Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: killnu on August 12, 2005, 03:17:45 PM
-
what does this warning mean?
manuvering flaps on 38? thought dive flaps?
http://www.475thfghf.org/Museum/MVC-019F.JPG (http://www.475thfghf.org/Museum/MVC-019F.JPG)
-
manuvering flaps = combat flaps = Uberflappen (TM) = makes 38s in AH turn way tighter than they did normally.
Edit, a better way of saying it is "landing flaps" or "more extended than combat flaps" can't be used past 180MPH.
But combat flaps (the first notch only) could be used at higher speeds because they weren't extended as much.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
manuvering flaps = combat flaps = Uberflappen (TM) = makes 38s in AH turn way tighter than they did normally.
Umm...that was the intent of the Fowler Flaps when they were added to the P-38 in real life. It's not a creation of some flaw in the AH flight model.
As for the picture, it's the standard warning not to deploy the Combat Flaps (i.e. Maneuvering flaps; Fowler Flaps) at speed above 250mph IAS and not to keep flaps deployed for an extended period of time above 150mph IAS.
Other than the gamey auto-retracting flaps system, HT has done a really good job in modeling the effects of the flaps in all planes, not just the P-38.
ack-ack
-
manuvering flaps = combat flaps = Uberflappen (TM) = makes 38s in AH turn way tighter than they did normally.
The use of first notch of combat flaps does cut down on the turn radius by whoppin' 40meters, but it still only turns as well as a P-47D or a Bf109G-10 with first notch of flaps out.
The maneuverability of the P-38 is a combination of many factors and the flaps, in truth, only play a small part of it.
The stability and ease of control is the real reason behind its success. If the P-38 did not have counter rotating props it'd suddenly become the pig it is, and no amount of flaps is gonna help it.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The use of first notch of combat flaps does cut down on the turn radius by whoppin' 40meters, but it still only turns as well as a P-47D or a Bf109G-10 with first notch of flaps out.
The maneuverability of the P-38 is a combination of many factors and the flaps, in truth, only play a small part of it.
The stability and ease of control is the real reason behind its success. If the P-38 did not have counter rotating props it'd suddenly become the pig it is, and no amount of flaps is gonna help it.
For an example of this, try flying one of the 110's as a dogfighter... :D
-
The 110 isnt a dogfighter and it suks in the roll and vertical.
Some do fly it real good though.
They mostly kill on the snap or headon.
But never on the tail.
I really drool when im above some 110's
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The maneuverability of the P-38 is a combination of many factors and the flaps, in truth, only play a small part of it.
That's usually a comment from those that rarely fly the plane and have no real experience in fighting it in it AH. Believe me, the flaps play a larger role than you think. True, other things come into play such as the throttle control and rudders, but the string that binds them all together is the flaps.
ack-ack
-
That's usually a comment from those that rarely fly the plane and have no real experience in fighting it in it AH. Believe me, the flaps play a larger role than you think. True, other things come into play such as the throttle control and rudders, but the string that binds them all together is the flaps.
No, it's a comment coming from methodical testings of the planes in turn performance, and the measured data tells us the fact that the P-38 isn't anything special when it comes to "tight turning" itself.
For example the P-38J;
The turn radius of the P-38J without any flaps, is comparable to that of the P-47D-40 and the Fw190A-5. Of 59 fighters it is ranked 52nd. (52/59)
The turn radius of the P-38J with one notch of flaps(combat flap setting), is comparable to that of the Bf109G-10 and the P-47D-25 using one notch. (48/59)
Only when full flaps are engaged, is the P-38J really able to cut down on the turn radius and turn tighter. (28/59) But still, the Lavochkins, and even most of the F4U Corsairs, turns tighter.
...
However, despite the frustratingly large turn radius, actual combat results in Aces High prove to be very different. Some go even as far as to say that theu can stay with Spitfires and Nikis with ease.
And that can mean only one thing.
It's not the flaps that's helping the plane. It's the torquelessness.
But ofcourse, having never flown any other plane with real torque to fight against, and doesn't know what kind of hardship the pilot has to go through when trying to tighten its turn, it is only natural to expect someone who flies only P-38s to just never understand what it is all about.
-
One of the great things the p38 can do is change to the vertical after some tight turning. Been in fight with another seafire like that in a G.
The fight took long (5 minutes)although i missed terribly on my chances i really gave that spit big worrys.
He wasnt a noob pilot.
He got me headon in the end but not my tail while i could get on him 2 - 3 times.
unfortunaly my gunnery sucked.
Yes the spit turned tighter but i could change the tides going in the vertical.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
But ofcourse, having never flown any other plane with real torque to fight against, and doesn't know what kind of hardship the pilot has to go through when trying to tighten its turn, it is only natural to expect someone who flies only P-38s to just never understand what it is all about.
Ah but see you're wrong on that assumption. It is only in the MA that I fly the P-38 exclusively as a fighter. I have flown every plane in the line up quite extensively in the DA and in the H2H arenas. Nice try though.
ack-ack
-
Ah but see you're wrong on that assumption. It is only in the MA that I fly the P-38 exclusively as a fighter. I have flown every plane in the line up quite extensively in the DA and in the H2H arenas. Nice try though.
Thanks.
But you're still wrong, anyway.
-
Hi guys,
Possibly your disagreement stems from considering different flight situations?
I only had a short look at Kweassa's test, but weren't they comparing sustained turning ability?
I could imagine that Ack-Ack is actually using the flaps in instantaneous turns where they might make more of a difference.
(Simplifying things, I'd say that sustained turns are primarily limited by engine power, while instantaneous turns are primarily limited by lift.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi guys,
Possibly your disagreement stems from considering different flight situations?
I only had a short look at Kweassa's test, but weren't they comparing sustained turning ability?
I could imagine that Ack-Ack is actually using the flaps in instantaneous turns where they might make more of a difference.
(Simplifying things, I'd say that sustained turns are primarily limited by engine power, while instantaneous turns are primarily limited by lift.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Lift does play a part in sustained turns, as a higher ammount of lift (or lower wingloading) decreases the AoA required to sustain a turn, and thus decreases the engine power rquired as well as increasing stability in the turn. If it was only engine power, the Dora would kick the Spit's butt in a sustained turn :D
-
Hi Tails,
>If it was only engine power, the Dora would kick the Spit's butt in a sustained turn :D
I said "primarily" power, not "only" power.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Possibly your disagreement stems from considering different flight situations?
I only had a short look at Kweassa's test, but weren't they comparing sustained turning ability? I could imagine that Ack-Ack is actually using the flaps in instantaneous turns where they might make more of a difference.
(Simplifying things, I'd say that sustained turns are primarily limited by engine power, while instantaneous turns are primarily limited by lift.)
Hi Hohun!
My point is that the key factor in "instantaneous turns" is the stability itself rather than the effects flaps have to offer. Like you've mentioned, my tests measured the tightest turn radius possible to each plane in sustained turns - and when looking at its results, the P-38s were shockingly large in turn radius, and none of the tested data matches real combat experiences.
The most critical component in turns, in my conclusions after doing the tests, seems to be not sustained turns or even instantaneous turns, but rather the very moment where a plane that entered an "instantaneous" turn shifts to "sustained" turn status. The amount of time spent in this "borderline" seems to be the key factor attributing to the P-38's success - since obviously the turn radius itself is actually pitifully large, and flaps actually do not really help much in cutting down the overall radius.
...
For example, let's assume a Bf109G at flying at 300mph, is chasing a P-38J that is flying at 300mph. The P-38J enters an evasive turn, and the Bf109G follows.
According to my tests, the tightest turn radius a Bf109G-6 can pull(at maximum throttle) with one notch of flaps out, is 204.9m, at 160mph, which takes 18 seconds to complete 360 degrees.
On the other hand, the P-38J, takes 19 seconds at 170mph, to complete a 360 degrees circle that is 229.9m in radius.
Now, according to above figures, the P-38J should be pretty much dead meat. If we assume a linear increase/decrease in turn radius with different throttle positions, the Bf109G-6 should still be able to outturn the P-38J handily, and pull a turn radius tight enough to shoot it down within the first circle.
However, it doesn't happen that way at all in actual AH combat.
The critical point in maneuvering is when the P-38J pilot enters an evasive turn while flying at 300mph. He chops throttle and kicks hard rudder to cut down on his speed, engages first notch of combat flaps as the speed hits 250mph IAS, and pulls tight as possible.
For the P-38, the time taken to shift from an "instantaenous turn" beginning at 300mph, to a "sustained turn" at 150~180mph at almost idle throttle and flaps out, is very short. The essential factor is that the plane is torqueless, and unless it is pushed to absolutely drastically high levels of AoA over its stalling limit, it will not destabilize.
For the Bf109G-6, it is very different. As he sees the P-38J enter a tight turn, he decides to follow it, also chops throttle and kicks rudder. However, the difference in torque that effects the attitude of the plane is severe when throttle setting is changed drastically over a course of such short time. The destabilization in the roll axis when the speed creeps under 200mph, where the 109 is able to use its own flaps, is also severe.
A slightly wrong input will halt the 109s turn, where the pilot must correct its position and stop pulling back on the stick. While the P-38J has already entered a very tight turn at very slow speeds, and truckin' it's way to 360, the Bf109 is halted here and there during its turn, since the overall difficulty of maintaining such tight turn in the plane is often overwhelmingly difficult a task for the pilot.
To me, it is clear that this critical factor which allows the P-38, a plane with a relatively large turning radius, to so often outmaneuver much tighter turning planes, is not the flaps, but it's stability during the turns. A stability which allows the plane to dump it's speed very fast, and very easily enter a turn that is slow in speed, and keep it there.
The flaps itself ofcourse, helps greatly in keeping the plane slow, and offers more stability due to its effects. However, the largest factor in work is not the flaps, but the torquelessness.
By comparison, the twin-engined fighters of German Bf110 or the British Mosquito, outturns every P-38 in the turn radius by quite a handful. Except I've never seen anyone claiming the P-38 cannot match a 110 or a Mosquito during maneuvers. The key difference between the Mosquito/110 and the P-38 is power, and, stability.
-
Hi Kweassa,
>To me, it is clear that this critical factor which allows the P-38, a plane with a relatively large turning radius, to so often outmaneuver much tighter turning planes, is not the flaps, but it's stability during the turns.
Hm, you might be right, but wouldn't that require a separate series of tests? I'd imagine one would have to fly a maximum rate turn at constant G rate and speed while sacrificing altitude to determine sustained turn capability.
If speed and G rate are recorded, the sink rate would yield information on the energy bleed.
That might be an interesting excercise as the effects of the flaps both on turn rate and on energy could be determined from this :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
P38J at 75% fuel, fuel weight=1845lbs
109g6 at 75% fuel, fuel weight=475lbs
Experieced 38 pilots do not go around turnfighting with a full ton of internal fuel. That is why MA results do not match. And any 38 pilot chopping throttle just for the purpose of deploying flaps is a fool (regarding sustained turning).
-
Hm, you might be right, but wouldn't that require a separate series of tests? I'd imagine one would have to fly a maximum rate turn at constant G rate and speed while sacrificing altitude to determine sustained turn capability.
It probably would.. except I have no idea how to test something like that. Thus I had to rely on a lot of past experiences.
However, regarding the 'stability' as the key factor rather than the flaps, is IMO pretty much a common consensus for many people(I won't say 'most'). For instance, there have been posts and threads about other planes with simular attributes which, they appear to be drastically more maneuverable than actual recorded turn radius or turn rate - the P-47s or the P-51s comes into mind.
ps)
If you would check my turn rate testings again, you will notice the individual 'stall limiter' settings the particular plane used have been documented as well. Some planes can use the minimum setting of 0.05, others may have to use 1.0 or higher.
This stall limiter setting, is a set value which inhibits the AoA the plane can pull - a setting of 1.0 means that the plane can pull up to 1.0 degrees before critical AoA. Ofcourse, obviously the reason why some planes use higher figures than others which use the minimal 0.05, is because those planes cannot handle 0.05 degrees before critical AoA due to serious destabilization in the roll axis. The plane doesn't immediately stallout, but it "wing-dips" like crazy, if you know what I mean. It's impossible to keep a steady turn when your plane is rocking left and right.
-
Experieced 38 pilots do not go around turnfighting with a full ton of internal fuel. That is why MA results do not match.
Murdr, fuel load doesn't make much of a noticeable difference in turn radius when a certain plane is facing another plane which inherently outmaneuvers it by a large margin.
Unless it's a plane like the P-47N, which holds uncommonly huge amounts of internal fuel, a plane that is outturned by a Spit at 75% fuel, still will not be able to outturn it even if it has only 25% fuel.
Again, the key difference with a smaller fuel load, is not necessarily the plane turns better, but more stable. It's easier to handle with a lighter fuel load, so it's easier to reach and maintain that thin "edge" of absolute performance.
I didn't test all the planes with diff. fuel loads when I did the turn tests, but some of them I did test, and that's where I draw my conclusions from. (Well, my version of interpretation of test data, anyways)
And any 38 pilot chopping throttle just for the purpose of deploying flaps is a fool (regarding sustained turning).
I'll take your word for it.
However, the point is, the P-38 can enter a turn, and tighten it's radius much faster and easier, and maintain that status far longer than any other plane in the set.
The flaps itself, didn't have any really noticeable effects in aiding the turn - at least, the tested results show that even with flaps engaged the plane has quite a large turn radius compared to most.
I wondered why anyone would go as far as to claim that a plane that has such large turn radius, to be able to "outturn" so many planes which clearly has smaller radius than itself.
The answer had to be none other than the fact that it's not about the SIZE of the turn radius itself, but about how easily, quickly, and decisively one can tighten it, as compared to thers.
-
Hi Guys
Here is an example of a comparison I did some time ago of the P-38L fighting a 109G6. From the EM diagram below you can see that if both pilots keep their flaps retracted the 109G6 is going to enjoy a relatively easy kill. It has a slightly better maximum sustained turn rate but a much better instantaneous turn rate at all speeds below corner velocity, and a much better turn radius.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/P-38flaps.jpg)
However, when the P-38 driver deploys his flaps as shown with the black set of curves, the situation is very different. The P-38 driver hasn't gained anything in the sustained turn, but has made a big improvement in instantaneous turn rate. For example, you can see that if both aircraft are at 155mph the P-38 will have a four degrees per second advantage and a smaller turn radius.
Of course the P-38 driver won't be able to sustain that for long, but the better P-38 drivers will keep their speed up using nose low slices, and split-s maneuvers in order to gain angles for a snap shot.
But even then when the P-38 driver has used up his energy, they still have a trick or two up their sleeve because air combat is not just about turn rate and turn radius... another very important aspect of air combat has been left out of this discussion almost entirely.
The geometry of the fight is a vital factor, that good P-38 pilots use when they get to low speeds, and the P-38 can fly very slowly indeed.
What do I mean by geometry? Well let's take a concrete example, let's assume that the P-38 with five notches of flaps deployed and the 109G6 with no flaps are both in their best maximum sustained turns. In the EM diagram above that places them both at the point where the Ps curves intersects the stall line.
You can see in that situation the P-38 is about 25mph slower with a slight turn radius advantage... both those facts scream one circle fight to the P-38 driver, and most P-38 drivers don't even need to think about it, they just know if they don't get the guns solution provided by their initial high instantaneous turn rate, they can convert to a one circle fight as they get slow, because they are almost certainly going to win the scissors, and to save time in the reversals they use rudder to increase the roll rate.
The situation is shown below:
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/P-38flaps109G6.jpg)
This sort of geometry is the real secret of the P-38s success, and works even against the Spitfires and NIKIs simply because their best sustained turn occurs at a higher speed. Infact, in a rolling scissors, the P-38 can get so slow it can squirt almost anything out in front long enough for a shot.
Of course, experienced pilots with a good grasp of BFM know how to avoid that sort of situation, and can exploit a different form of geometry in order to deny the P-38 the sort of fight it wants.
That's not even the whole story, and it is admittedly over simplified, but I hope that helps to validate everyone's experience in the arena, because I can justify almost every viewpoint I've seen in this discussion so far :)
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
As always Badboy, excellent post!
ack-ack
-
Hi Badboy,
>That's not even the whole story, and it is admittedly over simplified, but I hope that helps to validate everyone's experience in the arena, because I can justify almost every viewpoint I've seen in this discussion so far :)
I think it's not surprising that we can't agree on how to evaluate the genuine WW2 pilots' opinions if we can't agree on how to evaluate our own opinions! ;-)
To get technical, shouldn't the Me 109 be able to win altitude over the P-38 by sliding down the stall border to a lower turn rate, gaining climb rate while decreasing the turn radius?
(This is a slow way to win the upper hand, obviously.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
only prob is p38L rolls like a 500# pig. flapped out.
i'd ride the g6 in a scissor vs p38L anyday in ah. only thing to worry about is the 38nosing across and lazering a wing off.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Murdr, fuel load doesn't make much of a noticeable difference in turn radius when a certain plane is facing another plane which inherently outmaneuvers it by a large margin.
I will admit that I am not an aero head like a few on the boards, but my understanding is this; At best sustained turn rate, power avalible should equal the sum of parisitic drag and induced drag. The difference in power/weight ratio between 75% fuel and 25% fuel should be .431lbs per HP, or about 12% (in P38J). For comparison that difference in a seafire should be .208lbs/HP. Throw in the inherent higher parisitic drag of deployed fowler flaps compaired to split flaps, and the power deficit is even a little more. All I am saying is the fuel load would have a proportionately higher effect on planes such as the 38 and 47.
-
Originally posted by AmRaaM
only prob is p38L rolls like a 500# pig. flapped out.
i'd ride the g6 in a scissor vs p38L anyday in ah. only thing to worry about is the 38nosing across and lazering a wing off.
Everything rolls slowly at 150 mph... You want a faster roll rate, those twin rudders speed it up quite a bit. Have multi-throttle set-up? Differential power and rudder really get it moving.
Personally, the scissors is a maneuver reserved for the last resort. It's also very easy to counter. Any pilot bold enough to fly across my nose will be walking home.
Below is link to a very short film of trainer Fuseman and me filming a scissors for the AH2 website. I'm flying a Mosquito and Fuseman is in a Spit V. Notice that the Spit would not have survived the initial break, or the next reverse. I have always maintained that a scissors is little more than quick death. I do believe that I would have overshot the fireball though.... Here's the 45 second flim. (http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/Mossy-SpitV.ahf)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by AmRaaM
only prob is p38L rolls like a 500# pig. flapped out.
i'd ride the g6 in a scissor vs p38L anyday in ah. only thing to worry about is the 38nosing across and lazering a wing off.
I've shot down a lot of 109 drivers that thought the same way. Two nice big fat rudders really do wonders for the roll.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The 110 isnt a dogfighter and it suks in the roll and vertical.
Some do fly it real good though.
They mostly kill on the snap or headon.
But never on the tail.
I really drool when im above some 110's
couldn't disagree w/ you more. the 110 bleeds E so fast, I easily maneuver behind 'em for a quick kill. The 110g2 does surprisingly decent yoyo's, and is a deflection shot monster.
51kills vs. 13 deaths in a 110 this tour so far. 110 is typically my #2 killer per tour.
Have suprised many a spit in 'em. Suddenly, i'm behind them, and they are clueless as to what to do. Plus I use the 4x20mm 2x30mm option, so I just have to knick 'em to drop them from the skies.
-
I been in very hairy fights with pilots like Mn7 hes one of the best 110 drivers.
I know what u mean still its got a ugly roll and bad looping capability.
It suks compared to the mighty lightning :)