Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: wetrat on March 20, 2006, 03:57:13 PM
-
2 PATCHES IN A ROW?!?! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
You finally lost it
-
Originally posted by duh
You finally lost it
If I ever had it to begin with.
-
Two patches in a row what?
They fiddled with Bf109s?
They forgot the flaps?
What?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
They forgot the flaps
-----^
-
20 mil dummied down,
Forward Vis, particularly in the G-6 and 14 models porked/incorrect
Flap deployment wrong
-
haha NO SOUP FOR YOU!!
-
Maybe they don't think the "errors" are errors?
-
What error are you reporting?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
What error are you reporting?
i believe they are talking about the airspeed that flaps are / should be allowed to be deployed.
-
High speed flaps would be nice in 109's/190's
-
lol like you didnt see it coming?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
What error are you reporting?
The well-known, often whined about flap deployment speed.
And yeah morph, I fully expected them to be the same :cry
-
1 notch at 200 mph.
Bronk
-
I think I speak for alot of NON 109 flyers when I say....
If the flap speed can be historically proven please please fix it because Im sooo sick of reading about the luftwaffe planes beeing porked...
Tex
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
I think I speak for alot of NON 109 flyers when I say....
If the flap speed can be historically proven please please fix it because Im sooo sick of reading about the luftwaffe planes beeing porked...
Tex
seconded.
-
Just because something gets repeated a lot doesn't make it correct. I'm not sure where it came to be thought otherwise, but our flap speed standard has always been based on the figures attained in the pilots manual whenever possible. It has nothing to do with where the flaps would really be damaged because that's beyond knowing for most planes. It's specifically been our intent not to turn the flaps into some top-gunesque "I'll just drop my flaps and he'll fly right by" thing.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
It's specifically been our intent not to turn the flaps into some top-gunesque "I'll just drop my flaps and he'll fly right by" thing.
Now that just made Goose cry!
-
Originally posted by Pyro
It's specifically been our intent not to turn the flaps into some top-gunesque "I'll just drop my flaps and he'll fly right by" thing.
If only a LW plane could do that..
Not a lot hard to do that in American planes.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Just because something gets repeated a lot doesn't make it correct. I'm not sure where it came to be thought otherwise, but our flap speed standard has always been based on the figures attained in the pilots manual whenever possible. It has nothing to do with where the flaps would really be damaged because that's beyond knowing for most planes. It's specifically been our intent not to turn the flaps into some top-gunesque "I'll just drop my flaps and he'll fly right by" thing.
Maybe I'm mistaken but, I beleive it was you who said in one of the huge LW threads that you were going to address the incorrect modeling of the 109 flaps. Speed vs deployment. Its wrong, and has been proven. Time and time again.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I'm not sure where it came to be thought otherwise, but our flap speed standard has always been based on the figures attained in the pilots manual whenever possible.
Hi Pyro,
I think it is your quote from this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1884605&highlight=flaps#post1884605) that is being talked about.
Originally posted by Pyro
The flaps on the 109s were supposed to be changed in the 2.06 and it was an oversight that it wasn't.
-
yep that's the one.
-
pWnEd!
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
pWnEd!
Hehe...
I just would like to say that *that* wasn't my intent when I posted the quote...to get "one over" or something...just to remind Pyro about it as he might have easily forgotten it...I'm sure there's a lot of going on at HTC right now.
And just for the record the speed in AH (109G-2) when the flaps start to reract from fully down position hits the speed that the FAF flight manual lists EXACTLY (155mph ~ 250km/h). So he sure has gotten something right. ;)
In real 109 of course there were no notches and that would be nice to see in AH aswell someday. The issue has more to do with the lower flap angles and their max speeds. I don't remember seeing any statement about the lower flap positions in any flight manuals. Obviously just a few degrees could have been lowered in fairly high speeds like the graph Crumpp posted in that another thread shows. Whether it was a graph that could be found from a flight manual which Pyro was talking about I seriously doubt it.
-
I was just kidding ... I'm test flying stuff offline and I think flaps will be less of an issue now.
-
Now I just read in another thread soeone saying that the flaps hads indeed been fixed.
so which is it?
Personally I never had a big problem with the way the flaps were.
the forward vis in the G-6 and G-14 by comparison is far more important
-
most planes have a HAND crank to deploy flaps..... did ANY WW2 pilots use flaps in middle of dogfights on a regular basis?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
most planes have a HAND crank to deploy flaps..... did ANY WW2 pilots use flaps in middle of dogfights on a regular basis?
I've always wondered the same thing.
I know I see alot of people do things here you would normally see stunt planes do at an air show.
but I always wondered how many pilots managed to pull some of this stuff off IRL WWII combat.
And I mean witht he controls we have available to us.
think about it Now with your HOTAS sytems and such we can do more with less effort. Working the stick,rudder,throttle,flaps, and trim all at the same time.
Thats a cople more controls then you would have appendages for LOL
-
It was my intent to increase the number of flap notches in the 109 to the maximum of 5 that the system supports since it had a completely variable system.
On the issue of speeds, I had assumed I was mistaken since so many people were stating that to be the case. However, I checked the German 109E manual, the Finnish G-2 manual, and the German 109K manual just to be sure and they all stated the same thing. Don't operate them at speeds greater than 250 km/hr, don't have them full down at speeds greater than 250 km/hr. Now in this version, I've stretched this out to the limit of credibility IMO unless I want to throw out the standards we've used for everything else and just crank up the numbers on everything. But I've already explained that we're not going to do that.
-
109s did indeed have a combat flap setting. I don't know of a single version of 109 with a single flap setting.
-
Pyro just a quick clarification, please?
"Don't operate them at speeds greater than 250 km/hr, don't have them full down at speeds greater than 250 km/hr."
Does that mean you can't use any flaps until you are 250kmh/below, but once at that level you can pop full flaps right away? I mean, there's no incremental waiting?
I ask because I've not yet downloaded the patch.
-
Didn't fly all versions, but did a couple sorties in G-2, G-6 and K-4. Flaps seem fine to me now. They came out at about 200 - much improved over the 120 or so it seemed like before.
Yeah!!! Thanks, Pyro, HiTech, Et. al.!!:aok
-
LOL I knew it, if I had put a wager on that I'd be a ......not a wealthy man but I'd be a couple of bucks richer
Thanks for proving me right !
P.S. Besides..... what's a LW thread without a stereotypical Luftwhine? :D
-
Originally posted by bj229r
most planes have a HAND crank to deploy flaps..... did ANY WW2 pilots use flaps in middle of dogfights on a regular basis?
P-38 had a lever to deploy flaps and yes, they used them on a regular basis.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by AWRaid
109s did indeed have a combat flap setting. I don't know of a single version of 109 with a single flap setting.
My two Luffwaffe books don't mention anything about 'combat flaps'. Lots on landing, flying, flight triming, fuel management, heat management, combat 'engine power settings', but nothing, not a word or anything on 'combat flaps'.
Just saying awraid.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
See Rule #4
if and only if the surface is the same
-
Pyro,
I don't have a personal stake in the answer, but is it possible that through a translation quirk, the manual *really* meant that you shouldn't change the flap position above 250 and it shouldn't be at full above 250? "operate" can mean "fiddle with the switch". Case in point is the F-15E which has different speeds for max allowable with the gear down and max speed where you can raise or lower the gear. You can fly quite a bit faster than gear "operation" speed with the gear down if it's put down while still below the "operation" speed...
The same goes with the automatic flap retraction in the F-15E. The flaps should not be lowered when above 250, yet if they're left down they will (should) automatically fully retract by 300 knots.
If I recall correctly, one or more variants of the little cessnas (150, 152, 172) also has a flap rule where you can have the flaps down up to a certain speed but the flap "operation" speed is somewhat lower, interpreted as meaning you can't move the flap lever until you're below that "operating" speed. It's been 18 years since I was taught that rule and it's not even the same in all year models of whatever type it was, but it's another area for a discrepancy to arise.
Anyhow, since I've come across that discrepancy a few times in RL, I thought I'd bring it up to see if maybe there's a translation or flight manual interpretation issue behind this particular FM quibble.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
My two Luffwaffe books don't mention anything about 'combat flaps'. Lots on landing, flying, flight triming, fuel management, heat management, combat 'engine power settings', but nothing, not a word or anything on 'combat flaps'.
Just saying awraid.
Well that doesn't really mean a thing, does it?
Anybody still have the chart posted a while ago with the 109 flaps deployment speed? The one that showed 10 degrees at 480mph?
Anybody know where it came from?
-
Flew the 109g14 last night.
I dont really fly LW planes but I took it up out of interest.
Landed 5 kills all a2a, cruising speed seems excellent, don't see a problem with the visibilty, amazing guns.
The K is also an awesome ride.
-
Gonna be real fun to get to test it. Just hope I get my internet set up soon so I can test it online. Will download tonight and try it offline, not always easy to feel the difference when flying offline though.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Gonna be real fun to get to test it. Just hope I get my internet set up soon so I can test it online. Will download tonight and try it offline, not always easy to feel the difference when flying offline though.
Yeah, after being away for awhile I'll fly a favorite offline and think it feels soooo manueverable and go have my bellybutton handed to me seven ways to Sunday, wondering where my manueverabilty all went.
Offline is iffy at best.
That said, the Bf109G-14 felt, offline, vastly more manueverable than it was before. Spit XIV felt a bit better than I recall. Mossie felt more or less the same.
Still wish the Bf109G-14 had the 415mph at 16,500ft instead of the 404mph it got, but it is better.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Still wish the Bf109G-14 had the 415mph at 16,500ft instead of the 404mph it got, but it is better.
It is moving in the right direction atleast. A few more patches and it might be up to speed ;)
Gonna be fun to try for sure.
Any difference in the other 109's? How does the K4 feel?
As for flaps though, if they now work at about 200mph that may very well what we needed. Prolongen turnfights often end up at speeds bellow 200 but never low enough to get the flaps down (using the 165mph speed as before). A 35mph difference is quite big and can be decisive.
-
Just adding to the 109 topic...
Is there any chance for the 109s' windshield view getting adjusted to same standards with P-51s...(with transparent 1-sided polygons in vertical frames representing the real view with refractions etc) or is this horse dead already?
Should we just get used to it and live with it?