Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Apeking on December 17, 2006, 07:13:17 PM
-
This is a historical question rather than an Aces High discussion. It seems that the American aircraft industry during the Aces High period was very much in favour of combat flaps, manoeuvring flaps, what-have-you. All of the American planes have extremely useful flaps that can be deployed at high speed. It bolsters my psychological impression that the American planes are more solidly-built than the others.
In contrast, the other nations did not seem too hot on the idea of high-speed combat flaps. The British aircraft seem to have flaps that were designed purely for landing and take-off. (I have just been reading "First Light", a book by WW2 Spitfire pilot Geoffrey Wellum. He describes his part in Operation Pedestal, in which a flight of standard land-based Spitfire Vs were flown from HMS Furious in order to reinforce the defence of Malta. In order to take off from the carrier, the flaps were held in an intermediate position with wooden chocks; once airborne, the pilots opened the flaps fully so that the chocks could fall out. (Just as Wellum takes off, one of the other carriers, HMS Eagle, is hit and sunk by a U-Boat.))
The Messerschmitt and Lavochkin designs have leading-edge slats but again the flaps seem to have been designed more for landing or very slow-speed manoeuvres under adverse flying conditions. I haven't read very many historical accounts by109 pilots but I get the general impression that they did not expect to use the flaps whilst fighting. This is particularly galling in the case of the late-model 109s, which would benefit from high-speed flaps. And the same is true of the 190s, especially given their poor turn radius.
I suppose the Japanese designers felt that their aircraft turned well enough without having to use flaps. Perhaps the people at Hawker and Supermarine felt the same way. But it seems odd that the trend of useful high-speed flaps is so dominant amongst American planes; what was the general philosophy amongst American aircraft designers in the run-up to WW2?
-
Flaps? Are you saying these planes have FLAPS?
;-P
Softail
-
The general design theory for American aircraft was, "The faster, the better."
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
The general design theory for American aircraft was, "The faster, the better."
And to compliment this, the tactics were "the faster, the better, and don't turn..."
-
"Don't turn"? Wherever did you get that notion? The only country's fighters against which this tactic was recommended was Japan's, and that was because Japan mainly used outdated designs more akin to biplanes than high-speed fighters. The United States Army Air Force's instructions for fighting the Luftwaffe were usually to "out-turn them."
-
My favorite 38 'combat flaps' combat report quote, from a pilot in the 370th FG 9th AF flying in the ETO in a 38J-10 which would be what we have in AH. Lots of combat flaps used in a turnfight down low.
I love his last remarks about the fight against the 109 on the deck :)
“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.”
-
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.”
that good 109 stick probably thought he was a noob
-
That's awesome! Where did that quote come from?
-
Originally posted by trotter
that good 109 stick probably thought he was a noob
In terms of the 38, this guy was. The 370th came to England in May 44 having trained on Jugs. They transitioned to 38s and took them into combat with a lot less 38 time then those that trained on em in the states. This fight took place in July 44.
I'm guessing the 109 driver wasn't a vet either, but the 38 driver was turning with him on the deck, while lugging two 500 pounders and using combat flaps.
Tough spot to be.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
That's awesome! Where did that quote come from?
370th FG history by Jay Jones. It's from the combat report written at the time.
Lots of examples of combat flap use by those ground attack 38 guys who were often bounced by higher 109s and 190s, yet held their own.
-
P-38s have lots of references for using flaps in combat. It seems to be standard practice. For the other us fighters, such as the P51, there are examples of using flaps but they seem to be more like a "crazy stunt I pulled" when reported by the pilot. In one of the stories I recall the pilot stating that he used flaps in a zero alt circle fight with a 109, against specific orders they got NOT to use flaps.
All flaps use references I remember were in low alt dogfights. Most likely due to the different nature of these fights compared with high alt fights. At high alts speed and zoom was much more important than turning and the fight usually ended with one side disengaging with a dive to the clouds.
I also recall a few LW pilots mentioning they used flaps.
The thing is that when reports are being specific, they mention use of only small flap deflection. In AH we are merrily using full flaps at the landing setting. I guess they feared stalls and spins much more than we do.
-
P-38 pilots usually used the maneuver setting (eight degrees, one notch in Aces High II) for fighting Nazi fighters, but when fighting Jap Zekes they sometimes used full flaps. And it was not only the aces who did it.
The reason P-38 pilots tended to not use flaps at high altitude was because above their critical altitudes they could not get enough power to effectively utilize the Fowlers.
-
Benny,
I have never before heard of airplanes having been accepted as political party members.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
I have never before heard of airplanes having been accepted as political party members.
Caligula appointed his horse senator, so I guess anything is possible in politics.
-
As an expression of utter agreement, I give bozon a big kiss.
*Mmmmmmwah*
-
Originally posted by bozon
The thing is that when reports are being specific, they mention use of only small flap deflection. In AH we are merrily using full flaps at the landing setting. I guess they feared stalls and spins much more than we do.
Tis the joy of knowing we're not really gonna die if we screw up :)
I always love it when I'm hanging on the deck with a Spit in my 38G. I've got full flaps out and he's got his flaps out, and I'm thinking "yeah right", this would have really happened :)
-
Several Japanese fighters had combat flaps (for example Ki-43 "Oscar" and Ki-84 "Frank") in order to maintain the same manueverability as earlier planes (like the Ki-27 "Nate"). Both the IJN and IJA pilots favored a nimble plane over a fast plane. Didn't work out too well for them in the long run.
-
It seems that there may be some confusion about terminology. "Combat flaps" or "maneuver flaps" is a term that means that there is a stop on the flap lever that allows a small extension of flaps for assisting maneuvers. However, it does not automatically mean that the aircraft in question has better flaps than another. Some sources state that the FW-190 and late model P-51s had maneuver stops.
Fowler flaps, on the other hand, are vastly more efficient flaps than conventional or split flaps. If I remember correctly, the Ki-84 and Ki-43 had Fowler flaps, just like the Lockheed P-38. All production P-38s had Fowler flaps, but the maneuver stop was not introduced until the P-38F.
Dive flaps were a totally seperate mechanism. Not quite the same as dive brakes, dive flaps were intended not to slow the airplane down but rather to restore lift to the wing in compressibility. It also created some small nose-up pitch movement (although they do not in the simulator).
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
It also created some small nose-up pitch movement (although they do not in the simulator).
Yes they do. If you have the Lightning's elevators trimmed to the approximate neutral position and engage the dive flaps the dive flaps will generate a small amount of lift. They will not work properly if you have positive or negative elevator or combat trim engaged. And just like real life, you can also use the dive flaps at high speeds (over 300mph IAS) to aid in high speed turns.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
It seems that there may be some confusion about terminology. "Combat flaps" or "maneuver flaps" is a term that means that there is a stop on the flap lever that allows a small extension of flaps for assisting maneuvers. However, it does not automatically mean that the aircraft in question has better flaps than another. Some sources state that the FW-190 and late model P-51s had maneuver stops.
F4Us all had a flap maneuver setting as well (20 degrees, I believe).
Bodhi, who has repaired, maintained and restored F4Us, described the flap function in a thread found on the Aircraft and Vehicle forum. He stated, "In F4u's, the selector will allow you to deploy the flaps at any speed down to 15 or 20 degrees and no damage will occur. The beauty of this system is that the flaps will not deploy above 250 kts or so, because there is an unloader valve in the hydraulics as well as a series of heavy duty springs on the actuator ends. What this does is allow the flaps to be extended, and if you go above 250kts or so, the springs do not have the tension to keep the flaps down, so they retract due to this lack of tension. As you slow down, they come back out as the force of the airflow does not out weigh the spring tension. So, in essence, the flaps come down almost instantly as you need them, making them much more effective than the average birds which must be deployed upon reaching a speed."
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
It also created some small nose-up pitch movement (although they do not in the simulator).
For some planes they create nose-up and for some others nose-down movement. It depends on the plane.
This was just recently covered in some other thread.
-
Ki 43 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html) :
One of the service trials aircraft was fitted with combat flaps which could be extended during flight to provide greater lift and to make it possible to maintain a much tighter turning circle. This modification was sufficiently successful that service pilots now commented favorably on the maneuverability. The aircraft was completely devoid of any vicious flying characteristics, and all controls were extremely sensitive.
The Koku Hombu agreed that the use of the combat flaps sufficiently improved the maneuverability to justify the issuance of a production order.
N1K1-J (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1k.html):
A unique feature of the N1K1-J was its set of combat flaps. Whereas flap extension was manually controlled on the Kyofu seaplane, the flaps on the landplane version had the ability automatically to change their angle in response to changes in g-forces during maneuvers. This automatic operation freed up the pilot from having to worry about his flaps during combat, and eliminated the possibility of a stall at an inopportune time.
[...]
However the aircraft had pleasant flying characteristics and the automatic combat flaps gave the aircraft exceptional maneuverability.
Will this ever be present in AH? I bet N1K2-J will have at least 3 graphical updates before we see this "low priority" feature.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
"Don't turn"? Wherever did you get that notion? The only country's fighters against which this tactic was recommended was Japan's, and that was because Japan mainly used outdated designs more akin to biplanes than high-speed fighters. The United States Army Air Force's instructions for fighting the Luftwaffe were usually to "out-turn them."
"My own idea is that overshooting is a very good thing. Speed is good and should never be lost...An attack of this kind prevents the combat from turning into a dogfight with both aircraft at the same speed, turning for an advantage..."
Duane Beeson, 4th FG, (ETO)
I don't just make this stuff up Benny, I read too...
-
Yup, if your talking real world tactics most USAAF fighter units never adopted "dogfight" tactics, but rather using speed and surprise. Thats certainly true with P-47, P-38 and P-51 units.
You would have to be insane to drop to 200 mph in WW2 and go round and round with Japanese fighters, there are very few accounts of this being done as a tactic.
Same holds true for the USN/USMC F4U and F6F units. They used team tactics and hit and run.
All that being said most air forces in WW2 did that, shooting down enemy planes invariably resulted from a surprise "bounce" shooting down an unsuspecting a/c. Thats how most of them were scored, Allied and Axis.
Even with Spitfires, read any account of RAF and RCAF units and almost all the kills come from a surprise attack, using speed and surprise, in, out, and its done. No round and round dogfights.
-
I wouldn't say "no" round and round dogfights, but very rarely did it get that far! If you were bounced, you did everything you could to get out of there and fast. If you were the one bouncing, you didn't always chase the guy down because that meant giving up your alt advantage! I agree that most fighter on fighter kills were attained when the victim never knew or saw what hit him!:aok
It reminds me of when Greg Boyington got shot down. When the two enemies engaged, they all dove out and ran, the fight covered something like 170 miles. It wasn't this big furball like we see in AH. Most of the fellows that knew they were at a disadvantage sometime during the fight just ran like hell.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
"My own idea is that overshooting is a very good thing. Speed is good and should never be lost...An attack of this kind prevents the combat from turning into a dogfight with both aircraft at the same speed, turning for an advantage..."
Duane Beeson, 4th FG, (ETO)
I don't just make this stuff up Benny, I read too...
Woohoo, I love posting this stuff!
LtCol. Mark E. Hubbard, CO of the 20th FG: The P-38 will out-turn any enemy fighter in the air up to 25,000 ft,..." "To break off combat, out-climb him if under 20,000 ft. Out-turn him and head for some help. We can outrun him up to 25,000 ft with an even start." Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31- VIII Fighter Command at War -Long Reach-The Official Training Document Compiled from the Experiences of the Fighting Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth', compiled by Michael O'Leary, 2000Pages 80 and 97.
Capt. Maurice R. McLary, 55th Fs, 20FG: "...I would say that anyone flying a P-38 should have no fear of any enemy aircraft - even dogfighting a single-engined fighter at a decent altitude. I consider anything below 20,000 ft a decent altitude for a P-38." Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31- VIII Fighter Command at War -Long Reach-The Official Training Document Compiled from the Experiences of the Fighting Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth', compiled by Michael O'Leary, 2000, Page 106.
Capt. Merle B. Nichols, 79thFS/20th FG: "After making a break, if we can make the enemy commit himself by turning with us or or doing anything but a split-S, we can usually be on the offensive in a matter of seconds." "When on the deck, if both engines are running okay - full RPM and maximum manifold pressure - the Hun does not have an aircraft that can catch us." Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31- VIII Fighter Command at War -Long Reach-The Official Training Document Compiled from the Experiences of the Fighting Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth', compiled by Michael O'Leary, 2000, page 107.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Woohoo, I love posting this stuff!
My quote came out of the same book. Except from a P-47/P-51 pilot...
Oh yeah, and by the way, only one of those you mentioned above was an Ace (Hubbard) and he got killed in early '44 "dogfighting" He had a grand total of 2.5 kills with the 20th FG. Beeson had 12 kills in P-47's.
Not taking anything away from the P-38 guys, but I don't think their experience was typical of the rest of 8 Fighter Command.
-
I'm not saying that boom and zoom was not normal. I'm just saying that dogfighting seems to have been fairly common also.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
only one of those you mentioned above was an Ace (Hubbard) and he got killed in early '44 "dogfighting" He had a grand total of 2.5 kills with the 20th FG.
Actually, Hubbard got shot down by flak and captured. He always hated the P-38, but that was because of the high altitude problems.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Actually, Hubbard got shot down by flak and captured. He always hated the P-38, but that was because of the high altitude problems.
Sorry, I read on another website that he was killed. Regardless, the P-38 groups had some of the worst kill/loss ratios of any 8th Fighter Command Groups. This was due to a lot of reasons, a lot of them non-tactical. And again, not taking anything away from those guys. But, even the P-38 pilots in Long Reach talk repeatedly about the importance of speed, speed, and more speed.
Hit and run was the name of the game for the U.S. in almost every theater.
-
Perhaps, but no more for the United States than for any other country. And as I said, dogfighting was also common (again, for all countries).
-
Quote from the P-38F tactical trials:
"It would then take the P-38F sometime, if ever, to overcome this initial disadvantage. The P-38F’s best maneuver against all types tested was to climb rapidly out of range and then turn and commence the combat from a superior altitude. Once gaining this altitude it should retain it, making passes and climbing again rapidly. Knowledge of the local enemy fighter performance will dictate the tactics to be used by the P-38F in the combat zone. It is doubtful if this aircraft will meet in combat any type of enemy aircraft in which close-in fighting will be its best offensive action."
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
It is doubtful if this aircraft will meet in combat any type of enemy aircraft in which close-in fighting will be its best offensive action."
While it was not preferred or officially sanctioned tactic, Benny is correct. P-38s did engage in close in combat if necessary. The story posted by Guppy is testiment to that.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Quote from the P-38F tactical trials:
"It would then take the P-38F sometime, if ever, to overcome this initial disadvantage. The P-38F’s best maneuver against all types tested was to climb rapidly out of range and then turn and commence the combat from a superior altitude. Once gaining this altitude it should retain it, making passes and climbing again rapidly. Knowledge of the local enemy fighter performance will dictate the tactics to be used by the P-38F in the combat zone. It is doubtful if this aircraft will meet in combat any type of enemy aircraft in which close-in fighting will be its best offensive action."
Which production block P-38F was this? I ask because the early P-38Fs did not have the maneuver stop on the Fowler flaps. Without flaps, they could not quite out-turn the Me-109, their common opponent. After the maneuver stop was introduced, the Pilots Manual was updated to recommend using the maneuver flaps when maneuvering below 250 M.P.H.
-
Benny, during the trials the aggressor aircraft were P-39's, P-40's, P-47's, and P-51's. I have no idea what production block was tested. The report mentioned that the P-38 was at a disadvantage due to the slow roll rate, and that initially, all the other aircraft outturned the P-38, even though once the turn was established, the P-38 outturned them all. The declaration to not "turn fight" was a factor of roll rate, and had nothing to do with a tighter turn radius or flap use.
I never meant that NO U.S. pilot ever dogfought an opponent during the war. In fact, I can think of two notables off the top of my head: McGuire and Kearby, both of which were killed "dogfighting". Another interesting phenomenon is U.S. and German gun camera footage from the ETO is almost always from a 6 o'clock kill position. That leads me to believe (although it may be annecdotal) that most kills were not from dogfighting where you would tend to see much more deflection shots. My statement was that the accepted tactics in all theaters regardless of airframe was one of hit and run. U.S planes were, with some early exceptions, across the board heavier, faster, and had better high-speed handling characteristics than Axis aircraft and most other Allied aircraft. To not use hit and run (aka BnZ) tactics were to sacrifice the advantages they possessed over their enemy, starting with the AVG in China before the war even began for America. Most interviews with successful American fighter pilots in the war testify to this as accepted doctrine.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Benny, during the trials the aggressor aircraft were P-39's, P-40's, P-47's, and P-51's. I have no idea what production block was tested. The report mentioned that the P-38 was at a disadvantage due to the slow roll rate, and that initially, all the other aircraft outturned the P-38, even though once the turn was established, the P-38 outturned them all. The declaration to not "turn fight" was a factor of roll rate, and had nothing to do with a tighter turn radius or flap use.
I find that very, very interesting. I've always been led to believe that the P-40 was a very good turning machine. It out-turned the Me-109, and it was supposed to out-turn the Spitfire, too. Do you have a copy of that report you could send me?
By the way, if the P-38F was beating P-40s in sustained turns, then it must be the P-38F with the maneuver stop. Without flaps, the P-38 barely outturned the P-47 and the FW-190.
As for U.S.A.A.F. pilots who were famous for dogfighting, I can name a few without looking them up. Arthur Heiden, Irv Ethell, Dick Bong, John Lowell, and Bud Anderson all were known for dogfighting enemy fighters.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
As for U.S.A.A.F. pilots who were famous for dogfighting, I can name a few without looking them up. Arthur Heiden, Irv Ethell, Dick Bong, John Lowell, and Bud Anderson all were known for dogfighting enemy fighters.
As for the performance reports, read to your hearts content at http://www.spitfireperformance.com
As for this discussion, I just realized that I'm getting suckered into a dogfight, and I'm going to use my excessive speed and altitude and disengage.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
As an expression of utter agreement, I give bozon a big kiss.
*Mmmmmmwah*
<--- passes Bozon a hankerchief and some Purell (just in case)
-
Originally posted by Simaril
<--- passes Bozon a hankerchief and some Purell (just in case)
That was a sloppy one... :O
-
"Another interesting phenomenon is U.S. and German gun camera footage from the ETO is almost always from a 6 o'clock kill position. That leads me to believe (although it may be annecdotal) that most kills were not from dogfighting where you would tend to see much more deflection shots."
I pondered this myself. There is a compilation of Luftwaffe footage on Youtube that has some strangely passive American pilots. The Mustangs and P47s just sit there as they are pounded.
I came to the conclusion that we only get to see a tiny portion of existing gun camera, because the people who compiled the film - either for Youtube, or back in WW2 - concentrated on the really dramatic stuff, with parts flying off the target and tracers flashing past etc. Which means that we see lots of sustained dead-six tracking shots. As with all of history, we base our view of the past on material that was edited at the time, and has been edited since.
We rarely see the snapshot dogfighting footage, because the compilers of gun camera film assume that we would find it tedious to watch; the gun camera is fixed forwards and zoomed in, and the enemy aircraft would only briefly flash past every twenty seconds. By the time the winning pilot scores a kill he would already be manoeuvering away lest he becomes a victim himself.
From what I have read, sometimes a defeated aircraft did not look obviously dead; sometimes the losing aircraft would seem to "die" in the air even if it did not explode or break up. We would not see that kind of footage because the people who compile gun camera films would never think to show us.
-
I guess I should have continued my thought noting that a lot of Pacific footage shows deflections shots; though, your theory could still be true seeing how Japanese planes fireballed at the slightest damage, i.e. dramatic even though a quick shot. And you're right, not a very scientific observation on my part...
-
Originally posted by Sombra
Ki 43 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html) :
N1K1-J (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1k.html):
A unique feature of the N1K1-J was its set of combat flaps. Whereas flap extension was manually controlled on the Kyofu seaplane, the flaps on the landplane version had the ability automatically to change their angle in response to changes in g-forces during maneuvers. This automatic operation freed up the pilot from having to worry about his flaps during combat, and eliminated the possibility of a stall at an inopportune time.
[...]
However the aircraft had pleasant flying characteristics and the automatic combat flaps gave the aircraft exceptional maneuverability.
Will this ever be present in AH? I bet N1K2-J will have at least 3 graphical updates before we see this "low priority" feature.
I think the Automatic Combat flaps for N1K2-J are already modeled in the FM, bit not graphically.