised (and I seem to recall Ack-Ack saying as much to be in an earlier thread) or B) are thinking in real world terms, not computer programing terms and expect that getting rid of the autoretracting flaps would help hold their P-38's speed down.
I have never once stated that nor asked for that. I have only asked that this feature be removed for a more realistic approach, like the ones that were used in AW and WB.
And P-38 driver that uses flaps to keep his speed down is not a very good one. I find the throttle is better suited for that.
ack-ack
-
Take out the auto-retraction and it's not gonna make any kind of differance at all. As much as the P-38s can hold on to the flaps a little longer, the other planes will also be able to hang on to their flaps a little longer, or deploy them a little earlier.
Yes all things even ... it would be dependant upon the pilot then ... wouldn't it .. and isn't that where it should lie ?
If I have flaps out ... pulling hard to get inside you and you don't have flaps out, then shame on you ... your gonna die.
But ...
If I have flaps out ... pulling hard to get inside you and you don't have flaps out, 2 seconds away from a guns solution, and I hit the magical 251 mph for a fraction of a second, and then I am thrown into a violent snap due to auto-retraction and auger ... that's not right.
Still in the same scenario ...
If at 251 mph my flaps are jammed (not auto-retracted), chances are I will still have the opportunity to get inside you ... kill you ... then I will have to deal with jammed flaps while trying to fight my way out to RTB. This seems to be a fairer and more realistic scenario.
-
Karnak, removing autoretract WILL make a difference. It will stop artificially enforced retraction of the flaps from causing a stall or a spin. Damaging the flaps won't cause either.
-
Ack-Ack,
That is true of all aircraft, not just the P-38. You talk as though the P-38 is special in that regard. I do agree with you that the absolute limits in AH are not realistic, but getting rid of the autoretracting flaps will not result in what you desire. There will be no change other than flaps being torn off at 251mph instead of retracted. You will still enter the stall.
Virgil,
That is not true as modeled in AH. All that would happen is that the flaps would be torn off instead of retracted.
As modeled in AH.
HiTech said as much.
-
since its so hard to come to a decision, i say it should be an option like auto take off, and auto combat trim.
-
If the P-38 had flaps deployed at 250mph, they will not break once you hit 251mph.
ok, but at what speed will they? what is the rule?
do fowler flaps have a larger safty margins than slotted flaps? Do certain manufacturers published figures using larger safty margins? Did americans used superior steel or is the german hydraulics more robust?
you see where I'm getting at...
Bozon
-
ok, but at what speed will they? what is the rule?
Probably need to find something like this for the P 38.
FW-190 manufacturer's breaking pressure for the flaps:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102131121_flapbreakpressure.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
However, I do not object to the random failure idea at all. It's the compromise point we've reached when this very specific discussion was going on.
Ahh, here it is.
Posted 06-27-2004 04:22 AM by Murdr
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.[/b]
Im glad real life engineering standards arnt like AH, Id never made it to my 20's if S rated tires failed when you drove 1 second at 113 MPH.
-
That is not true as modeled in AH. All that would happen is that the flaps would be torn off instead of retracted.
And where is it written that the flaps would be RIPPED off at 1 mph over the limit ... I would think that maybe the hydraulic system might get jammed (MIGHT) ... but rip the flaps off ... I don't think so.
Im glad real life engineering standards arnt like AH, Id never made it to my 20's if S rated tires failed when you drove 1 second at 113 MPH.
Excellent point !!! I too would not be here to have this discussion.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Ack-Ack,
That is true of all aircraft, not just the P-38. You talk as though the P-38 is special in that regard. I do agree with you that the absolute limits in AH are not realistic, but getting rid of the autoretracting flaps will not result in what you desire. There will be no change other than flaps being torn off at 251mph instead of retracted. You will still enter the stall.
Virgil,
That is not true as modeled in AH. All that would happen is that the flaps would be torn off instead of retracted.
As modeled in AH.
HiTech said as much.
Ummm...that's why we're asking for a more realistic modeling approach to this problem. In RL, if the flaps were deployed at 250mph, they didn't break or get damaged at 251mph.
ack-ack
-
It's not that we're criticizing the validity of a more reasonable modelling.
We're criticizing the grounds for advocating such a model in the first place. We agree to the results, but don't agree on the process.
AH2 can indeed, benefit much more realistic with a more sophisticated flap modelling, but basically when a P-38 pilot falls into a spin when the flap auto-retracts, it is not because of the system. It's is a problem that can be avoided by the pilot.
The conditions are same and equal for all planes in that all of them in AH, are limited to the numbers. I use the Ki-84 a lot. Sometimes the flaps retract when I'm about to close into the rear-end of a Spitfire. I lose control, and spin out.
So, did I auger because the system screwed me?
Frankly, no sane AH gamer would think the system screwed him. The only people who thinks the system screwed them in this case are specifically P-38 pilots.
There were tons of alternatives possible when I faced that Spitfire. However, I thought the Spit pilot was a poor one, and thought I could shoot him down before I reached my limits and lost control of speed. A lot of planes in AH depend on the flaps. However, I see none of those pilots complaining.
The P-38 pilots have a habit of thinking they and their planes are special. I'm not saying it in a bad way, but the tendency is clearly visible. Most of them tend to think facing a superb turning plane at their own game is the only way to fly a P-38, and boy do they brag about it - a lot.
Except, while most of them may indeed fall prey, some don't. Basically nobody forced any P-38 into a situation where so much was dependant on the flaps.
The choice was his to make. Call it sissy or timid or whatever - he could have played the BnZ game. Or, he could have went into a bit more sparing E-fights with a lot of safe high-yoyos and stuff, going into harsh maneuvering only for the final coup-de-grace.
But nooooo, he had to show the other guy what a good plane the P-38L is, and what a good pilot he was. He goes into an all-out rolling scissors contest against a more light and nimble plane, loses a bit of ground, and the speed pushes over limits. Bam, the plane spins.
So, did he auger because the system screwed him, or was it because he became too greedy?
I mean, why couldn't he just remain 1 mph inside the limit? Did somebody force him to step outside of that limit?
I'd gladly support a better flap modelling , but I agree to none of the reasons given by any of the P-38 pilots.
-
Ummm...that's why we're asking for a more realistic modeling approach to this problem. In RL, if the flaps were deployed at 250mph, they didn't break or get damaged at 251mph.
I call BS on that it would be a more relistic. Namly because the consiquences are much different in how you would use the flaps then they would in real life. Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.
2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.
HiTech
-
Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.
Exactly. If it's not provable in the POH or documentation then it will cause unrealistic behavior. AH will become the flap fest IL2 is now.
If it was used somebody documented the tolerances somewhere.
Crumpp
-
Auto retracting flaps..........
We do not have auto retracting gear (with repect to air speed)...we can break it...........
It would seem to me that a player setting (auto retract yes/no)
Would allow either to have nice safe flaps or (if you want to push that edge a little further and risk breaking them) non auto retract.
Whilst at it you do the same for gear...........
This approach would then be consistant with AoA, combat trim etc etc. and give all camps what they want.........
-
Originally posted by hitech
I call BS on that it would be a more relistic. Namly because the consiquences are much different in how you would use the flaps then they would in real life. Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.
2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.
HiTech
Then just cause them to jam at 251 mph wherever they are (1 notch, 2 notches) ... I would much prefer that than the auto-retract/snap-spin/auger outcome.
-
AH2 can indeed, benefit much more realistic with a more sophisticated flap modelling, but basically when a P-38 pilot falls into a spin when the flap auto-retracts, it is not because of the system. It's is a problem that can be avoided by the pilot.
If I am working a bandits 6, I don't really have time to keep looking down to see if I am just about to pop over the 250 mph limit ... so in most case, it can't be avoided.
So, did I auger because the system screwed me?
Frankly, no sane AH gamer would think the system screwed him. The only people who thinks the system screwed them in this case are specifically P-38 pilots.
Screwed ? ... I haven't seen that term used in this thread at all in reference to what we are talking about.
When I am effected by the auto-retract, I don't think that the system "screwed" me ... I think about what would be a better way to handle the situation without breaking the "rules"/"limits".
Like I said before ... jam them ... much better and more realistic outcome than what we have at the moment.
Tilt brings up an excellent point with regards to gear ... why not handle the flaps with the same notion. When approaching the jam/break point, start the stress wave ... if you don't back off/retract ... SNAP !!!! ... your jammed.
-
Looks to me like huge whine from the P 38 crowd. Frankly you want your aircraft to do things it could not in real life.
The Lockheed specifically warns against leaving the flaps down for any length of time as they will quickly bleed the energy from it to a point the plane is helpless and cannot recover.
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 .
Guess, as proven in the flight tests, the P38's "great accelleration" is a piece of modern fiction.
http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm
Now if the P38 crowd was complaining that application of assymetrical power was not producing the turn results it should I would wholeheartily support that.
So buy yourself a throttle quadrant and start whining.
http://www.fscentral.com/chthqu.html
Crumpp
-
Crump seems that everything written on paper is an absolute to you. Considering this statement you made.
Looks to me like huge whine from the P 38 crowd. Frankly you want your aircraft to do things it could not in real life.
I'm curious though where exactly in this link (James Reese P-38 (http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm)) does it state you cannot do this?
I'm not a 38 fan or anything but I kind of found this reference used by Crumpp as rather funny. You can see what I've highlighted in bold letters. Opposed to reading it as an absolute which some folks tend to do. I read it as it's a good possibility.
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.
I've seen some nasty damage done to flap assemblies on the F-15 and one that stands out the most is our - 7G incident. Flap assemblies can withstand alot of damage. But the limits aren't set in stone. And there is nothing there in that article that says you can't extend them above 250 only that there is a danger of structural failure if you exceed that speed.
Like anything manufactured out there you will have those items that can withstand very little of what they are designed for and you'll have those exact same items that can withstand alot more than they are technically designed for. Hence why they put limits on these items. It may have been found that out of 10 tests 4 of those items tested failed above 250 mph. If this were the case then the engineers would continue the tests until a lower percentage of structural failures would occur. Once they found a failure rate that was acceptable then they would set their limits to that or just short of it. They wouldn't set the limits down so low to a point that there would be an absolute 0% chance of failure. They also wouldn't set their limits so high that it's a guarantee that if the limit is exceed the system will surely fail. There is no black and white to setting limits. They allow for operator error so that if in the event the limit is exceeded there won't just be a catostrophic failure. It's not an absolute guarantee either that the system couldn't withstand an exceeded limit over x amount of time per flight and over it's life span. Engineers design airframes so they can have longevity. Hence by adding written limits and not absolute physical limits. If catastropic failure was highly possible then there would be physically limitations too.
There are very few things in this world that do exactly as they are written on paper regardless of how much testing you do on them. I know that from personal experience from working in the flight test world for the F-15
-
Originally posted by hitech
I call BS on that it would be a more relistic. Namly because the consiquences are much different in how you would use the flaps then they would in real life. Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.
2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.
HiTech
I disagree that AKAK is saying "raise the limit". The specs that are availble are the benchmark and I dont see anyone disputing that. As a matter of practicallity it is not absolute that if the spec is 250mph and you reach 251mph that a failure will occur instantly. It could very well happen, but it is not absolute.
It would be more realistic if exceeding the specs means "risking failure" as opposed to "will fail". Name a mechanical or sturctual component that "will always fail" if the specs are fractionally exceeded briefly (whether it be psi, mph, rpm, lbs, whatever).
I posted an example failure model that is not absolute, and is more like what you would expect from abusing a mechanical or structual component. What is being said is give us the choice to turn off auto-retract, and manage the risk (risk being the key word) of bringing mechanical problems on ourselves.
-
If I am working a bandits 6, I don't really have time to keep looking down to see if I am just about to pop over the 250 mph limit ... so in most case, it can't be avoided.
Oh come on Slap, don't you realize what you're saying here??? You've just confirmed my claims that it's the pilot who screwed himself, not the system.
When I am effected by the auto-retract, I don't think that the system "screwed" me ... I think about what would be a better way to handle the situation without breaking the "rules"/"limits".
Considering the attitude most P-38 pilots show when it comes to this matter, "screwed" is a proper term.
None of them will ever admit that they went into something they shouldn't have, or at least misjudged the situation and thought they could safely remain inside the limits, when they actually can't.
It's always the "flaps" which "screwed" them when they auger. Never their own poor judgement or failure to stay within the limits.
-
I'm not a 38 fan or anything but I kind of found this reference used by Crumpp as rather funny.
Need to update you Cobra on the P 38 flap argument.
Yes structural failure "probability" is much more realistic. EVERYBODY including HTC knows this for a fact.
It is NOT a question of what is more realistic for the flaps but rather what is more realistic in the fights.
If we break a flap and crash, NO BIG DEAL. Simply up another plane.
Interviewing Luftwaffe pilots and USAAF (P51) pilots for my book all say the same thing about flaps. They were used JUST LIKE LOCKHEED RECOMMENDS!!
You drop them for a short period of time to gain angle and quickly retracted them. If you left them down they robbed your speed. Continous flap usage very quickly leaves you low, slow, and vunerable.
AH is not an artificial flap fest like IL2. Why? Hitech has designed the game so that you cannot "game the game" with them. It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even "combat" flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights. Hitech is right, not folks lobbying for their favourite plane!
If anything HTC should penalize you more for flap usage. As it is your flaps just get retracted not break.
I have to wonder:
Hitech says:
2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.
How you cannot see that, Cobra. That is exactly what is going on. P38 pilots want to fly their plane beyond it's limits, nothing more.
Crumpp
-
Cobra, what you're saying may be true, but it is also a bit naive. The problem is that a game may be able to reflect certain kinds of factors of real life, except in many occasions those factors don't bring with it realistic results.
Particularly in a simulation game often one must think about how to acheive overall realistic behavior within the game, instead of think about modelling everything into a 1:1 scale.
A very good example is, as said before, IL-2. The IL-2 series is an excellent, excellent game, except the 1C crew took a different approach and decided to model most of the things "exactly as they were".
Since there is very few documentation on at which point a flap would fail, the 1C crew has just set a really really absolute point the flaps would fail at a 100%. The result is, as Crumpp said and I quote, "flap fest".
Another example is how they've modelled the prop pitch and RPM in the Bf109s. Oh yeah, it's more realistic that way. A pilot can turn off the auto-pitch governer and make it into a variable. non-auto prop.
Except now the gamers are exploiting this and have turned manual pitch settings into some kind of "manual WEP" system.
A better approach would have been to model it like AH. Sure, it's not realistic, but at least it keeps the people flying in a realistic manner. IL-2 modelled in a realistic system the way it was, and ended up with people flying unrealistically.
-
I disagree that AKAK is saying "raise the limit". The specs that are availble are the benchmark and I dont see anyone disputing that. As a matter of practicallity it is not absolute that if the spec is 250mph and you reach 251mph that a failure will occur instantly. It could very well happen, but it is not absolute.
A failure does not occur instantly Murdr. As soon as the flap starts retracting the pilot has an option to ease off the stick and avoid the accelerated stall.
The events leading to the often fatal destabiliztion at low alts, is usually initiated by the pilot not wanting to admit he lost the maneuvering contest. The moment he heard the flaps retract he should have let the bogey go, admit that he lost that round, and accelerate away.
The only instances where this is impossible, is when a P-38L tries to follow something like a Hurricane or a Spitfire at a low-alt split-S. A split-S is inherently an E-gaining maneuver, and should be avoided by heavy planes at low altitudes as a rule of thumb. If the bogey you're chasing goes into such a move, you don't really have to chase him directly. There are always other, more safe maneivering options.
Except, the P-38 pilots tend to think that they can pull it off everytime. They take the risk of a low alt split-S, and the risk sometimes catches up with them. They fail to contain the speed within the limits of flap usage, and fail to pull out of the split-S in the right time.
Thus, Hitech's essentially correct. Whether by 1mph or even 0.1 mph, you're asking for a waiver in those sort of occasions so they can arbitrarily go over the limit by "X mph" of speed and declare it "inside realistic limits".
It would be more realistic if exceeding the specs means "risking failure" as opposed to "will fail". Name a mechanical or sturctual component that "will always fail" if the specs are fractionally exceeded briefly (whether it be psi, mph, rpm, lbs, whatever).
It would also be realistic if AH P-38 pilots started refraining from exceeding the spec in the first place, or at least, refrain from doing it in the most dangerous situations where everything depended so much on the flaps.
Or even better - stop thinking it'd be okay to exceed the spec in the first place. Nobody else in AH thinks that way, so why do you?
-
Two REAL simple questions.
Answer yes or no.
1. Did ANY P-38 have auto retract flaps?
2. Did the flaps on the P-38 fail, get destroyed, or get torn off at 251MPH, instantly, and always at 251 MPH?
Enough Bravo Sierra about it. Both questions can be easily and simply answered, factually, with either yes or no.
Remember, the manual says structural damage MAY occur. Accepted opinion was if you used the flaps too much or too long you got too slow, and slow was dangerous.
The only question in my mind is whether or not certain people have the anatomical attributes to answer the question honestly, without a bunch of whimpering crap to go with it.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I call BS on that it would be a more relistic. Namly because the consiquences are much different in how you would use the flaps then they would in real life. Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.
2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.
HiTech
So having such a gamey, hand-holding feature such as auto-flaps is just as realistic? Now I call BS.
ack-ack
-
Ahh so you wish all fetures that assist people to learn to fly removed, sutch as auto take off, auto pilots, trims on lots of the planes, taxiing to runway, auto fuel select, radar, text channels, spawn points for vehicles, icons. And btw if you ever crash your 38 you shouldn't get to fly again. Or better yet have to pay some one to fix your flaps.
Do not try to pick one specfic thing and call it relistic or not, because your exact argument applies to a huge volumn of things to AH. All things must be looked at in the context of the gamming enviroment.
HiTech
-
Why not make it a togglable feature like you did with the stall limiter?
Out of curiousity, how did you model the flaps in WB? You didn't put auto-flaps in that game, so how did you calculate the damage to the flaps from over speeding?
ack-ack
-
Exactly. If it's not provable in the POH or documentation then it will cause unrealistic behavior. AH will become the flap fest IL2 is now.
If it was used somebody documented the tolerances somewhere.
Crumpp
I'm not opposing what you're saying but could you please explain the unrealistic behaviour that this would cause? Just a layman here with some basic knowledge trying to understand this discussion.
Also, I have IL2FB (offline play only and haven't played in awhile). From what I understand, combat flaps in IL2 can be deployed/retracted at any speed and also act as a speed brake. Can flaps in IL2 be abused in more ways?
I'm trying to piece together how making the flap retraction speed non absolute for all planes (maybe 20mph higher than the stated limits?) before jamming/tearing off will make AH similar to IL2's 'flap fest' in these regards.
I see the problem if the deployment speeds were to be increased but I'm not grasping the problem with the retraction speeds being higher (as it is with landing gear).
Anyone care to explain?
-
I'm not opposing what you're saying but could you please explain the unrealistic behaviour that this would cause?
Sure Kaz. I would be glad too. This is a copy from an earlier post. Basically IL2 is unrealistic in the fact everybody drops flaps routinely and is able to keep them down for extended periods of time in a fight.
Repost:
Yes structural failure "probability" is much more realistic. EVERYBODY including HTC knows this for a fact.
It is NOT a question of what is more realistic for the flaps but rather what is more realistic in the fights.
If we break a flap and crash, NO BIG DEAL. Simply up another plane.
Interviewing Luftwaffe pilots and USAAF (P51) pilots for my book all say the same thing about flaps. They were used JUST LIKE LOCKHEED RECOMMENDS!!
You drop them for a short period of time to gain angle and quickly retracted them. If you left them down they robbed your speed. Continous flap usage very quickly leaves you low, slow, and vunerable.
AH is not an artificial flap fest like IL2. Why? Hitech has designed the game so that you cannot "game the game" with them. It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even "combat" flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights. Hitech is right, not folks lobbying for their favourite plane!
If anything HTC should penalize you more for flap usage. As it is your flaps just get retracted not break.
I have to wonder:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitech says:
2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why there are those who do not see this!
That is exactly what is going on. P38 pilots want to fly their plane beyond it's limits, nothing more.
Crumpp
-
crump crap out.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
A failure does not occur instantly Murdr. As soon as the flap starts retracting the pilot has an option to ease off the stick and avoid the accelerated stall.
B]
Well that is very obvious Kweassa, no need for the lecture. However that is how HT has laid the situation out: "The auto retract flaps is a very intentional choice, when they exceed there max speed they must either break,or be retracted." Originally posted by Kweassa
It would also be realistic if AH P-38 pilots started refraining from exceeding the spec in the first place, or at least, refrain from doing it in the most dangerous situations where everything depended so much on the flaps.
Chris Herman wrote in a letter home:
"I flew with both 'Macs' {McGuire and Mac Donald} in a couple of fights now and need a new plane. Both wings were sprung and wrinkled from racking around at excessive speeds and dive recoveries - its one hell of a job to fly with McGuire, and his plane is in the same shape....I'm usually No 3 man in his flight when he takes the Squadron out - expects me to stay for at least three of four passes, or till we get things split up and going our way. Then he doesn't give a damn what happens, but hates to find himself suddenly all alone down on the deck!"
Realistic? if you say so.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Why there are those who do not see this!
That is exactly what is going on. P38 pilots want to fly their plane beyond it's limits, nothing more.
Crumpp
How is having a realistic approach to the flap modeling in the game the same as wanting to fly the plane beyond its limits? The only limits are the ones artificially imposed by the auto-retracting flap system.
It's time to unbunch those Lederhosen.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
If anything HTC should penalize you more for flap usage. As it is your flaps just get retracted not break.
Crumpp
Penalty for using flaps? That suggestion is way too dumb to argue.
ack-ack
-
It's time to unbunch those Lederhosen.
You show your ignorance with comments like this...
How is having a realistic approach to the flap modeling in the game the same as wanting to fly the plane beyond it's limits?
Hitech has a realistic approach to fights not flaps.
Penalty for using flaps? That suggestion is way too dumb to argue.
Whew! No wonder.....
Crumpp
-
If HTC has a "realistic approach" to flaps, then everything should stay as-is right...? (ie no need to revise 109/190 flaps which would almost equal to that request for non-auto retract on 38s, '51s, ect ect)
-
If HTC has a "realistic approach" to flaps, then everything should stay as is right...? (ie no need to revise 109/190 flaps)
What a blunt tool. One of the P38 crowd run off and grab an alter ego?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Hitech has a realistic approach to fights not flaps.
Crumpp
:rolleyes:
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What a blunt tool. One of the P38 crowd run off and grab an alter ego?
Crumpp
tikky had a very valid point but I guess your lederhosen bunching up like they do has cut off the circulation to your head.
ack-ack
-
tikky had a very valid point but I guess your lederhosen bunching up like they do has cut off the circulation to your head.
No Tikky posted a flamebait.
Hitech will sort out the flaps based on the facts.
Crumpp
-
So the flaps needs to be revised only for the Luftwhiner planes? Hypocrisy is strong in you young luftwhiner.
ack-ack
-
Ack Ack says:
So the flaps needs to be revised only for the Luftwhiner planes?
It's amazing what can be done with English....
How do you get that from:
Hitech will sort out the flaps based on the facts.
Enlighten, please.
Obviously you have run out of facts to contribute to this thread and the matter can be considered closed.
Crumpp
-
I understand what you guys are saying but you also cannot deny the fact that the 250 limit stated in the manual is merely a warning. It is not rock solid set in stone that above 250 you are guaranteed to have damage to the system. I don't know how to code but if it were possible to generate a random failure of the flaps above 250 would seem more realistic. If it's not possible to do then it's not possible. I think I'd much rather have random damage above listed failure limits than an auto retract function that never existed back then.
We have aircraft that consistantly go over thier max allowable G loads on a weekly basis. Does that mean we are replacing those items that had been over stressed? No it does not. Frankly I've only seen 2 or 3 occassions where we had to do anymore than just inspect the stressed areas for damage in the 10 years I've been working them. The other occassions we had minor to major damage but it did not keep the plane from flying home. There was no catastrophic failures that ripped wings off even under loads almost 200% over the maximum stress limits imposed by the engineers of the F-15. Even with one of the highest level over gs ever recorded on the F-15 at a -7gs the planes flaps were merely hanging on their hinge points and wedged into the external fuel tanks it was carrying and the the wings required replacement. This was on a standard CBT load out with CFTs, left/right wing pylons (w/external fuel tanks) and a centerline pylon. The plane still flew home without incident and landed safely.
Do you honestly think that if in the heat of battle these WWII crews wouldn't stretch their planes beyond the factory limits if it meant the difference between life and death? I'd have to say without a doubt yes they would and they'd take that chance regardless of the warnings posted or possibility of damage if it meant they'd make it home. It's no doubt that many folks here would prefer to be as realistic as possible when it comes to atleast the flight models of these planes.
Crumpp you yourself have shown that you prefer it be more realistic day in and day out so I don't understand why you'd try to fight something that is in fact a possibility and not set in stone. No one here is asking to have flaps running at 50 or even 25 % over what is listed as a dangerous situation. They prefer that they have the option of taking the chance and if it kills them it kills them. It's about taking a chance and pushing your plane beyond it's limits even if it means you won't be coming home. Crews do this even in todays birds.
Kweassa as I've stated previously in this post it's not set in stone. There would have to be some kind of random generator that would trigger once you went above the set limits. This is as close to being realistic as you can get. How much the system would allow over the limit as a whole and how random the failures would be is up to HTC. Again it may not even be feasible to do or it may not be possible at all, if it's not then so be it. People are just making this out to be we (the community)want super uber planes when it's not that at all.
-
It's about taking a chance and pushing your plane beyond it's limits even if it means you won't be coming home. Crews do this even in todays birds.
Absolutely. Your argument is very valid Cobra and it would be more realistic for the flaps.
I don't think it would make the combats more realistic. In games were flaps limits are "flexible" you have to admit that "sim pilots" drop flaps way too often and worse keep those flaps down way too long.
I do want things to be realistic as possible.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp I do agree with you there. I think that's the developers problem for not putting in some random failure system when above critical levels. If folks used it constantly and the failures were setup in a way that would deter them from using that option unless absolutely necessary then it may not be so gamey.
As I've stated before though I don't know how to code so it may not be possible but here's just an example.
The system would trigger the random failures generator when above item xs limitation. The generator would reference a log file that kept telemetry information on the flaps usage and airspeed at the time of that components usage. The flaps would start the log cycle anytime they were lowered. If the log file shows excessive use above item xs limitation then random generator will go to a high output which will cause more random failures over a shorter period of time due to excessive usage above it's limitations. If the log shows a low usage above item xs limitation values then the random failure generator would go to a low output and have less random failures while above the limitations. Basically the setup would monitor how often it's used above certain limitations and determine whether or not random failures should be set at a higher or lower output rate.
This probably isn't possible to do and if it were it would probably be more work than it's worth to code. But this would keep folks from just slapping down those flaps all the time and hoping that they just don't have a failure. It would have it's own checks and balances to keep from just gaming the game and actually only going above limitations when it's absolutely necessary. If you disregard the fact that it's put in there as basically a save your arse function and use it constantly you'll pay the price.
-
I agree that would be a good system if it could be implemented.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
AH is not an artificial flap fest like IL2. Why? Hitech has designed the game so that you cannot "game the game" with them. It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even "combat" flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights. Hitech is right, not folks lobbying for their favourite plane!...........
Why there are those who do not see this!
That is exactly what is going on. P38 pilots want to fly their plane beyond it's limits, nothing more.
Crumpp, of course low speed dog fighting in the 38 was discouraged, especially in the PTO with the nimble jap planes. However when you say "It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even 'combat' flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights." that just doesnt match up with how things happend. Combat did degenerate into less than by the book conditions.
I specifically recall accounts from the 475th on how McGuire preached never to dogfight the jap planes and then would proceed to do it on a regular basis in combat. Tilly described that more often than not, an engagment would begin around 20K, and deteriorate to everyone "milling around on the deck". He also praised that the 38 was at its best "at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90mph. Tilly's 2nd victory aginst an oscar was a full 360 "on the deck, in a verticle bank, the airspeed under 90 mph...That turn was nothing more or less than a controlled stall."
That is just a little "stupid and totally unrealistice accounts" off the top of my head.
I also previously posted in this thread an example of where one of McGuire's wingmans plane showed significant abuse just trying to keep up with Mac in the initial part of a few engagment. The point being that while there lives depended on taking care of their planes, that did not prevail when faced with the choice of being shot, or wringing everything they could out of their bird.
In AH a frustrating example where I would like to see a similar choice is in a low speed 38 loop fight. If the apex of the loop is around 120, the speed at the bottom peaks over 150 mph by 1-5 mph for about 1-2 seconds. The max full flap speed is 150. Auto-anything does not account for the full scope of the situation. The situation may be that without interference by auto-retract the engagment would be over before the next apex. Or it may not. Only the pilot can assess the risk/cost/benifit and decide what action will keep said pilot alive. In this example I dont see where auto-retract either causing a fatal spin, or forcing the player to lose position makes "realistic fights" when 1. The real plane would not react that way. and 2. The limit is pushed so little in time and stress perameters, that it defies engineering standards to say that there must be an absolute failure in that situation.
Lastly, I made the same arguments months ago (and reposted a snipet here) as cobra has stated here. The only difference between what the two of us said was were he suggested a (what I'll call) "stress log", I suggested a rapid sample rate for a damage condition. Both are geared to "the more you abuse it, the more likely you break it". I dont quite see where you find such a difference that when someone else says it, that its a "good system", but I pleased to find you are able to see the point and resonableness of a suggestion when your own bias's are not blocking your view.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Take out the auto-retraction and it's not gonna make any kind of differance at all. As much as the P-38s can hold on to the flaps a little longer, the other planes will also be able to hang on to their flaps a little longer, or deploy them a little earlier.
I havnt seen anyone here in this regard advocating doing anything to deployment speeds. Its all about what should happen when overspeeding occurs, after they're deployed.
-
to see the point and resonableness of a suggestion when your own bias's are not blocking your view.
I have no bias. You only percieve bias due to your own views.
However when you say "It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even 'combat' flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights." that just doesnt match up with how things happend.
BS. Read Lockheeds warning again. Read the POH. Ask a veteran.
This is EXACTLY why I am against changing the system unless HTC did two things:
1. Increased the performance penalty so that when using flaps you A/C has a narrower window of beneficial performance. Based on A/C design. Some planes could use them longer than others.
2. Flap usage would be tracked like kills. The more you drop flaps out of POH the higher the chances they will break. Abuser's are eventually penalized with a 100 percent chance they will break for a specified time period.
Do I foresee Hitech implementing this? No. What does it really do for the overall game except make a few fights "lucky" by allowing them to exceed POH recommendations for a few seconds. Planes will be able to do things they "normally" could not.
Crumpp
-
I see no one has developed the attributes to answer the question.
What is really hilarious is those saying "it's not realistic to fly around low and slow with your flaps out", all the while complaining about getting below 225 in their favorite plane and having it become unstable. Typical Bravo Sierra from the exact same people again and again.
The same people who think one of their favorites is too unstable at low speeds INSIST that someone else's plane be destabilized by a feature it did not have. You may deny this all you like, but the truth is printed all over this thread, posted by those very people.
I do not have the slightest problem with the instability of the 109 being investigated thoroughly, and if it is wrong, I WANT it fixed. I don't want to fight anyone who has one hand tied behind their back, artificially. I have advocated the investigation into the performance problems of the KI 84 as well.
The same can most certainly not be said for the other side. How terrible it must be to live in fear of the P-38 having autoretract disabled (it's an unfounded fear, HiTech couldn't stand the moaning, wailing, and gnashing of teeth from all of those who demand a feature be added to the P-38 to keep it destabilized).
Here are the facts, live with them:
The P-38 did not have autoretracting flaps.
P-38 pilots did use them heavily in some cases and situations.
Some P-38 pilots were perfectly willing to use flaps and get slow when they felt they could get the kill. It's the aggressive pilots who got the kills.
The flaps on the P-38 will NOT instantly break off, jam, or be otherwise destroyed at 251MPH.
Not one of the group of people asking for autoretract to be disabled is asking for the speed at which flaps can be deployed to be raised. They are asking for instant autoretract at 251 MPH to be disabled. They would all be willing to accept the possibility that the flaps be damaged when you exceed 250 MPH, and for the possibility to increase for every MPH over 251, until at some point flap damage was inevitable. They would also be perfectly willing to have the flaps not deploy at all above 250 MPH (meaning that if you are above 250 MPH and try to deploy them, they simply won't deploy).
-
Crump, I've asked more P-38 veterans than you'd care to listen to, you won't like what they said.
The pilots manual, and even McGuire's own indoctrination article for combat in the SWP, are merely suggestions and information. Nothing there is set in stone. You could dive the P-38 well into the realm of compression and recover it, even at speeds above 500 MPH, and you could have your flaps out a few MPH past 250 MPH and not suffer a catastrophic structural failure. You could drop below 200 MPH in combat and not instantly be shot down and killed.
-
As far as I read the ww2 memories of fighter pilots, it was mostly gank fests and BnZ fights, dogfighting was discouraged. If a fighter gets slow and low , almost sure death. Most fights lasted 3-5 mins.
-
Only focke wulfs where able to fly low and slow.
Quote :Uberstaffelbefhelfuhrendengel bwebel:
Heinz unterhosenbradwurst JV44251210
"Meiner Fokchenwullfchen zerstort immer wieder aller auslandieschen unterflugzeuge, unbedingt keiner anderen moglichheid"
please pyro correct this
Aufwiederschnitzel
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
BS. Read Lockheeds warning again. Read the POH. Ask a veteran.
Tilly is full of bs? How very typical of you to ignore anything that doesnt fit your position. Blindness strikes again.
-
Tilly is full of bs? How very typical of you to ignore anything that doesnt fit your position. Blindness strikes again.
It is in black and white from Lockheed. Are you saying they are wrong about their own design?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is in black and white from Lockheed. Are you saying they are wrong about their own design?
Crumpp
Yea, ok, the guys that flew them in combat are liars, and everything that happened in combat went completely by USAAF doctrine, and manufactures guidlines. Whatever you say.
-
Yea, ok, the guys that flew them in combat are liars, and everything that happened in combat went completely by USAAF doctrine, and manufactures guidlines. Whatever you say.
Ok, If that is the standard for AH why are the 109's not able to drop flaps at any speed? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence. In fact the Luftwaffe pilots I interview all say the Bf-109 could keep it's flaps down for a longer period of time than the FW-190 due to the design of the 109's flaps.
Where is the cut off? At what speeds can you "realistically" exceed the manufacturers limits and not ruin the realism of the fight's themselves?
Any limits you set above the manufacturer's recommended speeds are in fact arbitrary "guesses". The Standard is what you can document as fact. If we took all the anecdotal evidence and used it, FW-190F's would be diving to speeds in excess of 1000kph and FW-190A8/R7's outturning yaks. Did it happen? Sure, those pilots are not lying but any means. What were the conditions? We don't know but under some conditions those events are entirely possible. They are not the norm and it would be completely unrealistic to model them as such.
Be careful too with some of the anecdotes. Good example is one pilot told me always turn fought his FW-190A. He was very successful with that tactic. Later on, when pressed for details it came out that he did not level turn at all. He used energy tactics by conducting yo-yos not turns.
Crumpp
-
Geez, you are all over the map. You said:
It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even "combat" flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights.
I posted brief examples of that not being the case, but also agreed that it was not prefered or endorsed officially. To which you replied:
BS. Read Lockheeds warning again. Read the POH. Ask a veteran.
You seem to be fond of the quote: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.
.....To support your first statment. Tactical suggestions like this by the manufacturer or the USAAF by no means are a documentionation of its actual use in the field or in combat.
That is a completely different matter than "the manufacturer's recommended speeds" which you now want to bring back into the discussion. To the contrary, I quoted Tilly in regards to fights with speeds near 90 MPH, which according to you is "stupid, and totally unrealistic"
Where is the cut off? At what speeds can you "realistically" exceed the manufacturers limits and not ruin the realism of the fight's themselves?
Any limits you set above the manufacturer's recommended speeds are in fact arbitrary "guesses". The Standard is what you can document as fact.
On this topic I already stated numerous times that I have no quarrel with the "manufacturer's recommended speeds", but only with HTs binary logic of 'they must auto-retract' or 'they must break'. Where Lockheed says "There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded." I would like to see a realistic "danger of structural failure" as an alternative to mandatory auto-retract.
I also specifically said many times I do not want to see the speeds at which you can deploy flaps changed. I am only looking for a better, or alternative approach to what happens when the speed limitation is reached in any model plane.
-
I posted brief examples of that not being the case, but also agreed that it was not prefered or endorsed officially. To which you replied:
What part of be careful with pilot anecdotes was confusing?
Geez, you are all over the map. You said:
NO, I have never changed.
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.
Is a true statement and dictated by the laws of physics.
Tactical suggestions like this by the manufacturer or the USAAF by no means are a documentionation of its actual use in the field or in combat.
Which is why the manufacturers make these recommendations.
That is a completely different matter than "the manufacturer's recommended speeds" which you now want to bring back into the discussion. To the contrary, I quoted Tilly in regards to fights with speeds near 90 MPH, which according to you is "stupid, and totally unrealistic"
Please point out where I have said hard dogfights never got low and slow? I said pilots did not keep their flaps down for very long in a dogfight. Big difference. They drop them for short periods to gain angle on a gun solution.
"There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded." I would like to see a realistic "danger of structural failure" as an alternative to mandatory auto-retract.
So we are back to the limits we can use our flaps. You just want to be able to exceed the limits once you have the flaps down! Hey that is the same thing as having your plane do something it could not!
I also specifically said many times I do not want to see the speeds at which you can deploy flaps changed. I am only looking for a better, or alternative approach to what happens when the speed limitation is reached in any model plane.
How about the flaps go away since the pilot is violating the limits? Wait we have that system now.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Please point out where I have said hard dogfights never got low and slow? I said pilots did not keep their flaps down for very long in a dogfight. Big difference. They drop them for short periods to gain angle on a gun solution.
dogfight+low+slow in regards to a 17,000lbs+ fighter means flap usage. I doubt you see that since you seem to think that operations in heavier US fighters should be limited by how 5,000-8,000lb fighters operate.
Hey that is the same thing as having your plane do something it could not!
No they already do somthing they could not as Hilts pointed out:
Here are the facts, live with them:
The P-38 did not have autoretracting flaps.
P-38 pilots did use them heavily in some cases and situations.
Some P-38 pilots were perfectly willing to use flaps and get slow when they felt they could get the kill. It's the aggressive pilots who got the kills.
The flaps on the P-38 will NOT instantly break off, jam, or be otherwise destroyed at 251MPH.
-
Crumpp I hate to say this but you keep repeating "could not do" when your referring to flaps down above 250. Exactly where in that manual does it say you "could not do" opposed to you "should not" put them down above 250 because "there is a danger" of structural damage?
You contradict yourself by saying the manufacturers make "recommendations". A recommendation is not the same as "could not" as you keep stating over and over. It's a recommendation and that is all.
The reference material your posting to prove a point actually contradicts what you keep trying to say. Again it's "should not" and not "could not". If your going to post a manual that you see as credible to all of the data contained in it then maybe you should read it thoroughly. Your arguement is busted (as they'd say on Mythbusters) based purely on the manual you have posted stating its a credible source for information on the P-38.
-
based purely on the manual you have posted stating its a credible source for information on the P-38.
Your claim is the manual is not credible?
dogfight+low+slow in regards to a 17,000lbs+ fighter means flap usage
Of course it does. For just about any hard dogfight flaps are used. Flaps are not used continously however as would be the case in AH.
Exactly where in that manual does it say you "could not do" opposed to you "should not" put them down above 250 because "there is a danger" of structural damage?
Exactly, for AH where is the "should not" limit? It cannot be set and realistically model the fights.
which is exactly what Hitech is saying!
Hitech says:
I call BS on that it would be a more relistic. Namly because the consiquences are much different in how you would use the flaps then they would in real life. Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.
BTW Hitech S-P-E-L-L-C-H-E-C-K...
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your claim is the manual is not credible?
No, his claim is you are citing it as a credible source and then claiming fact that it does not state (ie. "should not" as "could not"
-
No, his claim is you are citing it as a credible source and then claiming fact that it does not state (ie. "should not" as "could not"
Let me clarify.
You SHOULD NOT lower your flaps until you are 250mph or below.
You COULD NOT drop flaps, continuously maneuver with them down, and hope to win a fight.
Not unless you have the luck of the Irish.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp that is what Hitech is saying not yourself. Leave out your could not arguement and you might have something. You just contradict yourself when you say it.
Do I foresee Hitech implementing this? No. What does it really do for the overall game except make a few fights "lucky" by allowing them to exceed POH recommendations for a few seconds. Planes will be able to do things they "normally" could not.
It is in black and white from Lockheed. Are you saying they are wrong about their own design?
So we are back to the limits we can use our flaps. You just want to be able to exceed the limits once you have the flaps down! Hey that is the same thing as having your plane do something it could not!
Last but not least quoting the credible Lockheed P-38 manual "Hangar Flying" Volume 1/Issue 6 regarding flaps above 250.
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.
No different than what you replied to Murdr earlier, it's in black and white. Myth busted.
And as far as your latest post. Again variables which you fail to account for regarding a situation that is dynamically changing have failed to be accounted for.
You COULD NOT drop flaps, continuously maneuver with them down, and hope to win a fight.
Your making an assumption. Again it's a possibility not a guaranteed fact. Considering you have no variables to add in except for continous maneuvering with with flaps down means you can only assume you'd die not guarantee that you would die. Variables mean everything.
-
Cobra,
You concentrate on:
What does it really do for the overall game except make a few fights "lucky" by allowing them to exceed POH recommendations for a few seconds.
And minimize this:
Planes will be able to do things they "normally" could not.
You want a built in chance to get lucky.
I don't agree that would add anything to the sim.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp again it is you who stated "could not normally do" and have absolutely no black and white facts to prove it. The black and white facts you have produced do not state anywhere that it could not normally go over that limit just that you shouldn't.
And even in your first quote you have absolutely no black and white proof that you could only go over that limit for a few seconds either. Without any failure rate how exactly would you determine that the structure in question couldn't handle x amount of overload, x amount of times before failure would occur? Or are you just making speculations?
Is not life in general a bit of luck?
-
The black and white facts you have produced do not state anywhere that it could not normally go over that limit just that you shouldn't.
Exactly why Hitech should not change the flap modeling.
Because people will take a "should not" and turn it into a "normally".
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Exactly why Hitech should not change the flap modeling.
Because people will take a "should not" and turn it into a "normally".
Crumpp
Those "people" should "normally" find themselves with a broken flap system then.
-
Crumpp and people such as yourself will take a should not and turn into a could not. So basically you are just as guilty as the rest of them wanting it with out having any real data to go off of.
You specifically said "you want it to do something it could not normally do" when referring to the P-38 folks but yet you have no facts either on just how much usage over that limit actually happenend or how much it could take during test trials or even in combat.
Without conclusive data on the LW birds stating exactly how many degrees and at what speeds could be dialed in on the flaps should be left alone too then. Your fight is no different than theirs. Produce absolute confirmed data from multiple different sources on these parameters and it'll be changed. Otherwise the LW birds will continue to be as they were originally designed by HTC.
Just sounds to me like the old saying "the pot calling the kettle black". To many assumptions and not enough irrefutable data to confirm the actual peformances of these particular systems. Basically without the data needed for either of these birds they can't be modeled to the most accurate levels that anyone here may like. So therefore this whole discussion is a waste of time.
Does the data still exist? Maybe. Does anyone here have that data? Possibly. Has that data surfaced yet even after 155 posts? No.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You COULD NOT drop flaps, continuously maneuver with them down, and hope to win a fight.
Crumpp
But yet there are numerous pilot stories that were posted in this thread that says they did just that.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Exactly why Hitech should not change the flap modeling.
Because people will take a "should not" and turn it into a "normally".
Crumpp
Then they pay the price by having their flaps damaged for exceeding the limits. What's wrong with that?
And if you read HiTech's second post, the auto-flaps has more to do with making the game easier to learn than any other reason.
ack-ack
-
Without conclusive data on the LW birds stating exactly how many degrees and at what speeds could be dialed in on the flaps should be left alone too then. Your fight is no different than theirs. Produce absolute confirmed data from multiple different sources on these parameters and it'll be changed. Otherwise the LW birds will continue to be as they were originally designed by HTC.
Exactly. Without that data they should stay.
IMO you should have to show:
1. Ample anecdotal evidence they were used in combat.
2. Be able to produce hard documentation on the forces required to break the flap. In otherwords is the design strong enough.
3. Be able to produce documented speeds the flaps could be deployed.
The P38 has met all these requirements and can use it's flaps at 250 mph and below. Almost 100 mph faster than the LW fighters can deploy their flaps.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The P38 has met all these requirements and can use it's flaps at 250 mph and below. Almost 100 mph faster than the LW fighters can deploy their flaps.
Crumpp
Here in lies Crumpp's real problem with removing autoretract flaps from the P-38, despite the fact that it should never have had them in the first place. The P-38 can already use its flaps at a speed almost 100 MPH faster than Luftwaffe planes due to the design (of an aircraft he steadfastly believes was inferior to every Luftwaffe plane ever built, in every way), and Crumpp feels this is already more advantage than the P-38 should have. The truth comes out.
-
:rolleyes:
The director has already made an obvious "decision"l
Do not try to pick one specfic thing and call it relistic or not, because your exact argument applies to a huge volumn of things to AH. All things must be looked at in the context of the gamming enviroment.
HiTech
HTC clearly defines "sim" and a "game" in a no-nonsense appproach
-
I'm no expert, but I always thought people had a problem with the flaps on the LW planes because they won't come out at speeds they did in real life?
I could be wrong, I pretty much stopped paying attention to the "This is broke" threads a couple years ago.
I think what Crumpp is trying to say is that if one looks at the P38 manual which says "250 mph should not be exceeded because it may cause structural damage" and says "Well, it doesn't say it WILL cause structural damage, so we should be able to drop flaps at whatever speed" then that is what people will do. If the manufacturors specs said 250 mph, then it outta be 250 mph.
Human nature, especially in games, is to "bend" (if not outright break) the rules.
Personally, I don't much care, but if HTC decided to model the 250 mph limit as a "suggestion" rather than a limit then I can guarantee you that 99.99% of P-38 pilots would find out where the new "limit" was (where the flaps will actually break), and completely ignore the 250 mph "suggestion". That is a guarantee. I'm 100% confident that is exactly what would happen.
I do kind of like the percentage method for determining damage, but I think it is probably to much work to ever be implemented.
-
Not all planes have switches to deploy flaps. some planes have hand-cracked (physically demanding) flaps like I-16 and F4F-4. There's no way you can deploy them while in combat except landing.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I think what Crumpp is trying to say is that if one looks at the P38 manual which says "250 mph should not be exceeded because it may cause structural damage" and says "Well, it doesn't say it WILL cause structural damage, so we should be able to drop flaps at whatever speed" then that is what people will do. If the manufacturors specs said 250 mph, then it outta be 250 mph.
Just to reitterate, nobody (at least hilts akak and I) want to see flaps being "dropped" at a higher speed than they are rated for. Deployment should be locked out if its above deployment speed. Nor has a "new limit" been suggested, no matter how much Crumpp wants to characterise it that way. Judging by your final comment on the "percentage method" you got the jist that we would like to see a checkbox for auto-retract, and a realistic penalty for those who would try to game that option.
-
Just to reitterate, nobody (at least hilts akak and I) want to see flaps being "dropped" at a higher speed than they are rated for.
Except somebody wants to see flaps being dropped, and then maintained at higher speed than they are rated for, which the rating coming from the manufacturers themselves.
Deployment should be locked out if its above deployment speed. Nor has a "new limit" been suggested, no matter how much Crumpp wants to characterise it that way.
A new limit is being suggested Murdr. An arbitrary point which you guys think "should be safe", that exceeds the recommended normal limitations.
Judging by your final comment on the "percentage method" you got the jist that we would like to see a checkbox for auto-retract, and a realistic penalty for those who would try to game that option.
Like I said, personally I'd like to see that kind of thing too. But I have no beef with the current system also.
-
Here in lies Crumpp's real problem with removing autoretract flaps from the P-38, despite the fact that it should never have had them in the first place. The P-38 can already use its flaps at a speed almost 100 MPH faster than Luftwaffe planes due to the design (of an aircraft he steadfastly believes was inferior to every Luftwaffe plane ever built, in every way), and Crumpp feels this is already more advantage than the P-38 should have. The truth comes out.
A low blow and a rabbit punch CVH. You really wanna turn this into an axis vs allied flame-fest?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Except somebody wants to see flaps being dropped, and then maintained at higher speed than they are rated for, which the rating coming from the manufacturers themselves.
And those that maintain the flaps in those situations should suffer the consequences which would be damaged flaps, just like real life.
ack-ack
-
Kweassa do you have some extra knowledge about the overall rating of those flaps? Or are you just going off the caution from the manual too?
Just curious of how many of you actually work an aircraft and understand the difference between a cautions and warnings printed by manufacturers in their technical manuals? Considering I'm a flight controls specialist on the F-15 and I see these exact same warnings for our flight controls system that I maintain. I'd think I'd be able to tell the difference between the two and this is a caution not a warning. Possibility of damage to equipment yes, loss of life no.
I highly doubt there is a difference in how we determined structural overloads back in the 40s to how we determine them now. Last time I checked the only major difference is computers can tell you instantaneously what you overloaded and exactly where you overloaded in todays fighters. The basic calculation of determining that % is still the same. Overloading a structural component today by 150% is still overloading it past the "recommended" manufacturers guidelines, no different than WWII birds "recommended" guidlines. 150% structural overload rating for one bird and 150% for another bird is still 150% over it's rated and recommended structural overload per their manufacturers. The only difference with todays birds is we can monitor just how many times they've overloaded the airframe over it's lifespan.
I find it funny that people can be so naive when it comes to reading a technical manual and the limits set in them. Do you honestly think that engineers are setting their limits so high that any usage above that limit is guaranteed disaster? If this is the case then I guess we should have lost about 100 F-15s over the last few years to going beyond the rated structural limits per the technical manuals distributed by the manufacturers.
-
Cobra, what you are saying is totally irrelevant of this discussion. We're not discussing pure physics - we're discussing how a certain factor can effect gameplay to what degree.
As I have said before, I also do not think a flap will fail the moment it crosses 1 mph over its limit. That is why as a result I agree that a better compromise point may be reached. However, it doesn't mean I don't understand the logic behind current implementation of the flaps - because, IT MAKES SENSE.
People routinely abuse "possibility" of real life and turn them into "normality" of game represantation and that is a FACT, de facto, FACT.
Certain things are no doubt possible in real life, but implementing such possibilities into a game without IMPLEMENTING THE TOTAL CONTEXT of it is an open hand invitation for total abuse as seen in IL2/FB.
A Bf109 could lay off automatic pitch control and go manual - which will turn the prop into a manual/variable pitch control.
In IL2/FB this has been abused into a sort of manual initiated WEP system, where the pilots will micro-control the prop pitch so the engine RPM pushes over its limits, but stays under the "breaking point" of the engine.
Oh this was possible in real life, since 109 pilots actually did this in limited situations such as short runway take-offs. Except the context is that no real fighter pilot would go manual and increase workload into double, triple of normalcy and risk an unnecessary danger properly avoidable by better overall tactical management. Not to mention to do that in the cockpit the pilot would have to go off HOTAS, and it would also shorten the engine life span.
So what's the big darned problem with IL2/FB's 109s, when it was possible in real life, and they implemented it exactly as in real life?
The same big darned problem with people wanting to hold flaps down for their own combat purposes, when it should not be down.
Otherwise you could always present a combat report of pilots routinely engaged in a prolonged close-combat with flaps held down, and wading in and out of the speed limits, and prove this was not just a possibility but normalcy. I've seen Ak mention one except I've never actually seen one from him.
This is not a discussion on technical readings or findings. It's a discussion on gameplay and how it can force pilots to act within realistical limits.
Just look at what Ak's saying. Look at what SlapShot is saying, for crying out loud.
They don't care even if it busts their flaps, as long as the flap effects stay constant and they could kill their enemy. If autoretraction is gone and they get what they want, they'll start abusing it immediately in a classic game-the-game.
Currently, autoretraction FORCES THEM to abide by the limits, watch their speed, and perhaps refrain from going into a real slow fight which they might have to risk tight flap usage - because if they go over the edge it will retract, and immediately give them a harsh penalty.
It limits their way of flying to at least certain basic outlines of realistic circumstances and context. If there are dangers of flaps retracting and augering, they'll pull off the enemy and not risk the stall.
But they don't want to do this. They want to just leave the flaps down, and risk a damage willingly, just so they can shoot the damn bastar* out of the sky.
They don't care about the context of a certain thing. They only care about how immediately they can use it in the game to their own benefit.
They will abuse a realistic implementation by using it in unrealistic circumstances likely only inside the game, and not in real life.
In short, regardless of up to just exactly how much speed the flaps would have held, no real life pilot would willingly want to just kill his flaps or risk damage on purpose, just because he's so desparate to get a kill at hand.
The autoretraction does EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOULD. It stops people from doing those stuff.
-
I'm no expert, but I always thought people had a problem with the flaps on the LW planes because they won't come out at speeds they did in real life?
That is the problem. Even with the tons of anecdotal evidence their is little documentation to back it up.
I think what Crumpp is trying to say is that if one looks at the P38 manual which says "250 mph should not be exceeded because it may cause structural damage" and says "Well, it doesn't say it WILL cause structural damage, so we should be able to drop flaps at whatever speed" then that is what people will do. If the manufacturors specs said 250 mph, then it outta be 250 mph.
Exactly. Just like Kweassa points out, folks will "game the game" otherwise.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
A low blow and a rabbit punch CVH. You really wanna turn this into an axis vs allied flame-fest?
No, it isn't a low blow or a rabbit punch. It is a fact, and appears to apply to you as well. It turned into an Axis vs Allies flame fest a while back. I believe some jack bellybutton made a smart comment about P-38 flaps and stall characteristics in a thread about Axis flaps, (called the P-38 pilots a bunch of spoiled whiners or something on that order) and got the P-38 people involved. Wonder who that was?
I was actually wondering about how realistic the stall characteristics some of the Axis planes were, even after someone made a fool of himself, I still am.
Funny how some of us are perfectly willing to see any plane's problems investigated and fixed, and some only want certain parts of certain planes adjusted to fit reality.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
A new limit is being suggested Murdr. An arbitrary point which you guys think "should be safe", that exceeds the recommended normal limitations.
Since when is acending random danger starting at the normal limit considered "an arbitrary point"?
Like I said, personally I'd like to see that kind of thing too. But I have no beef with the current system also. [/B]
Why then make the first statment? When Ive made it clear that this is what Id like to see?
Just look at what Ak's saying. Look at what SlapShot is saying, for crying out loud.
They don't care even if it busts their flaps, as long as the flap effects stay constant and they could kill their enemy.
That not exactly what they said either, it was not "bust flaps" to "kill enemy" it was "bust flaps" rather than "auger"
In short, regardless of up to just exactly how much speed the flaps would have held, no real life pilot would willingly want to just kill his flaps or risk damage on purpose, just because he's so desparate to get a kill at hand.
Well then how can you say Cobra's comments are totally irrelevent to the discussion after making that claim? Crobra has experience maintaining modern fighters, and has first hand experience with what happens when limits are pushed. Who do you think flies those planes? fake life pilots? Here again, you are placing the "kill" in priority when the gripe is "being killed" by a function of the game.
-
Reality check:
You are in a very close dogfight, in real life, it has gotten low and slow, just you and the enemy, he is as good or better than you, and you must kill him to survive, if you attempt to escape he will kill you. You've gotten to the point where you must use your flaps and ride the stall, in order to maintain the advantage. If you stall, and lose the advantage, you will either spin out and crash, or spin and be shot down.
Given the choice between wrecking your flaps by leaving them out as you get over the top of your current maneuver, at the risk of having them jam or be damaged, or retracting them and augering into the ground, do you leave them out or retract them?
Nothing you do removes the one fact of reality that can't easily (or desireably) changed in AH: You do not really die, you do not really destroy a plane, and therefore you do things you would not do in real life. Like get in low, slow, and dangerous stall/knife fights.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The autoretraction does EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOULD. It stops people from doing those stuff.
Actually even with the logic as presented I dont think it actually leads to this conclusion...........
But before re looking at the logic we should separate two nodes of debate
1) what were the limits applying to flap usage and when would/may damage (and what type of damage) be initiated if it were modelled with an option to disable autoretract.
2) would a flap damage model pork game play.
Obviously any inaccurate model may pork game play if it allows folk to do what was not possible or even if it was highly improbable. Particularly if it artificially advantages an ac.
But I do not see why it inhibits the development of stuff such as a model that would allow pilot interface with flaps that may incurr flap damage.
Of course there will be those that debate the accuracy of any flap damage model .......folk debate the accuracy of stuff all over the various models but it does not halt progress.
-
It's perhaps just hard and time consuming to model flaps damage correctly ?
And as IRL pilot generaly don't want to break their plane on purpose that's perhaps why HT implemented auto-flaps.
-
Originally posted by straffo
It's perhaps just hard and time consuming to model flaps damage correctly ?
Agreed.......
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Just look at what Ak's saying. Look at what SlapShot is saying, for crying out loud.
They don't care even if it busts their flaps, as long as the flap effects stay constant and they could kill their enemy. If autoretraction is gone and they get what they want, they'll start abusing it immediately in a classic game-the-game.
Currently, autoretraction FORCES THEM to abide by the limits, watch their speed, and perhaps refrain from going into a real slow fight which they might have to risk tight flap usage - because if they go over the edge it will retract, and immediately give them a harsh penalty.
If you're going to put words into my mouth, at least let them be the words I've been saying and not ones you pull out of your arse.
All I have ever asked for is a realistic modeling of the flaps, not to increase the speed in which we can deploy flaps or any of the other crap you keep claiming that I want. If I damage my flaps from over-speeding then that's the price I pay for taking that risk.
I did get a chuckle on how you ASSume that I'll start gaming the game if we ever get realistic flap modeling.
ack-ack
-
I asked a friend that used to work on that "other" flight sim about how that game modeled flaps damage from over speeding/stress and this is what he replied with.
It was more like real-world maneuvering speed. In other words, at 251mph (for example, your flaps wouldn't just break off, but they would definately be over-stressed. Any exceedingly stressful maneuver after that, even something as seemingly inoccuous as a dive, would stress them beyond limits and they would break. I'm not even sure they would "break off" as much as
just get stuck down.
Would be nice if our flaps in AH did the same thing.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by straffo
It's perhaps just hard and time consuming to model flaps damage correctly ?
And as IRL pilot generaly don't want to break their plane on purpose that's perhaps why HT implemented auto-flaps.
Absolutely, I'm sure it may be quite difficult, I'm not an expert on programming.
The solution proposed by those advocating removal of autoretract from the P-38 is basicly this:
Flaps still cannot be deployed if the plane is above the speed at which the flaps are rated (meaning that if you are above 250MPH, in a P-38, you cannot deploy flaps, even one notch). So no, there won't be anyone flying along at 300 MPH dropping 5 notches of flaps.
Flaps would not autoretract, but if the plane reaches and maintains a speed above which the flap setting deployed at the time is rated for, then the flaps risk structural damage, and even structural failure, either coming off the plane, or being jammed in position. The risk of damage would be a percentage, based upon the amount the rated speed was exceeded, the length of time it was exceeded, and possibly even the angle of attack and G force pulled. The greater ANY of those limits are exceeded, and/or the longer they are exceeded, the greater the risk of damage, and the greater the amount of damage done. Of course, at some point, damage becomes certain, catastrophic, and inevitable.
Of course no one would WANT to damage their plane. However, were you in a position where you had to risk damaging your plane in order to survive, you'd risk damage to your plane. You can't convince me that you'd suddenly say to yourself "if I do this, I might damage my plane, in fact, I probably will damage my plane, so I'll just let my opponent shoot me down and kill me, rather than damage my plane".
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Absolutely, I'm sure it may be quite difficult, I'm not an expert on programming.
The solution proposed by those advocating removal of autoretract from the P-38 is basicly this:
Flaps still cannot be deployed if the plane is above the speed at which the flaps are rated (meaning that if you are above 250MPH, in a P-38, you cannot deploy flaps, even one notch). So no, there won't be anyone flying along at 300 MPH dropping 5 notches of flaps.
Flaps would not autoretract, but if the plane reaches and maintains a speed above which the flap setting deployed at the time is rated for, then the flaps risk structural damage, and even structural failure, either coming off the plane, or being jammed in position. The risk of damage would be a percentage, based upon the amount the rated speed was exceeded, the length of time it was exceeded, and possibly even the angle of attack and G force pulled. The greater ANY of those limits are exceeded, and/or the longer they are exceeded, the greater the risk of damage, and the greater the amount of damage done. Of course, at some point, damage becomes certain, catastrophic, and inevitable.
Of course no one would WANT to damage their plane. However, were you in a position where you had to risk damaging your plane in order to survive, you'd risk damage to your plane. You can't convince me that you'd suddenly say to yourself "if I do this, I might damage my plane, in fact, I probably will damage my plane, so I'll just let my opponent shoot me down and kill me, rather than damage my plane".
Good summary. Two additional points. Its not even about removing auto-retract from the game, but having the option to turn it off like the stall limiter, tracers, and combat trim functions. Hence it would apply to any plane and not just one specifically.
-
I agree with your post Virgil but it's a design decision made by HT himself years ago and IMO like the absence of engine overheat he won't change this at least not soon.
I was about to search some references thread but well I guess you already posted in those :)
I tried the P38 again this afternon after meeting AKAK today it seems I'm able land kills with it now ... I should had a brain cell transfusion last night when sleeping :)
7/2 is not bad concidering one "wife ack" intervention and one head on with a 8" salvo :D
-
De-auto retracting flap request will go nowhere because HiTech has already said that... your exact argument applies to a huge volumn of things to AH. All things must be looked at in the context of the gamming enviroment.
PS With the comments from HT in this thread, it seems that he's alreeady made the fateful decision.
-
Originally posted by tikky
De-auto retracting flap request will go nowhere because HiTech has already said that... your exact argument applies to a huge volumn of things to AH. All things must be looked at in the context of the gamming enviroment.
PS With the comments from HT in this thread, it seems that he's alreeady made the fateful decision.
I didnt see in forum rules where it says we cant talk about it anyways.
-
Kweassa what data do you have that would say it would affect the gameplay negatively? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and make the assumption that you are assuming people will only game the game if this were to be implemented.
With that said how different would that be than auto level or auto angle (consistantly used by buff pilots so they can jump in a gun), fairly extreme ditching model, 100ft bomber runs without parafrags or delayed fuse devices, radar isolatation to one main control center(HQ), and last but not least kamikaze runs on CVs, Towns, Airbases, Cities, and factories. Funny that the one thing I find in common with 99% of these items is the player/community and the fact it happens consistantly in the arenas. Sounds to me the majority of the community already games the game as much as they can.
Exactly how often do you push the limits of the planes in AH2 and accidentally auger? When's the last time you made a suicide run just to sink a CV? Same thing with strat killing on the airfields. Ofcourse though you'd never go beyond the limits imposed to "gain" something and damage your aircraft.
-
Just curious, I've never played WB or AW, don't know if they both had flap damage modelled. Were these games full of people gaming the game with the flap model mentioned here?
I asked a friend that used to work on that "other" flight sim about how that game modeled flaps damage from over speeding/stress and this is what he replied with.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was more like real-world maneuvering speed. In other words, at 251mph (for example, your flaps wouldn't just break off, but they would definately be over-stressed. Any exceedingly stressful maneuver after that, even something as seemingly inoccuous as a dive, would stress them beyond limits and they would break. I'm not even sure they would "break off" as much as
just get stuck down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be nice if our flaps in AH did the same thing.
-
Sorry, what was the point of this thread?
-
Just look at what Ak's saying. Look at what SlapShot is saying, for crying out loud.
They don't care even if it busts their flaps, as long as the flap effects stay constant and they could kill their enemy.
Kwe ... youy couldn't be anymore wrong if you tried. You read something into my statement that wasn't there. You really should have come back and asked for more clarification before assuming my intent.
If I am in a fight and it comes down to overspeeding my flaps to survive, then I will take the chance of having them stuck. This does not mean that if I do overspeed the flaps, I will win instantly and all the time. This is where and what you assumed.
I may get the shot or I may not, that is all left up to me and the decisions I make prior to overspeeding. If I don't get the shot/kill and my flaps are stuck down, I will not be able to effectively fight from that point on and in most instances, I will probably be shot down. That is something that I am willing to risk, intead of the snap/spin/auger consequence.
I have yet to experience in AH II flap damage, but in AH I there were many times that I experienced damage to my flaps while furballing (taking a shot from the rear into the wing with flaps down) and its no piece of cake trying to fly the P-38 with flaps stuck down. You are effectively "out of the fight" when this happens.
I really don't want my flaps to get stuck ... it would be no fun to constantly cause this due to overuse or misuse. I don't like to fly anywhere and then be taken out of the fight due to mechanical failure ... be it radiator hit, engine hit, etc ... so it would not be something I would be doing on a consistent basis.
-
Hum Humble just like the good old days huh.. I love seeing these posts from some of the newer younger sim guy’s lol I feel old now.
And I remember always thinking 8 yrs ago it’s the plane not the pilot lol but in time they learn. It’s a pure simple case of ACM and SA. But know one ever believe it. Dam I have been away from it so long I had to brake out the old Robert Shaw for the basics again. Now its like night and day. Back now to being very hard to hit and you better not make a mistake lol all
:aok
-
Originally posted by iKo
Hum Humble just like the good old days huh.. I love seeing these posts from some of the newer younger sim guy’s lol I feel old now.
Ummm...some of us have been playing longer than your 8 years :c)
ack-ack