Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: agent 009 on April 23, 2005, 11:45:12 PM
-
D-9 had 5 preset flap positions, Oscar had butterfly flaps, & George had automatic flaps. Mustang pilots would "drop" flaps to increase turn.
Can someone elaborate on all these flap bits?
-
Dora had 5?
-
Well, I can explain the basics of flap work. Dropping flaps increases the lift BUT increases the drag. So it's a risk you have to weigh.
Yes, the P51D will turn better with a notch of flaps, but it will lose speed.
-
I was taught that since lift is proportional to wing area, but also proportional to (airspeed minus stall speed) squared, flaps only increase lift near the stall, where they also decrease stall speed by increasing camber
-
Dora had 5?
Dora had 3, Take-off, Landing, and retracted AFAIK.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
agent 009:
Flaps are aerodynamic devices that increase the maximum lift you can obtain from your wings by changing the shape of the wing (camber), increasing the wing area, or both.
Essentially the different types of flaps try to employ these different approaches to increasing lift including the combination of slots (yet another aerodynamic device) with flaps as well.
You'll also hear about slats which are essentially slots on the leading edge of the wing to achieve the same purpose of increasing lift obtainable.
All these devices come in both manual (pilot) or automatic forms of deployment - automatic usually based upon air pressure activating the device.
(http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/High_Lift_Devices/Tech6G3.jpg)
(http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Devices/TH17G5.jpg)
Hope that's a little help!
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Dora had 3, Take-off, Landing, and retracted AFAIK.
All the best,
Crumpp
That's what I thought too.
-
IIRC,
Flaps momentarily increase lift, before its increased drag ultimately drags down the speed so it causes more harm to lift.
They are also a secondary flight control which use is almost mandatory in take-off/landing procedures in RL. They are stabilization devices that lowers the stall speed of the plane. If a plane stalls at 90mph with flaps up, it might hold on until 70~80mph if flaps are out.
So, while it is not advised for combat use in RL, and rarely did normal pilots ever use flaps in combat, in harsh maneuvering conditions it could prove to be very useful.
For instance, if a P-51 is chasing a Bf109 at high speeds, the 109 pilot would be hard pressed to enter a tight turn due to physical limitations such as dangers of tunnel vision, fatigue, and heavy elevator controls. The chasing P-51 could drop a notch of flaps and it would;
1) act as a speed-brake which slows down the aircraft, so its speed comes closer to the corner velocity, helping it turn better and avoid overshoots
2) provide more lift, due to the flap effects, and thus help the turn
3) stabilize the plane, due to its nature as a stabilization device, which also helps in a turn
Often, a plane that maneuvers 'worse' in a certain point of view, might outmaneuver a 'better' plane solely due to flap effects. Take the example of 109 vs P-47s.. if there's a good P-47 in the cockpit, the 109 will have a very hard time trying to follow prolonged, tight turns, since the stabilization effect of the P-47 flaps have a very benevolent effect on the plane, as compared to 109s in AH which cannot start using its own flaps until under 190mph or so.
Or, the example of Ki-84s which can stay with a Spit5 once its flaps start popping out.
-
as compared to 109s in AH which cannot start using its own flaps until under 190mph or so.
However, in reality, the 109 could drop 10 degrees of flap at well over 400 mph.
Both 109 and 190 pilots used flaps to gain angles in a hard dogfight.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
oh yes crump..
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138237
some releases happened meanwhile, nothing changed...
niklas
-
All good stuff. Sorry, can't fing where I read the 5 flap positions for Dora. Now how bout the Georges automatic flaps, & butterfly flaps of Oscar.
& different flap positions on D-9 meant one could preselect flap settings, but Mustang one could only drop flaps, correct?
-
Kweassa Wrote:
Flaps momentarily increase lift, before its increased drag ultimately drags down the speed so it causes more harm to lift.
Just for clarification the extra lift capability provided by flaps isn't momentary. Drag is increased but it doesn't do any "harm" to lift at low g's. That's why an aircraft's stall speed can be lowered and still maintain flight (especially during landing).
At higher g's and during sustained turning extra parasitic & induced drag and resulting power-required added by flaps becomes a factor in increasing energy bleed rate and thus "drags down the speed" but it's not because it harms lift per se.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So, while it is not advised for combat use in RL, and rarely did normal pilots ever use flaps in combat, in harsh maneuvering conditions it could prove to be very useful.
P-38 pilots used flaps regularly in combat.
ack-ack
-
Mustang pilots report using flaps to turn with 109's over Norway.
Hey ack ack, I met cofee today. he flew P-38 L. Had 51 missions over pacific. & was original founding member of P-38 society, or perhaps club is correct word. he lives 2 doors down from my sisters house. His full name is William Coffman as I recall.
He told me a little story bout Japanese flying US 4 engined planes.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
P-38 pilots used flaps regularly in combat.
ack-ack
Not like they had much of a choice. Without them they'd lawndart more often than not.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Not like they had much of a choice. Without them they'd lawndart more often than not.
Those are dive flaps you are referring to. I am referring to the Fowler (i.e. Combat/Maneuvering Flaps) and normal flaps used by the P-38.
ack-ack
-
I think he is referring to the fowler flaps.
Have you read Lockheeds instructions are their use?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I think he is referring to the fowler flaps.
Have you read Lockheeds instructions are their use?
All the best,
Crumpp
Hmmm...to prevent "lawn darting" a P-38 pilot would use the dive flaps to aid in the dive recovery of the Lightning. A pilot would not use the Fowler flaps to aid in pulling out of a dive since they could only be deployed at 250mph. In a combat situation where the pilot needed some help in maneuvering, they'd use the Fowler flaps (also known as combat or maneuvering flaps) and their normal flaps.
You should watch the USAAC P-38 flight training film on Zeno's site, goes into wonderful detail on the flaps and their usage.
ack-ack
-
Referring to Ack-Ack's post here's a drawing of the P-38 fowler flaps:
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38fowler.gif)
The 1st flap setting was known as the MANEUVER or COMBAT setting.
Here's a drawing regarding the dive recovery flaps on the P-38:
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38diveflaps.gif)
And finally here are two pics where you can see the fowler flaps and the dive recovery flaps on the P-38 (fowler flap on trailing edge of the wing, dive recovery flaps underside of the wing):
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00730.jpg)
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00727.jpg)
Referring to agent009's comment on the Mustang flaps - I thought that the maneuver flaps on the P-51 are pretty well known. For reference-sake I'll try and post some info on it later when I have the time.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Hey ack ack, I met cofee today. he flew P-38 L. Had 51 missions over pacific. & was original founding member of P-38 society, or perhaps club is correct word. he lives 2 doors down from my sisters house. His full name is William Coffman as I recall.
He told me a little story bout Japanese flying US 4 engined planes.
You're one lucky guy to have been able to meet him. I'd be at his house every day :)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by agent 009
D-9 had 5 preset flap positions, Oscar had butterfly flaps, & George had automatic flaps. Mustang pilots would "drop" flaps to increase turn.
Can someone elaborate on all these flap bits?
I think I saw that 5 presets info on a page written by someone on the Warbirds staff. It was with a bunch of charts for all the planes in that game. It may have been a typo. I wish I had more detailed tech descriptions for all the a/c.
-
The FW-190D9 has three flap settings.
1. Retracted
2. Take-Off <10 - 13 degrees>
3. Landing <58-60 degrees>
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190D9 has three flap settings.
1. Retracted
2. Take-Off <10 - 13 degrees>
3. Landing <58-60 degrees>
All the best,
Crumpp
Yeah, I figured that the 5 position thing was some typo, as I have not seen it anywhere else.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I think he is referring to the fowler flaps.
Have you read Lockheeds instructions are their use?
All the best,
Crumpp
Well ... I was referring to the dive flaps, but what does Lockheed's instructions say abut flap usage?
-
Fowler flaps are cool. In Clostermanns book he mentioned the 190 pilots could select 15 degrees of flap which would enable the pilots to do lightning sharp turns. I think he mentioned the A-6 had redesigned wings too.
The best dogfight I ever read between a 190 & a Spit is in that book. A Canadian & a pilot named Graf, not to be confused with Hermann Graf. good stuff.
-
P-38 pilots used flaps regularly in combat.
Oh I don't doubt some did.
However, looking at the larger picture, using flaps was not something one would want to do under normal circumstances since it commonly indicates a pilot entering a fight with higher risks than compared to a 'standard' type of team fighting doctrine.
In a sense, it could be loosely considered that the more personal confidence a group of pilots feel, the more they would want to step out of the 'basic doctrines'.
From such behaviors would legendary and spectacular pilots be born... who ironically, usually also have a tendency of meeting an untimely death during combat as well.
It is interesting to note that almost all of the pilots in every airforces, that are known for their spectacular flying skills and unorthodox methods of combat, usually end up dead sooner or later.
Wick(engaged multiple bandits recklessly)
Marseilles(test flight accident, suspicions of tampering with the G-2 he was scheduled to fly in)
Nowotny(chased down and shot down in a 262)
Fadayev(engaged multiple Germans)
McGuire(bad/reckless judgement).. all killed in combat.
Galland was shot down and wounded a number of times, Bader and Gabreski ultimately became POWs..(Gabreski, especially after attempting a dangerously low strafing) and etc etc.
Famous pilots, famed for their enthusiasm towards personal flying skills and hot combat, usually end up dead. Ofcourse, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with flap usage, however, I think it does show a tendency that when some people prefer the exotic over the basics, in the end the consequences catch up with you one way or another. And basically, flaps weren't for combat use, whether or not they were named 'combat flaps' or not.
-
Agent009 could you give me the entire title of the book?
-
Um, yes & no. Nishizawa died, but not through dangerous flying. Count Punski survived war. he flew into superior numbers often. Rudorrfer copied Marseills tactics & survived. Screwball Beurling survived war. Fonck & Bishop of WW1 survived. Marseille died not through wild flying, but oil smoke in cockpit.
Preddy was very agressive & used the scatter the flock tactic, ( flying staright into large formations of E/a ), & was shot down by friendly flak.
-
Hey Naudet. book is called "The big show"
-
The point is, agent, for every successful fighter pilot that becomes famous through aggressive flying, there are countless numbers of pilots that are shot down and killed due to taking unnecessary risks they could simply have avoided and played safe.
Using and relying heavily on flaps during combat is to say relying on a device which was initially never meant for combat purposes in the first place. Removing your hand from HOTAS and constantly lowering and raisng the flaps is something a pilot really shouldn't do - this was an era where planes with regular maintenance would still meet freak accidents and malfunctions. Everytime a wing or squad launched for a daily mission, 3~4 planes would turn back home due to mechanical problems.
For everything you rely on which you don't really have to, there comes another risk, and flaps are one of those risk factors. Even if they function well, the pilot himself might fail.. and unlike in the situations where one can simply hightail it out of there when things get messy, when you were using flaps you are low in speed and in a very dangerous situation.
For the most part, most of the opposition the P-38s were facing in the PTO were at least 20~30mph slower than the P-38s at all alts. In a sense, with no derogatory intention towards the P-38 pilots of the war, they were in a machine which could just get out of tight spots by flat-out outpacing them, fighting against pilots who were poorly trained with no veterans to guide them because almost all of them died out since the great USN counter offensive of '42. The IJN/IJAAF produced a bit slow, but still formiddable planes until the war's end, and yet the USN/USMC Hellcats and Corsairs maintain a very high K/D ratio over those planes. Even the old Wildcats outscore the superior performing Zeros.
(And this is the reason why some of the PTO battles in the CT turn out quite differently, when there are good pilots flying for the IJAAF/IJN side as well)
Better machines + Better pilots
= Lot of opportunites to try more aggressive stuff
But when there aren't such great conditions present, aggressive flying is flying with your one foot inside your coffin. There are numerous tales of how German aces got progressively more conservative and careful in their flying as the war went on. Mind you, that those guys are the ones who survived, not the 'hot-shots'.
-
Well, I guess I take a different view. Mustang pilots would drop flaps to get a bead on a 109, but one could also do it to get one off one's tail.
Weissenberger is reported to have dropped 28 allied machines in 3 weeks at invasion front. he was very agressive & survived war. Beginners different story. Galland also employed the scatter the flock tactic. he explained; when one finds oneself in a bad position, it is better to attack. one's position often changes in one's favor.
Being conservative & diving away instead of attacking often had disastrous results for LF pilots late in war as they lost dive advantage when 47 & Stang arrived.
-
So how many such 'aces' do you think served in the war, as compared to the 'norm'? Picking up an ace list is a moot point since they hardly ever represent what is typical and likely considering the conditions of war. It's basically like picking up a few AH MA aces and explaining ACM or MA combat around them, except they consist only about 5% of the entire MA population.
Besides,
Being "aggressive" does not necessarily mean always going into hard-boiled, all-out combat, and being "conservative" does not necessarily mean just diving away.
Grislawski or Hartmann, Barkhorn could be explained as 'aggressive' in the sense they would deal with enemy threat with utmost precision, except they were basically 'conservative' in choosing their battles, and most importantly, had a clear grasp of the average skill level of their flight and wingmen. In this sense they were 'conservative' and 'careful'.
However, people like Nowotny or Marseilles can be easily identifed as being 'aggressive' in that they seemed to relish the aspects of combat and individual feats of maneuvering and fighting, often under hard-pressed conditions and still winning the day. While they weren't shot down, both of them did not survive the war.
Obviously, as the case here is using the example of the P-38 which combat flaps were restricted to under 250mph, I used the word 'aggressive' to explain people who like flying at the edge of stall and scissoring and rolling in the midst of enemy planes in a heated knife fight.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Wick(engaged multiple bandits recklessly)
Marseilles(test flight accident, suspicions of tampering with the G-2 he was scheduled to fly in)
Nowotny(chased down and shot down in a 262)
Fadayev(engaged multiple Germans)
McGuire(bad/reckless judgement).. all killed in combat.
Marseille did die afaik the first flight in his new G2 when his engine began to smoke and he bailed out. No enemies involved at all.
niklas
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Oh I don't doubt some did.
It was done by more than just "some". After all, there was a reason why Fowler flaps were put in the plane in the first place. Even McGuire's tactical manual talks about using flaps and the flight training film for the P-38 talks about the use of the combat flaps. So, despite what you think, using flaps to aid in the maneuvering of the P-38 was a common practice used by the majority of the P-38 pilots in all theaters of operation.
I wonder what it is that gets you so riled up when you see "flaps" and "P-38s" in the same sentence?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by niklas
Marseille did die afaik the first flight in his new G2 when his engine began to smoke and he bailed out. No enemies involved at all.
niklas
thinks so, smoke in cockpit and bailed out only to fall face first into the ground. I guess he had parachute problems, crappy way to go. I wonder if anyone else shot down 8 planes in 10 minutes like he did once?
ack-ack
-
what does Lockheed's instructions say abut flap usage?
Can't find the page. It came out of Lockheed's monthly P38 magazine. Seems the website took it down.
It is mentioned in the film:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html
The instructions follow what Kweassa, dtango, and the Luftwaffe pilots I have interviewed say about flaps.
They are a temporary measure to gain angles and not a crutch to turn you fighter into a zero.
Lockheed warned that flap usage would rob the A/C of speed. Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well here's a turn question. Which would outturn which betwen a Yak 3 & a Tony. I know, hard to figure. below 350, the Tony could outturn MK 9 Spit.
-
I remember talking to a p51 vet and he said nont once did he drop flaps(even 1 notch) for a better turn in combat.
-
Marseille did die afaik the first flight in his new G2 when his engine began to smoke and he bailed out. No enemies involved at all.
I seem to recall reading about a theory that Marseilles probably requested the mechanics to alter the engine settings to achieve full emergency power, and that went bad during his test flight, which caused the engine troubles. Not sure where I read that though.
It was done by more than just "some". After all, there was a reason why Fowler flaps were put in the plane in the first place.
No doubt Fowler types are more efficient than others methods, but there could be a number of reasons to put in a Fowler type flaps than just about combat.
..........
Even McGuire's tactical manual talks about using flaps and the flight training film for the P-38 talks about the use of the combat flaps. So, despite what you think, using flaps to aid in the maneuvering of the P-38 was a common practice used by the majority of the P-38 pilots in all theaters of operation.
This is what intrigues me most, because I think it has a lot to do with what kind of "leaders" are present at that specific theater. Top aces are influential people and often become a role-model as well as a mentor in the way they share their wisdom and practice among the rookie pilots.
Among all the theaters and airforces that served in WW2, there's not a single reference that states flap usage was a common practice, or, should be encouraged in combat.
P-38s were not the only planes installed with Fowlers. The Fowlers on the P-38 also weren't necessarily the most efficient use of Fowlers in fighter planes. The P-47s also had Fowlers, which could certainly help against the usually more agile Luftwaffe planes. The Ki-84 probably had the best designed Fowlers to ever be installed on a WW2 fighter plane.
And yet the notations of flap usage is common only among P-38 pilots, or at least, is claimed to be so.
Why is that?
There could be a number of possible reasons;
1) All of the other pilots of other airforces in other theaters, weren't as skilled as P-38 aces
2) The P-38 was the only unique plane that could utilize such use of flaps during combat
3) There was something about the PTO conditions which allowed far more aggressive usage of flaps, than compared to the Med, ETO, or the Eastern Front.
IMO 1) and 2) is both highly unlikely, and it would be delusional for anyone to claim so. The only possible explanation lies in 3).
One must look at the general PTO conditions where aerial opposition was practically decimated since the great counter offensive of '42, and countless numbers of Japanese veterans were lost. All of the major carriers were sank, and the aerial power the Japanese could wield were to be split apart and straggled along the lines of the numerous islands scattered apart in the Pacific.
Not to mention the fact that unlike in any other theaters of the war, the Japanese planes were more often than not clearly overmatched by the USN/USMC planes in so many ways.
It is frankly not much of a surprise, that a group of pilots with superior skills and superior planes, superior numbers and superior logistics, would quickly become more belligerant and aggressive than any other theater in the world.
Again, no derogatory intent towards the PTO pilots of the war, but the USN or USMC definately was not in such hectic conditions as compared to the RAF in 1940, or the daylight bombing raids of the USAAF(AAC) in '43~'44, or the deadly tangles between the Luftwaffe and the VVS in the Eastern Front throughout the war.
There are many famed and noted aces among American pilots. Some like Johnson, were especially noted for their individual prowess. And yet, the description of their combat practices is hardly anything like the how Bong or McGuire would have fought. In a sense it is much more team oriented, conservative, careful, and less 'exciting', when compared to reading how aggressively McGuire or Bong would fight.
This is probably because the planes they were flying were different, but also because the opposition they were facing were different as well. And perhaps, IMO, this is why the PTO pilots have that distinct belligerant, swash-buckling aura as compared to their counterparts in the ETO.
As long as that particular environmental conditions are at work, the distinct aggressive style of fighting which would typically be a lot more 'personal' than compared to the P-51s or P-47s in the ETO, would certainly work well.
IMO the influence of the P-38 aces in the PTO, is what got the P-38 pilots in the practice of using flaps a lot more than other airforces. And also the fact that they could still get away with it more often than not, since they were in so much better planes. Fighting Tonys or Zeros in P-38Gs and Js, can't be possibly as difficult as having to fight 190s or 109s in P-47s, especially when the Luftwaffe was still maintaining its qulaity of pilots to a high level.
In the end, despite numerous excuses given to the P-38, the USAAF in the ETO just gave up on the P-38s. Sure, you could argue that the ETO pilots were dumb, and did not know how to use the P-38s as well as PTO pilots. But in the end, if a certain majority of pilots find it difficult to use it under certain conditions, then that effectively represants the view of the whole theater.
The P-38s were driven out. The P-51Ds came in.
To quote Rau, "not every pilot can fly like Ben Kelsey", and if they had to fly like Kelsey to prove its worth under ETO conditions, then its certainly not a plane that is 'easy to handle', especially when you look at this matter from the perspective of average/normal pilots, not from the shoes of the belligerant and confident few.
.........
I wonder what it is that gets you so riled up when you see "flaps" and "P-38s" in the same sentence?
Quite simple, really. Because the P-38 fanboys are the only guys arguing that their plane is special when it comes to 'flap usage', and it has been done injustice in terms of flap usage in AH.
My take is, nothing's special. Neither the P-38 nor its flaps.
As a casual reminder to the readers, for any reason if a flame war erupts around the flap issue, "it wasn't me who started to get personal."
-
Regading 38 being replaced in ETO. it cost 78.000 $ to make vs 54.000$ for Mustang. Not exact amounts but you get the drift. This was one reason it was replaced. Also range issue.
-
Fowlers offers maybe the highest lift when fully deployed, but they have for manoevering three drawbacks:
1) They open a gap, and a slotted flap always has higher drag than a simple flap (P-51 flaps imo had a kind of membran at the flap tip that prevented air flow between the upper and lower surface around the flap tip)
2) they decrease aspect ratio
3) they move the center of lift backward, what has to be compensated by a larger elevator deflection (because the COG to COL position now gives a nose down moment) what in turn means more drag
So while they offer afaik most lift for landing it´s imo doubtable that their benefit at manoevering speeds was superior to normal flap design.
niklas
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Well here's a turn question. Which would outturn which betwen a Yak 3 & a Tony. I know, hard to figure. below 350, the Tony could outturn MK 9 Spit.
And your basing this on what data? For 1 thing the tony only goes 350 give or take:). The Yak 3 was a low alt bird so its performance will alter with alt. It's also a 9/44 bird where as the ki-61 enter service in 6/43. As for the Ki-61 out turning the spit IX...1st what spit IX at what alt. All in all I'd say the spitIX was double superior to the Ki-61...
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
IMO the influence of the P-38 aces in the PTO, is what got the P-38 pilots in the practice of using flaps a lot more than other airforces. And also the fact that they could still get away with it more often than not, since they were in so much better planes. Fighting Tonys or Zeros in P-38Gs and Js, can't be possibly as difficult as having to fight 190s or 109s in P-47s, especially when the Luftwaffe was still maintaining its qulaity of pilots to a high level.
In the end, despite numerous excuses given to the P-38, the USAAF in the ETO just gave up on the P-38s. Sure, you could argue that the ETO pilots were dumb, and did not know how to use the P-38s as well as PTO pilots. But in the end, if a certain majority of pilots find it difficult to use it under certain conditions, then that effectively represants the view of the whole theater.
Quite simple, really. Because the P-38 fanboys are the only guys arguing that their plane is special when it comes to 'flap usage', and it has been done injustice in terms of flap usage in AH.
My take is, nothing's special. Neither the P-38 nor its flaps.
As a casual reminder to the readers, for any reason if a flame war erupts around the flap issue, "it wasn't me who started to get personal."
Actually, those USAAC pilots that went from the PTO to the ETO found fighting the Germans to be less difficult than the Japanese. One well known US ace had an average performance in the PTO but when he got transfered over to the ETO soon became an ace. P-38 pilots that got transfered from the PTO to P-38 units in the Med, found that they could finally fight a foe they could maneuver with. A lot of RAF and Commonwealth pilots that fought in the Pacific regarded the Japanese to be more of a "dogfighter" than the Germans.
The P-38 was also flying in the PTO in '42 and those P-38 units that operated near New Guinea faced some of the best the Japanese had over Rabaul and those that operated in the CBI faced some more battle hardened and experienced Japanese pilots over Rangoon. So the notion that the P-38 entered the PTO while the cream of the Japanese pilots were already dead is a myth.
Show me where in this thread where I mention anything other than correcting you saying that using flaps in combat situations was common and done by most P-38 pilots?
Any why bring up the part about personal attacks? I don't recall any personal attacks in this thread.
ack-ack
-
My understanding is that japanese pilots did not have a formal wingman structure like other air forces and had minimum coordination in the air. They viewed air combat very much in the samori (sp?) tradition. So they where very good pilots individually and very skilled in turning ACM...however really didnt have proper training & equipment to fight the US. Kind of like the scene in indiana jones where the guy pulls the sword....basically bringing a zeke to a mid 44 dogfight was bringing a knife to the OK corral:)
I think the germans were probably much less skilled as pilots then the japanese...but better tactically. Since the US had tactics equal or better then the germans the guys coming from the PTO had no problem converting chances to kills...where in the PTO the zekes and franks often wiggled out of the noose...
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Can't find the page. It came out of Lockheed's monthly P38 magazine. Seems the website took it down.
It is in Issue 6 (http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm).
Lockheed warned that flap usage would rob the A/C of speed. Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance.
Sentence one is correct. Sentence two is a mischaracterization. I can see now the sencence you will snip out of the magazine to support what you said, but if you read the two paragraphs as a whole it is obvious the test pilot is refering to the loss of maneuvering options with the loss of speed, and not that the 38 has problems turning at low speeds. The 479th site (http://479th.jasminemarie.com) has a link to Hanger Flying on the front page.
-
"MANEUVERING FLAPS SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLE PARTICULAR MANEUVER AND THE BE RETRACED IMMEDIATELY"
Is exactly what Lockheed says.
http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm
Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance.
Is absolutely true as with any flap.
loss of maneuvering options with the loss of speed
All effect turn. As you lose speed you lose angle in the bank. As your bank decreases your turn radius increases.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Well here's a turn question. Which would outturn which betwen a Yak 3 & a Tony. I know, hard to figure. below 350, the Tony could outturn MK 9 Spit.
You can compare the performance of the Ki-61 to that of the bf109E or the C.202. When the Ki-61 was first seen by U.S. pilots some pilots reported them as "bf109Es with Japanese markings flown possibly flown by German pilots", while some others reported it as the C.202. It wasn't until the Allies finally got their hands on a crashed Ki-61 that these two myths were laid to rest.
ack-ack
-
Just to clearify, Lockheed test pilot Ray Meskinmen said "MANEUVERING FLAPS SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLE PARTICULAR MANEUVER AND THE BE RETRACED IMMEDIATELY"
Crumpp said "Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance."
If Ray Meskinmen would have said "LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE CROSSING THE STREET". Crumpp would be arguing that your eyesight would go bad for failing to follow the directions on how to use your eyes. In either case, the warning pertains to exterior factors.
I have seen a 38 pilots describe his 360 deg, under 90mph turn for a victory on a george as a "controled stall". In that particular instance, that 38 pilot said he would never have tried that if there wasnt only 2 of them and 12 of us. Pilots like McGuire often got into slow speed dogfights despite the fact that he preached otherwise to his subortanants. While most fighters have to contend more and more with tourque as speeds decline, the 38 with its counter-rotating props does not. Appearently that is "nothing special". While it wasnt the reccomeded, or even the smartest tactic, the 38 could do it when called upon.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1114374740_paequalspr.jpg)
Torque has nothing to do with it. It's just the science of how planes fly, Murdr.
The P 38 is not exempt from physics, no matter how much you want it to be!!
As Lockheed says:
"MANEUVERING FLAPS SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLE PARTICULAR MANEUVER AND THE BE RETRACED IMMEDIATELY"
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Regarding the loss of speed due to flaps and effect on turn performance, I was trying to make clear in an earlier response care needs to be taken on how the aerodynamics is characterized.
Use of flaps does not automatically mean a loss of airspeed that reduces the turn performance of an aircraft.
The case is only true if the turn (typically a sustained turn) bleeds more energy than can be made up by the power-available of the aircraft.
The case exists where with flaps extended you are able to fly the aircraft where Power-Available=Power-Required to maintain a sustained turn with higher turn rate & lower radius only achievable with maneuver flaps deployed (Ps=0 curve on an EM plot).
Planes like the P-38 with a large excess power-available margin have a broader range of the flight envelope where this case exists.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Planes like the P-38 with a large excess power-available margin have a broader range of the flight envelope where this case exists.
Where does the P 38 have more of an excess of power than most WWII fighters?
The flaps will raise the CLmax, power available stays the same EXCEPT more is needed to overcome the additional drag at low speeds.
This is exactly why Lockheed recommends the flaps be used for short periods of time. Same goes with any manuvering flap.
"MANEUVERING FLAPS SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLE PARTICULAR MANEUVER AND THE BE RETRACED IMMEDIATELY"
http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm
Use of flaps does not automatically mean a loss of airspeed that reduces the turn performance of an aircraft.
True. In the case of the P 38 Lockheed warns both in writing and in film that use of flaps does rob speed in the P -38.
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.
Loss of speed = decrease in bank and subsequent loss of turn radius.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi Humble. Basing it on an article I read by Clive Killer caldwell. Tony was 1st Japanese plane at or near 400 mph. also 1st one to give US planes some competition in the dive.
on Japanese planes are often way off. George for example according to Sakai was over 400 mph. but it is almost always listed at much less.
-
Wow, time for the strawman review so quickly? Must be some kind of record.
You attributed your own statment as a representation of what is stated in a specific publication from Lockheed.
I politely pointed you to the reference that you couldnt locate. Without addressing the validity of your attributed statment, I pointed out it was not specifically representative of what was stated.
You replied with a direct quote from said publication, followed by quotes from posts.
I replied in clearification so that the casual reader did not misinterprate which quote is from which source. Made a saterical comment. THEN went on to touch on points of discussion by others in the thread.
You replied with material supporting the validity of your original statment, which if you were paying attention I did not attack in the first place. Simualtaniously ignoring my point regarding low speed stability relative to 0 net torque vs + net torque, in similar fasion of ignoring Meskimen's caviot regarding not getting so slow that you cannot accelerate out of trouble when needed.
-
There is no strawman, Murdr. You tried to point out with nothing except your desires how you want the P 38's flaps to work.
The quotes are from Lockheed. The science is from aerodynamics.
Simualtaniously ignoring my point regarding low speed stability relative to 0 net torque vs + net torque, in similar fasion of ignoring Meskimen's caviot regarding not getting so slow that you cannot accelerate out of trouble when needed.
Torque has nothing to do with the discussion on sustained turning with the maneuver flaps extended. Your desire to be able to fly around in tight little circles with your maneuver flaps down for extended periods of time without penalty is contrary to the instructions put out by Lockheed and aerodynamics.
The key was do the maneuver flaps drop the airspeed. According to Lockheed, YES they do. The flaps are to be used for short periods of time to complete a maneuver. Leave them down and your airspeed goes.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
There is no strawman, Murdr. You tried to point out with nothing except your desires how you want the P 38's flaps to work.
Oh yea? Where is the quote of me from this thread to support that?
-
Where does the P 38 have more of an excess of power than most WWII fighters?
Let's be clear. I never said it had more excess power than MOST WW2 fighters. However you can get a gauge of excess-power-available by the max rate of climb performance of an aircraft, the P-38 being one of the best in this aspect for US aircraft. Aircraft like the bF109-G10 & G6 like we have in AH are similar in terms of having a large excess-power-available margin.
Your statements are all true for given part of the flight envelope, but only for given parts of the envelope. You need to remember the other parts of the performance envelope.
The recommendations from Lockheed etc. are all good but don't address the case where you fly a sustained turn with no energy/speed loss. Their assumptions are for given conditions where you continue to bleed energy.
The flaps will raise the CLmax, power available stays the same EXCEPT more is needed to overcome the additional drag at low speeds.
Assuming you're flying:
(a) in a sustained turn
(b) at CLmax
yes you will have more induced drag to overcome (low speed itself doesn't cause the additional drag). The question is how much and what impact it has on turn performance.
There is a point where you can fly at sustained turn CLmax flaps extended where power-available equals power-required. Yes you might have a marginally lower turn rate vs. clean configuration but because of the lower airspeed achievable to maintain flight your turn radius is significantly reduced.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
yes you will have more induced drag to overcome (low speed itself doesn't cause the additional drag). The question is how much and what impact it has on turn performance.
Exactly. Facts are Lockheed says in the case of the P 38 do not do it.
Why?
Power available will have a hard time overcoming drag. This means the drag of the flaps was close too the minium power required for level flight. Your not going to be able to a turn very tight when your power available is expended just maintaining level flight.
I would say it's a safe scientific bet that turn radius is effected in the P38.
Don't you think Lockheed would have told their pilots to keep them down if it was not detrimental to performance?
I certainly do not see them holding back performance enhancing "secrets" or giving out bad advice to their end users.
Looks to me like they were intended to be used for short periods of time to gain gun solution and quickly retracted as Lockheed recommends.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your desire to be able to fly around in tight little circles with your maneuver flaps down for extended periods of time without penalty is contrary to the instructions put out by Lockheed and aerodynamics.
Crumpp
Crumpp show one post by Murdr or myself that states that in this thread? In fact, show a post in any thread where Murder and I advocate that. Have fun searching because you'll never find one. Why is it that when we happened to discuss flaps or the P-38 you and Kweassa get all bent out of shape? No offense, but you and Kweassa are just pulling things out for the sake of argument without any substance to it.
So let's recap, here are the facts:
1) Majority of P-38 pilots did use their flaps while in combat, not just an "elite" few like Kweassa suggested.
ack-ack
-
I have seen a 38 pilots describe his 360 deg, under 90mph turn for a victory on a george as a "controled stall". In that particular instance, that 38 pilot said he would never have tried that if there wasnt only 2 of them and 12 of us. Pilots like McGuire often got into slow speed dogfights despite the fact that he preached otherwise to his subortanants. While most fighters have to contend more and more with tourque as speeds decline, the 38 with its counter-rotating props does not. Appearently that is "nothing special". While it wasnt the reccomeded, or even the smartest tactic, the 38 could do it when called upon.
An attempt to justify continious flap usage.
BTW, a stall will greatly increase you turn radius as the aircraft is no longer flying the turn vector. Watch the P38 handling video. Best turn is achieved at CLmax, as dtango points out. Drop off on the backside of the lift curve and you are no longer at CLmax.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Why is it that when we happened to discuss flaps or the P-38 you and Kweassa get all bent out of shape?
O, me, me, pick me.
Because, we use them in the same manner in which they were sometimes used in combat, and its not fair because the USAAF, and McGuire, and Lockheed said not to, and their German engineers didnt give them the same ability.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
... and their German engineers didnt give them the same ability.
How so?
-
Crumpp:
Every aircraft has the area in the performance envelope I described including the P-38.
I'm saying that the advice from Lockheed applies in cases where you assume energy bleed beyond where power available is less than power required which is only one of many dynamic energy states for an aircraft.
Think about what you are saying about overcoming the drag due to the flaps. Yes, the flaps will add parasite and induced drag. However at 1g level flight there's ample power available to overcome the additional drag including when you deploy full flaps EVEN at reduced throttle settings for landing - otherwise your plane would fall out of the sky if you deployed flaps.
Now increase load factor as you turn assuming full throttle. Guess what - there are load factors / turns that you could make with flaps deployed where you're actually gaining, not losing energy.
This goes up to a maximum point where you actually can be at flaps deployed CLmax AND where energy loss = energy gain.
Then beyond this point you begin bleeding energy in a turn. The advice given by Lockheed applies in this part of the envelope.
This is straightforward aerodynamics and applies to all aircraft.
I'm asking you to look beyond the pilot recommendations you are seeing and trust what I'm telling you aerodynamically. At least give me the benefit of doubt on the aerodynamics basis my past posts and try understanding what I'm trying to tell you :).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
An attempt to justify continious flap usage.
as opposed to
You tried to point out with nothing except your desires how you want the P 38's flaps to work.
Which by the way, they work just fine in AH.
-
Originally posted by dtango
Think about what you are saying about overcoming the drag due to the flaps. Yes, the flaps will add parasite and induced drag. However at 1g level flight there's ample power available to overcome the additional drag including when you deploy full flaps EVEN at reduced throttle settings for landing - otherwise your plane would fall out of the sky if you deployed flaps.
Most planes DO fall out of the sky when they deploy full flaps. It's called descending and landing. Most planes are likewise hard pressed to hold their altitude in level flight with flaps fully deployed.
-
Murdr, in what way could the P-38 pilots use their flaps in a way the German pilots could not in their 109s and 190s?
-
Anyone remember Fiona flaps from the 80's. Nevermind, that's naughty. Different flaps-different thread.
-
Most planes DO fall out of the sky when they deploy full flaps. It's called descending and landing. Most planes are likewise hard pressed to hold their altitude in level flight with flaps fully deployed.
Oh please. I thought about replying to this but this is such a loaded statement it's not worth the effort to give a serious reply.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Murdr, in what way could the P-38 pilots use their flaps in a way the German pilots could not in their 109s and 190s?
I was trying for a bit of levity with my comment, and I had this comment in mind when I did it.
Originally posted by hitech
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.
In addition to that I was specifically thinking of the stability offered by the Fowler flaps in conjunction with the zero net torque. Which is irrelevent to Crumpps single plane making a sustained turn at varying speeds. It becomes very relevent closer to stalls speed though when you add another aircraft to the equation that has torque effects to contend with. Relative stability between two aircraft making a sustained turn is important. The P38 had stability at slow speeds. 38 pilots knew it, and sometimes used it to their advantage. Some seem to have a problem with that. Regardless, as I said, it was partially in jest, and that was my thinking behind it.
-
Crummp.
I think you are missing something here connecting the AH38 flying to the real life 38 flying.
Yes, pilots used their flaps. Guys like Bong, McGuire, Lynch, Lowell etc used everything they could in the 38.
Was it reccomended as a long term life insurance policy? Nope. Getting slow in a combat zone, doesn't project a long life.
But when I'm in my AH P38G, with the flaps hanging out, with the stall horn blaring and turning for dear life on the deck in the horde, I have no life to lose other then a virtual one.
That applies to any AH pilot in any AH plane. If he makes a mistake and dies, nothing is lost. So a 38 driver like myself is going to use every last bit I can to help my feeble flying abilty :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Yes, pilots used their flaps. Guys like Bong, McGuire, Lynch, Lowell etc used everything they could in the 38.
Was it reccomended as a long term life insurance policy? Nope. Getting slow in a combat zone, doesn't project a long life.
And really, that's all I needed to hear.
Oh, and perhaps a question then, Guppy.
What of the guys that are not like Bong, McGuire, Lynch or Lowell? What would they do?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
P-38s were not the only planes installed with Fowlers. The Fowlers on the P-38 also weren't necessarily the most efficient use of Fowlers in fighter planes. The P-47s also had Fowlers, which could certainly help against the usually more agile Luftwaffe planes.
Incorrect. P-47s were fitted with slotted flaps, which while more efficient than the simple and split flaps, still lagged well behind the Fowlers in terms of lift vs drag.
I don't understand your constant whining about flap usage. I also don't understand why you cannot make your point in less than 500 words......
Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.
Low and slow usually means dead if any other enemy aircraft are nearby.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I don't understand your constant whining about flap usage. I also don't understand why you cannot make your point in less than 500 words......
Okay. What did I actually 'whine' about?
Did I request for a change for any of the planes? Did I say some plane had their flaps wrong in AH?
I mentioned how flap usage during combat was not advised in most cases. Somebody said that it was not the case of P-38s, and I objected to that opinion.
And then, Widewing, the guy starts getting personal, so I jabbed back. What exactly am I whining about again?
Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.
Low and slow usually means dead if any other enemy aircraft are nearby.
Exactly.
-
Incorrect. P-47s were fitted with slotted flaps, which while more efficient than the simple and split flaps, still lagged well behind the Fowlers in terms of lift vs drag.
Widewing - I believe they were a combination - slotted fowlers.
Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.
I agree but would choose to characterize this more like an 80/20 rule here. However a caveat given a specific setup such as turn fight inside 1 turn radius in a nose-to-nose fight - the guy with the better turn radius will gain the advantage. This is where sustained turns at specific excess power = 0 with maneuver flaps deployed might gain significant advantages of one plane over another by minimizing turn radius.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
And really, that's all I needed to hear.
Oh, and perhaps a question then, Guppy.
What of the guys that are not like Bong, McGuire, Lynch or Lowell? What would they do?
I already answered that. Heck Crumpp even included it in quote in his last post. Tilly never would have tried to stay with that (correction) Oscar had it not been 12 vs 2.
Widewing said:
Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.
Low and slow usually means dead if any other enemy aircraft are nearby.
That's what I was saying. Crumpp's argument ignores the plane the 38 is engaged with. Not following recomended flap use ignores possible enemey planes the 38 is not engaged with.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
And really, that's all I needed to hear.
Oh, and perhaps a question then, Guppy.
What of the guys that are not like Bong, McGuire, Lynch or Lowell? What would they do?
Glad you asked cause I went hunting and found what I was looking for :)
From combat reports of the 370th FG in the summer of 44. They would have been flying P38J-10s and 15s not retrofitted with dive flaps and power assisted controls at the time. This would be what the AH P38J represents. They operated in the ground attack role and got jumped many times, and in these instances were outnumbered and the last two at least, in a furball down low.
Note in the reports, the mention of flap use. Also note that the 370th had come to England having trained on the P47 and learned the 38 on the fly prior to D-Day so these were not high time 38 drivers.
Also be sure and note what the last report says at the end. He sounds like he'd fit right in to the AH 38 drivers world :)
Dan/CorkyJr
Lt.Richard Berry 370th Combat report June 14, 1944
“I was leading Yellow flight and we had completed our mission and were returning home at 3000 feet. We had lost our flight leader in clouds and haze after an identification pass at friendly A/C. We had just gone on instruments and were about to enter the overcast when we were bounced from 4 O’Clock by four Me 109s which had just broken out of the overcast. Yellow 2 called for me to break right into the E/A. The entire flight broke and I found myself after a half-turn of a Lufberry, turning inside the lead E/A. I fired a four second burst from 200 yards at approximately 20 degrees deflection and observed strikes on the engine. The E/A started to smoke and leveled off. I fell into trail behind him and fired a 6-second burst at 0 Degrees deflection and again observed strikes, this time on the fuselage and right wing root. Fire broke out and enveloped the entire right wing root as the E/A disappeared into cloud. I did not follow him because I was low on fuel. The other E/A disappeared into the clouds after the initial break. We all used our maneuver flaps and had no difficulty in out turning the E/A. I saw no one bail out from the plane I hit and in my opinion the pilot was hit and at least wounded on my first burst because he leveled off and flew at a very slight climb.”
Captain Paul Sabo, 370th FG July 31, 1944
“I was leading Blue Flight circling the target area giving Red Flight Top Cover as they were dive bombing the target. Circling above us at about 12,000 feet were 12 Me 109s. I kept watching them; then 8 of them half rolled and got behind my flight. I gave the order to jettison our bombs and break. I dropped flaps and started in a tight Lufberry. When I had completed one turn I was alone, and at that time I saw an Me 109 in a vertical turn coming in front of me so I started firing at him at a 90 degree deflection shot. He flew right into the pattern and I saw strikes on him from nose to tail. The plane seemed to shudder and slow down. I was about 200 yards when I started to fire. The Me 109 then made a 90 degree turn to the left and started to climb as if he was going to loop. I followed him, closing to about 100 yards, fired and saw strikes all over his canopy, fuselage and tail surfaces. As he was about at the top of his loop and almost on his back, I saw what looked like his canopy come off, as the plane seemed to hang there. It looked like I had wounded the pilot during the first 90 degree deflection shot and he was rolling it over on his back to jettison his canopy and bail out.
About that time I looked in my rear view mirror and saw an Me 109 on my tail. I dropped flaps and turned into him. He half rolled and went down. As I rolled out I saw an Me 109 coming down in front of me. I opened up again and gave him a 90-degree deflection shot. He ran into my pattern and I saw strikes all over the plane. I followed him and kept firing from directly behind him, seeing strikes on his tail surfaces. Then he proceeded to go down in a wild dive from about 5000 feet. I looked back in my mirror again, because all during this time I was still alone. My flight had left me. I saw another Me 109 coming in on my tail. I dropped flaps, leveled out and turned into him. He automatically went into a steep climb and I lost him in the sun. When I looked I saw no more enemy and called my Flight to join me.”
Lt. Royal Madden from the same Flight and same fight, July 31, 1944
“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.
We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.
Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”
-
A couple other interesting observations from the 370th stuff.
The theme when they were bounced was to drop flaps and break into the attack. It's consistant in the reports.
And funny, I've been doing that when I get bounced too. Pull hard into the attacker and kick in a notch of flaps to get the turn in faster and sharper to avoid the attack. Throw em back up when the badun passes and keep the speed up.
And another pilot report mentioning flaps that has an AH feel to it, at least for me as I've done the same thing in my 38G many times.
Quoting Lt. Robert Blandin
"The 109 was in front of me now and still in a pretty steep climb. I had him in range and was firing. I could see my tracers looping behind his tail but I didn't have enough speed to pull the lead I needed to hit him. To get it, I cracked some combat flaps which gave me added lift and let me bring the nose up without stalling. The next time I fired I hit him aft of the cockpit...."
I love this stuff :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I was trying for a bit of levity with my comment, and I had this comment in mind when I did it.
You didn't answer the question. What could a P-38 pilot do with his flaps that a 109 or 190 pilot couldn't?
I don't know how old that HiTech quote is, but it is irrelevant since he is wrong. Crumpp has repeatedly presented evidence that shows the true speed limitations on 190 flaps.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You didn't answer the question. What could a P-38 pilot do with his flaps that a 109 or 190 pilot couldn't?
I don't know how old that HiTech quote is, but it is irrelevant since he is wrong. Crumpp has repeatedly presented evidence that shows the true speed limitations on 190 flaps.
Asking cause I don't know the answer, but did 109 and 190 pilots drop flaps in combat as common practice? Did they have 'combat flaps'?
I know the Spit drivers sure didn't.
Mustang drivers used combat flaps. You can find mention of that often enough in the 51 combat reports.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
There is no such thing as "combat flaps", it's just a setting. Just because is says "combat" on the cockpit label doesn't make the flaps special. The 190 could drop 15 degrees of flaps well above the 180 mph limit we have now. The 109 could drop flaps above 300 mph if I understood Crumpp right. And yes, both LW and Finnish pilots did use flaps to momentarily turn tighter.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There is no such thing as "combat flaps", it's just a setting. Just because is says "combat" on the cockpit label doesn't make the flaps special. The 190 could drop 15 degrees of flaps well above the 180 mph limit we have now. The 109 could drop flaps above 300 mph if I understood Crumpp right. And yes, both LW and Finnish pilots did use flaps to momentarily turn tighter.
LOL easy, Not arguing with ya. Never claimed the flaps were special. Just using the term the pilots used. Clearly they saw them as combat flaps or maneuvering flaps. Both terms appear in the combat reports.
I just haven't come across accounts of 109 or 190 pilots cracking their flaps as common practice.
I also wonder what speed the 370th P38 drivers were at when they were kicking out the combat flaps. Seeing the 109s above them, you'd have to think they had throttled up to give them as much help as possible when the 109s came down.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
IIRC I saw some flap reference for 109s on the finnish website, but it`s no wonder it was rarely mentioned. German tactics revolved around diving attacks and giving no chance for the enemy. Only a few of their pilots preferred manouvering combat over strict energy tactics. Especially as they were usually outnumbered, and turning would slow them down and loosing the initiative. The technical documentation however is quite clear that the 109s had any intermediate flap settings of your choosing, 'combat flaps' if you like, and could be extended at fairly high airspeed if wished to be used.
-
Thanks for the answers Guppy.
In that case I'd gladly make an exception in my thinking concerning the frequency of flap use for the P-38 pilots.
But there are still more questions I've brought up during the discussion, and one I'd like to hear your opinion about is perhaps the conditions of the P-38 pilots, and especially influential P-38 aces, were quite different from other fighter pilots or groups. Rookies tend to follow whatever practices their superiors are doing, and quickly catch on to certain methods of flying and fighting that are advocated by their officers.
Again, P-38s were not the only planes with Fowlers, nor were they the only planes that could find a use for combat positions. There are reports and tales of P-51 or P-47 pilots, upon some occasions using flaps for fighting, and even some LW aces were especially famous for their flying skills, including a tendency to drop into a low-speed battle and frequently using flaps for combat. And yet, I find it hard to believe any of the other pilots of other countries/planes made a regular use of such flap positions, or even advocate or promote them to their underlings.
Like others have mentioned P-38 combat flap positions were sanctioned at 250mph IAS which is a relatively very slow speed, considering the speeds the other USAAF fighters were fighting against the Luftwaffe in high-alt escort missions.
I am guessing it has a lot to do with typical conditions (probably low altitude engagements and mix-ups) the P-38s were operating under, as compared to the other fighters the USAAF were using between '43 and '45, because clearly, such combat practices would not be fit for high-alt engagements where fighters developed speeds quickly.
What is your opinion on this?
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”
Great stories! It's amazing that these guys were still new to the P-38 and were able to fly it like they did in those engagements. The above part is my favorite part, that's sweet, out turning a bf109 while still carrying 2 eggs on the deck. He definitely would fit right in with us :)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
A couple other interesting observations from the 370th stuff.
The theme when they were bounced was to drop flaps and break into the attack. It's consistant in the reports.
And funny, I've been doing that when I get bounced too. Pull hard into the attacker and kick in a notch of flaps to get the turn in faster and sharper to avoid the attack. Throw em back up when the badun passes and keep the speed up.
And another pilot report mentioning flaps that has an AH feel to it, at least for me as I've done the same thing in my 38G many times.
[/b]
I do the same thing, break into the attacker and take the initiative from him. It must be a Lightning driver instinct :)
Quoting Lt. Robert Blandin
"The 109 was in front of me now and still in a pretty steep climb. I had him in range and was firing. I could see my tracers looping behind his tail but I didn't have enough speed to pull the lead I needed to hit him. To get it, I cracked some combat flaps which gave me added lift and let me bring the nose up without stalling. The next time I fired I hit him aft of the cockpit...."
I love this stuff :)
Dan/CorkyJr [/B]
Sounds like another LW driver underestimated the vertical abilities of the P-38 and paid for it with his life. You only make those types of mistakes once.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I also wonder what speed the 370th P38 drivers were at when they were kicking out the combat flaps. Seeing the 109s above them, you'd have to think they had throttled up to give them as much help as possible when the 109s came down.
Dan/CorkyJr
I would have said dive flaps since P-38 drivers would also use it to help in high speed turns. But those were early production Js the 370th flew, so at least to engage the flaps they were going 250mph.
ack-ack
-
Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct.
You are correct Widewing in that flaps usage is all relative. Given the P 38's aerodynamic characteristics I don't see where it would have any advantage.
There seems to be this tendency among the P 38 fans to say, "Yes that is true, but the P 38 is exempt from those laws of physics."
All fighter pilots used flaps in a hard dogfight.
Ack-Ack, you accuse me of using a straw man argument yet use a "bait and switch" trying to turn this into a Luftwaffe flap debate. Completely different subject that has been covered ad nauseaum. Not relevant to this thread. Start another one about Luftwaffe flaps deployment speeds and I will repost the documentation.
Lockheed says maneuver flaps cannot be deployed above 250mph IAS.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
You are correct Widewing in that flaps usage is all relative. Given the P 38's aerodynamic characteristics I don't see where it would have any advantage.
There seems to be this tendency among the P 38 fans to say, "Yes that is true, but the P 38 is exempt from those laws of physics."
No the use of flaps for better turn performance is perfectly described by the laws of physics. It applies not only to the P-38 but other aircraft as well.
I'll try a different way to explain.
(http://www.combatsim.com/htm/nov98/tactic/energy1.jpg)
Take this EM plot (from warbirds) for illustrative purposes. The blue line represents clean configuration. The green line represents the envelope with maneuver/combat flap settings.
Now note the Ps=0 plots (sustained turns with no energy gain or loss), purple being clean configuration mil power settings, red being clean WEP power settings.
Now note the flap 1 Ps=0 plots, solid for mil power, dotted for WEP power. Remember that Ps=0 equals the condition where your power-available balances out the power-required due to drag (including additional drag as a result of flaps). Notice the sustained turn performance difference between flaps 1 vs. clean - both a clear turn rate and turn radius advantage. This is the point in the envelope even with the additional drag having flaps deployed still gives you a turn peformance advantage vs. not using them.
You can also see that at flaps settings that at some point their Ps=0 curves dip below the clean Ps=0 curves representing the increased effect of the additional flap drag degrading turn peformance, most notably the flaps 2 setting.
Hope that helps in the explanation.
For reference the chart comes from this article:
http://www.combatsim.com/htm/nov98/energy-man1.htm#cont
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Thanks for the answers Guppy.
In that case I'd gladly make an exception in my thinking concerning the frequency of flap use for the P-38 pilots.
But there are still more questions I've brought up during the discussion, and one I'd like to hear your opinion about is perhaps the conditions of the P-38 pilots, and especially influential P-38 aces, were quite different from other fighter pilots or groups. Rookies tend to follow whatever practices their superiors are doing, and quickly catch on to certain methods of flying and fighting that are advocated by their officers.
Again, P-38s were not the only planes with Fowlers, nor were they the only planes that could find a use for combat positions. There are reports and tales of P-51 or P-47 pilots, upon some occasions using flaps for fighting, and even some LW aces were especially famous for their flying skills, including a tendency to drop into a low-speed battle and frequently using flaps for combat. And yet, I find it hard to believe any of the other pilots of other countries/planes made a regular use of such flap positions, or even advocate or promote them to their underlings.
Like others have mentioned P-38 combat flap positions were sanctioned at 250mph IAS which is a relatively very slow speed, considering the speeds the other USAAF fighters were fighting against the Luftwaffe in high-alt escort missions.
I am guessing it has a lot to do with typical conditions (probably low altitude engagements and mix-ups) the P-38s were operating under, as compared to the other fighters the USAAF were using between '43 and '45, because clearly, such combat practices would not be fit for high-alt engagements where fighters developed speeds quickly.
What is your opinion on this?
Just my opinion, but I think it's safe to say the the AH 38 world is best represented by those 370th FG 38 drivers. The fights are lower, often on the deck and often where the 38 is lugging bombs to some airfield etc.
I don't think it was a reccomended tactic in the Pacific. General George Kenny, head of 5th AF wasn't happy with his new 38 pilots tactics early on, including Bong and Lynch as they were too often trying to dogfight Zeros. The tactics in the Pac were to keep the speed up and B & Z the Zekes etc to death.
I think it's safe to say the 38 drivers were versed in how to use those flaps though, and if you look at those 370th accounts, their use was in a defensive, save their skins posture, not an attack mode. In all those cases they did not have alt and E on their side.
And in that regard I think it applies to the AH 38 drivers too. Listening to the guys I fly 38s with, they're always harping on me to keep my speed up, as the Spit driver in me can't help but start turnfighting some times :)
But if you watch the good AH 38 drivers they're using the speed and climb of the 38 to do their work, not the flaps. Those are only once in a position like those real life 38 drivers down low.
Where I've seen mention of flaps in P51 combats is under the same circumstances. 4th FG stuff mentions it fairly often where the 51 drivers drop combat flaps to turn with the 109s they are mixed in with.
Does that answer your question?
-
No the use of flaps for better turn performance is perfectly described by the laws of physics. It applies not only to the P-38 but other aircraft as well.
dtango you have proved my point. With all flap usage there is a point of diminishing returns.
Nobody is disputing flaps did not temporarily decrease turn radius for any plane. The P 38 is not special regarding flap usage.
It is when we see anecdotal evidence such as:
Pilots like McGuire often got into slow speed dogfights despite the fact that he preached otherwise to his subortanants. While most fighters have to contend more and more with tourque as speeds decline, the 38 with its counter-rotating props does not. Appearently that is "nothing special". While it wasnt the reccomeded, or even the smartest tactic, the 38 could do it when called upon.
Being presented to countermand the Manufacturer's INSTRUCTIONS for their own design and misrepresented as normal usage that clarification is needed. Lockheed says to use the P38's flaps as such:
"MANEUVERING FLAPS SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLE PARTICULAR MANEUVER AND THEN BE RETRACED IMMEDIATELY "
If we are going to use anecdotal evidence then lets allow Spitfires to run at WEP for hours at a time. We have a full test report of one doing it and most WWII aircraft engines could do it. Why have WEP settings in the first place? Let's have FW-190A's that exceed 1000kph in a dive just like SKG 10 did routinely. There are plenty of cases of anecdotal evidence of 190's and 109's outturning Spitfires! Can we see that?
Facts are the P 38 fans have continuously argued for their aircraft to be special when it was not. They want the flaps to have the ability to be used at higher speeds than they were capable of and to be able to leave them down continuously without penalty.
I just haven't come across accounts of 109 or 190 pilots cracking their flaps as common practice.
Guppy!! My friend you must not be looking very hard because their is a ton of anecdotal evidence. Try reading Mike Spicks book:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/spick.html
Every 109 pilot I have interviewed has said they used flaps. Same with the FW-190 pilots.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
dtango you have proved my point. With all flap usage there is a point of diminishing returns.
Nobody is disputing flaps did not temporarily decrease turn radius for any plane. The P 38 is not special regarding flap usage.
My aim is not to prove anything, least of all espouse the "greatness" of the P-38 or how special it was. Far from it.
My point is to try and educate regarding the aerodynamics so that people who read this thread don't leave with misconceptions about the aerodynamics of flaps usage.
The idea that flap deployment will ALWAYS result in energy bleed that leads to degraded turn performance is patently incorrect.
Is this true for part of the flight envelope? Yes. But it is also not true for a good part of the flight envelope as well.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There is no such thing as "combat flaps", it's just a setting. Just because is says "combat" on the cockpit label doesn't make the flaps special. The 190 could drop 15 degrees of flaps well above the 180 mph limit we have now. The 109 could drop flaps above 300 mph if I understood Crumpp right. And yes, both LW and Finnish pilots did use flaps to momentarily turn tighter.
How about posting the documentation. I've read an awful lot of pilot accounts and never recall a single mention from a 109 or 190 pilot about dropping flaps at combat speeds...a couple of accounts similiar to what guppy posted would be interesting reading....
-
I'll take your word for it Crummp on the 109s and 190s using flaps. Obviously I'm more RAF, USAAF oriented so that's where I pay the most attention :)
I'm still trying to figure out what we're arguing about however.
I think we can agree that whether it be P38s or 190s, pilots would use combat flaps if the situation warranted it.
I think it's fair to say this would be generally a defensive move, unless it was to get inside a turn to make a killing shot.
Neither Allied or Axis pilots wanted to try and survive slow for long in a combat zone.
If we're applying this to AH, I don't see any difference.
Are there times where I've got the flaps hanging out on my 38G? You bet. Generally in a desperate effort to keep the guy behind me from getting deflection, and generally in a furball on the deck when I'm gonna die more often then not :)
I've had the pleasure of flying with some of the best 38 sticks in AH on occasion and none of them are abusing flaps to get their kills. These guys use their speed, climb and that centralized firepower to clobber the baduns. Funny part is I live longest when I fly the 38 the right way, which is how the best AH38 drivers do it.
They wouldn't be great sticks if they flew the 38 like I do, pretending it's a Spit at times :) So if anyone is overusing the Flaps it's me, but then again I just end up dying doing it so I'm hardly a problem for anyone :)
Do guys flying AH have favorite airplanes that they'll defend til the end of time? You bet. Spits and 38s for me. 190s for Crummp, as examples. I know there are some Ki-84 guys who are never gonna be satisfied with that bird. 109 drivers who want more from the 109. It goes on and on.
The best part of it is that people keep learning about the planes and pilots, so despite the arguments that get stupid on occasion, I think it's a win-win for everyone.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
There seems to be this tendency among the P 38 fans to say, "Yes that is true, but the P 38 is exempt from those laws of physics."
Show me where in this thread any P-38 pilot in here has said that. All I did was correct Kweassa's error when he said that fighter pilots rarely used flaps in combat.
Ack-Ack, you accuse me of using a straw man argument yet use a "bait and switch" trying to turn this into a Luftwaffe flap debate. Completely different subject that has been covered ad nauseaum. Not relevant to this thread. Start another one about Luftwaffe flaps deployment speeds and I will repost the documentation.[/b]
Show me where I even talk about Luftwhiner flaps in this thread. I think you have me confused with someone else.
Lockheed says maneuver flaps cannot be deployed above 250mph IAS.
All the best,
Crumpp [/B]
Again, where did anyone say that the Fowler flaps on the P-38 could be deployed above that speed?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Facts are the P 38 fans have continuously argued for their aircraft to be special when it was not. They want the flaps to have the ability to be used at higher speeds than they were capable of and to be able to leave them down continuously without penalty.
All the best,
Crumpp
Again, it's Show Time. Show me one thread where myself, Murdr, pellik, Crims or Savage have asked for the raising of the speed limit that flaps can be deployed at. The only thing we've asked is that the auto-flap retracting system be replaced with a system that will model damage to flaps as a result of stress from over speeding.
For some reason, you and Kweassa keep harping on things we've never asked for nor want.
Besides, +Tiff\CorkyJr was pretty much on target on how we P-38 drivers fly the Lightning in AH.
Take a hop with us and you might get struck by the clue stick and see that we don't fly with our flaps continuously extended but rather we use them when the situation warrants and only using them to get the job done and retract them afterwards.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Facts are the P 38 fans have continuously argued for their aircraft to be special when it was not.
So in other words you're saying that a single seat twin engine counter rotating prop fighter is the norm for fighters of its period?
They want the flaps to have the ability to be used at higher speeds than they were capable of
Where has that come in to discussion in this thread?
and to be able to leave them down continuously without penalty.
That is false. Giving anecdotal evidence of real life 38 flap usage in no way supports your claim either. Why? BECAUSE WE CAN ALREADY DUPLICATE THE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IN AH. There is no want involved with it.
-
The idea that flap deployment will ALWAYS result in energy bleed that leads to degraded turn performance is patently incorrect.
Nobody made that claim. Certainly depends on the design. Lockheeds clearly points out that the P 38 was not an aircraft that benefits from flaps being left down for long periods of time.
BECAUSE WE CAN ALREADY DUPLICATE THE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IN AH. There is no want involved with it.
This is very true! I easily outturned a 109F4 in a P47D 25 the other day in the CT. I was flying around at flap setting three just owning him in manuverability. Very cartoony.
Yes Murdr, both you and Ack-Ack have argued for the flaps to be set outside of there POH limits. Or are you going to deny it?
So in other words you're saying that a single seat twin engine counter rotating prop fighter is the norm for fighters of its period?
You are correct it did have high form / induced drag, average power to weight ratio, and high wingloading for a WWII fighter.
As for your claim of never asking for the flaps to be deployed outside of the listed POF limits, Remember this thread?
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?
The one Hitech called you out on?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes Murdr, both you and Ack-Ack have argued for the flaps to be set outside of there POH limits. Or are you going to deny it?
All the best,
Crumpp
Again, show me the post where I state that I want to be able to deploy the flaps above what they're rated to be deployed at.
I will restate what I've said all along in the attempt that maybe this time it will actually get through and sink in (but alas, I have my doubts). I have always said that the auto-retracting flap system should be replaced by a system that will model the damage the flaps receive from stress due to over speeding. Now, where in that statement does it say that I want to deploy the flaps at higher than what is rated? You're starting to clutch at straws to make an argument where there is none. So, please Crummb do your homework and show me these posts where I state the contrary. You may be confusing us with OIO/TAC that has argued for such a thing but the rest of us AH 38 drivers do not agree with OIO/TAC on this.
ack-ack
-
Crummp,
Do you see any qualities in LW planes that are "cartoony" since that seems to be the phrase I'm hearing a lot lately when listening to fans of LW AH birds talking about Allied iron.
I'm just trying to guage bias in this as I just fly em and remind myself it's not a real plane :)
Yes the modeling should be as accurate as possible, but the talks smacks of LW conspiracy which seems silly to me.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Guppy,
I seriously doubt there is a Luftwaffe conspiracy. More like a lack of data and decades of historical assumptions/prejudice in that data vacuum.
In the past few years several factors have combined to bring much more data to light. One of those being the NASM beginning to catalog on a searchable database tens of thousands of documents that have been lingering in storage since the end of the war.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Ack-0Ack says:
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 says:
Then they pay the price by having their flaps damaged for exceeding the limits. What's wrong with that?
All arguments to extend the limits.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=2
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=3
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
All arguments to extend the limits.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=2
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=3
All the best,
Crumpp
Hate to say it Crumpp, but I don't see that. What I see Savage and AKAK advocating is removing the autoretract and implementing a damage model to the flaps should the pilot exceed the limit of their use.
I don't see them saying raise the limit. I do see a reasonable request to in essence make it random to a degree in the damage model should a pilot forget to pull them up when they pass the 250 mph threshold. That would be realistic in that no plane is going to automatically break at 251 if it's reccomended to raise the flaps at 250. Could it break? Sure, but it wouldn't everytime.
I don't see anything where they are advocating being able to extend flaps over 250.
So if a poor sap like me in my 38G makes the mistake of having combat flaps out and I pass the 250 mark, I might get lucky and survive but it also might wreck me so I better be careful.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Could it break? Sure, but it wouldn't everytime.
They are asking to raise the limits. I'm not the only one who sees it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Ack-Ack, you accuse me of using a straw man argument yet use a "bait and switch" trying to turn this into a Luftwaffe flap debate. Completely different subject that has been covered ad nauseaum. Not relevant to this thread. Start another one about Luftwaffe flaps deployment speeds and I will repost the documentation.
Calling BS
Which way do you want it crumpp??? You make the above statement and then on the same page turn around and start your BS misrepresetation of what akak or I may or may not have said in another dead thread regarding an alternative to AFR. You cant have it both ways.
The only reason I piped into this thread is because of your long illustrious history of blatent repeated misrepresentation of facts.
Twice you presented this statment "Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance." immediately following citing Lockheed giving the appearence that YOUR statment carried the weight of the manufacturer. I never said that statment was somehow incorrect. Only that it is not part of the citation you made.
And now you are going to turn this into putting your own spin on what my intended meaning was from posts I made in a completely different thread? IMHO you are not competent to do such a thing since IN THIS THREAD I straigh out told you I was not attacking the validity of your "Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance." statment. Yet how many post did you spend talking to yourself supporting the statment anyways?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
All arguments to extend the limits.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=2
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=3
All the best,
Crumpp
So how is asking for a system that models flap damage from stress as a result from over speeding extending the limits? Like I said in one of those threads, if you keep your flaps deployed for too long and they get damaged from over speeding then that's the price you pay for doing that. So, really it doesn't prove your point because you claim that we want be able to ride our flaps without penalty and you can clearly see by my position that it isn't so.
Guys like Murdr, Crims, +Tiff/Dan. Savage and myself have been playing these games for many years, in come cases 10+ years. And in some cases all those years spent flying the P-38 and flying them in games that modeled such a damage system to their flaps. In those games you learn very quickly flying the P-38 not to keep your flaps deployed for an extended period of time or face the possibility of too much E loss or damage from over speeding. Soon it becomes second nature and stays with you, kind of like riding a bike, you just never forget.
These lessons we've learned during our time have carried over to AH and you'll see by watching any of our films that we fly the same way we did back in those games that modeled the flap damage. Hard learned lessons are hard to forget. Like +Tiff pointed out after he posted the story on the 370th combat sorties, our flying the P-38 in AH is very similiar to how those guys did it. So please, stop trying to insist we crying for something that we aren't. I hope I typed this slow enough for you to understand.
ack-ack
-
Nobody made that claim. Certainly depends on the design. Lockheeds clearly points out that the P 38 was not an aircraft that benefits from flaps being left down for long periods of time.
You're making the claim here (as well as other places). This whole statement is aerodynamically incorrect even for the P-38 because there are certain parts of the flight envelope that you can have your flaps deployed for as long as you want and benefit from them.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
They are asking to raise the limits. I'm not the only one who sees it.
All the best,
Crumpp
Can you point me to a specific quote from anyone there that says raise the limits?
I just re-read the thread looking for it, and can't find it.
I think you know from other discussions that I just don't get that worked up about this kinda stuff. All I'm looking for is to keep learning and to enjoy the exchange.
But I REALLY don't see anywhere that anyone asked for a different and higher number in the 250 mph flap extention limit.
Saying it shouldn't automatically break at 251 isn't the same thing.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
I dont know what the old threads were now but IOI asked for exactly that. By the way akak, savage and I disavoweled his requests, and in one case I specifically replied to IOI that I was against that.
Since you cant seem to see what he says is there, mabey you will read the immediately previous post by me with better appriciation.
-
I never said that statment was somehow incorrect.
Yes you did Murdr.
Mrdr says:
Sentence two is a mischaracterization. I can see now the sencence you will snip out of the magazine to support what you said, but if you read the two paragraphs as a whole it is obvious the test pilot is refering to the loss of maneuvering options with the loss of speed, and not that the 38 has problems turning at low speeds. The 479th site has a link to Hanger Flying on the front page.
Widewing understands what I am saying:
Widewing says:
Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.
He is probably the most knowledgable individual on this board regarding the P38. AHT only shows 1600hp max for the P 38J, Widewing.
As for the power loading, the P38 has 5.1lbs/hp from USAAF documentation. The FW-190A8 has 4.59lbs/hp and the Bf-109G14 had 4.04 lbs/hp from Luftwaffe documentation. Using the USAAF listed weights and Widewings PO leaves the P38 at a much better 4.75 lbs/hp. Take off weight is used for all aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I dont know what the old threads were now but IOI asked for exactly that. By the way akak, savage and I disavoweled his requests, and in one case I specifically replied to IOI that I was against that.
Since you cant seem to see what he says is there, mabey you will read the immediately previous post by me with better appriciation.
The hard part about these discussions is it so often comes down to someone's motives being questioned.
In general my dealings with Crumpp have been positive ones on this board. I know he's a 190 fanatic, he knows I'm a Spit fanatic and now knows the 38 is a very close second if not first now.
If I have a 190 question I'll probably ask him first as I know he's put the time in. I'd hope he'd ask me about Spits and trust that I was telling him the truth as best I know it.
I'm not sure why the 38 stuff has to be different, so I'm confused by that. I know that you, AKAK, Savage, and a number of other guys around here are 38 nuts like me. And I know you've done your homework, just like Crumpp has done his on the 190.
I'm not sure why he's questioning your motives on wanting the best for the AH 38, cause I don't have any doubt that we all want the best set up possible for our bird of choice in the game, just like Crumpp wants the 190 to be as close to what he's found out about it as possible.
I think it's safe to say we've established that real 38 pilots from the new ones to the vets used combat flaps in the 38. I think it's also safe to say it was something used only in certain circumstances such as getting bounced or while in a turn fight trying to get deflection.
I know for a fact that none of the best AH 38 drivers are abusing flaps, or 'gaming the game' with them. You guys just aren't doing it, and in general as one who tends to get low and slow where I kick out the flaps, I get chastised for it by the better 38 sticks as it generally gets me killed :)
So I still don't know what the argument is about. Wanting a flap system in AH that doesn't auto retract and leaves open the possibility that some bonehead 38 driver like me might jam em or break em by going over 250 seems like a good idea. I also note that Hitech has his reasons for not doing it.
So what's the problem? :)
Bout time I head into the arena and watch you guys show how it's done in the 38 :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Lockheed warned that flap usage would rob the A/C of speed. Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance.
Here it is again, and the 2nd sentence still does not appear in the source you were refering too.
Mabey we can check if Dan sees what you see, because I still did not say that loss of speed does not have a detrimental effect on turn performance. I said the source you cited did not specifically say that.
-
If Widewing is saying that for ALL cases where you have prolonged turning with flaps in a P-38 resulting in degraded turn performance than he would be incorrect too. This is only true for a given dynamic energy state.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Guppy, yes that does answer my question.. but it does fuel more confusion as well. As it is, the summary of facts you've come up with seems to support both sides of the issue in this particular thread to an equal extent.
Perhaps, arguably, supports my view on this even more.. because despite the few examples you've kindly brought up, your answers given to my question seems to contradict your earlier view that flap practice was for the norm.
What I mean by this is, I am guessing you've brought up those pilot quotes at the previous post, to make a point that flap usage was not just limited to a few ace pilots... but it seems that if it wasn't a recommended tactic, even for the P-38, but still the pilots tended to attempt certain tactical maneuvers and device usage...
It indicates that it wasn't really about the plane itself, but about what kind of mentality towards general aircombat doctrine the P-38 pilots themselves held.. and upto a certain point, indicate somewhat 'reckless' behavior in part of the P-38 pilots. Another interesting tidbit that might be brought up in this discussion is the reports of one Harold Rau, which had been sent to his superiors in June of '44, which was posted on the boards some time ago.
It seems to show that quite contrary to the general satisfaction the PTO pilots had with their P-38s, there's a strong resentment against the P-38 in the ETO. As much as there were strong advocates for the particular plane, there seems to be equally as many objections against the plane in the USAAF during that time - on grounds of being 'not fit for the average pilot'.
Clearly, flap use for combat was not advocated nor recommended amongst the pilots of all the airforces, especially when the immediate attention was drawn upon how one may simplify the combat process so that the experience level required for someone to become an effective combat wasn't too high.
The tendency, SOME P-38 pilots, and ace pilots as well, had regarding this issue, goes against the basics of evolution of aircombat. And while no doubt for some of them it proved to be a success, it still wasn't something the average pilot would be willing to do.
In the end, while I'd accept that more than just aces were willing to take such action, it still doesn't seem to justify the claims that using flaps for aggressive combat purposes were a normal thing to happen, even amongst P-38s.
-
You're making the claim here (as well as other places). This whole statement is aerodynamically incorrect even for the P-38 because there are certain parts of the flight envelope that you can have your flaps deployed for as long as you want and benefit from them.
For some planes YES. For many WWII fighters, no. I have a graph somewhere on the FW-190's flaps. I will see if I cannot find it. They tightenend the turn for a portion of the envelope. For a portion of it they actually increased the turn radius. This was true for many WWII fighters.
Please show me where Lockheed says to leave the flaps down to receive this benefit for their aircraft?
Please point out in an AERONAUTICAL engineering text NOT a gaming site. Facts are as you get slower, the less bank angle you can devote to decreasing your turn radius.
The P 38 had the highest CD of any fighter in the ETO.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1114651126_p38drag.jpg)
The 109 is around .20 and the FW-190 .21.
Dropping flaps adds to this drag and increases the CLmax.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1114651048_flapdrag.jpg)
The Fowler flaps do offer an advantage of varying degrees from slight to in the case of the 109's slotted flaps substantial, the L/D is remarkably close.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1114651002_flaps.jpg)
Given the already high CD of the P 38 I fail to see much room for advantage.
Lockheed was dead on in their instructions to P 38 pilots.
"MANEUVERING FLAPS SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLETE PARTICULAR MANEUVER AND THEN BE RETRACED IMMEDIATELY"
For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately.
http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm
All the best,
Crumpp
-
ps)
as a ps, I'd like to point out that I SPECIFICALLY remember Ack mentioning that if the flaps would be just jammed stuck when they exceeded the limit speeds, "at least the flap effects would stay and the pilot would be able to stay through the course of his action, instead of stall out".
In my view, that's another way of saying;
"I don't care if they will become jammed stuck. If they don't autoretract, I'll at least be able to shoot the target down and rtb with stuck flaps.. instead of having to watch my speed and bugger out if I can't hold back my speed any longer"
..
Sounds like 'raise the limits please, I don't really care if the real pilots were worried about their speed. I just want to use my flaps this way so I can benefit from its effects' to me.
-
Planes like the P-38 with a large excess power-available margin have a broader range of the flight envelope where this case exists.
There lies the rub. The P38 had an average power available margin for a WWII fighter. You could make the argument with it's drag it was below average.
If I have a 190 question I'll probably ask him first as I know he's put the time in. I'd hope he'd ask me about Spits and trust that I was telling him the truth as best I know it.
I certainly would Guppy. BTW I picked up a copy of "SPITFIRE: The History" by Morgan and Shacklady. Excellent book, in fact I hope to emmulate it's style in my FW-190 book. Thank you for the recommendation.
I also picked up AHT. Great book as well. However many of actual flight tested reports I have do not back up the traditional views of the P38. For a twin engine fighter, it was outstanding. The only twin which could even compete with single engine fighters of the day. In that arena it was not completely outclassed but I definately think there was no prejudice on the ETO's part in regulating the P 38 to other duties besides pure fighter. The other USAAF fighters were simply much better.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp:
You're throwing bits and pieces of data out there but need to put it all together. It'll take me a little bit of time but I'll try another attempt at explaining it with a little bit of math. Stay tuned :).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
wow, cant believe i just read all this.
i may be wrong, but does any other plane in AH suffer as frequently from autoretract as the 38? i know i dont get it to often, but i dont typically fly it that way. i also know i dont ever suffer from it in a 190 or 109, spit, etc...
i may also be wrong here, but i dont think the suggestions from other threads were meant for 38 alone, ie. instead of autoretract have damage instead. i know there were some 38 sticks asking for this to begin with and not RAF or LW sticks, but i thought it was a suggestion for across the board. so why all the drama? its not like it was implemented or thought about by anyone that matters.
just this not so well known 38 sticks 2 cents. :aok
oh, i didnt interpret other suggestions as a "raise deployment speed" either. sorry :(
-
I don't see anyone asking for flap deployment speeds to be raised, anywhere.
Modelling damage for exceeding their speed limits, yes, but anything more, no at all.
Kweassa, it's all in how you WANT to perceive what they are saying. To me, it is clear as day.
Simply put, if you are a bonehead and overstress the flaps, damage them and make them inoperable, not able to be retracted, etc.....but take away the auto-retract. It's a crutch, and takes away from the game, IMO. It "bonehead proofs" the planes, which is a good thing for newbies, but is a PIA for guys who know how to fly their planes to the edge of the envelope.
Ever forgot to retract your landing gear after takeoff? They break off or are damaged.
In my eyes, a similiar damage system for flaps is all ack ack and others are asking for.
To me, it would add to the realism and immersion, having to keep track of your speed while you fight.
They aren't asking for extras, they are asking for realism.
While we are at it, I say they should enable flaps on ALL planes to be deployed at any speed. Deploy them at too great and speed and hear them crack or pop and become damaged.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Guppy, yes that does answer my question.. but it does fuel more confusion as well. As it is, the summary of facts you've come up with seems to support both sides of the issue in this particular thread to an equal extent.
Perhaps, arguably, supports my view on this even more.. because despite the few examples you've kindly brought up, your answers given to my question seems to contradict your earlier view that flap practice was for the norm.
What I mean by this is, I am guessing you've brought up those pilot quotes at the previous post, to make a point that flap usage was not just limited to a few ace pilots... but it seems that if it wasn't a recommended tactic, even for the P-38, but still the pilots tended to attempt certain tactical maneuvers and device usage...
It indicates that it wasn't really about the plane itself, but about what kind of mentality towards general aircombat doctrine the P-38 pilots themselves held.. and upto a certain point, indicate somewhat 'reckless' behavior in part of the P-38 pilots. Another interesting tidbit that might be brought up in this discussion is the reports of one Harold Rau, which had been sent to his superiors in June of '44, which was posted on the boards some time ago.
It seems to show that quite contrary to the general satisfaction the PTO pilots had with their P-38s, there's a strong resentment against the P-38 in the ETO. As much as there were strong advocates for the particular plane, there seems to be equally as many objections against the plane in the USAAF during that time - on grounds of being 'not fit for the average pilot'.
Clearly, flap use for combat was not advocated nor recommended amongst the pilots of all the airforces, especially when the immediate attention was drawn upon how one may simplify the combat process so that the experience level required for someone to become an effective combat wasn't too high.
The tendency, SOME P-38 pilots, and ace pilots as well, had regarding this issue, goes against the basics of evolution of aircombat. And while no doubt for some of them it proved to be a success, it still wasn't something the average pilot would be willing to do.
In the end, while I'd accept that more than just aces were willing to take such action, it still doesn't seem to justify the claims that using flaps for aggressive combat purposes were a normal thing to happen, even amongst P-38s.
I think the conclusion drawn is that combat flaps were used by more then just Aces in close in combat situations. The last 370th combat report I quoted shows that relatively low time 38 driver using the flaps to get inside the turn of that 109 so he could get the shot on target.
And I still don't know what we're debating :) I don't know that anyone has said flaps were used for aggresive combat purposes. They did get used in combat situations and ACM situations.
I don't think any fighter pilot would give up his speed advantage when his life was really on the line, yet I think that faced with a situation like that young 38 driver from the 370th, he used to tools he had to keep the 109 from getting deflection and to turn the tables to where he was able to down the 109.
As for the 38 in the ETO, remember that it was 8th AF that phased out the 38 and that didn't completly happen until August/September 44. The 9th soldiered on with the 38 and thought the 38 was fine. The 370th pilots DID NOT want to transition to the 51 but had to give them up as the 474th won the argument to keep 38s which they flew until the end of the war in the ETO
I think the conclusion you could draw was that the Hs and early Js were not suited to the high alt escort mission when they arrived in the ETO. With production of the 51 being a cheaper and faster proposition it made sense on a larger scale to focus on the 51 in the escort role. I don't think there is any question that the J-25 and L models would have done fine in the escort role but the decision had been made to go with the 51. The 38 also soldiered on in the MTO until the end of the war with the 1st, 14th and 82nd FGs with the 82nd claiming roughly 550 air to air kills. This matches up well with the 51 groups out of England or the Med. The 1st wasn't far behind that.
I also still would suggest that the airwar fought by those 9th AF 38 drivers comes closest to the cyber airwar we fight in AH. It's not high alt, it's often on the deck and it's not really a pure air to air war.
But I also think we've beaten it into the ground again :)
Hows about we find something else to discuss?
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
ps)
as a ps, I'd like to point out that I SPECIFICALLY remember Ack mentioning that if the flaps would be just jammed stuck when they exceeded the limit speeds, "at least the flap effects would stay and the pilot would be able to stay through the course of his action, instead of stall out".
In my view, that's another way of saying;
"I don't care if they will become jammed stuck. If they don't autoretract, I'll at least be able to shoot the target down and rtb with stuck flaps.. instead of having to watch my speed and bugger out if I can't hold back my speed any longer"
..
Sounds like 'raise the limits please, I don't really care if the real pilots were worried about their speed. I just want to use my flaps this way so I can benefit from its effects' to me.
Too bad you attributed that quote to the wrong person. Please post the link to the thread with me supposedly saying that.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by dtango
It'll take me a little bit of time but I'll try another attempt at explaining it with a little bit of math. [/B]
dtango,
Well, actually the graph below shows nicely how at higher Cl values, the use of the flaps results lower drag for given Cl value ie results better turning performance. Basicly it proves your point, no maths needed ;)
Besides, the effect of the fowler flaps is not counted.
gripen
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1114651048_flapdrag.jpg)
-
Hi kweassa. Just making sure Im understanding you correctly.
Are you agreeing that flap usage in combat was recommended for the P-38 at the 8deg setting, but only for as long as it was needed to complete the maneuver, and within the specified speed range, Hanger Flying issue 6 (http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm) and just probing for how often such a situation actually arose?
The above described deployment of flaps doesnt appear in any way uncommon. When you get to prolonged use and low speeds it does seem more dependant on certian pilot personalities as you said, but Im also browsing through some MTO escort stuff here where fights just evolved into that situation. Which brings to mind a distingushing factor of the ETO. ETO escort duties for the P-38 required long flights over enemy held land. I like how Mark Shipment (who went from MTO to ETO) put it "...and we went back to the primary business of busting up the big threatening gaggles". They were effectively teathered to their bombers, and were not to pursue the enemy once they were not a threat to the bombers. Hence the degenerating 20k to the deck battles never evolved. By the time the situation on the ground changed where escorts could be released to 'targets of opportunity' at some point during the mission, it was 51s and not 38's doing the escorting.
At any rate I can agree in part with what you were saying about McGuire specifically, and those around him. For instance another Tilly quote regarding McGuire ""Mac told those under his command never to turn with an enemy fighter in the heavy 38 but he did it anyway with great sucess, particularly at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90 mph." And more of Jeffrey Ethell quoting him, "Although dogfighting in the Lightning was often played down officially, it was more common than not. Tilley remembered 'most of our fights with the Japanese started out above 20,000 feet but damned soon everyone was milling around on the deck. And that lovely Lightning just didn't have any competition at low altitude. Ive flown the P-51 (liked it very much) and the P-47 (disliked it very much), and Ive engaged in mock dogfights against just about all our WWII fighter planes. The only one the ole Lockheed Rocking Chair and I had trouble staying behind was a pretty savvy Navy type in an F4f Wildcat."
For the most part, in my opinion, the fights that either devolved to or started on the deck were prone to situations where 38 pilots used their flaps. I think its more a matter of situation than tendancy of particular pilots across the theaters as a whole.
-
Originally posted by killnu
i know there were some 38 sticks asking for this to begin with and not RAF or LW sticks, but i thought it was a suggestion for across the board. so why all the drama? its not like it was implemented or thought about by anyone that matters.
That is correct. I suggested an opt-out for ARF, just like you can opt-out of the stall limiter. That would apply for all planes, not just one.
-
The last 370th combat report I quoted shows that relatively low time 38 driver using the flaps to get inside the turn of that 109 so he could get the shot on target.
He used flaps correctly. Oscar Boesch, Heinz Orlowski, and several other members of JG 5 all told me they used flaps in exactly the same manner Lockheed recommends. They were dropped to gain angle and quickly retracted. Oscar flew the 109 up until 1943 and used flaps in every hard dogfight he got into throughout the war.
He outturned a P 51D in the Ardennes Offensive using them. (http://www.oldgloryprints.com/War%20Wolf.htm)
The planes in the background are an entire squadron of P 51D's that bounced the 8 members of his staffle.
What we are debating is the realism of dropping flaps and leaving them down for the whole fight. That is not how fighter pilots used them. In AH you can continue to drop flaps for several notches and gain sustained turn benefits. I did it yesterday in a P 47D-25 in the CT. At three notches of flap I was easily outmaneuvering a Bf-109F4.
The side debate came about when Ack-Ack and Murdr claimed they never asked to raise the limits. They certainly did and I am not the only one who noticed it.
I think:
1. The "sim" should penalize pilots for improper use of flaps if we are going to simulate WWII air-to-air combat. Not targeting the P 38, it should apply to all flaps within their design parameters. With a few exceptions they are all pretty close though.
2. Multiple notches of flap or large degrees of flap are completely unrealistic. Only time I have ever heard of WWII pilots dropping full flap in combat was F4U corsairs to force an overshoot. I cannot confirm that is even true. All maneuver flaps are in the ballpark of 10 degrees.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by dtango
If Widewing is saying that for ALL cases where you have prolonged turning with flaps in a P-38 resulting in degraded turn performance than he would be incorrect too. This is only true for a given dynamic energy state.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
In cases where flaps are deployed beyond 50%, you have greatly limited your ability to regain energy. Maneuver flap setting generated a substantial amount of lift, yet without a serious drag penalty, so that setting could be used as long as you wanted or needed. However, you will have limited your acceleration as well and would be working the elevator trim a lot as increases and decreases in airspeed will have a greater effect on trim, at least according to P-38 pilots I have spoken with.
As it is in the game, flaps are used to gain angles, pull lead and get positional advantage as well as defensively. Prolonged use means that you will be slow for an extended period, making you more vulnerable to any other enemy aircraft that may turn up.
Another factor is which kind of aircraft are you engaged with. Zeros, Hurricanes and Spitfire Vs present a serious challenge at low speeds. However, maintain your E advantage and they are not especially troublesome. On the other hand, 109G-10s and Doras are very capable at medium to high speeds, so these are the guys you want to get turning.
By the way, Republic defines the flaps on the P-47 as "NACA Slotted Types", whereas the P-38's flaps are classified as Lockheed-Fowler Types".
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Murdr
That is correct. I suggested an opt-out for ARF, just like you can opt-out of the stall limiter. That would apply for all planes, not just one.
By the way. HT did see it, (over multiple threads even) and was not moved by the suggestion, so the idea itself is a moot point.
-
Well yes, Murdr.
I'm not saying the flap use impossible, nor how it is used in AH is wrong for that matter. I'm just suspicious about how common it actually was, and what the official views on such uses were inside the squadrons. That's why I had to ask Guppy in such a long winded way(since I had to cover the details..) if any such use can be considered 'the norm'.
One thing that constantly bothers me is how much the pilots would be willing to let go of the HOTAS state and take time to fiddle with gadgets in the cockpit. I've constantly met reports and excerpts that simplifying in-cockpit operation was of supreme importance in real life, which we don't really acknowledge by playing a game.
The USAAF were very confident with the capabilities of their planes, but there is one constant appraisal in every case inspection of LW aircraft that the simplified controls and operations, was an exampled to be followed. The Rau report I've mentioned also gives some insight on how difficult it can be sometimes for rookies or average grade pilots to start getting their plane to combat readiness.
I've also often heard about pilots usually keeping their both hands firm on the stick/handle during combat, and they'd rarely even touch the throttle lever in most cases, much less fiddle with trim wheels or flap switch/levers.
A gamer with a stick can extend/retract flaps, control throttle, kick rudder, adjust trim, and toggle through ordnance options at the same time, but such luxury was not of an option in real life. Most often, if the pilot would fiddle with the throttle too quick the CSU might malfunction or may cause engine detonation. We gamers also pull 3~4 G turns easily with our sticks, but I'm not sure if a real fighter pilot can cope with such G forces on a regular basis with only one hand held to the stick, and I imagine it could have been more difficult with a yoke type of control device such as the P-38 had.
So when it comes to certain, 'advanced' techniques being mentioned as something 'common', I'm quite skeptical about it.
Thus, I had to ask;
..in the case of the P-38s, if indeed, such practices were RELATIVELY more common amidst their ranks, as compared to other pilots of other planes, then it had to be about human influence rather than a characteristic of the plane itself.
How the rookies or average guys would look up to dashing, vocal, leader-type pilots like McGuire or Bong.. and would want to be like him... and try their hand in practicing such techniques. Except, I am suspicious that for every pilot that had success by doing so, countless more others might have perished because he took unnecessary risks that could be simply avoided. And in the end, such reputation would work both ways that the P-38 was highly appraised by who knows how to fly them, but be considered 'not right' for average grade of pilots with very different options or duties assigned to them. When somebody comes up with a remark like, "not everone can fly like Kelsey or Huf", then there's no denying that. Not everyone can fly the P-38 like that.
-
Find cockpit photos & look for white arc
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
He used flaps correctly. Oscar Boesch, Heinz Orlowski, and several other members of JG 5 all told me they used flaps in exactly the same manner Lockheed recommends. They were dropped to gain angle and quickly retracted.
Like I mentioned before, you should take a ride with some of us experienced P-38 pilots in the game. You'll see that we do exactly just that. We don't just immediately drop flaps to full and fly around like that in a fight. We use them when needed and if no longer needed to complete the maneuver or gain the angle we need, we retract them. I don't want to be wallowing around one the deck low and slow with faster bogies around me and I certainly don't fly around with flaps always deployed. But then you just see what you want to see and nothing more.
What we are debating is the realism of dropping flaps and leaving them down for the whole fight. That is not how fighter pilots used them. In AH you can continue to drop flaps for several notches and gain sustained turn benefits. I did it yesterday in a P 47D-25 in the CT. At three notches of flap I was easily outmaneuvering a Bf-109F4.
The side debate came about when Ack-Ack and Murdr claimed they never asked to raise the limits. They certainly did and I am not the only one who noticed it.[/b]
We've asked for you to show us where see say we want a raising of the limits but you fail to come up with any proof of us saying such a thing. You know why? Because we've never advocated that. Again, we've advocated that the auto-retracting flaps be changed to a system that will model damage to the flaps from the stress caused by over speeding when the flaps are deployed past their rating. This is in no way advocating a raising of the flap deployed limits to fly around with flaps fully deployed without any consequence.
I think:
1. The "sim" should penalize pilots for improper use of flaps if we are going to simulate WWII air-to-air combat. Not targeting the P 38, it should apply to all flaps within their design parameters. With a few exceptions they are all pretty close though.[/b]
Kind of funny how that's what we've been advocating all along. If you misuse your flaps, you pay the price for doing so. If you have your flaps out beyond 250mph then you run the very likely hood of damaging your flaps from over speeding if you don't raise them. Or if you leave them out for extended periods at low speeds, then you run the very likely hood of being shot down because you screwed up and left the flaps deployed too long and now are a wallowing fat, slow whale on the deck ready for anyone to come along and shoot your arse down.
But then, you'll just see this as more proof that we want to raise the limits because like I mentioned, you just see want you want to see and nothing more.
ack-ack
-
If you have your flaps out beyond 250mph then you run the very likely hood of damaging your flaps from over speeding if you don't raise them.
You also have the chance of getting away with it under your system.
How can you not see that as asking to raise the limits???
We've asked for you to show us where see say we want a raising of the limits but you fail to come up with any proof of us saying such a thing.
Can't help that your in denial.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Woops, a fubar on my part.
My deepest apologies to Ack. It was Tac who made the comment, not Ack;
I still say that increasing the autoretract speed by 100mph (I said AUTORETRACT, not that players can deploy flaps 100mph above that what they can now) BUT making the plane shake like a compressed mofo during those 100mph is the best solution.
If my plane shakes I cant shoot, but at least I wont lose my flaps or lose the fight because in a tight turn with 3/4ths flaps down in a knife fight my speed indicator hits the freaking retract tickmark for a split second .. the flap pulls up as im pulling hard on the stick and the plane of course spins out of control and the guy that im about to shoot down suddenly finds a spinning 38 that was on his tail as an easy kill. Nothing can piss you off more than that.
From the 'P38' thread, page 1, post 4 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142353&highlight=flaps)
Kind of funny how that's what we've been advocating all along. If you misuse your flaps, you pay the price for doing so.
And that price is 'auto-retract', currently.
Is that price not enough? Or is it not the type of 'price' you desire? Why is that?
You seem to advocate a 'price' in the form of 'non-retraction, flap jamming' where the flap effects are retained throughout the maneuvering.
HT did reluctantly suggest a different price, in the form of 'flaps breaking off', which would also sufficiently penalize flap misues for ALL planes, in that it would remove flap effects over the limit, albeit permanently. Except no P-38 pilot agrees to this one. They seem to want 'jamming' as an alternative.
Why specifically jamming? Why not auto-retract or breaking off?
That 'why' is self-evident, is it not? It's because if the flaps are jammed tight in that position, the future functionality ceases but the effects(stabilization, lift increase, speed brake) still remains for the time being.
In essence, the effect remains over the speed limit of 250, resulting in limits being increased.
Or, do you have other suggestions or preferences in terms of flap damage model aside jamming, auto-retract, or falling off? I'm guessing you don't. Or at least, not anything which might remove its effects when the set line is crossed.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You also have the chance of getting away with it under your system.
How can you not see that as asking to raise the limits???
Can't help that your in denial.
All the best,
Crumpp
I can't help it if you're blind to anything other than what you want to see. Again, asking for a system that models damage to the flaps from over speeding is hardly asking to raise the limits.
The only dedicated P-38 flyer that I've seen ask for raising the limits was OIO/TAC in an older thread and he's been the only one. For some reason you and Kweassa keep attributing things he said to either Murdr or myself.
I'm serious though about the offer of taking a ride with me in a P-38 sometime and you'll see how I use the flaps and you'll realize that you were mistaken on how we use them in the P-38 and will find that we use them just like how our RL counter-parts did. After all, most of the training stuff I've read to learn how to fly the P-38 were RL manuals. I don't "game the game" with the flaps, don't need to.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You also have the chance of getting away with it under your system.
How can you not see that as asking to raise the limits???
Can't help that your in denial.
All the best,
Crumpp
Crumpp, you are still missing the point of what they are suggesting.
Using an example from what happened to a couple of 15th FG Mustangs over Japan
"Lining up the Betty in their sights, the two Mustangs began to fire bursts as they plummeted past the 505 mph air speed redline. At a point near pull out, with the air speed indicators near 600 mph, both planes entered compressibility. Thomas's plane suddenly disintigrated, the wings folding back and pieces flying off.
Sparks was also about to transcend the limits of aerodynamic pressure. "I lost complete control. The stick was flopping around between my knees, beating the hell out of me."
As Sparks reached the moment of critical "flutter" and observed Thomas' Mustang shatter, he instinctively pulled back on his throttle. The buffeting stopped but the Mustang turned sideways and continued its rapid descent. With the stick in the pit of his stomach, fighting the rudder pedals to correct the slide, he began to pull out.
Hayden Sparks had escaped the crushing dynamics of compressibility and had recovered use of his control surfaces just before he had run out of sky. He made it back to Iwo Jima, but his P51 was junked. Most of it's rivits had pulled loose."
My point being, that two identical aircraft, one being flown by the Group Commander and experience pilot in Jack Thomas, and one flown by his wingman Hayden Sparks, experienced the same thing. Thomas's plane came apart, Sparks came home.
They both crossed the threshold of what the manual says. One paid the ultimate price and one didn't.
Suggesting some randomness to exceeding max flap speed would be the same thing. You cross the line knowing that bad things more then likely will happen, just like those two real life 51 drivers.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
I have not read Bongs biography, so my knowlege of his tactics are limited to what was mentioned elsewhere. What I have read has him E fighting much more than turn fighting. Dont have it handy now, but I recall a pilot that flew with Bong remarking he had uncanny eyesight. Bong told him they had a bogie following them and the pilot followed Bong for several minutes on the new course before he could see the bogie. From that Id conclude Bong had amazing SA also.
Again though, my impression is they used flaps in situations where they had too. If you were bounced on the deck, what choice did you have. How common was that though? I would think it was highly dependant on what squadron they were in. Some American pilots never encountered enemy fighters in the air, while others encountered multiple flights in one sortie.
Of course in AH it is much more common to find yourself boxed in a situation you wouldnt have chosen, and still rely on the same tactics.
The ergonomics in the cockpit is an interesting point. You mentioned Rau's report, in that he detailed the multiple steps the pilot had to go through to ready for combat. The 474th shot cut that process by ganging switches together and moving them to the control column. One nice thing about the flap lever itself, is that you could slide your right arm down the bent control column arm and the lever was just beside the bend. Forward of the flap lever are just circuit breakers, and aft, but lower is the radio. The other potruding control levers are on the left side. It is the only flight control on the right sidewall and very conveinently placed. It appears to be placed in an ideal position to find and operate.
-
Guppy, randomness is a source of all sorts of problems in a game.
That's not a what-if. It's a fact.
Take the 88mms for example. People can't stand the fact that a random burst chance of a 88mm killed them in a single ping. I get killed by 88mms something like only once a month or so, and I imagine it really can't be that different to others, except others just cannot cope with the fact that some randomness caused them death.
When random chances dwell inside the game, unlike RL there is a strong tendency for people to dwell in risky business. It's like internet card games with fake money. When playing poker or blackjack on the internet, most people take bets and risk chances that they'd never do in real life. They'd say, "hit me" when the cards are reading already "19" in a black jack game, because there is nothing to lose.
In a sense this draws out a certain need to regulate the conditions, albeit artificially if necessary, so the illusion of the game remain true to the real life combat doctrines in a sense.
If a random chance is involved with something like flap usage, people will risk that chance aggressively, unlike in real life. If for any reason the random probability itself is a low one(like 88mm hits) then the scope of the game could be warped and twisted. If the random chance is too high, then the 'randomness' is useless.
Whatever the case, people will complain about it, and much more harshly. They will come up with complaints that somebody was able to pull 50mph over the limit without failure, and they themselves met problems the moment it crossed 1mph over the limit.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and very clearly. And that line, as HTC sees fit, is the flight manuals. Crumpp's being mentioning 109s or 190s using flaps upto 400mph, except there's currently no real documented technical evidence that it's possible - and that's why I can't support it. I'd love to see it, but if the planes I like must remain under its documented limits, there is no ther way. That's about as much I expect from the great experienced P-38 pilots you, Ackack, Murdr, Tac and etc etc..
-
Kweassa, and others,
The thing you all seem to be missing is......IF you damage your flaps, you are not going to be able to get back up to speed, you are going to limit what you can and cannot do from that point on.
That's the thing I cannot understand how folks can miss.....I have in the past forgotten to raise my flaps and felt like a total doofus when my plane would not accelerate back up to speed. Raised them and the plane started accelerating normally again. If you damage them and they are in a deployed position, they will cause drag and not allow your plane to reach normal speeds, thus your boneheadedness narrowed your flight envelope.
Just having the flap rip off would not much of a penalty. Just keep fast and don't turn and you would be alright.
As a note, those who remember when I was an AH regular know that my favorite plane was not the Lightning, it was the P-47, so I cannot be considered a pure Lightning advocate. And I also would like to see the damaged flaps on ALL planes, including my beloved Jugs.
Crumpp,
Who was the 109F4 pilot?
There are too many variables in fights for anyone to just make a blanket statement about what could have or might have happened in your situation.
I've been in a lightly loaded Jug and surprised a few 109 and 190 pilots, and been in the other seat, in a 109 and got shot down by the heavier Jug.
IMHO, it all depends on who is flying the other plane, what is the fuel state of each plane, altitude, etc.
From what you say and from my own stick time in the Jugs and other planes, you were pretty slow. Don't know how slow the 109 was, but a pilot with any experience would have taken you vertical in the fight and gained the upperhand relatively quickly, assuming you, in the Jug, had no altutude under you to convert back into speed. I've messed around in the MA in the 109F4 before, and the thing is amazing......I am not a good 109 pilot by any means, but I remember commenting to hblair that I could not believe how steep the thing climbed......even at 100mph I was holding a tight spiral turn and the thing was climbing far faster than a Jug can at that same speed, even with 3 notches of flaps out.
I am gonna HAVE to find some pedals and get back into the arenas. This time off is killing me.....:(
-
Murdr's hitting it on the head. Very dependent on the situation.
Looking through all the 38 group histories I have, I only see the 370th mentioning flaps use often and they are down low and always the one getting bouced as their job was ground attack, not air to air.
Since putting the nose down to gain speed isn't much of an option at 1000 feet, I imagine any edge you can get in the turn is going to help as those guys showed.
I asked two real 38 drivers about this today and this is their response. Both flew early model 38s F.G Hs and didn't use the combat flaps.
First comment is from Marion Kirby, an 80th Headhunter and later an ace with the 475th FG in the Pacific.
"From what I have heard my old tent mate, Tommie McGuire, got very proficient using flaps in combat...BUT HE IS DEAD AND I AM ALIVE... "
Kinda speaks volumes to what Kweassa was asking.
Second from Robert Vrilakas, who's been putting up with my 38 questions since my AW days. He flew with the 1st FG in the MTO
"All that the combat flap feature amounted to was that it positioned the regular landing flaps as a specific position. Can't remember exactly, but it was somewhere between 10 and 20 degrees. This did permit a better turning radius, but at the expense of airspeed because they caused more drag.
We avoided combat involving tight turns with the enemy, because most e/a could turn inside of us. Sometimes it became unavoidable and, in my view, that would be the only time they might be used. I don't think there was a general feeling among P-38 pilots that the combat flap provided sufficient additional turning radius to provide an edge over a 109 or 190. The procedure you mentioned of droping combat flaps and turning when attacked may have been used, but it would be very difficult to coordinate this when turning a flight into an attack. Varied application of the flaps would pretty much break up a formation flight of 4, or even 2, aircraft.
The dive brake, which was introduced on the L model was a much more practical device and would have been invaluable on the earlier models when they were engaged in more air to air combat. "
First impression is that obviously the use of the flaps was with the later model Js and Ls. That would explain the common use by the 370th FG guys down low anyway. They started in Js
Just more food for thought
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
HT did reluctantly suggest a different price, in the form of 'flaps breaking off', which would also sufficiently penalize flap misues for ALL planes, in that it would remove flap effects over the limit, albeit permanently. Except no P-38 pilot agrees to this one. They seem to want 'jamming' as an alternative.
Why specifically jamming? Why not auto-retract or breaking off?
That 'why' is self-evident, is it not? It's because if the flaps are jammed tight in that position, the future functionality ceases but the effects(stabilization, lift increase, speed brake) still remains for the time being.
We discussed that too. I, and Cobra wanted to see whatever the realistic damage would be for that particular flap type. I think akak and savage were also fine with that idea.
As of now all we get is jamming. You may visually see a flap shot off a plane in AH, but as far as the FM is concerned that flap is jamed in place. If the flap was retracted at the time of damage, those 2 things are consistant. However if I have my flaps down, and you and I both see you shoot it off, my plane will fly as if its still there jammed in the extended position. That is not a major problem for me until I need to change the flap setting. If I exceed the speed of that setting the good flap will auto-retract, giving me asemetrical lift, and a plane that is virtually incapable of making combat maneuvers. That may be part of why jamming is assumed.
-
The thing you all seem to be missing is......IF you damage your flaps, you are not going to be able to get back up to speed, you are going to limit what you can and cannot do from that point on.
That's the thing I cannot understand how folks can miss.....I have in the past forgotten to raise my flaps and felt like a total doofus when my plane would not accelerate back up to speed. Raised them and the plane started accelerating normally again. If you damage them and they are in a deployed position, they will cause drag and not allow your plane to reach normal speeds, thus your boneheadedness narrowed your flight envelope.
Just having the flap rip off would not much of a penalty. Just keep fast and don't turn and you would be alright.
eddie, I fully understand that. But the problem is the overall situation concerning flap use. Like the great AH P-38 pilots mention, if the flap autoretracts it is often very deadly in some cases. It could be quite stable in flat turns, but imagine the same thing happening when you attempt a split-S under 1k altitude.
The problem is this;
In such a dangerous situation, would real pilots do it? I'm willing to bet that they'd dare not. Would game pilots do it? If the flap effects were retained, despite flap jamming, and they see a certain need to do so, then they'd do it.
Currently, autoretract, its unstability, forces a certain amount of decorum and carefulness, even hesitation, before pilots would dare attempt such a thing. Because, it cannot be trusted. They could try to contain their speed under 250 IAS with very tight radius, or they might fail in the process and the flaps would retract, causing a spectacular crash. This uncertainty offers a certain risk which people would not want to dwell upon.
However, a 1vs1 situation rises, and this great pilot(it could be any plane) sees an opportunity. If he can pull through a certain very risky tight maneuver, he'll have a great chance in shooting the enemy down. The time comes for that split-S. What will the pilot do? If he is confident that that single maneuver will ensure him the kill, he'll engage the flaps, just let it get jammed stuck, and will attempt the dangerous move because he knows that the flaps can be totally trusted - it loses all future functionality, but its effects remain intact for that situation.
The problem is not the 'harshness' of it all. The problem is the immediate effects - upto which point should the flaps retain its effects? Should the effects be forcibly be cancelled out if the limit is crossed? Or should the effects be maintained with 'jamming' as the price to pay?
If the 'price' is considered lower than the effect, then people won't care if its jammed or not. It is because with the autoretraction that a certain level of uncertainty exists, that people may be hesitant to enter combat recklessly.
HTC chose the former, and I think they are right.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Guppy, randomness is a source of all sorts of problems in a game.
That's not a what-if. It's a fact.
Take the 88mms for example. People can't stand the fact that a random burst chance of a 88mm killed them in a single ping. I get killed by 88mms something like only once a month or so, and I imagine it really can't be that different to others, except others just cannot cope with the fact that some randomness caused them death.
When random chances dwell inside the game, unlike RL there is a strong tendency for people to dwell in risky business. It's like internet card games with fake money. When playing poker or blackjack on the internet, most people take bets and risk chances that they'd never do in real life. They'd say, "hit me" when the cards are reading already "19" in a black jack game, because there is nothing to lose.
In a sense this draws out a certain need to regulate the conditions, albeit artificially if necessary, so the illusion of the game remain true to the real life combat doctrines in a sense.
If a random chance is involved with something like flap usage, people will risk that chance aggressively, unlike in real life. If for any reason the random probability itself is a low one(like 88mm hits) then the scope of the game could be warped and twisted. If the random chance is too high, then the 'randomness' is useless.
Whatever the case, people will complain about it, and much more harshly. They will come up with complaints that somebody was able to pull 50mph over the limit without failure, and they themselves met problems the moment it crossed 1mph over the limit.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and very clearly. And that line, as HTC sees fit, is the flight manuals. Crumpp's being mentioning 109s or 190s using flaps upto 400mph, except there's currently no real documented technical evidence that it's possible - and that's why I can't support it. I'd love to see it, but if the planes I like must remain under its documented limits, there is no ther way. That's about as much I expect from the great experienced P-38 pilots you, Ackack, Murdr, Tac and etc etc..
I have no problem with the system as it is now. Hitech seemed clear he wasn't changing it in that other thread.
I posted it as an example of what AKAK and others were suggesting. It wasn't to raise the limit, but to acknowledge that the line was not absolute. In searching for more realism the idea of random failure if they passed the 250 mark was what was being suggested. And again, these guys are not abusing flaps at all so trying to imply(And I'm not suggesting you are) that there is some gaming the game to it, doesn't fit for them. They are class acts in the game, and don't need to game the game to do what they do in 38s
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Widewing:
=======
I agree with your statements including the tactical philosophy. I'm just trying to make sure people don't get mislead by Crumpp's when it comes to technical aerodynamics regarding effects of flaps on turn performance.
Gripen:
=====
:) - Good point. Unfortunately Crumpp doesn't see it. I'm having trouble trying to come up with a different way to help him see it. I thought the EM chart (even if it basis analysis of a sim) would illustrate the principle to him but it didn't.
This is my last attempt. My wife is getting on me for the diversion this is causing me for the evening!
Crumpp:
======
Let's assume a P-38 with the following parameters:
* sea level
* 17,500 lbs
* 52 ft wing span
* 327.5 ft^2 wing area
* 98 mph 1g stall speed clean
* Clmax = 2.16 clean
* CD0=.027
* BHP=2850 hp Mil power (2 x 1450 hp)
* PE =.75
Let's evaluate the excess-power margin at a couple of different airspeeds at 1g level flight, clean configuration:
098 mph: 2138 hp - 559 hp = 1579 hp excess power (this is at Clmax)
120 mph: 2138 hp - 544 hp = 1593 hp excess power
150 mph: 2138 hp - 617 hp = 1520 hp excess power
170 mph: 2138 hp - 721 hp = 1461 hp excess power
200 mph: 2138 hp - 962 hp = 1175 hp excess power
So what this tells us is that between 98mph - 200mph at military power the P-38 has in the range of 1593hp-1175hp (specific to the velocities in that range) of excess power that could be used to offset additional drag as a result of a turn, dropping flaps, both, or whatever WITHOUT losing any airspeed.
For grins lets assume that with 1 notch of flaps we get the following hypothetical variables for illustrative purposes:
90 mph 1g stall
CD0: tripled due to flap parasite drag (this is a pretty ridiculously high assumption but good for illustrative purposes)
Let's evaluate the excess power margin just for our hypothetical Clmax case at 90 mph 1 notch flaps deployed:
90 mph: 2138 hp - 648 hp = 1489 hp excess-power
With even our ridiculously high tripled CD0 values we're in the neighborhood of having 1489 hp in excess that could be used for a turn without losing any airspeed. In another words I could hold a turn that resulted in an induced drag--> additional power required of 1489 hp INDEFINITELY at 90 mph with 1 notch of flaps.
We could get into a lot more precision etc. but it wouldn't change the principle of this illustrative example.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Guppy, thanks for your troubles. Some very goud source of info there.
Murdr(and Guppy too, again,),
Once Ack asked me "what are you I afraid of?"
Was I afraid that the P-38 would become a super plane? No, ofcourse not. I already have troubles in facing P-38s and their excellent pilots, so whether it becomes more proficient or not is not much of a concern to me, since I suck anyway.
If there is something I am afraid about, is like mentioned in the other flap threads. To paraphrase Murphy's Law, "If there is room for abuse, then people will abuse it".
At that thread I mentioned IL2/FB. In a sense, IL2/FB flap depiction is a combination of Tac's suggestion + 'jamming' as an alternative. What happens in that game, is when people start a fight from high speeds then they will mandatorily engage flaps to get an edge in the first merge.
If things go bad, and there are some friendlies nearby, people will engage landing gears and flaps and just let them jam or break away. It becomes a miracle working speed brake. The plane behind you will overshoot, and while your friendlies come to your aid you can run off and go belly land your plane in that miserable condition.
All planes in that game, flop around at all kinds of speeds, because people can engage flaps at all speeds. Even if the flaps are jammed, its effect still remains. All planes fly with a state of increased stability in low speed maneuvers.
In a sense, that's more 'realistic'. But in the general combat sense, that's purely gaming-the-game.
We can't do any of that in AH because it is prohibited by the system. And despite the frustration of its limitations, it keeps the game realistic in the situational sense, not technical sense. Technical realism is IL2/FB, which, because of it such a great game in so many ways have been ruined so.
I'm sure experts like you guys wouldn't abuse it, because ultimately, it does more harm than good in the long term. But what of the general public? The rookies and averagers? If I had to chase down a P-38 and then see him starting an incredible speed reduction and causing an overshoot by just popping out flaps and letting it get jammed, then that would be more frustrating then anything else combined.
You can't do that - risk damage purposely to achieve a specific combat goal(such as pursuit or evasion) - in the current AH because the system will not let you.
But what if it lets you?
You or Guppy, Ack, killnU, or others won't do that. But what of the rest? The rest of the dweebey dorks in P-38s that auger lawndart? In a multi-engagement environment, I see a certain plane that is flying at certain speed. I know he can't just miraculously slow down at a certain rate, so I retain certain speed to take a shot at him and then get away.. except he sees me, and just pops a flap and enters a really tight turn which he wasn't able to do before, since the speed limit was inadequate.
That kind of thing, is what I'm afraid of.
And it, happens.
-
So what I'm saying is, unless there is some other alternative to make sure that people don't game the game in that manner, the current limits have to be maintained.
Purely theoretical question, but what if the pilot had to pay heavy prices for the damages his plane has sustained when he lands? That would probably make sure nobody would just willingly damage their plane systems for the sake of a single combat.
-
I doubt it would be an issue with 38 jocks if the accelerated stall was consistant with this.
Tony Levier: One of the finest characteristics of the '38 is the accelerated stall. Such stalls, accompanied by normal buffeting, occur on any ship when the angle of attack is increased to the point that the airflow over the wing becomes turbulent.
As you know, this can happen in sharp turns, pull-outs or other severe maneuvers. The '38 is designed to take the buffeting of the stall and has no tendency to fall off on either wing at any altitude. If combat necessitates, you can hold it in the accelerated stall as long as you can take the buffeting -- the ship will take it much longer. To get out of an accelerated stall immediately, ease up on the stick, permitting the airflow to reestablish normal lift.
As it is, and acclerated stall in the 38 is virtually and instant spin. If I induce and acclerated stall, I get enough feedback from the plane to avoid the accompanying spin. When auto-retract does it you dont get that feedback.
I did find at least one incident where the 38 reacted exactly like it does in AH. Of course the pilot was on his first combat sortie, didnt train on the 38 before he left the states, and did not know he was being bounced until he realized he was being shot at. He tried to pull a split-s, went into a spin he couldnt recover from and bailed out.
The last I talked to a 38 pilot he told me pretty much what is quoted above. Savage has much more pilot/documented resources than I and confirms that also.
Im not whining about it. Thats the way it is, and its better than the AH1 model. I use it to my advantage when I can. Just saying, cause and effect as far as the AFR subject.
-
Try this one Murdr,
While hunting for info on the flaps I came across a comment by an 82nd FG P38 pilot regarding something he did in combat. He's flying a P38G in the action he's describing.
"I was in a maximum performance turn to the left and extreme cross controlled skid to the right. This was a trick I had learned and used in combat many times. When enemy fighters were trying to hit me I would bank violently while cross-controlling, standing on the inside rudder and racking the aircraft into a turn. This caused the plane to slide sidewise and fly erratically in a somewhat different flight path from the direction it appeared to be going. This technique probably saved my life again, because even though all four enemy aircraft were right on top of me and the water just below was churning from cannon and machine gun fire, they all missed completely-Thank God!"
His attackers were Me 109s and like those 370th guys he was on the deck.
Wonder if he was the original stick stirrer? :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
:) Deceptive skids are a wonderful thing, at times Ive went from trying not to get shot to hoping I dont get rear ended.
Good find. Thx
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Guppy, randomness is a source of all sorts of problems in a game.
Which was the 2nd reason HiTech stated for not adding such a system for the flaps. Curious though since he did have such a system in Warbirds.
ack-ack
-
Hawk 75 could & did outturn 109 in battle of France, is this correct? outroll to. Yrs ago saw something on this. Hydraulics mentioned too for Hawk.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1114651002_flaps.jpg)
nice image. Let´s consider it based on some measurments though they write drag estimations.
It confirms what i said about the drawbacks of a fowler:
- It has the highest lift
- It has much more drag than a split or plain flap
this can be seen by the L/D value, which is equivalent to cl/cd . Becaue the fowler has approx. 50% higher Cl value, with same value of Lift to drag the CD (drag coefficient) must be also 50% higher than that of a plain or split flap!!!!! And i bet at lower deflections the plain and split flap have way better L/D values!
- the pitch down moment
The fowler has by far the highest momentum coefficient Cm. Imagine: in a 4G turn your weight is 4 times higher, thus the moment due to the backshift of COL!! you have to compensate this by your elevator, in case of a fowler i doubt that you are strong enough at 250mph!
But P-38 in AH are ridicolous anyway, even without flaps they already have lift coefficients of over 1.6.... Though you never should forget that wing area includes the area covered by the body and engine cells, and a twin fighter has three intersections where no lift is actually produced. So effective wing area is lower, what in turn means that when you base the lift on effective wing area the corresponding lift coefficient without flaps of the P-38 in AH is probably 20% higher than for any other fighter lol.
Lol you can hang 70° banked in a turn below 150mph with flaps that has nothing to do with reality.
niklas
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
thinks so, smoke in cockpit and bailed out only to fall face first into the ground. I guess he had parachute problems, crappy way to go. I wonder if anyone else shot down 8 planes in 10 minutes like he did once?
ack-ack
He was clipped by his tail plane as he bailed out.
-
Originally posted by niklas
nice image. Let´s consider it based on some measurments though they write drag estimations.
It confirms what i said about the drawbacks of a fowler:
- It has the highest lift
- It has much more drag than a split or plain flap
this can be seen by the L/D value, which is equivalent to cl/cd . Becaue the fowler has approx. 50% higher Cl value, with same value of Lift to drag the CD (drag coefficient) must be also 50% higher than that of a plain or split flap!!!!! And i bet at lower deflections the plain and split flap have way better L/D values!
- the pitch down moment
The fowler has by far the highest momentum coefficient Cm. Imagine: in a 4G turn your weight is 4 times higher, thus the moment due to the backshift of COL!! you have to compensate this by your elevator, in case of a fowler i doubt that you are strong enough at 250mph!
But P-38 in AH are ridicolous anyway, even without flaps they already have lift coefficients of over 1.6.... Though you never should forget that wing area includes the area covered by the body and engine cells, and a twin fighter has three intersections where no lift is actually produced. So effective wing area is lower, what in turn means that when you base the lift on effective wing area the corresponding lift coefficient without flaps of the P-38 in AH is probably 20% higher than for any other fighter lol.
Lol you can hang 70° banked in a turn below 150mph with flaps that has nothing to do with reality.
niklas
Propwash over the wings produce lift Lol
Lol Propwash over the rudders increase rudder authority Lol
Lol you write one side of the issue when you obviously know both lol
Lol eat less bacon, read more lololololololololololololoolo lloloo
lloloololololololololollolool lolololol
lolololololololololololololol ololol
ololololololololloloollololol olololol
olollololololololololololollo loollol
lololololoolololloloollololol ololololo
lolololoolololololololllololo lolol
-
Propwash - upwards on one side, down on the other. Don´t overestimate the influence. Turbulent airflow in any case.
Oh and i measured the Cl with engine power as low as possible.
But ok, propwash explains everything in case of the P38 in AH, and Baron Münchhausen didn´t lie when he got out of the sump by pulling on his own hairs as we all know...
niklas
-
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and very clearly. And that line, as HTC sees fit, is the flight manuals. Crumpp's being mentioning 109s or 190s using flaps upto 400mph, except there's currently no real documented technical evidence that it's possible - and that's why I can't support it. I'd love to see it, but if the planes I like must remain under its documented limits, there is no ther way.
We can start with the 109:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1114730082_109flapdeployspeeds.jpg)
But ok, propwash explains everything in case of the P38 in AH, and Baron Münchhausen didn´t lie when he got out of the sump by pulling on his own hairs as we all know...
That's the standard line the P 38 fans through out. The CLmax for the P38 is pretty unremarkable according to the NACA.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0036.gif
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That's the standard line the P 38 fans through out. The CLmax for the P38 is pretty unremarkable according to the NACA.
All the best,
Crumpp
Standard line of the P-38 fans? Care to elaborate?
ack-ack
-
Standard line of the P-38 fans? Care to elaborate?
I have heard that line given many times Ack-Ack. Twin-engine aerodynamics has some unique properties.
A propeller creates thrust by accelerating a large mass of air. Those portions of the wing located directly behind the propeller, are exposed to this accelerated air, and as a result
create more lift than those portions exposed only to the free flow of the atmosphere.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/TMC.htm
The P 38's CL max is certainly on the low side in spite of this phenomenon. Granted induced lift is more pronounced at low speed. I imagine it puts the CL max with the flaps down at around average to slightly below average for a WWII fighter.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I have heard that line given many times Ack-Ack. Twin-engine aerodynamics has some unique properties.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/TMC.htm
The P 38's CL max is certainly on the low side in spite of this phenomenon. Granted induced lift is more pronounced at low speed. I imagine it puts the CL max with the flaps down at around average to slightly below average for a WWII fighter.
All the best,
Crumpp
Heard what line many times? It is true that the lack of torque is one of the reasons for its gentle stall characteristics and can also aid the Lightning in a slow speed fight against a plane with torque in AH. In the reported duel betweel Lowell and a Spitfire pilot, Lowell used a maneuver called the "Cloverleaf" that took advantage of the lack of torque on the P-38 to get an angle on the Spitfire at low speeds because due to torque at the speeds they were fighting at, made it difficult for the Spitfire to gain an angle on Lowell. The Lightnings lack of torque also aids it in it's vertical ability since it doesn't have to waste E fighting torque as it zooms up. So yes, you can say that the lack of torque on the P-38 does have some benefits over planes with torque.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by niklas
But P-38 in AH are ridicolous anyway, even without flaps they already have lift coefficients of over 1.6
niklas
Niklas, Crumpp,
If you are claiming that the lift coefficient is wrong, then the (clean) stall speed of the the AH P-38 must be wrong too ?
-
Stall speed of the P-38 was 75mph IAS and once in a stall it was very gentle and extremely easy to get out of.
ack-ack
-
IAS is not TAS at higher AoA IAS, TAS is always higher. You only can offer the pilot an IAS value because that is the only value he can read from his instruments, but TAS is higher, especially if you do it in a kind of little zoom like in all those zeno videos (lol they knew why they did it that way...And of course every aircraft has a very gentle stall, strange, they were all trainings videos for newbies, maybe it was mentioned so often to give them confidence and take their fear away? I can´t remember a single high speed stall demonstrated in those videos.... Didn´t some P-38 fell out of the sky during manoevers at airshows btw ???)
Even flaps out can influence the airflow so IAS is way off from TAS. External ordinance can change IAS too (FockeWulf mention it)!
niklas
-
Ummm...I think I know the difference between Indicated and True Airspeeds. Someone asked what the stall speed was and I gave the answer in indicated air speed, since that is the speed measurement I use when I fly. External ordnance can also influence TAS since it's adding drag, not just IAS.
And I really do hate to burst your bubble (well, maybe not) but the P-38 did have a very gentle stall characteristic and that's an undisputable fact. And that gentle stall characteristic was helped by having no torque to contend with. For example, the stall characteristics of the P-38 is far better than the Spitfire.
Enjoy...
ack-ack
-
wow i have just read this whole thread and have stinging eye sydrome:eek: I think im going to become a 38 jock as you guys put it. I 've been impessed by how pellik shots me down with so much ease
479th
-
What is the aircraft configuration for that stall speed?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Wait guys when u are in ma im gonna threaten u to punch and bash and challenge to the DA.
I hate arrogant P38 drivers.
Look at my charts they show it so clearly.
:rolleyes:
The p38 suks and every threath about it im gonna say the word, Just as Kurt Tank does every day he speaks to me and im his chosen one.
torque and fowlerflaps don't have anything to with fligh charistics.
A 2000HP single engined planes flys just as easy as a cessna 172.
And training movies where pure propaganda
Im not paranoid
P38 drivers are just cheaters and HTC just got it wrong.
all the best( i really mean that)
-
Lets look at some typical fighter CLmax's under various conditions:
P51D in high speed flight in various altitudes:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1951/naca-tn-2525/index.cgi?page0013.gif
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1951/naca-tn-2525/index.cgi?page0014.gif
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1951/naca-tn-2525/index.cgi?page0015.gif
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1951/naca-tn-2525/
F6F Hellcat in landing configuration and level flight clean condition:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1948/naca-tn-1639/index.cgi?page0020.gif
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1948/naca-tn-1639/index.cgi?thumbnail11#start
In all honesty, the CLmax of the P38 in landing configuration is just plain average to below average for a WWII fighter. Given it's other aerodynamic characteristics I think Dean's assessment in AHT is dead on.
SOME expert pilots could get a very tight turn out of the P38 by using it's stall characteristics or asymmetrical power. Your average pilot could not hope to turn the plane that well. Even with flaps down the P38's turn rate was at best average for a WWII fighter. It was outstanding that a twin engine fighter could even come close to single engine performance and the P 38 is the only fighter to hold this distinction.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Within the prespective of the game, the P-38 is more than a match for the Luftwaffe guys.
Let's look at the P-38J, a mid 1943 aircraft versus all the 109s, 110G-2 and 190s.
P-38J has 68 kills of the 109F-4 and has been killed 43 times.
P-38J has 43 kills of the 109G-2 and has been killed 27 times.
P-38J has 75 kills of the 109G-6 and has been killed 48 times.
P-38J has 265 kills of the 109G-10 and has been killed 245 times.
P-38J has 339 kills of the 110G-2 and has been killed 122 times.
P-38J has 93 kills of the 190A-5 and has been killed 75 times.
P-38J has 156 kills of the 190A-8 and has been killed 108 times.
P-38J has 255 kills of the 190D-9 and has been killed 226 times.
P-38J has 41 kills of the 190F-8 and has been killed 9 times.
Overall, the P-38J has a 1.47:1 K/D against the entire plane set. That's pretty dang good among non-perked fighters.
Looking at the P-38G (my favorite), we see a 1.15:1 K/D against the plane set, which is very good considering this is a mid 1942 fighter.
As for the P-38L, it fares poorly compared to the other two, and not because it is in any way inferior. It's primary use is as a bomb truck, due to hauling 2k in bombs and 10 rockets. Most of the hooples flying the L on "stupidcide missions" exist about as long as a gnat's fart and couldn't fight their way out of a retirement home restroom anyway. As a result, the P-38L shows a 0.73:1 K/D.
I enjoy the P-38s, they are certainly capable.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Wait guys when u are in ma im gonna threaten u to punch and bash and challenge to the DA.
I hate arrogant P38 drivers.
Look at my charts they show it so clearly.
:rolleyes:
The p38 suks and every threath about it im gonna say the word, Just as Kurt Tank does every day he speaks to me and im his chosen one.
torque and fowlerflaps don't have anything to with fligh charistics.
A 2000HP single engined planes flys just as easy as a cessna 172.
And training movies where pure propaganda
Im not paranoid
P38 drivers are just cheaters and HTC just got it wrong.
all the best( i really mean that)
All the good 38 drivers can jump into other turn fighters like the spitV or F6 and still hold their own. They arn't winning by exploiting some bug.
-
When flaps come out lift and drag increase. Increasing lift increases the instentanious turn rate. The loss in speed kills your sustained turn rate.
The 38 is good in this situation because when it can no longer turn it gets to stall fight. At no point is the 38 turning like a zeke with flaps out, it's just turning smarter to exploit the energy difference.
Some of you seem upset that slow 38s can out turn you. This doesn't happen, the good pilots are just flying smarter then you.
-p.
-
Originally posted by MENDEZ
wow i have just read this whole thread and have stinging eye sydrome:eek: I think im going to become a 38 jock as you guys put it. I 've been impessed by how pellik shots me down with so much ease 479th
I always give 38 drivin lessons to pretty much anybody that asks. Just find me in the MA and I'd be happy to help ya get started.
-p.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
You can compare the performance of the Ki-61 to that of the bf109E or the C.202. When the Ki-61 was first seen by U.S. pilots some pilots reported them as "bf109Es with Japanese markings flown possibly flown by German pilots", while some others reported it as the C.202. It wasn't until the Allies finally got their hands on a crashed Ki-61 that these two myths were laid to rest.
ack-ack
The Ki-61 is based on the Bf 109E design. The Japanese acquired at least one (cant remember an exact number, have to look it up when I get home) for testing purposes. The Ki-61 had so many teething problems because it was the only inline engine, water-cooled airplane in the Japanese stable. The engine was a DB 601 derivative (their copy of the one they received). They had to learn a whole new way of thinking, so to speak, with the Tony. It was one of the fastest fighters they had developed up to that point, but because of constant mechanical problems it never saw its full potential.
-
Originally posted by Schaden
He was clipped by his tail plane as he bailed out.
Thanks for posting that Schaden. Just decided to read this thread today (Friday always seems so boring waiting for quitting time lol).
-
When flaps come out (1) lift and drag increase. (2)Increasing lift increases the instentanious turn rate. (3)The loss in speed kills your sustained turn rate.
Points 1 & 2 are correct. Point 3 should be clarified and is more complex then that generalized statement.
Sustained turn rate is function of excess-power (power-available minus power-required). There are 3 dynamic conditions to consider.
(1) Sustained turn at negative excess power (where power-required > power available). Staying in this envelope means you will bleed energy eventually to the point you stall which then results in "killing your sustained turn rate" because you've bled your speed to the point that you've exceeded the critical AoA of the wing to be able to produce the lift needed to keep flying. The degradation of sustained turn performance is a result of needing to relax your turn or pointing nose-low to regain energy to fly at a velocity at or below CLmax given the g-loading.
(2) Sustained turn at positive excess power (where power-required is < power available). Staying in this envelope means you will gain energy while in a sustained turn even with flaps deployed.
(3) Sustained turn at excess power = 0 (where power-required = power-available). This is the condition for the "best sustained turn" for an aircraft when a plane can hold a sustained turn indefinitely flaps deployed not withstanding.
Total drag as a result of g-loading (induced drag) in a turn + parasite drag determines the amount of power-required and which of the 3 dynamic conditions you're flying in.
Dropping flaps does not automatically mean you're in condition #1 above which leads to degraded sustained turn performance.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Dropping flaps does not automatically mean you're in condition #1 above which leads to degraded sustained turn performance.
You're correct.
Total drag as a result of g-loading (induced drag) in a turn + parasite drag determines the amount of power-required and which of the 3 dynamic conditions you're flying in.
Given the P38's average CLmax,high drag, and wing loading, even with flaps down, it was not an outstanding turner compared to other WWII fighters using flaps.
Its stall actually widened the turn. It took a very good pilot to master using that stall to cloverleaf and produce a great turn rate.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
You're correct.
Cool ;). Sounds like you're grasping the concept I've been trying to make clear.
Given the P38's average CLmax,high drag, and wing loading, even with flaps down, it was not an outstanding turner compared to other WWII fighters using flaps.
I agree & never questioned this (though it's always helpful to be more specific in relative comparisons in my opinion), but wanted to help make sure that it wasn't an inaccurate aerodynamic conclusion regarding flap deployment used to make this point.
To be fair the P-38 is endowed with other attributes that could be used to differentiate it against it's opponents - some already mentioned here but that's neither "here nor there" as they say in the context of this thread.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Well alrighty then, how bout them butterfly flaps on the Oscar & automatic flaps on the George.
-
Cool . Sounds like you're grasping the concept I've been trying to make clear.
Hasn't been anything to grasp.
Only misconception is the one assuming the P 38 has a large advantage over any average WWII fighter.
You have taken upon yourself to chase ghost's.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by dtango
Total drag as a result of g-loading (induced drag) in a turn + parasite drag determines the amount of power-required and which of the 3 dynamic conditions you're flying in.
[/B]
Yes and look at the 38s high aspect ratio which leads to its tendency for relatively low induced drag. Even with the flaps fully deployed it should be no less than 7.4.
Originally posted by Crumpp
In all honesty, the CLmax of the P38 in landing configuration is just plain average to below average for a WWII fighter.
Where is this?
Originally posted by Crumpp
The CLmax for the P38 is pretty unremarkable according to the NACA.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0036.gif
I guess so with only 71% HP of later models at that altitude.
-
Where is this?
Read the NACA reports. There are several of them on the P38.
I know you do not like this kind of news. Sorry.
Interesting sidetrack on the 71% power. Check out the YP-80's CLmax.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Where is a reference to P38 landing configuration?
How is that a sidetrack?
-
Chasing ghosts?.
Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance....Is absolutely true as with any flap.
You said this, which is in direct contridiction to what you agreed was also correct which is..
Dropping flaps does not automatically mean you're in condition #1 above which leads to degraded sustained turn performance.
Flying with flaps deployed in a sustained turn, you could leave your flaps out indefinitely with no degradation of sustained turn performance where excess power >= 0.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
The key was do the maneuver flaps drop the airspeed. According to Lockheed, YES they do. The flaps are to be used for short periods of time to complete a maneuver. Leave them down and your airspeed goes.
Here's another example of the ghosts you're claiming. You stated the above which is inaccurate. They only drop the airspeed when the g-load of the turn results in excess-power < 0.
As I've stated ad nauseum already where the g-load of the turn with flaps deployed results in excess-power >= 0 your airspeed doesn't go down.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Found the following info from the net:
Stall speed at weight all P-38s pilots manual with engine power off:
94 mph tas at 15,000 lbs gear and flaps up
100 mph tas at 17,000 lbs gear and flaps up
105 mph tas at 19,000 lbs gear and flaps up
69 mph tas at 15,000 lbs gear and flaps down
74 mph tas at 17,000 lbs gear and flaps down
78 mph tas at 19,000 lbs gear and flaps down
using the lift coefficient calculator (http://www.aa.washington.edu/courses/aa101/WebTools/LiftCoefficient.htm), the lift coefficient (flaps up) is around 2.1.
-
Originally posted by TimRas
Found the following info from the net:
using the lift coefficient calculator (http://www.aa.washington.edu/courses/aa101/WebTools/LiftCoefficient.htm), the
lift coefficient (flaps up) is around 2.1.
And 2.1 with flaps and gear up is absoulty ridicolous and unrealistic, so don´t give anything on the speed values except you consider it as IAS comparison values for what the pilot reads from his instruments. But is has nothing to do with TAS and true Cl
niklas
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Thanks for posting that Schaden. Just decided to read this thread today (Friday always seems so boring waiting for quitting time lol).
Apparently however LW did not have the greatest kit in terms of chutes - was reading JG26 and the number of chute failures is incredible.
-
dtango,
Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance....Is absolutely true as with any flap.
You yourself showed the EM diagram! Your airspeed bleeds to a point, you lose bank angle, and turn rate!
Flying with flaps deployed in a sustained turn, you could leave your flaps out indefinitely with no degradation of sustained turn performance where excess power >= 0.
Yes but your power required shoots up considerably when you leave your flaps down. Therefore your power available is a lot less.
Lets examine the following diagram:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1114866114_spit1a.jpg)
Pick any airspeed, reduce the bank angle and see what happens to turn performance?
All of the above statements are very true.
I have been arguing all along comparing the P 38 to other WWII fighters under the same conditions. You seem to think I am comparing the P 38 in a flap up vs. flaps down turn rate.
Now the big thing is speed reduction. Does the P38 have enough power to maintain an airspeed fast enough to achieve best turn performance with flaps down? It certainly will be a shorter radius than when flaps are up.
Lockheed says using flaps for more than a short period will leave the P 38 in a position that it does not have to power available to accelerate the aircraft.
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.
http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm
Question is how does it fair against fighters with equal lift, much better drag, and better Power to Weight using flaps?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
You yourself showed the EM diagram! Your airspeed bleeds to a point, you lose bank angle, and turn rate!
You don't know how to read EM diagrams then and what they tell you. The EM diagram shows the envelope for the 3 dynamic energy states I've mentioned already. Turn g-loading at or below the Ps=0 line you don't bleed airspeed even with flaps extended. No bleed in airspeed --> no decrease in bank angle --> no change in turn performance.
Yes but your power required shoots up considerably when you leave your flaps down. Therefore your power available is a lot less.
You keep assuming this automatically means Drag > Thrust leading to energy bleed and there's where you're missing it. I already did a few simple calcs for you using some whopping unrealistic parasitic drag values with flaps deployed to give you an idea the excess-power margin ([T-D]*V) is still positive.
Now the big thing is speed reduction. Does the P38 have enough power to maintain an airspeed fast enough to achieve best turn performance with flaps down? It certainly will be a shorter radius than when flaps are up.
The only thing I can figure here is that you're confusing what "best turn performance" means and seem to be confusing instantaneous turn and sustained turn performance.
Lockheed says using flaps for more than a short period will leave the P 38 in a position that it does not have to power available to accelerate the aircraft.
Again only where Ps<0, excess-power<0. Where Ps & excess-power >=0 this is not true.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Maybe this will be helpful. Here's Badboy's article on understanding EM charts.
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
I do understand how to read a EM diagram dtango.
You are all over the map.
First you misunderstand what particular conditions I am refering too and go into a nice but unecessary explaination. You then ignore that part and move on to something else, equally misunderstanding me.
Then you claim to be educating and "glad I am finally getting it!"
You keep assuming this automatically means Drag > Thrust leading to energy bleed and there's where you're missing it. I already did a few simple calcs for you using some whopping unrealistic parasitic drag values with flaps deployed to give you an idea the excess-power margin ([T-D]*V) is still positive.
Please show me where I have said the excess power margin is negative??
You don't know how to read EM diagrams then and what they tell you. The EM diagram shows the envelope for the 3 dynamic energy states I've mentioned already. Turn g-loading at or below the Ps=0 line you don't bleed airspeed even with flaps extended. No bleed in airspeed --> no decrease in bank angle --> no change in turn performance.
Your missing the point of what I am saying. To add to the frustration, dtango you are insisting I do not understand the aerodynamics. So you think we have access to aeronautical engineers when restoring an almost extinct aircraft?
We are not looking for a STEADY turn rate! We are looking for a BETTER turn rate than other WWII fighters using flaps!
1. It is obvious from Lockheeds own instructions that the P38 moved quickly to a point Pa was very close too Pr with flaps down.
2. The P 38 had a rather unremarkable CL max. It is interesting that the "calculator" you presented shows the same trend in the P38's CLmax as windtunnel investigations vs flight test's. Windtunnel investigations put the P38's Clmax much higher than actual flight testing.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0038.gif
Which seems to be a reversal from other designs tested.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp my friend, I'm simply guffawed by your response. I've been consistent with my responses which is dropping flaps does not mean you will bleed energy in a turn leading to turn performance degradation in a P-38 or any other plane for that matter. This has been my statement all along and I've been trying to show that different ways.
Part of the problem is you never stated the particular conditions you were referring too which misleads people. For instance you stated this...
The key was do the maneuver flaps drop the airspeed. According to Lockheed, YES they do. The flaps are to be used for short periods of time to complete a maneuver. Leave them down and your airspeed goes.
No conditions mentioned. I and others can only assume this is a blanket statement meant to cover all cases.
Taken as a blanket statement this means that you believe for all cases with flaps deployed that D>T which means excess-power is negative.
1. It is obvious from Lockheeds own instructions that the P38 moved quickly to a point Pa was very close too Pr with flaps down.
I don't know how you can even make this leap. Here again where are the conditions you are concerned with? You're not stating them which means this is an inaccurate statement because having flaps deployed does not mean a P-38 moved quickly to Pa=Pr, nor does the phrase "prolonged usage" give you any idea what conditions you are concerned with which might lead to Pa>=Pr.
We are not looking for a STEADY turn rate! We are looking for a BETTER turn rate than other WWII fighters using flaps!
Two points here. (1) The whole discussion started not on relative turn performance differences between different aircraft but if prolonged usage of flaps degraded turn performance or not for the P-38. And my point all along is that ONLY in certain conditions they do. (2) The reason I've brought up a steady turn rate is to demonstrate where it's inaccurate to say that "prolonged usage" of flaps in a turn for a P-38 = energy bleed as a blanket statement.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Windtunnel investigations put the P38's Clmax much higher than actual flight testing.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0038.gif
The report you linked states:
"Accordingly, initial-stall and maximum lift-coefficient points for the P-38 model, as obtained from figure 13, are plotted in figure 12. It may be seen that good agreement exists between the flight maximum lift coefficient and the initial-stall lift coefficient of the model."
-
Part of the problem is you never stated the particular conditions you were referring too which misleads people.
Certainly there is room for confusion when posting on a BBS. I apologize if things were not clearer. Perhaps in the future conditions should be defined well before the beginning of a lengthy discussion that leads nowhere. Better communication from all parties.
I do enjoy discussing these aircraft and some members of this community are extremely knowledgeable. I consider you one of them dtango.
The key was do the maneuver flaps drop the airspeed. According to Lockheed, YES they do. The flaps are to be used for short periods of time to complete a maneuver. Leave them down and your airspeed goes.
It was not meant as a blanket statement. In fact Lockheed says:
For example, in an effort to stay on an enemy's tail, you might feel in a tight turn the buffeting which is characteristic of an accelerated stall. You can "reef" her in and tighten your turn by lowering the maneuvering flaps until you have completed the maneuver, then retract them. By doing so immediately, little air speed is lost, and the plane is set again for maximum operations.
http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm
Looks like the P38's turn ability from flaps came about as a result of using the stall, not the sustained turn ability of the flaps.
Lockheed most certainly warns not to leave them down for any length of time:
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.
It must happen fairly quickly for a pilot to miss his speed bleeding down.
How do you explain Lockheeds instructions?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by TimRas
The report you linked states:
"Accordingly, initial-stall and maximum lift-coefficient points for the P-38 model, as obtained from figure 13, are plotted in figure 12. It may be seen that good agreement exists between the flight maximum lift coefficient and the initial-stall lift coefficient of the model."
Yes, and I think that the below chart shows that the P-38 maintains more consistant lift coeffcient over a greater portion of AoA change than the others. Note that the CLmax numbers for the P-38 generally reflect higher speeds than the others as well.
(http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0037.gif)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Actually TimRas it says this about the CLmax in flight test vs Windtunnel:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0006.gif
According to this Flight test CLmax will be lower than windtunnel test and is to be expected.
So yes figure 12:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0036.gif
Does give good agreement given what they were expecting for this part of the test. It still shows a below average CLmax for the P38.
The P38 and the P39 have the roughest finish of all the planes tested. However the P 39 does quite well in it's CLmax.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0038.gif
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Note that the CLmax numbers for the P-38 generally reflect higher speeds than the others as well.
(http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0037.gif)
My regards,
Widewing
Which reflects that report being a compilation of past tests. My assumption when looking at this in the past has been that the higher speeds were resulting from studying its compressability problems. Fig 12 show speeds >380 from the wind tunnel and >200 from flight test.
-
From the same report:
"The actual maximum lift coefficient of the P-38 model then occurs at extremely high angles of attack."
That seems to me to be an important observation.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It was not meant as a blanket statement. In fact Lockheed says:
For example, in an effort to stay on an enemy's tail, you might feel in a tight turn the buffeting which is characteristic of an accelerated stall. You can "reef" her in and tighten your turn by lowering the maneuvering flaps until you have completed the maneuver, then retract them. By doing so immediately, little air speed is lost, and the plane is set again for maximum operations.
Looks like the P38's turn ability from flaps came about as a result of using the stall, not the sustained turn ability of the flaps.
[/B]
How so? You deploy flaps which change the foil shape and add lift. You just chaned the conditions needed for stall. In the example given from Issue 6, you are at the threshold for accelerated stall conditions, by lowering the flaps, you change the threshold. I dont see how that is "using the stall".
You also seem to strictly interprert "loss of speed" as a degenerative effect, and not a comparative effect. If I were to fly level starting at 200mph for 30 seconds and achieve a speed of 275mph, then repeat under the same conditions with flaps down and only achieve 235mph, I lost speed with flaps down, when compaired with no flaps. I did though still gain speed with flaps deployed.
-
Ack-Ack wrote;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've asked for you to show us where see say we want a raising of the limits but you fail to come up with any proof of us saying such a thing. You know why? Because we've never advocated that. Again, we've advocated that the auto-retracting flaps be changed to a system that will model damage to the flaps from the stress caused by over speeding when the flaps are deployed past their rating. This is in no way advocating a raising of the flap deployed limits to fly around with flaps fully deployed without any consequence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in the same thread:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have your flaps out beyond 250mph then you run the very likely hood of damaging your flaps from over speeding if you don't raise them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same post you ask for the limit raised.
You don't wish the 250 mph number changed but what you do wish is to be able to go above that number for a period of time.
That IS raising the limitations of the flaps. You would now be able to use them for a period of time above 250.
As I said before, change the statement
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
very likely hood of damaging
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To "they will instantly be damaged".
And I have no problem with your argument. But Then again I do not belive you would like that better than the current method. And hence it is not worth the effort to implement.
HiTech
-
If highway speed limit is 55, and I go 70, the limit is still 55. If I suffer concequences for breaking the limit (get a ticket) the limit is still 55. If I dont get a ticket (suffer concequences) the limit is still the same. The difference is i got away with exceeding the limit without concequence in the latter. The limit remains constant throughout. What happens when the limit is exceeded is varible. Asking for a varible result is not synonomis with asking for the limit to be raised.
-
Murdr: You are arguing symatics. Your discussing the writen down speed limit vs the real speed limit. If everyone knows that you can go 5 MPH over 55 with out recieving a ticket. Has not the "EFECTIVE" speed limit been rasied to 60? I.E the Speed you can go with out recieving a ticket?
So what we have to two definitions of the world Speed Limit.
One that is written down, the other that is how it applies to real situations.
The same applies to Ack-Acks request. He wish to go faster with out recieving a ticket.
HiTech
-
I am arguing symatics, because words are being put into my mouth that dont reflect my intent. You already reviewed the suggestion and was unconvinced by it, which is fine.
In my state you can go 5mph over the limit and not get a ticket, so yes the effective limit is raised in that situation. You cannot get a ticket if you are within 5mph over posted limit of 50, and within 10 at lower speeds.
An exemption to that rule applies to school zones and construction zones. You can suffer consequences for exceeding the limits by 1mph. The effective limit does not change, and my original argument stands the test of 'effective limit'.
In the idea that was put forth on flaps, you can suffer the concequences by exceeding the limit by 1mph, where in your 'effective limit' you wont.
-
"The actual maximum lift coefficient of the P-38 model then occurs at extremely high angles of attack."
Read any lift polar and tell me how this is different for P 38?
The coefficient of lift is a simple function of the angle of attack.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html#sec-cl-aoa
All aircraft CLmax occurs at high angles of attack.
Just like the report says, the CLmax in flight suffers from turbulent airflow around the wing. It does have in effect 3 fuselages cutting across the wing reducing the wet lifting surface.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The speed limit argument doesn't work. It's an arbitrary limit.
This argument works: Your car is literally ONLY designed to driver 55mph and NO MORE! You so much as pass 1mph over that limit and all 4 of your tires blow out and your engine explodes.
Are you going to drive faster than 55mph? God hell no!
That's a PHYSICAL limitation. Not an arbitrary limitation.
The flaps on teh 38 are a physical limitation. It's not arbitrary. Your argument doesn't really work, methinks.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The flaps on teh 38 are a physical limitation. It's not arbitrary. Your argument doesn't really work, methinks.
Actually it is the other way around. S-rated tires are rated for 112 mph. They do not explode at 113 mph. The S-rating is not a physical limit. It is an arbitray limit based on the physical limit plus a saftey margin.
This argument works: Your car is literally ONLY designed to driver 55mph and NO MORE! You so much as pass 1mph over that limit and all 4 of your tires blow out and your engine explodes.
This is somewhat how flaps are modeled with exception, there is a governor that will not allow you to exceed the limit. And again, the manufacturer could not garentee an instant transition from no failure to failure without designing it to intentionally fail at a specific limit. What they would do is find the faiure rate curve, and give you an arbitrary limit outside the bottom of that curve.
-
Murdr, I never said S-rated tires. I said "a car that will blow all tires and the engine will explode if you go 1mph past 55mph". I never said this was a real car. Nor said it had real tires. I said it was made to only go 55, and any more it would self destruct.
That's a physical limitation.
In this hypothetical world you have to train REAL hard for a LONG time before you are ever allowed in a car, let alone allowed to own one and drive one. You are put through a rigorous series of exercises on how to recover from skids and so forth. The manufacturer knows this. They know you will follow the rules, because you know what will go wrong if you don't.
Thus they can manufacter and say "do not drive faster than 55mph" and know it will be followed to the letter. They do not need a safety margin.
As for mechanical stresses, I'm fairly sure that if you manufacture about 100 devices that are stressed, take each one and stress it til it breaks, that they will all break at about the same spot. There is, in fact, no margin if all the parts are identical. Like, say, from an assembly line where every car has the exact same setup for brakes, calipers, discs, and tires. It's a certainty that every one of them will work at 55pmh, and that they will not work above 55. The wheels can only stand the stresses of rotating at the rpm that generate 55mph. The engine is maxed out at this 55mph. The gas pedal is floored. If you jam it through the floor the engine explodes and the tires rip themselves apart from the centrifugal and centripetal forces that the rubber just can't contain.
Have I beat the dead horse enough?
Flaps systems are physical. Not arbitrary. I doubt there's any safey margin. There are statistical variations no doubt. Maybe one flap actuator breaks with 1/1000th a psi more than the next. Maybe one hinge pin litereally snaps at 1 mph faster than the limit, instead of the limit. That's not a safety margin.
Fact of the matter is the people that want "randomness" or "a safety margin" just want the limit raised, like HT said. I've not heard one person say "let the flaps break instead of autoretract, they would break EXACTLY when the autoretract should have kicked in". Most say "Turn off autoretract.. Okay now let's debate how much lee-way you're going to code into the flaps so they don't break right at the speed autoretract kicks in."
See the difference?
-
Krusty,
There were manufacturers limits on max weight for B24s, for example. Yet they routinely in combat took off far heavier then what the 'book' said was acceptable.
Using your argument, those planes should have fallen out of the sky the second they got 1 pound over their maxium gross weight. Yet we're talking thousands of pounds over what the book said was acceptable.
Some blew tires, some failed to lift off, but the majority just kept trucking. For some reason, wartime considerations took precedent over peacetime safety concerns and they kept sending those overloaded bombers on their way.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Krusty
As for mechanical stresses, I'm fairly sure that if you manufacture about 100 devices that are stressed, take each one and stress it til it breaks, that they will all break at about the same spot.
Ok, lets look at the variations in a single steel bar.
It is important to remember that the Endurance Limit of a material is not an absolute nor fully repeatable number. In fact, several apparently identical samples, cut from adjacent sections in one bar of steel, will produce different EL values (as well as different UTS and YS) when tested, as illustrated by the S-N diagram below. Each of those three properties (UTS, YS, EL) is determined statistically, calculated from the (varying) results of a large number of apparently identical tests done on a population of apparently identical samples.
The plot below shows the results of a battery of fatigue tests on a specific material. The tests at each stress level form statistical clusters, as shown. a curve is fitted through the clusters of points, as shown below. The curve which is fitted through these clusters, known as an "S-N Diagram" (Stress vs. Number), represents the statistical behavior of the fatigue properties of that specific material at that specific strength level. The red points in the chart represent the cyclic stress for each test and the number of cycles at which the specimen broke. The blue points represent the stress levels and number of cycles applied to specimens which did not fail. This diagram clearly demonstrates the statistical nature of metal fatigue failure.
(http://www.epi-eng.com/images/BAS-Fatigue1.gif)
Right off the bat in the first load cycle without the effects of fatigue the failure varies by 6%. At minimum if this were a weak steel with an Ultimate Tensile Strength of 20,000psi a 6% variation in failure is a 1,200psi difference.
Flaps systems are physical. Not arbitrary. I doubt there's any safey margin. There are statistical variations no doubt. Maybe one flap actuator breaks with 1/1000th a psi more than the next. Maybe one hinge pin litereally snaps at 1 mph faster than the limit, instead of the limit. That's not a safety margin.
As already stated your psi prediction is likely off by a factor of as much as 1 million percent. It is a standard engineering practice that aircraft load capibilities be designed for a 25% or greater margin of safety using a factor of safety of 1.5. The airframe will then have the strength capability to be released to fly at 100 percent of design capability. In other words, the ultimate load limit is prefered to be 25% above its stated design envelope. As I said before it is an arbitrary limit based upon the physical limit
-
Hi guys
I’ve just read through the earlier pages of this thread and I notice a number of messages that appear to be discussing the merits of flap use, some saying that prolonged use will harm turning performance others that it won’t, and the striking thing about those posts is that there is some truth in both points of view. For the split flap configuration illustrated in the diagram below, taken from page 79 of Perkins & Hage, the benefit depends on how high the lift coefficient is. For example, at low values of lift coefficient use of flaps is not good, and you can see that the two points A and B in that diagram have exactly the same lift coefficient, but point B, has a higher corresponding drag coefficient. That explains why you shouldn’t try to use flaps during maximum rate climbs, or power off glides, the drag penalty makes it prohibitive. That situation continues up to a relatively high lift coefficient where the two polars cross each other. The point where the polars cross is quite high, and that means that most turns at high G conducted at speeds close to corner velocity will suffer higher drag and lower sustained turning ability with flaps extended, which also explains the advice given by Lockheed. However, there is more, if you look at the diagram again, you notice that the drag is exactly the same at point C and D, but that the lift coefficient is much higher at D, meaning that once the crossover point is exceeded, you can get more lift for the same drag, making flap usage advantageous. In practice the region of the envelope where pilots can take advantage of this, occurs generally at much lower speeds, where high coefficient of lift values can be achieved at tolerable G levels and can result in better sustained turns. The point is that both better and worse sustained turns are possible, it just depends on the particular conditions under which the turn is being executed, which basically means that so far everyone is right :)
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/Flaps.jpg)
The next question is, how does all of that apply to the P-38? Here is an EM diagram for the AH P-38 showing a clean configuration and what happens with 4 and 5 notches of flaps extended.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/AHP-38flaps.jpg)
Notice that at higher speeds, the use of flaps is expensive in terms of loss of energy, reducing the sustained turn dramatically, but notice that at very low speeds the sustained turn rate is just as high as it was without flaps, the main difference being that the turn radius is now much smaller than before, and this is the advantage that good P-38 drivers are able to exploit. I believe this diagram also holds the secret behind the success of the cloverleaf maneuver, just look where the instantaneous turn rate and radius goes at the higher speeds within the placard limit. I think the good P-38 drivers in AH already use this fact appropriately.
The last question regarding the P-38 and its maximum coefficient of lift brings up a recurring topic on these boards and it is important to remember the following point. The maximum coefficient of lift for an airfoil is not constant. There isn’t a single catch all value that can be quoted. In simple terms it varies with speed (Mach number and Reynolds number) which means it has different values at different points in the envelope. Also, most quoted values are power off values. For example, in the NACA TN 1044 report quoted earlier in this thread the results came from both wind tunnel and flight test data that were obtained under throttled and feathered conditions. Under full power the effective coefficient of lift is significantly higher, and the reason for that is amplified due to the configuration of the P-38. Allow me to explain.
Propeller driven aircraft (pullers only) have a power on stall speed that is lower than their power off stall speed. The reason for that is due to the fact that the wings are in the slipstream of the propellers and the wash speeds up and energizes the air over them, thereby reducing the stall speed. Because of that, obvious safety concerns have resulted in power off stall speeds being more commonly quoted in flight manuals, while in some sources both are quoted. Of course that is equally true of single engine types, one wing receiving a slight upward flow the other downwards, and that doesn't change the fact that they still have a lower power on stall. That they still have a lower power on stall speed reflects the fact that even at relatively high angles of attack, the prop' wash is still being driven over the wing at a very low angle of attack because the prop is generally normal (90 degrees to the axis of the aircraft) to it. That will always have the effect of energizing the flow over the wings delaying separation. This is shown in the diagram below:
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/P-38propwash2.jpg)
Of course this is also true for other aircraft, so what’s so special about the P-38?
Two other factors that are often neglected for the P-38 and serve to improve its turning performance, are due to its twin engine configuration, they are... Firstly, during low speed high AoA maneuvers the engine thrust has a component that contributes to the radial load factor, at high angle of attack this is almost double that for single engine fighters. Another benefit of this is that normally the centre of lift and centre of gravity are relatively close together, with positive stability that requires a downward force on the tail, however, the component of prop thrust, provides a nose up pitching moment that reduces the downward tail force, thus enhancing the lift even further. Those factors along with the previously mentioned effect of the slipstream speeding up and energizing the air over wings, thereby increasing the lift, means that the P-38 was indeed better in practice than the average flight sim pilot (or for that matter your average aero graduate) would normally expect. The big question is not that this happened, but how much difference it made in practice?
Well, the effective increase in the coefficient of lift due to the slipstream depends on a number of factors, such as the area of wing influenced by the slipstream, the forward distance of the prop from the leading edge of the wing. the thrust coefficient, and the forward fuselage shape… all factors that were enhanced for twin engine fighters such as the P-38 and the Bf110. If you take a look at the diagram above for example, not only is the component of thrust contributing to the radial load factor double that for a single engine fighter, but you can see that the area of wing influenced by the slip stream is also significantly greater. For example, if you do the calculations for an aircraft with a Clmax of 1.4 at Mach and Reynolds numbers corresponding to its 1g stall speed of 103mph it shows that at full power the effective coefficient of lift is actually 1.66, reducing the stall speed to 94mph. However, keeping everything else the same, but repeating the calculations for a twin engine configuration the coefficient of lift is increased to 1.86 and the stall speed reduced to 86mph, and that helps to explain why aircraft like the P-38 and Bf110 are so good at low speeds.
Hope that helps…
Leon "Badboy" Smith
-
Badboy:
Thanks for taking the time for posting the very coherently stated response. It's a model example of (1) striking the right tone in a discussion illustrating the difference between the aim to "be right" vs. "being educational" and (2) taking the time to intelligently cover a complex topic fully. I guess that's why you're the university lecturer ;).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by hitech
The same applies to Ack-Acks request. He wish to go faster with out recieving a ticket.
HiTech
Actually, I want a system where I get penalized for exceeding the limits. If I'm stupid enough not to retract my flaps and leave them down past the limit then I want to run the very likelihood of my flaps being damaged as a result of my oversight. But I realize that you have the auto-retracting flaps in the game as a game play issue to coddle the hands of those that don't want the 'added realism' and to make the game more newbie friendly.
ack-ack
-
Very well composed post Badboy :aok
-
Great post Badboy! Either I grew additional brain cells or you did a remarkable job in writing that so a layman like me could undertand it. Do you have plans on making any more charts for the recent P-38 additions? Would be curious to see a side by side comparison of the L and the early model J we have.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Actually, I want a system where I get penalized for exceeding the limits.
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I want to run the very likelihood of my flaps being damaged as a result of my oversight
Combining those to statements. Your first statment would better read.
Actually, I want a system where I have a chance of getting penalized for exceeding the limits. But on some ocacasion get to exceed the limit.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Combining those to statements. Your first statment would better read.
Actually, I want a system where I have a chance of getting penalized for exceeding the limits. But on some ocacasion get to exceed the limit.
HiTech
If the flap system could be designed in such a way that models the stress from over speeding so that if you do get lucky and don't damage your flaps from overspeeding, you still run the risk of flap failure. Even if the pilot doesn't damage his flaps from going over the limit, since the stress at those limits would have weakened them, if they deploy flaps again within normal parameters they still face the likelihood of flap failure. Or if the stress so was great that it weakend it considerably, they might just fly off while in normal level flight because of structural failure. So basically, you're stacking the odds against the pilot. Yeah, he might get lucky in one area but it's going to cost him in another. The risk would be so high that it would make you pay attention to your speed while using your flaps or you will most likely not return home if you don't.
Or to use your speeding analogy...would you really go speeding down the freeway knowing that if you get caught you're going to be shot in the head? Sure, you might get lucky once but is the risk really worth it?
ack-ack
-
lol, just had to get the last word in akak?
Actually, I want a system where I have a chance of getting penalized for exceeding the limits. But on some ocacasion get to exceed the limit.
I'll go along with that one. Im not opposed to the flap progressive stress life thingy, but I am less enthusiactic about convoluted hard to understand modeling systems.
All irrelevent anyways, aint happening.
-
MAKE THE REPLY OF BADBOY A STICKY POST FOR FUTURE P38 BASHERS
;)
o and damage is more punishing than autoretract
flying rtb with a slow flapdamaged plane is not fun.
-
Boy, what you miss if your computer goes down for a week or so. I feel so unnecessary.:rofl