Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1Boner on March 12, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
-
I've poked around a bit and can't seem to find anything that tells me the speed that I can drop flaps in any particular plane.
Is there a chart somewhere?
Or is it trial and error.
-
Mostly error. :D
-
Mostly error. :D
:rofl
-
Roll a plane with full flaps, slowly accelerate, stop acceleration each the flaps sound, note the speeds.
-
Most American planes drop the first notch about 250 mph, German @ 175, British @ 150. I think Russian and Japanese are around 150 too IIRC. These are just general guidlines and could still vary by aircraft.
-
For Germans...
Fw190 Flaps pop out at 180-90ish, Bf109 flaps at 200.
In the Fw190 there're two or three notches to half, and then at 150 the last notch of flaps comes out.
I think the first notch of flaps in the 262 come out at 300-400mph.
-
First notch of flaps come out in a P47 & P51 up to 400IAS
-
P40E flaps come out at over 360 and for 2 turns or so it will stick with anything.
-
IAS speeds:
190A5, A8, D9, F8, 152: 180, 160, 140 (140mph notch is a whole half of the flap range)
109E4: 200, 198, 175, 150 (4 notches)
All other 109s: 195, 185, 175, 165, 155.
Both Me110s: 200 (three first notches), 175, 150.
Me262, 163: 400, 275, 225, 180, 165.
-
are they gonna address the disparity ?
-
Wouldn't think so, those speeds probably come from pilot's notes.
-
pretty sure they are inaccurate ...
the 109 had a flap wheel so it was pilot torque that actuated the flaps, so it seems that if one could crank them down to 50-60 degrees at 140 mph they should be able to be deployed 1-20 degrees much faster than 200 mph ...
the 190 had low degree flap settings as well i believe these could be adjusted as well since there was a flap indicator tab at the top of the wing so the pilot could visually confirm his flap state, seems oddly redundant if the flap settings were fixed. also the same argument as ...
if 60 degrees of deflection is possible at 140 mph then the system should be able to manage a 8-10-20 degree deflection at much higher speeds than 180.
i would like to see some data that explains why the AH physics are different for american combat flaps as opposed to everyone else's combat flaps. real world flap deployment speed limits would be nice as well so AH can show its thinking here.
as it stands the 190s can't drop their flaps to any degree until they are slow enough to drop their landing gears, pretty silly really.
-
pretty sure they are inaccurate ...
the 109 had a flap wheel so it was pilot torque so it seems that if one could crank them down to 50-60 degrees at 140 mph they should be able to be deployed 1-20 degrees much faster than 200 mph ...
That flap wheel was like turning a jack to raise up a car, takes a ridiculous number of turns just to get 20 degrees down.
-
That flap wheel was like turning a jack to raise up a car, takes a ridiculous number of turns just to get 20 degrees down.
so then there is a lot of torque for the pilot to deploy them at higher speeds. not sure why you would want a combat flap setting higher than 20 degrees anyway.
i mean 60 degrees of flaps are not a combat configuration because of the drag ...
most planes have very little room between large flap deflection speeds and their stall limits. any combat in that type of configuration would be "short lived" with a pretty obvious result.
if that is not the case in the game then there is much more wrong with the flaps than just the relative deployment speeds, don't ya think?
-
In our game, to really succeed in some knock-down scissors fights you have to be prepared to drop full flaps and raise them up again in a number of seconds. I don't know about other aircraft, but this would have been impossible in the Bf 109:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded)
Now, let's not hijack this into another "realism" thread, I was just observing... ;)
-
yea heaven forbid we discuss ...
realism in a sim ...
or
balance and fairness in a game ...
-
yea heaven forbid we discuss ...
realism in a sim ...
or
balance and fairness in a game ...
Might want to start here- http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
Or here- http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/
Or here- http://www.netaces.org/
The planes are not equal to each other. They weren't designed that way, they weren't that way in real life, and they aren't modeled to be equal in AH.
A zero does not do the same things, in the same manner , as a P51. Neither does a 109, or a B17.
They're all different, and have different strengths and weaknesses. The flaps drop when they did so in RL, according to the data that HTC uses, and is readily available for anyone who cares to search for it.
Can you supply any data that shows the speed of flap deployment is incorrect?
-
i didn't see any links to real world data. could you direct me to that specific information in your links please.
as far as research goes what is the current salary for a researcher at AH?
i fail to see where i am out of line for asking for an reasonable explanation for a 2x disparity in combat flap deployment speeds.
i mean presumably they had the real world data to make that decision, i am asking to see that data?
am i as a player not allowed to see that information?
in as far as the game goes are you taking issue with my observations about combat in a high flap deflection mode?
or wondering why i can deploy my landing gear at the same suspiciously slow speed that i can deploy my 190 combat flaps?
it did not seem like an outlandish request to me.
Might want to start here- http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
Or here- http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/
Or here- http://www.netaces.org/
The planes are not equal to each other. They weren't designed that way, they weren't that way in real life, and they aren't modeled to be equal in AH.
A zero does not do the same things, in the same manner , as a P51. Neither does a 109, or a B17.
They're all different, and have different strengths and weaknesses. The flaps drop when they did so in RL, according to the data that HTC uses, and is readily available for anyone who cares to search for it.
Can you supply any data that shows the speed of flap deployment is incorrect?
-
In our game, to really succeed in some knock-down scissors fights you have to be prepared to drop full flaps and raise them up again in a number of seconds. I don't know about other aircraft, but this would have been impossible in the Bf 109:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded)
Now, let's not hijack this into another "realism" thread, I was just observing... ;)
Yikes!!
-
i didn't see any links to real world data. could you direct me to that specific information in your links please.
as far as research goes what is the current salary for a researcher at AH?
i fail to see where i am out of line for asking for an reasonable explanation for a 2x disparity in combat flap deployment speeds.
i mean presumably they had the real world data to make that decision, i am asking to see that data?
am i as a player not allowed to see that information?
in as far as the game goes are you taking issue with my observations about combat in a high flap deflection mode?
or wondering why i can deploy my landing gear at the same suspiciously slow speed that i can deploy my 190 combat flaps?
it did not seem like an outlandish request to me.
Are you willing to do any research on your own? Or just want to complain about a percieved disparity without any data yourself?
Simple question, you say you're "pretty sure they're inaccurate"- how so? What speed should they deploy at?
-
Let's get to ten pages. On your mark, get set...
-
Let's get to ten pages. On your mark, get set...
Sounds like a job for Stiggie.
-
are they gonna address the disparity ?
Here's the deal with AH for all aircraft: If the POH or some other reliable documentation says that the full flap limit speed is 150 mph IAS, then the last notch of flaps will retract at 150 mph IAS. It doesn't matter what damage threshold actually existed in real life--doesn't matter if some ace had a story about how he had 40 degrees of flaps in his P-38 doing 400 IAS. If the pilot operating handbook had a note that you couldn't extend flaps at all until you were under 200 mph IAS, then the first notch of flaps can't be extended until you are under 200 mph IAS.
This is how it is...It is completely consistent among aircraft. After you've played this game for more than a few months, you'll learn that this game presents the designers with some challenges with respect to how they model the aircraft. However, they do not purposefully nerf any one plane relative to another.
Come back and speak to us in December and give us your opinions again...
-
Are you willing to do any research on your own? Or just want to complain about a percieved disparity without any data yourself?
Simple question, you say you're "pretty sure they're inaccurate"- how so? What speed should they deploy at?
the problem i have is that i am not a sim or game developer. that data is not easily available and since somebody at AH has presumably already done the research what is the big issue in asking for an explanation because the physics and common sense of it all just does not wash.
the fw190 had low degree flap settings, why if they were only to be used during landing?? besides, everybody including the NACA testers called them combat flaps, so why then the low speed of deployment?
if it is a sim then why the 2x disparity at the high speed end of the flap deployment ability between the american and german aircraft since the bottom ends are not nearly so different. after all the relative forces are presumably exactly the same since we are all in the same virtual sky with presumably the same air density, as is the individual power and structural strength of the systems deploying the flaps in each aircraft. i.e. if two systems are capable of say a 150mph 60 degree deployment they why is one capable of a 400mph 10 degree deployment, and the other only capable of deploying any deflection at 180 mph or slower. also if the latter is accurate why are they referred to as combat flaps in the first place?
it makes no sense so i am asking for the game developers reasons or reasoning in making the game this way.
if it is a game then it is just a playability issue and then the question is why the decision for a difference in flap deployment speeds at all?
once again i fail to see why it is a problem asking for this clarification.
-
great, could i see the documentation or be directed to it please. that is all i have asked for.
thanks in advance.
Here's the deal with AH for all aircraft: If the POH or some other reliable documentation says that the full flap limit speed is 150 mph IAS, then the last notch of flaps will retract at 150 mph IAS. It doesn't matter what damage threshold actually existed in real life--doesn't matter if some ace had a story about how he had 40 degrees of flaps in his P-38 doing 400 IAS. If the pilot operating handbook had a note that you couldn't extend flaps at all until you were under 200 mph IAS, then the first notch of flaps can't be extended until you are under 200 mph IAS.
This is how it is...It is completely consistent among aircraft. After you've played this game for more than a few months, you'll learn that this game presents the designers with some challenges with respect to how they model the aircraft. However, they do not purposefully nerf any one plane relative to another.
Come back and speak to us in December and give us your opinions again...
-
Are you willing to do any research on your own? Or just want to complain about a percieved disparity without any data yourself?
Simple question, you say you're "pretty sure they're inaccurate"- how so? What speed should they deploy at?
He's just curious.. he just joined.. He might not know anything about how things work.
Thorsim, HTC might not want to show where they get their data. If you have compelling data for 190s and/or 109s deploying flaps at higher speeds, you're welcome to share them here or with HTC. :)
nm.. see above
-
well i am new i guess i will wait until december and see "how things work" ...
but i am afraid you will have to excuse me for feeling a little "stonewalled" at the moment ...
thanks anyway guys ...
-
i didn't see any links to real world data. could you direct me to that specific information in your links please.
as far as research goes what is the current salary for a researcher at AH?
it did not seem like an outlandish request to me.
Along the same vein, what are you willing to pay to see that data that has been researched? As you presume, I'm sure the time and effort didn't come for free.
I think the issue with the request is: pretty sure they are inaccurate ...
As someone already asked. how?
wrongway
-
Burden of proof is usually on the affirmative. If anyone wanted to, they could reasonably doubt the authenticity of those numbers until evidence was presented to show their correctness.
-
just noticed it could be seen that way, but my "stonewall" comment was not a personal crack at you Stoney ...
actually a big Jackson fan.
:salute
-
well i am new i guess i will wait until december and see "how things work" ...
but i am afraid you will have to excuse me for feeling a little "stonewalled" at the moment ...
thanks anyway guys ...
Sorry thorsim, I did come across pretty harsh.
HTC makes every effort to model the planes as realistically as possible. They're not willing to "bend" the models to favor one plane over another, and that includes flap deploy speeds. They're basing those deployment speeds on their pile of data, which they don't share. As Stoney mentioned, the pilot operation handbooks are good places to start. I've only got one of those myself, but they are available, and between all of the AH folks, I'm sure most of those are covered. Occasionally, you'll see postings from those on these boards when discrepencies are discussed. Looking at the one I have, the gear drops at the correct speed, as do the flaps, and the stall occurs at the correct speed, etc. I don't see anything that I can point out as incorrect. The times I've looked at other POH's on the shelf, I also don't see any glaring inaccuracies.
Short of purchasing your own books, a way to explore the data for any one plane may be to post a question such as "why do the flaps on "xxx" plane drop when they do? What speed should they drop at? Why aren't they modeled to do it "zzz" way?" You'll generally get more/better/more informative responses that way. And probably learn a bunch in the process. Another option is to run a search of the forums. Many of these topics have been discussed many times in the past, and the details and data are already here...
Concessions are made in some areas, where HTC feels they're needed to keep gameplay enjoyable. Some examples would be the auto-trim, and auto-level features, as well as easy engine management, and lack of weather, wind, etc. But they won't make one plane turn better, or fly faster, or drop flaps or gear faster than another to "even things out" between the planes.
In the end, AH is a creation by an individual, and as such some "artistic license" applies. In the end, if they have conflicting data, they need to choose how to deal with it, and that may not be the way others would deal with it. Accuracy between the flight models/envelopes is strived for, but there are often people who disagree with some of the specifics.
Although HTC doesn't share their own data, they do welcome users to supply/present data that shows differences between the real-world aircraft and the AH aircraft.
-
as to the appropriateness of my question, i am the customer and purchaser, how much extra do you believe i should have to pay for an answer to a question? the research was presumably done to produce a satisfactory product, i am paying for the use of that product, and in that regard i feel i have every right to ask how they came up with the parameters of the game, especially in regards to things that do not seem to make sense.
i mean if a "pilots handbook" or whatever discourages flap deployment at certain speeds,
then it surely also discourages ACM or aerobatics in a 60 degree flap deployed "dirty" airframe at 20 feet as well.
funny thing is how some things are ok and others are not ok ...
not even some questions about some things seem to be ok around here.
it's ok, mind you i guess i came across as sarcastic too, and first.
i just think there are rules that determine how things should work. i am not a big fan of rules and "rules" if you get my meaning. i don't like the feeling of being inexplicably overburdened in a competitive situation, especially one that someone is asking me to pay for with one hand and refusing to share the explanation of my disadvantage with the other.
not saying that is how it is but it is certainly how it feels right now.
no offense to anyone.
Along the same vein, what are you willing to pay to see that data that has been researched? As you presume, I'm sure the time and effort didn't come for free.
I think the issue with the request is:
As someone already asked. how?
wrongway
-
how much extra do you believe i should have to pay for an answer to a question?
Typically, in this community, the only thing you have to "pay" for is time. If you are willing to do the research yourself, there are a multitude of people in this game that can point you to free resources online where you can research, for example, flap deployment speeds of certain aircraft.
That there is a discrepancy between the deployment speeds of flaps in different aircraft is a fact substantiated by aircraft documentation. I'm a P-47 fanboi, and I know that they can hang the first notch of flaps at 400+ mph. Probably, its because, like everything else on that aircraft, its overbuilt. To be honest, I have no idea how it compares structurally to a FW190 flap. I don't know what the V-speeds are in the 190 like I do in the P-47. What I do know is that HTC hasn't purposefully nerfed the 190, so I trust the settings without researching them first. I have researched everything I can get my hands on about the P-47 to discover why it performs the way it does. I would encourage you to start with this community and also the internet, and do some research on what appears to be one of your favorite aircraft. You will probably learn something about it that you didn't know before...And, ultimately, you'll discover why, in AH2 for example, the FW-190 flap deployment speeds are as they are.
-
that would be fine stoney where do you suggest i post for the assistance in finding the flap deployment speeds for the german aircraft?
-
as to the appropriateness of my question, i am the customer and purchaser, how much extra do you believe i should have to pay for an answer to a question? the research was presumably done to produce a satisfactory product, i am paying for the use of that product, and in that regard i feel i have every right to ask how they came up with the parameters of the game, especially in regards to things that do not seem to make sense.
i just think there are rules that determine how things should work. i am not a big fan of rules and "rules" if you get my meaning. i don't like the feeling of being inexplicably overburdened in a competitive situation, especially one that someone is asking me to pay for with one hand and refusing to share the explanation of my disadvantage with the other.
no offense to anyone.
It's a fine question, but also a fine question for the game maunfacturer to not answer. That information could easily be considered a "trade secret" in this sense. HTC is presenting how they've interpreted the data, and we see that in the final product. HTC has spent time and money compiling their data, to give it away freely makes no sense to them as a business, especially as a business with competitors. We pay for the game, not the research that went/goes into it.
I work in maunfacturing, and the company I work for sells a product (food packaging). The customer is not privi to any/all information they ask for. They're not given many of the specifics, and are not even allowed to see the specifics of how "their" product is created. They're only shown/told what they/we decide they "need" to know. Even when they tour our facility, they are limited in where they can go, what they can see, and who they can talk to. The pay for the product, not for the information/technology that makes that product. They're free to move on to a different supplier, but the information they're privi to won't change. We give them the package to keep/sell their food in, we don't supply them with the chemical composition of that package, or the specific methods used to create it.
-
that would be fine stoney where do you suggest i post for the assistance in finding the flap deployment speeds for the german aircraft?
At the top of this page is a "search" window. First thing I'd do is try finding the info you want that way, and maybe even formulate some specific questions/concerns that way. Maybe try "190 flaps" or "109 flaps".
As an example, the F4U and P51 flaps are constant topics, and some very in-depth information has come from those discussions. the math and formulas are impressive, if beyond my capabilites. At least it gives you an idea where we've been, and maybe where we could go next... With a search of "F4U flaps", these are soem informative threads-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,252402.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,192031.0.html
-
The Ta 152 manual I've got says that full flaps are to be deployed for landing at a speed between 200-135 mph, whereas in the game full flaps are only allowed from 150 mph (and first notch at 180 mph). Anyone know why that would be? Seems like a good example for Thorsim. (I'm betting Pyro and anyone else involved knows the exact construction limits - strange that the manual says otherwise though (or the manual I have is wrong))
-
The Ta 152 manual I've got says that full flaps are to be deployed for landing at a speed between 200-135 mph, whereas in the game full flaps are only allowed from 150 mph (and first notch at 180 mph). Anyone know why that would be? Seems like a good example for Thorsim. (I'm betting Pyro and anyone else involved knows the exact construction limits - strange that the manual says otherwise though (or the manual I have is wrong))
Maybe start a new thread? The question will probably get lost here, seeing as how we're 3 pages into this topic, and yours is more specific.
thorsim, this would be a good option for you, too, if you don't find the answers you're looking for with the search feature. Just click "New Topic" on the top or bottom right corner of the subject pane.
-
I was just floating that as an example of how a figure without the full context can be misleading.. I have too much to do already to start that one right now. Thorsim's (or anyone else) welcome to do it though.
-
Not to hijack about realism or things of that nature. WWIIPerformance offers some really nice ERs of flaps used in combat by 51 drivers.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html)
And to me this instance is very neat, I've heard of Corsairs dropping gear, but not a 109. Luftwaffe experts, was this a common practice?
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/364-mccubbin-2dec44.jpg)
-
yea moot,
i have looked and the best i can find are landing flap deployment speeds, i am assuming that is full flaps 60 degrees, and then a "do not go below speed" warning for the full flaps which i assume is the dirty stall speed. however i can not find any information on the smaller deflection angles for combat and their deployment speeds.
i know some of the guys working on "White 1" believed that the "flaps were certainly strong enough to deploy at 500 kph" or 310.70mph however i have not found the data sheets they used to support this statement ...
i also know in browns flight tests he reported a 10 degree setting on the FW he was flying which i believe is not represented in the game.
i am thinking the numbers in the first paragraph have to do with landing approaches and not much more, and are giving speeds for the high deflection flap settings. however that is just speculation and guesswork based on features on the plane such as the flap degree indicators etc...
thing is i don't like words like assuming and speculation in these types of discussions. i will dig around for more as far as the 109 goes it seems to me that the limiting factor would just be the structural limits of the flaps as the actuation was done by the pilot hard to believe that the structure was weaker than the pilot deploying it, also hard to believe that 200mph was the limit in that case ...
like i said i will be rooting around, for the 109 we probably need a pilot and or crew person, maybe skip holm could shed some light on things. same for the 190 as i expect the actual settings were chosen by the pilot and set up individually buy the crew like some of the trim settings were. again speculation based on the unique features, and like i said i will be looking around.
as far as gear deployment in combat i have a feeling that probably has to do with damage or the pilot hitting the controls by accident rather than any kind of evasive tactic.
of course that is speculation as well.
t
-
5point, I've seen landing gear drop in gun cam footage on number of occasions. It's far more likely that it dropped because of damage than because the pilot intended to do it.
-
I was dumbfounded that the combat flaps of the ki84 deployed at such a low speed. I wrote the museum in Japan that has an example on static display. They kindly sent me the POH, in Japanese. I then had to find someone to translate the relevant pages. Sure enough, HTC was right.
The point of the story is not to have a dig at anyone, just to say that HTC seems to be pretty accurate as they can be, 50 years after the event.
Regards
-
Gameism vs realism see how "easy" was to drop flaps in a 109
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8)
-
how do you figure that was difficult at all ...
first off the guys in the video is not at all used to it and i saw deflection with each turn ...
the whole 60 degree flaps during combat so common and apparently successful in the arenas here is far more unlikely than any other topic in this thread ...
EDIT: FTJR it just seems very very very strange that combat flaps can not be deployed until the landing gear can be in a front line fighter plane, especially ones as advanced and forward thinking as the FW-190s ...
after all the landing gear mechanism in the 190 was not as far as i know ever intended to be used as a air break as it was in the F4U or so i hear ...
so i have been looking around and have not fount the pertinent information yet.
Gameism vs realism see how "easy" was to drop flaps in a 109
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8)
-
All 109s' flaps in AH take 8 seconds to fully travel.
20 seconds in that video; but he's in no hurry.
-
how do you figure that was difficult at all ...
the whole 60 degree flaps during combat so common and apparently successful in the arenas here is far more unlikely than any other topic in this thread ...
60 degrees is too much most of the time. Most planes modeled in here maximize their rate of turn at 1 or 2 notches.
-
What's the second wheel for?
-
60 degrees is too much most of the time. Most planes modeled in here maximize their rate of turn at 1 or 2 notches.
right but they don't get very twitchy at full flaps either, after all the difference in max speed and stall speed at those deflections is not very much, hard maneuvers in such a state should be very very dangerous. however even the aircraft notorious for poor low speed handling such as the p-51s and the f4Us float around like fairies giddy with aerobatic silliness in extreme flap deflection states ...
i mean if one is going to be so stringent with data, what is with all the no alt heavy escort aerobatic success, i know there are warnings about that in those hand books as well.
after all flap deployment effects more than just speed and at full deployment the lift/drag relationship will have gotten pretty dismal, the bigger your flaps the worse it gets.
it is just not a state where you want to mess with the airflow over your wing by pulling hard maneuvers, and that is certainly noted in the pilots informational material.
What's the second wheel for?
el trim
-
you see i am just wondering if the germans just did things differently ...
i.e. why publish flap deployment speeds ...
(other than the low speed stall warnings included in the FW data)
i mean with the wheel in the 109, and the variable ground adjustability in the 190
(and maybe in cockpit as well, hence the need for the deployment indicator on the FWs wing)
it could be just that the flaps were deployed when they could be and retracted automatically when the forces pushed them up, or they determined that they were robust enough to handle any likely speeds or speeds at which the actuators could deploy them, and they trusted that the pilots needs would cause him to pay attention to or notice that his performance was "different" than what he expected so the flaps would then be set to a more efficient or desired state, because you see in my research i saw no high speed warnings on the low flap deflections at all, pretty strange unless it was engineered so as not to be a concern, or shown not to be a concern through experience.
if that is the case than the only flap instructions could possibly be the landing procedures. which would sort of explain the situation in the 109s and 190s in the game. i.e. HTC had not found any specific data other than the max deflection speeds (maybe where the actuators were extended in a manner for landing which one would think that they were not intended to retract easily hence the warnings) so HTC without the benefit of other published numbers used those landing flap limit speeds for all the flap settings and thereby severely limiting the usefulness of the combat flaps in the german aircraft.
i know that is a lot of conjecture but it does address all the strangeness in the situation. i just think as in trim the germans just saw and approached things differently.
-
Well, there's two aspects that I see.. Mechanical and regulations. The service regulations might be inaccurately represented due to incorrect or missing documentation.. But as soon as you have complete blueprints, it's only a matter of modeling.. e.g. finite element analysis; there's no room for mystery there.
-
What's the second wheel for?
Trim wheel.
The basic idea was that when you lowered flaps for landing, you also at the same time turned the trim wheel, so the plane was all the time at optimal trimming. You can turn both wheels at the same time.
Or then just use the trim wheel or the flaps wheel.
-
Thanks, didn't seem convenient to have to independent controls so near each other. :)
-
Burden of proof is usually on the affirmative. If anyone wanted to, they could reasonably doubt the authenticity of those numbers until evidence was presented to show their correctness.
I doubt that statement is correct can you prove affirmatively that your statement is correct? :)
Thorsim: Welcome to our board.
It appears to me from your post you are doing two classic mistakes when looking into modeling.
1. It appears to me you are showing a bias in wishing the planes you like to be better then they are.
2. You are looking for data to support you position rather than looking for data to find out what your position should be.
HiTech
-
Although the burden of proof is not a piece of formal logic, it is axiomatic for those who want to remain within the bounds of rational argument. So, you can't prove it like you can prove modus ponens, but even a proof for modus ponens isn't going to convince anyone who isn't convinced by modus ponens in the first place. Asking for proof (like a logical proof) for the burden of proof is a category mistake. Its real justification is going to be found in epistemological considerations and what counts as knowledge in a community that has standards of evidence for beliefs. Most importantly, we require that someone making a statement has evidence to support it, whereas violating the burden of proof is asking someone to find facts to disprove a statement that was unsupported in the first place.
Edit: Maybe important: which part of the statement? The part about the burden of proof being on the affirmative? Or that one can reasonably doubt until they are shown evidence?
-
that is quite possible, however i still fail to see the common sense in low deflection flap settings that can not be deployed until the landing gear can be deployed. why not just have a simple landing flap like the spitfires?
the same thing for the 109s ...
the numbers in game just make no sense, and i was curious how you came about selecting those limits.
no offense, but the feature does make a great difference in a lot of common situations in the game.
thank you for the welcome.
as far as the burden of proof i am fairly comfortable questioning these things since there seems to be a lot of inaccuracy in much of the popular history surrounding this part of our past.
i think i explained my concerns pretty well above and stand on my confusion over your numbers for the reasons i stated.
after all i am sure you are aware that some people very close to the aircraft in question have posted numbers over twice as high as yours in other similar discussions.
I doubt that statement is correct can you prove affirmatively that your statement is correct? :)
Thorsim: Welcome to our board.
It appears to me from your post you are doing two classic mistakes when looking into modeling.
1. It appears to me you are showing a bias in wishing the planes you like to be better then they are.
2. You are looking for data to support you position rather than looking for data to find out what your position should be.
HiTech
-
that is quite possible, however i still fail to see the common sense in low deflection flap settings that can not be deployed until the landing gear can be deployed. why not just have a simple landing flap like the spitfires?
If it makes you feel any better the F4U can't deploy its flaps until BELOW speeds at which the landing gear can be extended.
:D :D :D
-
there is a reason for that ...
one that in game results in an advantage, not a disadvantage as in the case of the FW ...
so i guess i get your joke, or you just learned something ;)
If it makes you feel any better the F4U can't deploy its flaps until BELOW speeds at which the landing gear can be extended.
:D :D :D
for the record i have looked around quite a bit and i have only found speed warnings or published limits for the FWs landing settings.
i have found no published limits for any of the other flap settings in the FW. i admit to not being currently privy to all the historic records others apparently have socked away someplace.
it is somewhat disturbing that the data in these articles of our history have apparently been hoarded and made a commodity for a lot of reasons, none of which seem to involve a common accurate understanding of the aircraft in question. aircraft that contributed to our history and had a pretty significant part in shaping the world we live in today. it is a shame.
-
Thorsim you should give the exact AH plane models and historical documents or other real sources you're referring to.
-
did you miss the part where i asked for HTC's data? if i had the data i would post it.
what i have are data place holders on discussions with the numbers, but without the data sheets because they have been removed. the quotes are as follows ...
"Sent XXXX a copy of the Flugzueg-handbuch page with the take off instructions.
(removed data)
Here is the tolerences of the FW-190 flaps from this report:
(removed data)
You can see the flaps were certainly strong enough to deploy at 500 kph:
(removed data)
The USAAF certainly classified them as manuverflaps when they conducted their tactical trials:
(removed data)"
maybe removed for space for other data.
maybe removed to make the information a commodity to be sold to game developers or whomever, who can then say they have all this "better" information (that we can't review) which is "better" than anyone else's "better" information (that we can't review) ...
if all HTC has is the same pilots book that i have that only refers to the landing flap deflection speed warnings, then what information did they user to conclude that the same speed limits should apply to 1/6 to 1/4 of the deflection and the lower stresses those deflections put on the actuators than the full flap deployment does? ...
because that makes no sense at all, and certainly contradicts whatever was posted above and not contested in that discussion ...
point is i am looking for the data and a satisfactory explanation for the physical inconsistencies and confusing situation in the game. although i would expect a company that has a vested interest in the most accurate data available would know enough to answer my question right off instead of questioning my motives and outlook.
btw the same source says this about the 109s combat flaps ...
"I agree they should break. If you lower more than 10 degrees of flap at speeds faster than 770kph (478.456 Miles (statute) per hour) @ 6 km altitude in a Bf-109, your flaps should break off."
which also makes sense since they are manually actuated so there is nothing to break except for the structure of the flaps itself and 10 degrees deflection should not be much more stress on the structure than the CSF limits on the structure as a whole clean and not deployed.
do you see, how that makes sense?
Thorsim you should give the exact AH plane models and historical documents or other real sources you're referring to.
-
did you miss the part where i asked for HTC's data? if i had the data i would post it.
What Moot is asking is what sources are you using to form your opinion that the flap deployment speeds in AH2 are incorrect? Not which sources list the flap deployment speeds.
-
What Stoney said. I'm not sure if I'm understanding you right.. But if you have data that contradicts HTC's modeling, you're welcome to share that data with them, and us if you're ok with that. It's best to make the sources as clear as possible if you do either.
Whether HTC discloses their data or not is up to them.. The ethics of disclosing data like that to customers, I can't comment on. I doubt disclosing it is part of the EULA or any US law, though. They won't refuse your data input, for sure. One of the latest planes added, the Ki84 was finished with data from Japan that a player was kind enough to go dig out in person and then send to Pyro.
-
sorry no data
i ask the questions because i am curious why a system that is modeled to handle a force that is applied to it at 60 degrees of deflection at 140 mph is modeled so that it can only handle 180 mph at what 1/6th to 1/3 of the deflection.
a 350% reduction in deflection results in only a 20% increase in speed able to be sustained by the very same structure ...
? ? ?
those types of curious inconsistencies attract my attention.
the actuality in game results in a flap setting described as "flight" ...
(as opposed to "take off" and "landing" in the translated pilots handbook)
unable to be used above most dogfight stall speeds of the unadjusted wing, and very suspiciously at the same speed as the landing gear.
as i have explained there are no warning speeds for any of the flap settings other than the landing flap settings in any of the data i have found.
i have also stated my willingness to review any data HTC has to support it's interpretation RE the Luftwaffe flap deployment safety speeds.
the reply i received from hitech was a less than satisfactory statement on my approach,
which included no relevant information one way or the other.
asking a question and receiving only questions about why i ask the question is less than satisfactory.
nothing like an answer, nothing like it at all actually.
-
I agree with the flap argument itself, but
1) HTC have no obligation to share their data, data sources, or data interpretation
1b) They're not likely to share it because it's private and would lead people to try and pick it apart > you give people an inch and they'll want a mile, and then you have to justify yourself and your methods. It's just not worth the hassle.
1c) They won't share it or give you that inch for sure if you try to get it out of them by force, esp if it's done by accusing (implicit or explicit) them of being unfair, etc.
2) If you want to go somewhere with this, you need to work out the whole of your argument. E.G. Show your math from A to Z - how the structure meets with and can bear [a,b,c,d,...] amount of aerodynamic force at [s,t,u,v,...] speeds (not just dimensional rules of thumbs), as well as it being allowed by the appropriate specific documents. You can't just say you have those docs.. You have to show the full details, to make a real solid case.
-
i explained that i am looking for better data, it is just odd that ...
A) i need to do this at all since i am not the game developer.
B) why the reasons for my question did not arouse the same curiosity and dissatisfaction in the design team as it did in me.
C) i am pretty sure that having a document does not make you the owner of the intellectual property on that document.
-
i explained that i am looking for better data, it is just odd that ...
A) i need to do this at all since i am not the game developer.
Because it is you that is questioning the correctness of the game data & values. So it's up to you to find evidence, not them.
BTW, I'm pretty sure HTC would be very interested to find any "better" data then what they already have. It's just nothing they usually talk about in public, for various reasons.
B) why the reasons for my question did not arouse the same curiosity and dissatisfaction in the design team as it did in me.
You don't know if it does or does not. Keep in mind discussions & questions like this one are not new to them.
-
B) why the reasons for my question did not arouse the same curiosity and dissatisfaction in the design team as it did in me.
C) i am pretty sure that having a document does not make you the owner of the intellectual property on that document.
How do you know it didn't raise the same curiosity? That doesn't mean they stopped there, or that their interpretation will match yours.
Having the document doesn't make them the owner of the information. It also doesn't mean they need to hand it over.
There are an awful lot of german fighter "buffs" in the game, some of which have been here a long time, and have lots of information on those aircraft. Maybe they have access to some of the information you're looking for? If you're on to something, I would think you'd have plenty of support if any supporting evidence can be presented.
HTC desires their product to be seen as the "best", and most accurate, since the crowd they cater to desires that as well. I'm sure they'd love to have the most accurate information, so they can have the most accurate product (if they don't already). It's not far-fetched to think that if a better product was available, many of the subscribers would migrate to that. HTC doesn't want that.
In other flight sims, how have the flap deployment speeds on the aircraft you're questioning compare? Does AH stand alone in its interpretation of the german fighter flap performance? These planes have been modeled elsewhere, and in theory at least real-world data was probably used as a basis for at least some of them.
-
look i just saw something that i felt did not seem "right" so i asked a question ...
since then people have asked me to justify my asking the question ...
i have done that over and over in different ways and responding to all these "why are you asking the question" questions which is making me appear to be argumentative here ...
i just asked a question, if HTC doesn't feel they need to answer then fine.
it is their game they can handle things as they choose.
-
look i just saw something that i felt did not seem "right" so i asked a question ...
since then people have asked me to justify my asking the question ...
i have done that over and over in different ways and responding to all these "why are you asking the question" questions which is making me appear to be argumentative here ...
i just asked a question, if HTC doesn't feel they need to answer then fine.
it is their game they can handle things as they choose.
Look, you appear to be earnest in your search for this information, so most of us are being patient with you...But, apparently something is getting lost in translation. Most of the people in this thread currently have questioned HTC on flight modeling data at one or more points in the past. When we do it, we usually have researched the issue and present our data, articles, resources, etc. in our posts to illustrate the departure in-game from what we feel existed in real life. What you need to understand, being new to this community, is that players come in here all the time trying to say a certain airplane did this or a certain airplane did that, more often than not without anything to back up their statements except a "gut feeling", an anecdotal story from some Ace, or something they saw on a TV history show.
So, that being said, most of us, in trying to enable a discussion about your perceived inconsistency, are trying to make recommendations to you about how best to present it to the community and HTC. If you want to pursue this, the community will support you 100% as long as you show evidence that is credible, and make an argument that is logical.
-
look i just saw something that i felt did not seem "right" so i asked a question ...
since then people have asked me to justify my asking the question ...
i have done that over and over in different ways and responding to all these "why are you asking the question" questions which is making me appear to be argumentative here ...
i just asked a question, if HTC doesn't feel they need to answer then fine.
it is their game they can handle things as they choose.
Like Stoney says - With all due respect, why don't you just show the data you have? No one here is going to steal it from you, and you can always decide to submit it directly to HTC to be sure that they're aware of it, even if the consensus (assuming there'd be one) on the forum ends up being that the data is somehow wrong or inconclusive.
There's only two paths that I can see.
1) You post the data here for everyone to look at and constructively debate.
2) You send it in to HTC with a concise but compelling case made for adopting what this data suggests or clearly states.
There's nothing wrong with asking if something's right, but since no one outside of HTC is responsible for or working on the game, the answer is always going to be that the way the game is is how HTC deems it best. The justification people are curious for isn't your motivation but what data you have that supports the assertion that the game is incorrect.
-
yes FYI other sims have flap deployment speeds on german planes twice that of those found in AH.
How do you know it didn't raise the same curiosity? That doesn't mean they stopped there, or that their interpretation will match yours.
Having the document doesn't make them the owner of the information. It also doesn't mean they need to hand it over.
There are an awful lot of german fighter "buffs" in the game, some of which have been here a long time, and have lots of information on those aircraft. Maybe they have access to some of the information you're looking for? If you're on to something, I would think you'd have plenty of support if any supporting evidence can be presented.
HTC desires their product to be seen as the "best", and most accurate, since the crowd they cater to desires that as well. I'm sure they'd love to have the most accurate information, so they can have the most accurate product (if they don't already). It's not far-fetched to think that if a better product was available, many of the subscribers would migrate to that. HTC doesn't want that.
In other flight sims, how have the flap deployment speeds on the aircraft you're questioning compare? Does AH stand alone in its interpretation of the german fighter flap performance? These planes have been modeled elsewhere, and in theory at least real-world data was probably used as a basis for at least some of them.
-
like i said i do not have the data sheets just the uncontested posted conclusions from those data sheets.
i have an idea where i can find them but it is not online and it may take a while. in the meantime i asked why HTC had come to it's conclusions, i don't even really need the data, just an answer.
"those were the best numbers we could find from XXXX documentation" or
"we drew our conclusions based on XXXX. NACA report" ...
would have sufficed without giving away any real "trade secrets".
however without any better data something that resulted in a combat flap that deployed before the landing gear could be deployed would have made sense IMO.
i suspect a reasonable estimation could be derived at by looking at the posted 60 degree deflection speed and translating the forces to other lower degree settings.
-
I agree with the flap argument itself, but
1) HTC have no obligation to share their data, data sources, or data interpretation
1b) They're not likely to share it because it's private and would lead people to try and pick it apart > you give people an inch and they'll want a mile, and then you have to justify yourself and your methods. It's just not worth the hassle.
1c) They won't share it or give you that inch for sure if you try to get it out of them by force, esp if it's done by accusing (implicit or explicit) them of being unfair, etc.
I believe at one time it was stated because of the cost associated with the research...i.e. they spent a lot of money to get that data and aren't willing to part with it for free (or for any cost). Not sure though.
ack-ack
-
From a gameplay standpoint, I can easily see the appeal of having flap control at higher airspeeds, even if it's just a notch or two. Particularly for my beloved 190's whose flaps are all but useless currently in combat. Unfortunately, the data for what flap speeds these various aircraft are capable of probably simply doesn't exist anymore. So finding data to support a change of the current system is probably gonna be tough and it'll have to be done on an individual basis for each model of plane. I would be curious to know where the current flap deployment speeds came from (hopefully not just a recommendation written in some tech manual). The fact is regardless of any recommendation, if a 190 pilot is chasing some p51 and he sees the 51 drop flaps to aid in a turn, the first thing he's going to think is "I should do the same thing" and if it was technically possible for the flaps to be lowered it probably would've happened at some point. The question is what are the mechanical limits of operation for the flaps not the recommended settings. One possibility is to find a gun cam with a 190 in the frame with flaps partially extended and airspeed can be accurately estimated.
Thorsim I support your crusade to find this out for us. It would certainly be entertaining to fly a 190 that could put down a notch or two of flaps at 250mph.
A lot of the problem with this is that flap use in combat wasn't standard practice for probably the majority of world war 2 pilots.
As to the value of this information with regard to HTC. Whether they want to share how they got their numbers or not is really their perogative. Though I don't see how sharing this particular information could in any way compromise the quality or earnings for Aces High. It's not like they're asking for a chunk of the netcode or a piece of the physics engine (which would quite understandably be trade secrets). It also might be a case of them having bigger fish to fry and this matter is eclipsed by others such as making more players have decent framerates in the current version. So again it's really down to the players to find data to support and change and then submit it to HTC for review and possible patching. I posted such a thread about R-2800 fuel burn rates being off (too high on the p47s, too low on the F4Us) data was supplied to confirm this and Hitech did acknowledge my thread. Whether or not that item makes it into a patch remains to be seen but I do appreciate that the devs of this game actually read the forum and make such and effort to make it as good as possible and I applaud their dedication on the matter.
-
The question is what are the mechanical limits of operation for the flaps not the recommended settings.
No. This question is a hypothetical nightmare for HTC. Without extensive FEA analysis or structural testing, it would be impossible to know where failure for flaps or landing gear would occur. The landing gear deployment speed for a P-47 was close to 200 mph in the POH. Does that mean you couldn't open it at 225? Of course you could, but you risked damaging the linkages, fasteners, and other components that made it work. In the interest of not wearing those parts out prematurely, the manufacturer listed a speed above which you didn't operate the gear. This is what HTC uses for the gear limit speed in game. Similarly, flaps are controlled by book numbers, not by failure speeds, perceived, tested, or otherwise...
-
I seem to recall a specific quote from a pilot stating that basically in combat you'll want to risk damage to your plane if it means getting the kill shot. Wasn't it Richard Bong or some P-38 pilot who always brought his plane back with warped wings or whatever from pulling to much G to get a kill? Basically if you win, it was worth damaging your plane to do so. If flaps became damaged and failed realistically under their real world failure conditions I don't see how this would be bad for Aces High. Consider that landing gear already works in this fashion. In their case it's probably a best guess estimate while not 100% real world accurate I think their best guess is more than sufficient for any gameplay consideration. Are we going to really argue whether a nose gear breaks at 210mph or 215mph? :lol However, I do agree that finding and establishing the validity of this data would be a mountain of work and would potentially be more trouble than it's worth. But I welcome any attempts.
-
I've been debating about posting in this thread fearing the frustration of only contributing to what's really just the usual endless whining about how someone's favorite plane is "wrong".
Enough is enough. Search is your friend. It's not HTC's job to answer silly questions especially when the answer has already been given before.
Pyro and Hitech have explained ad nauseum in the past their approach for modeling flap deployment and where they get their data for doing so. Plenty of posts on the topic.
For example - addressing the brouhaha regarding 109 flaps just a few years back here's Pyro's answer regarding it all...
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.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
like i said i do not have the data sheets just the uncontested posted conclusions from those data sheets.
i have an idea where i can find them but it is not online and it may take a while. in the meantime i asked why HTC had come to it's conclusions, i don't even really need the data, just an answer.
"those were the best numbers we could find from XXXX documentation" or
"we drew our conclusions based on XXXX. NACA report" ...
would have sufficed without giving away any real "trade secrets".
however without any better data something that resulted in a combat flap that deployed before the landing gear could be deployed would have made sense IMO.
i suspect a reasonable estimation could be derived at by looking at the posted 60 degree deflection speed and translating the forces to other lower degree settings.
I already answered one of your questions, other people have already responded that when it comes to flap speeds we use pilot manuals if we can.
On your more general question, do you really think we have the time or inkling to go back and research how we chose some number in 1 model just because you or someone else wishes to know, and that same person is unwilling to do any real research on his own, but just wishes to keep stating he thinks we are wrong with out even 1 line, number,drawing, even exact model and plane type, specific reason ,web address, real flight time (shows because you do not understand why flaps on planes are used and why different settings) why and your only reason is "American planes are different the German planes"?
Hmm ok Ill go take an a hundred hours to answer a question that I can not even answer because you never even said what plane you think is incorrect.
thorsim: Get off your duff an do the work for yourself.
HiTech
-
is there some sort of contractual agreement with targeware that prevents him from showing his data so that ht can compare it to what ah uses?
also, I do not care if the flight data is not perfect. as long as it fundamentally mimics basic flight behavior I am satisfied. I do not lie in bed at night fantasizing that I am some great luftwaffe fighter ace death ridden by a possibility that the flap data might be inaccurate.
It is anal and borders on bloody anal.
-
Hitech, here is the pertinent data sheet from the technical trials of the Me 109E ...
(http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k44/thor-jg51/2274853909_9421e9bf85_o-1.jpg)
here is the translation ...
"Zulässige Geschwindigkeit in Abhängigkeit vom Klappenausschlag" für die Me 109E:*
(Permissible speed as a function of flap deflection for the Me 109E)
10° bis 780 km/h
20° bis 470 km/h
30° bis 350 km/h
40° bis 290 km/h"
this is what can be done with a little more effort, which is required when some decisions just jump out at you as not being correct, and not making sense.
like for example ...
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.
a little more work would have provided more complete data and he would have realized that a 10 degree deployment limit speed being the same as a 40+ degree deployment limit made no sense and must be incorrect relative to the approved limits of the plane.
now, i am sure you will be getting off your duff, and adjusting things accordingly immediately, oh and since we know the flap deployment mechanism did not change throughout the evolution of the 109 you will of course in good conscience be extending this feature throughout the entire line, correct?
on another point since the chart is very linear and clearly shows that what we are discussing here is a force relationship of the maneuver flap and it's deployment degrees relative to the airflow resistance and speed of the aircraft.
i know this will make you very curious about related issues in other FMs and divert your attention to other similar decisions which also make no sense. i suggest you start with the 190s combat flaps, since your numbers make no sense there either.
i hope you find my efforts useful and that it will lead to a more productive relationship in the future.
FYI i do not spend to much time on my duff, and i do not speak out of it either. i hope that information helps you when i may bring up things about your product in the future.
off to find more classified and probably destroyed data sheets ...
(i should not need to make a point on basic physics)
i hope i helped.
Thor
p.s. after all this particular issue is significant in relative playability, probably more than it should.
I already answered one of your questions, other people have already responded that when it comes to flap speeds we use pilot manuals if we can.
On your more general question, do you really think we have the time or inkling to go back and research how we chose some number in 1 model just because you or someone else wishes to know, and that same person is unwilling to do any real research on his own, but just wishes to keep stating he thinks we are wrong with out even 1 line, number,drawing, even exact model and plane type, specific reason ,web address, real flight time (shows because you do not understand why flaps on planes are used and why different settings) why and your only reason is "American planes are different the German planes"?
Hmm ok Ill go take an a hundred hours to answer a question that I can not even answer because you never even said what plane you think is incorrect.
thorsim: Get off your duff an do the work for yourself.
HiTech
-
So this is technical trial data, not operational regulation?
-
it is the approved limits just like it says it is.
no it is not an operational order like say the one prohibiting p51s from entering combat with any fuel in it's center tank.
understand?
-
How about the full report? Given your stance I have doubts about your objectivity.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
oh no ...
data is too valuable to just share like that, get off your duff and do it yourself ...
EDIT: and since all i have been doing here is asking questions about some obviously odd limits,
imo it is your objectivity you should be concerned with. after all this is not a difficult concept and can be easily investigated by sticking you hand out the window of your moving car.
How about the full report? Given your stance I have doubts about your objectivity.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
This is going nowhere. Isn't that the opposite of the objective here?
-
yes it is, my apologies for my part.
the duff thing annoyed me, as does having my objectivity questioned.
i am confused where i deserved either of those responses?
++S++
T
like i said i hope my efforts helped in this matter
This is going nowhere. Isn't that the opposite of the objective here?
-
I'm impressed thorsim, can you find a similar chart for the 190 (A5 or A8)? I did some searching on it to discover the 190 did indeed have a 15 degree maneuvering flap setting that increased turn rates. Unfortunately I can't find any data to show the maximum allowable speeds for this setting
-
i am hoping to visit "white 1" soon and will do what i can there to find out some things about the FW.
although IMO since so much of this type of information was destroyed or otherwise lost and or unavailable,
some common sense should override the need for numbers on an old pice of paper ...
at least in relatively simple situations like this one.
no offense to anyone
<S>
t
P.S. priller the maneuvering flaps are a fact, they are mentioned in enemy performance trials.
however the amount of deflection is unclear as i have seen different numbers on different reports and articles. also the condition of the planes tested are also in question on those reports so the effects may also be unclear.
however what is perfectly clear is that the 190s were designed with low flap deflection capabilities and should operate very similarly to other similar features on other planes since the physics operating on the flaps are very much the same, the same should hold true across the plane set where low deflection flap settings are a feature of an aircraft historically.
i will see if i can find out exactly how the flaps worked in the 190s, however there is no reason to think that they did not work.
I'm impressed thorsim, can you find a similar chart for the 190 (A5 or A8)? I did some searching on it to discover the 190 did indeed have a 15 degree maneuvering flap setting that increased turn rates. Unfortunately I can't find any data to show the maximum allowable speeds for this setting
-
Hitech Wrote, 2. You are looking for data to support you position rather than looking for data to find out what your position should be.
So now you have shown us one piece of paper that supports your position just as I said, We have no idea what the contexts is. The rest of the write up on the technical trials you speak of is very pertinent to gain our interest.
Throsim: I am not trying to jump on you, but you so far have not been looking to better the model of AH only to prove you view that flaps should be different. I have no bias of how planes perform. But just from reading your early posts in this thread it could very easily be that you are cherry picking data.
Per you quote we have 3 different sources that contradict yours. With out knowing the "Rest of the story" We really know nothing.
HiTech
-
that is fine hitech i understand your frustrations, and i know as well as anyone how this data is often elusive. especially for the axis aircraft. you have asked for sources and i have provided some along with my reasons for being uncomfortable with your limits in the game.
i have hopefully shown that i am more than willing to make efforts in my investigations.
now as of yet beyond general titles i have seen none of your sources so i can not tell what they are either, or where there may be errors that might be leading to the odd limits in AH.
i am looking for what you want, and i have shown that i am willing and able to do far more than
"sit on my duff and pontificate some arbitrary desires for the sake of my ego" which some have suggested.
the flap limits should be now by what i have shown very much in question in the game, i am hoping you will use some common sense in your review of your criteria for the decisions about the those limits on whichever aircraft they have been imposed.
certainly there is enough here for you to reexamine your conclusions and possibly commit to using your far greater resources than mine to find out what the truth is here in regards to this issue.
i will continue to find out what i can and share that information. i hope you see fit to do the same.
however i expect that you will show more respect for my observations in the future as they are not biased or arbitrary, and i am clearly not unwilling to go the extra mile to make things better.
i apologize for any angst i may have shown earlier in this thread but i feel that common sense and an apparent lack basic physics in an aspect of the FM is enough of a reason to ask a question.
i hope i can find all the data you think you need to have from me, i however hope that you will likewise put more thought into the things that strike me and apparently many others as obviously incorrect.
no offense sir i have been enjoying your game.
<S>
T
So now you have shown us one piece of paper that supports your position just as I said, We have no idea what the contexts is. The rest of the write up on the technical trials you speak of is very pertinent to gain our interest.
Throsim: I am not trying to jump on you, but you so far have not been looking to better the model of AH only to prove you view that flaps should be different. I have no bias of how planes perform. But just from reading your early posts in this thread it could very easily be that you are cherry picking data.
Per you quote we have 3 different sources that contradict yours. With out knowing the "Rest of the story" We really know nothing.
HiTech
-
Thorism:
i however hope that you will likewise put more thought into the things that strike me and apparently many others as obviously incorrect.
Do you have even an inkling of how insulting this is?
HiTech
-
i had no intention of insulting you, i apologize.
i was intending to communicate that i am informed and concerned and not somebody arbitrarily talking out of my "duff" or someone too lazy to get off that "duff" and find the data to support the positions he expresses.
it was not a reflection on your apparent level of concern (which is quite impressive actually)
it was more a statement that the things that may strike me as "obviously incorrect" are well obvious and that i will be only commenting on such things, we are talking about a 100% difference in speed here. not 5-15% quibbling.
i meant to convey that i am not completely ignorant of the matters we are discussing, which is how one feels they are considered when they are apparently dismissed in a discussion where they have only brought up valid concerns.
once again i was speaking of how your comments made me feel, not my feelings about you or your product.
no offense
T
Thorism:
Do you have even an inkling of how insulting this is?
HiTech
-
I remember, not long after the game started, maybe a year and a half into it, two large luftwhiner squads defected back to WBs because they kept getting their tails handed to them in-game by USAAF and RAF players. Perhaps it was flaps all along ;)
-
I remember, not long after the game started, maybe a year and a half into it, two large luftwhiner squads defected back to WBs because they kept getting their tails handed to them in-game by USAAF and RAF players. Perhaps it was flaps all along ;)
Luftwhiners? I was going to stay out of this because it's my squadmates issue, but you sir deserve a reply from someone with no respect for your apparent tenure here...as in I don't care how long you have been an armchair toon ace pile-it. If I happen to break rule # whatever, my apologies in advance.
This was a relatively decent discussion with relevant information being discussed until you brought your juvenile attempt at superior attitude into the mix. There are people who believe that if even one aspect at any type of realism applies to a single element then all other elements should be equally realistically portrayed. Just because they choose to speak up does not give you license to belittle their efforts, especially in an instance where said individual has presented his point in respectful terms. Now unless you have something worth while to contribute to this discussion, go back to your romper room and play armchair toon pile-it quietly.
-
go back to your romper room and play armchair toon pile-it quietly.
this IS my romper room :O
-
i had no intention of insulting you, i apologize.
i was intending to communicate that i am informed and concerned and not somebody arbitrarily talking out of my "duff" or someone too lazy to get off that "duff" and find the data to support the positions he expresses.
it was not a reflection on your apparent level of concern (which is quite impressive actually)
it was more a statement that the things that may strike me as "obviously incorrect" are well obvious and that i will be only commenting on such things, we are talking about a 100% difference in speed here. not 5-15% quibbling.
i meant to convey that i am not completely ignorant of the matters we are discussing, which is how one feels they are considered when they are apparently dismissed in a discussion where they have only brought up valid concerns.
once again i was speaking of how your comments made me feel, not my feelings about you or your product.
no offense
T
Is your in game name Zeus??
-
I remember, not long after the game started, maybe a year and a half into it, two large luftwhiner squads defected back to WBs because they kept getting their tails handed to them in-game by USAAF and RAF players. Perhaps it was flaps all along ;)
you really saw two large squads leave in frustration and did not wonder about the FMs ???
you think that that is still somehow amusing ???
-
Is your in game name Zeus??
no, it's not odin either ...
care to share why you are so curious what my "in-game" name is ?
-
Luftwhiners? I was going to stay out of this because it's my squadmates issue, but you sir deserve a reply from someone with no respect for your apparent tenure here...as in I don't care how long you have been an armchair toon ace pile-it. If I happen to break rule # whatever, my apologies in advance.
This was a relatively decent discussion with relevant information being discussed until you brought your juvenile attempt at superior attitude into the mix. There are people who believe that if even one aspect at any type of realism applies to a single element then all other elements should be equally realistically portrayed. Just because they choose to speak up does not give you license to belittle their efforts, especially in an instance where said individual has presented his point in respectful terms. Now unless you have something worth while to contribute to this discussion, go back to your romper room and play armchair toon pile-it quietly.
Wow; Can you bite that hook any harder?
Also gyrene I would say this thread has been anything but This was a relatively decent discussion
and quite frankly has very much the "Luftwhiner" feel. Now also understand I do not think the "Luftwhiners" are any different than the "Spitdweebs' or any other group of people who are very biased in what they ask for because they simply want their plane to perform better then it current does in the game.
And if you want to know how to spot one, they always ask about 1 plane or group of planes to be made better, and they do not ask about changing any other plane.
HiTech
-
no, it's not odin either ...
care to share why you are so curious what my "in-game" name is ?
I can answer that question. When A person suddenly shows up on the board and only discusses one topic, but also acts like he is an expert on a subject, and then also obviously fits into the LW biased group, people begin to wonder who he is.
HiTech
-
you think that that is still somehow amusing ???
Because there have always been a talented group of players who can OWN me COMPLETELY when they are using a 109 or a 190, REGARDLESS of whatever plane type I am in. These guys flying these LW types are typically the deadliest players in game and typcially the quietest in-game and on-BBS. Thats why I never bought into the Luftwhiners complaints. Oh and Btw their whines never had anything to do with flaps either. Was usually about guns or engine power.
Having said that, if the flaps on LW crates could deploy at highers speeds than currently modeled then prove it. If you cant prove it then you need to re-evaluate your "suspicians".
-
no, it's not odin either ...
care to share why you are so curious what my "in-game" name is ?
There was a "another" rather condesending "God" who called himself Zeus in LW last night,he was incessently asking everyone to tell "Hitech" to contact him.
He seemed to be under the impression that many of us had a personal relationship with "Hitech".
I told him that I would relay his message to "Hitech" on Wednesday night when I visited his home for his monthly tupperware party. (crazy off the hook party btw)
He seemed satisfied with my response and signed off with "Godbye".
I just assumed it was you, wanting to contact "Hitech" to apologize.
Apparantly I was wrong.
Or was I? :noid
-
i don't believe i ever posted in opposistion to improving any of your FMs hitech. i noticed an obvious disparity in the game and a thread about it on the boards and asked a question.
want to know what an obstructionist looks like, they ask for unnecessary "proof" about obvious inconsistencies which are already proven to be obvious.
then ask for more unnecessary proof when the specific pertinent data is put in-front of them,
they bring others "motives" into specific conversations because they are not general,
they quote the same single source of theirs as if it were three because it was copied and printed for 3 different air-forces. they attempt to defend something they should know is incorrect because they are more comfortable with being steadfastly in error than they are admitting they may be in error in the first place.
you claim you are insulted out of one end of your mouth, ignoring comments you have made to me before, then come back and question my motives again.
now i may be wrong, you may not be obstructing the progress of your product, but that is the impression you are giving me.
of course you may be wrong about me being single minded, unfair, and agenda driven in my observations about your product, i guess that is the impression i am giving you.
time will tell i guess.
Wow; Can you bite that hook any harder?
Also gyrene I would say this thread has been anything but and quite frankly has very much the "Luftwhiner" feel. Now also understand I do not think the "Luftwhiners" are any different than the "Spitdweebs' or any other group of people who are very biased in what they ask for because they simply want their plane to perform better then it current does in the game.
And if you want to know how to spot one, they always ask about 1 plane or group of planes to be made better, and they do not ask about changing any other plane.
HiTech
-
Wow; Can you bite that hook any harder?
Also gyrene I would say this thread has been anything but and quite frankly has very much the "Luftwhiner" feel. Now also understand I do not think the "Luftwhiners" are any different than the "Spitdweebs' or any other group of people who are very biased in what they ask for because they simply want their plane to perform better then it current does in the game.
And if you want to know how to spot one, they always ask about 1 plane or group of planes to be made better, and they do not ask about changing any other plane.
HiTech
:D Yeah I bit that hook hard. Doesn't mean I'm a Luftwhiner just because I see some issues with aspects of the LW planes and I say something about it...I see similar issues with the Jap planes. May assumption has always been a lack of written data.
Now, to be brutally honest...the main reason people don't complain about the Allied models is because you guys did a damn good job of getting them as close to right as possible...and I'm betting it's because of the availability of data. I've noticed some minor shortcomings in the Allied plane sets but I also understand the need for compromise in programming...some things just aren't possible. Every flight sim I've played has the same disparities between the well documented U.S. and British aircraft and the not so well documented German, Russian and Japanese aircraft. There isn't a whole lot of German pilot testimony saying they were trained or learned how to do this or that with their planes in combat situations...and I haven't seen a single German pilot after action report that shows where he used his flaps in a situation like I have seen from U.S. pilots.
I do have one question...why does the 190 which has electro mechanical flap mechanisms similar to late war Allied aircraft, have the same flap deployment speeds as the 109? I've only seen a translated 190 pilot manual that had a caution on the flaps, nothing else. On the other hand I have seen U.S. P-51 AAR's that specifically state the pilot deployed his flaps during aerial combat...wouldn't it be safe to assume a 190 pilot had the same capability considering the similarities in the mechanisms?
-
not me ...
There was a "another" rather condesending "God" who called himself Zeus in LW last night,he was incessently asking everyone to tell "Hitech" to contact him.
He seemed to be under the impression that many of us had a personal relationship with "Hitech".
I told him that I would relay his message to "Hitech" on Wednesday night when I visited his home for his monthly tupperware party. (crazy off the hook party btw)
He seemed satisfied with my response and signed off with "Godbye".
I just assumed it was you, wanting to contact "Hitech" to apologize.
Apparantly I was wrong.
Or was I? :noid
-
Based on the age of your BBS accounts you two are both relatively new here. Tell the community here what your expience is with other WW2 air combat MMOs (excluding IL2 which IS NOT an MMO), and if you have had other in-game IDs in AH in the past.
-
...the main reason people don't complain about the Allied models is because you guys did a damn good job of getting them as close to right as possible...
Jeeze man, you ARE new here ;)
-
Jeeze man, you ARE new here ;)
What's your point Yeager??? You think because I haven't wasted 10 years of my life obssessing over a single video game that I don't have a clue?
Oh and just in case you missed something while playing toon pile-it this stopped being a BBS when the html graphical interface was put on it.
-
i have been a "MMO" virtual fighter pilot since mac-aw-classic.
now you tell me why any of that is pertinent to this discussion, which by the way is the first i have had here.
-
What's your point Yeager??? You think because I haven't wasted 10 years of my life obssessing over a single video game that I don't have a clue?
Oh and just in case you missed something while playing toon pile-it this stopped being a BBS when the html graphical interface was put on it.
His point was that people complain about the allied aircraft very frequently. Do a search on "P-51" and see for yourself.
-
His point was that people complain about the allied aircraft very frequently. Do a search on "P-51" and see for yourself.
Might as well bundle that one with a search for Ki-61 as well :noid
-
What's your point Yeager??? You think because I haven't wasted 10 years of my life obssessing over a single video game that I don't have a clue?
Oh and just in case you missed something while playing toon pile-it this stopped being a BBS when the html graphical interface was put on it.
This is getting good :)
-
Oh, and since HT is reading, I'm still wondering why the Spit V rolls better than the Spit IX at ~400mph ias. In your previous sim, Warbirds, they rolled the same.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,256353.0.html
I almost never fly the Spit, so you can't say I'm asking because I want the Spit to be better. :P
-
Oh, and since HT is reading, I'm still wondering why the Spit V rolls better than the Spit IX at ~400mph ias. In your previous sim, Warbirds, they rolled the same.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,256353.0.html
I almost never fly the Spit, so you can't say I'm asking because I want the Spit to be better. :P
Ask pyro, he chooses the data :D :devil
HiTech
-
Denied again. :(
:lol
-
His point was that people complain about the allied aircraft very frequently. Do a search on "P-51" and see for yourself.
Ok I looked through 9 pages of P-51 posts (sheesh)...most are technical data...small bugs that were addressed quickly...comparisons to other ac...but very few complaints about the AH handling/performance vs real life.
-
yea lets look at the roll rates ...
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg)
hope this helps ...
could you move that to another thread though this one is about flap deployment speeds ...
thanks,
t
Oh, and since HT is reading, I'm still wondering why the Spit V rolls better than the Spit IX at ~400mph ias. In your previous sim, Warbirds, they rolled the same.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,256353.0.html
I almost never fly the Spit, so you can't say I'm asking because I want the Spit to be better. :P
-
Ok I looked through 9 pages of P-51 posts (sheesh)...most are technical data...small bugs that were addressed quickly...comparisons to other ac...but very few complaints about the AH handling/performance vs real life.
Actually, there have been some pretty serious threads about the P51, P38 and F4U handling and turn performance, specifically with use of flaps. I bet there's over 50 pages on those planes alone, on that topic alone.
Here's an informative look at the F4U- http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,208942.0.html
And the P51- http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,212801.0.html
-
i have been a "MMO" virtual fighter pilot since mac-aw-classic.
now you tell me why any of that is pertinent to this discussion, which by the way is the first i have had here.
It was not meant as a slight, just a well intended who are you? Since you have such a remarkable knack for Luftwaffen aircraft performance knowledge. Who were you in AW? Spend any time in WBs? If so, what was your callsign there?
-
Actually, there have been some pretty serious threads about the P51, P38 and F4U handling and turn performance, specifically with use of flaps. I bet there's over 50 pages on those planes alone, on that topic alone.
Saw a couple of long discussions with some information in them...but just searching p-51 there were only 9 full pages.
Discussions on the 109 and 190 totalled about 40 pages...since the year 2000.
The issues with LW flight models is nearly as old as these MMO flight sims...with promises of highly realistic fligh models the LW aircraft have consistently fallen short. I blame it on the lack of solid data. Why some retail games and game add-ons have better LW flight modelling is a mystery to me.
Now if we could get Pyro or HiTech to fly do some real life flight testing in a 109 and 190, maybe even simulated dogfights...I wonder what would get changed? :D
Yeager...WBs JG-27...Thor can answer the rest.
-
It was not meant as a slight, just a well intended who are you? Since you have such a remarkable knack for Luftwaffen aircraft performance knowledge. Who were you in AW? Spend any time in WBs? If so, what was your callsign there?
i am thinking that you are not Chuck Yeager, as you may have guessed i am not really a Norse Demi-God ...
i still feel that this conversation is specific to this game and am not interested in diverting this conversation at this point.
no offense.
-
The issues with LW flight models is nearly as old as these MMO flight sims...with promises of highly realistic fligh models the LW aircraft have consistently fallen short. I blame it on the lack of solid data. Why some retail games and game add-ons have better LW flight modelling is a mystery to me.
Classic statement that completely fits the profile. Including an insinuating HTC has a bias. Stating all LW flight models are not as good as all other flight models. Hmm yep I think may fit the term.
HiTech
-
i am thinking that you are not Chuck Yeager, as you may have guessed i am not really a Norse Demi-God ...
i still feel that this conversation is specific to this game and am not interested in diverting this conversation at this point.
no offense.
Thats an awful lot of writing to avoid his question.
Wouldn't it have been simpler to just answer the question?
Nobody asked you for your name, address or social security #.
Its just an in game name.
By avoiding giving a simple answer, you may be inadvertantly diverting the conversation yourself.
-
Thor:
Pyro and I have been creating sims for 15 years.
Knowing your background is very much pertinent, for all we know you may have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Who would you say has the burden of proof when making claims. With your very first post you state AH is incorrect, and on you 2nd post your reasoning is "It is obvious".
Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have give from your very first post.
HiTech
-
Thats an awful lot of writing to avoid his question.
Wouldn't it have been simpler to just answer the question?
Nobody asked you for your name, address or social security #.
Its just an in game name.
By avoiding giving a simple answer, you may be inadvertantly diverting the conversation yourself.
i ... am not interested in diverting this conversation at this point.
no offense.
-
I do have one question...why does the 190 which has electro mechanical flap mechanisms similar to late war Allied aircraft, have the same flap deployment speeds as the 109? I've only seen a translated 190 pilot manual that had a caution on the flaps, nothing else. On the other hand I have seen U.S. P-51 AAR's that specifically state the pilot deployed his flaps during aerial combat...wouldn't it be safe to assume a 190 pilot had the same capability considering the similarities in the mechanisms?
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.
Saw a couple of long discussions with some information in them...but just searching p-51 there were only 9 full pages.
Discussions on the 109 and 190 totalled about 40 pages...since the year 2000.
That gauging by # of threads/posts only "proves" that people are willing to discuss them at length, not whether one or the other is discussed more seriously or thoroughly. You guys who are new here should know that the HTC easily accomodate reasonable requests. Not requests without data or with incomplete or biased data. Definitely not requests that force their hand. So please keep this in mind.. Doing otherwise is just not cool for the rest of us who might happen to want the planes in question looked at; luftwaffe or not.
-
are they gonna address the disparity ?
Who diverted the conversation from the OPs original question??
-
Classic statement that completely fits the profile. Including an insinuating HTC has a bias. Stating all LW flight models are not as good as all other flight models. Hmm yep I think may fit the term.
HiTech
Awww come on HiTech. Don't go getting all defensive on me now. I didn't "insinuate" anything much less a bias from anyone at HTC, and I have specifically stated in my previous posts that I blame a lack of documentation. I'm assuming you guys aren't going to program something into the flight characteristics of any aircraft models without having some sort of documented proof...and it shows. My point was that the same lack of documentation has affected the LW aircraft in different flight sims across the board in one form or another.
Aside from the one little tiny quirk about the flap deployment speeds in the 190s I'm not complaining about the LW airframes in AH. I think they are as close as possible without evidence that they worked any differently...and until someone comes up with evidence that isn't anecdotal or "one off"...I wouldn't ask that anything be changed.
-
Saw a couple of long discussions with some information in them...but just searching p-51 there were only 9 full pages.
I'm referring to pages of discussion, not pages of topic titles.
-
gyrene81:
The issues with LW flight models is nearly as old as these MMO flight sims...with promises of highly realistic fligh models the LW aircraft have consistently fallen short
Unless I am missing something are you not stating HTC has fallen short with planes from the LW? And not from other countries?
You also make the assumption that we have less data on LW than American planes.
HiTech
-
gyrene81:
Unless I am missing something are you not stating HTC has fallen short with planes from the LW? And not from other countries?
HiTech
Yes sir, I am only addressing the LW ac at this point because it was a point of contention nothing more and surely not due to any thought of bias on your part. I think you're looking for me to take a sideswipe at you and your credibility...and I assure you I am most definitely not. I am very up front about my thoughts and if I was going to take a pot shot at you I would do so in very plain unmistakeable terms.
And yes...I believe there is less operational data on LW, Japanese and Russian aircraft than there is on U.S. or British aircraft which have been highly documented through the years.
-
i have been playing your games for 12+ years hitech ...
my question is about the relative reaction to forces of airflow on two similar structures and why they are modeled so differently in some of your games. it is a physics disparity and should have relatively very little to do with anything else.
i am sure you understand that when the same forces are treated differently on different FMs these things stand out as obviously incorrect. i have not after all brought up planes that did not have low deflection flap settings in my observation.
i have shown you the specific data sheet that both addresses the specific issue on one of the FMs in which i noticed the problem, and clearly shows the physics that are at the core of this imo incorrect representation in the game.
air resistance forces should be consistent across all the FMs, that is obvious.
the same structure should be able to handle the same force(at least), that is obvious
so when air flow resistance is decreased, speeds able to be sustained by the structure should increase, that is obvious.
this should happen across the plane set in proportion to every other similar structure modeled in the game, that is obvious.
what IMO you have lost in your more recent efforts that i have played as you have improved your offerings is the wonderful well defined envelopes of the aircraft modeled in AW, and the completely objective way the physics of flight treated the entire plane set.
as gyrene has stated we think that it is due to the availability of data on some aircraft, and so in this case you have taken an apparent training manual operational restriction and represented it as a design limit, which it is clearly not, as my data has shown, and quite frankly imo a little time thinking about the issue should have made clear.
that would be ok except that is not how you determine all the limits on all the aircraft.
because of that what you are left with is very poorly defined envelopes and planes that stand out as obviously wrong vs. other planes in the set which apparently operate under a different set of physical laws.
i am not intending to project intentional bias on your or your teams part, what i am trying to point out is that when the criteria for limits are different across the plane set then you make yourself vulnerable to an apparent bias in the resulted FMs.
please take this to heart and review the processes you used to determine the limits on the FMs because they do not seem correct, and in this particular case they seem to me to be obviously very incorrect and that disparity has a very real effect on the game play and therefore is undermining the immersion factor i am sure you are trying to achieve in the game.
thank you for your consideration in this matter.
sincerely most respectfully
t
aka. richard boswell
(thoraw, thorwb, -thor-, thorsim --- 159BK, <?>, =<LR>=, JG-51, JG-27, JG-Amerika-EMC, II-JG-27 AH)
a fan of your games ...
++S++
Thor:
Pyro and I have been creating sims for 15 years.
Who would you say has the burden of proof when making claims. With your very first post you state AH is incorrect, and on you 2nd post your reasoning is "It is obvious".
Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have give from your very first post.
HiTech
-
you have taken an apparent training manual operational restriction and represented it as a design limit, which it is clearly not, as my data has shown, and quite frankly imo a little time thinking about the issue should have made clear.
that would be ok except that is not how you determine all the limits on all the aircraft.
because of that what you are left with is very poorly defined envelopes and planes that stand out as obviously wrong vs. other planes in the set which apparently operate under a different set of physical laws.
It's so that the planes in the game are representative of the most common configuration used historically. For this same reason, the 21cm rocket tubes aren't jettisonable. That's the rationale imposed on top of accurate physical modeling (which we have).
-
Its a damned good thing you two have miracled yourselves into the world of AH to straighten things out. Good luck using that tone :D
<S>
-
Its a damned good thing you two have miracled yourselves into the world of AH to straighten things out. Good luck using that tone :D
<S>
What are you smiling about Yeager? It's your fault I'm even involved in this thread... :rofl
No miracle involved...I was tired of the crappy flight models and terrains in WBs (and I got banned for saying so in their forums :lol) so I jumped to AH.
-
Thor:
You are missing the point. It is not about the pure structure limit of the Flap , as AH current models ALL FLAPS we choose the pilots manual operational limit. So you are now choosing a test that has nothing to do with the pilots manual limit, but POSSIBLY a structural limit (I can not tell from the 1 sheet you posted) which is not what we choose to model.
what IMO you have lost in your more recent efforts that i have played as you have improved your offerings is the wonderful well defined envelopes of the aircraft modeled in AW, and the completely objective way the physics of flight treated the entire plane set.
This is almost a completely comical post calling AW accurate in any way when it comes to the way planes fly.
HiTech
-
where did i say accurate RE-AW ? i said well defined. a good sim should be both.
as i am sure you know no single feature of these aircraft could fundamentally alter their envelopes so significantly as the combat flaps in your games can do currently.
my point RE the flight manuals is that you choose that to model the flaps in one regard "deployment speeds" per the flight manuals, but not in other regards like the operational restrictions on aerobatics as extreme deployments. why is that?
as a result of your choice of criteria what you are left with are escort fighters that are often twice the weight competing in dogfights at minimal altitudes by use of flap settings which those same manuals expressly forbid.
that type of flying, was extremely unlikely to result in anything other than a departure at low altitude and death for the pilot attempting it, which you choose not to represent. these FMs achieving success vs light weight interceptors who should have all the advantages in those type of fights undermines the credibility you claim.
as a result on the other hand you have a fighter with maneuver flaps that can not be deployed in the "flight" mode until it is at landing speed and well below the combat stall speeds that the flaps were designed to offset. a setting which you know, or should know, was intended to be deployed at combat speeds and tested as such at those speeds.
yet you still sit here and try to defend your criteria for these decisions.
they are at the very least terribly short sighted.
i wish that you would see fit to reconsider those decisions for the sake of a better more immersive game.
no offense sir, but it is my points you are not seeing.
respectfully,
t
Thor:
You are missing the point. It is not about the pure structure limit of the Flap , as AH current models ALL FLAPS we choose the pilots manual operational limit. So you are now choosing a test that has nothing to do with the pilots manual limit, but POSSIBLY a structural limit (I can not tell from the 1 sheet you posted) which is not what we choose to model.
This is almost a completely comical post calling AW accurate in any way when it comes to the way planes fly.
HiTech
-
What are you smiling about Yeager? It's your fault I'm even involved in this thread... :rofl
No miracle involved...I was tired of the crappy flight models and terrains in WBs (and I got banned for saying so in their forums :lol) so I jumped to AH.
well then, a belated warm welcome to you :) They banned you from the iEN forums or the game? the bastidges....
-
Ok I looked through 9 pages of P-51 posts (sheesh)...most are technical data...small bugs that were addressed quickly...comparisons to other ac...but very few complaints about the AH handling/performance vs real life.
Do a search for Widewing's post on the matter.
-
Thor: Your last post , though still filled with hyperbole, is the first semi coherent statement you have made in this thread. It can be debated to change methods. But you have not even begun to touch all the issues involved in changing methodology.
But it is time for you to stop crap like this.
my point RE the flight manuals is that you choose that to model the flaps in one regard "deployment speeds" per the flight manuals, but not in other regards like the operational restrictions on aerobatics as extreme deployments. why is that?
You make a statement you say to be fact so you can set up a straw man, Then ask us why we do so?
yet you still sit here and try to defend your criteria for these decisions.
Again pure BS I have never said one word trying to defend our decision to use Flight Manual speeds in this thread. I simply stated it as fact.
HiTech
-
This is starting to sound like the few auto flap retracting feature threads that have been created in the past. Which for the record, while I don't like the feature, I do support and understand HiTech's design decision to go with the auto-flaps.
ack-ack
-
ok well a good part of this thread has been figuring out how to approach my concerns in a manner you can more easily consider constructive.
i am not exactly sure how to approach these things still, but i will try and set aside the diversions and state that ...
i have reason to believe the methodology in the decision making about the flaps relative to their deployment speeds may have caused some unintentional inconsistencies in some aircraft relative to other planes in the set, as well as other historical data which i have posted earlier in this thread.
i hope you will look at the sheet i have posted and consider the implications of the information it contains compared to the situation in the game. i will continue to look for information on this issue and bring it to your attention as i find it.
no offense and please disregard any expressions of angst i may have displayed earlier as similar situations in other games have made this a difficult topic, and i was unfortunately distracted from my intention by some comments early on in this discussion.
if there is anything i can do to help you along with this issue please let me know and i will do what i can to help.
i am already looking around for the complete trial where that page came from and i am hoping i will be able to produce that soon. i am also looking for more information in general as this subject interests me very much. best of luck with the new version of AH. other than, and or in spite of, some consequences of the issues i brought up i am enjoying my time in your game very much.
i am looking forward to more productive conversations with you in the future, and hopefully some effect in the game from those efforts.
sincerely and respectfully.
richard boswell
(thoraw, thorwb, -thor-, thorsim --- 159BK, <?>, =<LR>=, JG-51, JG-27, JG-Amerika-EMC, II-JG-27 AH)
a fan of your games ...
++S++
t
Thor: Your last post , though still filled with hyperbole, is the first semi coherent statement you have made in this thread. It can be debated to change methods. But you have not even begun to touch all the issues involved in changing methodology.
But it is time for you to stop crap like this.
You make a statement you say to be fact so you can set up a straw man, Then ask us why we do so?
Again pure BS I have never said one word trying to defend our decision to use Flight Manual speeds in this thread. I simply stated it as fact.
HiTech
-
oops edit mistake, i thought i could say the below better but i discovered there is a time limit on modifications ...
as well as conflicting with other historical data which i have posted earlier in this thread.
sorry for the unintended bump ...
-
Thor:
To begin with think about what you wish. This is not a data discussion, this is simply a game play discussion. At my first glance I can think of 3 methods of flap choices.
1. Try model the real structure limit, (this will at best be a guess, because very few planes flaps were tested to the breaking point). Other issues that come to mind are not just structure limits, but moving force limits. It will be almost impossible to find this type of data on very many planes.
2. Model as we do now, implementing the pilot manual flap speed limitations.
3. Make some assumptions and guesses that different methodologies were used when writting manuals, and then try to model all flaps as if the manuals were all written with the same mythology.
I would say method 1 is pretty much a no go simply because people would push flaps far beyond what most pilots would in the war and hence the fights would not resemble much of real world fights.
#2 has possibilities but also very quickly becomes open to interpretation.
Thor, if you wish to know how to approach this, approach it from facts and game play, not from a desire to change 1 plane. How to approach me is simple, assume I have the desire to make an accurate game, assume I can make mistakes, but will always fix mistakes if I can. Try your best to look at modeling from a wide perspective of issues, not just 1 issue from 1 view point.
W,aker in a thread on the brewster is a good example,
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,273833.0.html
he points out problems and tries to find data, but does not demand it be fixed and does not make any assumptions about how we do not like the Brewster and hence did not model it correctly.
HiTech
-
would it be reasonable to work a compromise where there is very good reason to believe that some of the operators handbooks do not reflect the design limits as much as other operators handbooks on other aircraft.
which seems to be the case with the german handbooks on the 190 and 109.
(i know these are specific but my time in your game is limited and these are the planes in which i have noticed this issue)
for example the data i showed was a 10 degree limit at 400+mph, the pilot book limits were as far as i can tell from what is posted here says little under 200 mph.
do you think it would be reasonable to say "split the difference" in the two sources and settle on a number of around 300 mph or so?
because i am more than happy to look towards a solution, however that would be very discouraging if you feel that the method or criteria should not be adjusted.
that is providing i make my case to a satisfactory degree in your opinion, or pyro's opinion.
as i think even a compromise number will probably be enough to avoid the problem that imo currently exists with the 190s where you can not adjust the flaps until you are in real danger of stalling, which is really the point where this situation gets to be the most disturbing.
i will take your suggestions about how i should think of your outlook on these matters.
-
AH current models ALL FLAPS we choose the pilots manual operational limit.
The Ta 152 manual I've got says that full flaps are to be deployed for landing at a speed between 200-135 mph, whereas in the game full flaps are only allowed from 150 mph (and first notch at 180 mph). Anyone know why that would be? Seems like a good example for Thorsim. (I'm betting Pyro and anyone else involved knows the exact construction limits - strange that the manual says otherwise though (or the manual I have is wrong))
:huh
-
would it be reasonable to work a compromise where there is very good reason to believe that some of the operators handbooks do not reflect the design limits as much as other operators handbooks on other aircraft.
It is a valid premises and is what I was saying in option #3.
do you think it would be reasonable to say "split the difference" in the two sources and settle on a number of around 300 mph or so?
I have no idea if this is or is not reasonable.
Is this only an example?
I really have no idea with out the other papers surrounding your 1 data sheet how the data was created?
What are we suppose to do with the other 100 aircraft we have?
How do we choose speeds for aircraft with other sheets?
Where does the 109E fall in strength of flap design as compared to other aircraft.
Do we now need to move all the other aircraft also?
These are just a few of the questions that are raised by wanting to change our current way of choosing speeds. Note, I again did not say it can not be changed, I am really just wanting to show you that you can not look at one plane in isolation.
As I said earlier. You wish to discuss this, start thinking about the entire system and how it will effect all planes when you ask questions like is it reasonable.
HiTech
-
I think what is being overlooked here is the useability of flaps in actual combat: It is a grey area that shows large inconsistencies according to aircraft type in actual combat reports; it is not all an issue of pilot proficiency or inclination. Some aircrafts do like to use flaps a lot in real-life combat (most prominently of all the P-51!), some don't (like the Me-109, Spitfire and P-47).
I think what is not realized is that the effectiveness of the flaps is greatly diminished by the deceleration they create in real-life: In a test against the Oscar I, the P-38J's flaps actually slowed down the P-38's speed enough to make the Oscar gain MUCH faster, but that reflects the Oscar's lack of speed retention in a far smaller turn radius: Against a Me-109G there might be a short-term turn gain with flaps because here a turn radius advantage can become for a short while more important than the sustained turn performance...
Surprisingly enough, at 20 000 feet exactly, and at a wide range of speeds (150 to 300 MPH ias), IF altitude was maintained in flat turns, the Oscar would NOT gain on a P-38J, as long as the P-38 did NOT use its flaps... Any altitude loss while turning would instantly help the Oscar's puny engine and gain the Oscar a big turning advange... (The Oscar1's level turn advantage disappeared above 19 000 ft, but always remained in a downward spiral.)
I agree with Thorsim using the flight manual as the final word is not realistic, but using the structural limit might not reflect the way flaps were actually used either. On the 109 flaps were slow to deploy manually, and on the P-47 they seemed not to have been much used except for the deliberate purpose of slowing down, but not actually turning as such...
I think the ability to sustain speed in turns, similar amoung many types, should determine the useability of flaps at higher speeds, so that all aircrafts are treated on an even footing: I think Thorsim's idea of a midway between the Pilot's Manual's 200 MPH limit and the 400 MPH structural limit is a good idea, allowing variations for the limiting reality of slow manual deployment on some types, and maybe giving a high speed deployment advantage to some types that display unusually good speed retention in turns at high speed because of their inherent aerodynamic slickness.
The only reason the P-51 is sometimes quoted as using flaps at 400 MPH while most other types don't, is that the Mustang's surprisingly good speed retention in turns (compared to its so-so climb rate) made the speed loss of 10° of flaps seem less onerous to the pilot compared to other types. Yet certainly the FW-190A could use flaps to some advantage up to 300 MPH, as pilots often did. Beyond that speed, the FW-190A was a poorer turner and had less acceleration in turns than many other types, and in actual combat the flaps were then most often used to slow down and try to trick the pursuer in slipping ahead...
Still, the most common use of flaps for the Mustang is actually at medium to very low combat speeds, similar to most other types but maybe with a bigger gain since it is generally an inferior-turning aircraft at these speeds. In the word of a Polish pilot: "It helped the turn, but made the stall dangerous".
I think it is a grey area and should be treated as such, and not defined by the cut-and-dried limits of a pilot's manual.
In general flaps were not massively used in combat, even on the deck, except by the P-51 when it needed a brief catch-up at some risk... So if in a simulation they define relative turn performance for all aircrafts, it does sound odd.
Gaston
-
yea heaven forbid we discuss ...
realism in a sim ...
or
balance and fairness in a game ...
Kind of crass.
-
Interesting and well written analysis gaston. Your remarks that documented aircraft performance in sustained turns should be factored into the applicability to deploy flaps in-game is most intriguing and adds yet another wrinkle to previous postulations in this thread.
In reference to your post: Are you referring to your own experience online in AH, NACA flight test reports or other data, or do you have actual combat time in Ki-43s, 109s, P38s and P51s?
-
In case any of you missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded)
Imagine trying to deploy those during combat...not gonna happen. :uhoh
-
I think the ability to sustain speed in turns, similar amoung many types, should determine the useability of flaps at higher speeds,
Why? We are talking modeling limits, nothing to do with L&D curves of flaps.
HiTech
-
In case any of you missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded)
Imagine trying to deploy those during combat...not gonna happen. :uhoh
Wow! I could only imagine under G-load.
-
hitech,
i meant for that approach to be used across the set where the pilots handbook and the technical trials display a wide disparity in their numbers.
i just used the types we have been discussing as examples since they are the FMs i have noticed this issue in so far.
i understand your problems with regard to all the planes and i was wondering this ...
we have the chart with the "air speed/degree of deflection" curves for the 109. we have your numbers for the planes that can deploy their flaps at higher speeds in AH and the data you have to support those speeds.
if we take the numbers we have for the known high speed combat flap planes plot them and draw the curves and plot any other seemingly relevant data we could find and draw those as well ...
do you think that if we show a correlation throughout all those curves, proving that it is a consistent
"wind resistance/structure strength" issue, and therefore we could reasonably predict the speed/resistance relationship to any degree of flap deflection for a given system as long as we know the degrees to be estimated and an approved speed at one of those degrees of deflection settings?
at least any system that allows multiple flap deflections. even if we only had a single deflection angle and its approved speed?
do you think that proving the relationship is a consistent "wind resistance=force applied to structure" matter over all the flaps that offer variable deflection angles, and therefore predicable for any degree of deflection that may be modeled in the game.
in your opinion would that be a valid way of approaching this issue?
It is a valid premises and is what I was saying in option #3.
I have no idea if this is or is not reasonable.
Is this only an example?
I really have no idea with out the other papers surrounding your 1 data sheet how the data was created?
What are we suppose to do with the other 100 aircraft we have?
How do we choose speeds for aircraft with other sheets?
Where does the 109E fall in strength of flap design as compared to other aircraft.
Do we now need to move all the other aircraft also?
These are just a few of the questions that are raised by wanting to change our current way of choosing speeds. Note, I again did not say it can not be changed, I am really just wanting to show you that you can not look at one plane in isolation.
As I said earlier. You wish to discuss this, start thinking about the entire system and how it will effect all planes when you ask questions like is it reasonable.
HiTech
-
it is just as likely as adjusting a trim wheel in the same g-loaded condition ...
i don't see it as impossible ...
besides every turn you wish to close up is not necessarily high G.
not to mention that every turn on the wheel offers a deflection and corresponding effect on the lift of the wing, so we are not talking about a full swing from 60 degrees and back for the flaps to show an effect ...
In case any of you missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded)
Imagine trying to deploy those during combat...not gonna happen. :uhoh
-
not to mention that every turn on the wheel offers a deflection and corresponding effect on the lift of the wing, so we are not talking about a full swing from 60 degrees and back for the flaps to show an effect ...
It is of course true that smaller increments would help but I think the point gavagai was making was that it currently takes only 8 secs in AH to get them fully down. While you can see in the video that the guy could have cranked faster, it still took over 20 secs...
-
It is of course true that smaller increments would help but I think the point gavagai was making was that it currently takes only 8 secs in AH to get them fully down. While you can see in the video that the guy could have cranked faster, it still took over 20 secs...
Perhaps slowing the process of flaps deployment in 109s is called for. In the name of "realism" :salute
-
Oh FFS, quit trolling. You've had your answer, move on.
-
Oh FFS, quit trolling. You've had your answer, move on.
And what was the answer...nevermind...you're just trolling.
Thor is looking at the maximum speed 10 degree "combat flap" deployment issue, not a full flap deployment. Although the entire range of flap deployment speeds would be affected. Strangely enough if there is any record of a Luftwaffe pilot getting trained or just using the flaps in aerial combat rather than at landing/takeoff speeds, it's not readily available. There are a number of references from 109 pilots who mention using the "flettner" (named after the person who invented the trim tab) or trim setting at higher speeds.
Since I'm not as well versed on every aspect of flaps just a question: wouldn't the type and size of the flaps have a lot of influence on the aerodynamics when deployed? For instance the P-51D uses a "fowler flap" where the 109 uses a "slot" flap and I believe the Ki 84(?) had "split" flaps.
Those flap designs along with the length and width affected the flight characteristics differently, so applying the same values across the board wouldn't be very accurate either in my opinion.
-
Since I'm not as well versed on every aspect of flaps just a question: wouldn't the type and size of the flaps have a lot of influence on the aerodynamics when deployed? For instance the P-51D uses a "fowler flap" where the 109 uses a "slot" flap and I believe the Ki 84(?) had "split" flaps.
109 and P-51 have plain flaps. KI-84's flaps are of the fowler type. 190 for example has split flaps. EDIT/Well, actually it is true that both 109 and P-51s flaps can be called to be more of the slotted flap type./EDIT
(http://www.cheffers.co.uk/flaps1.GIF)
-
And what was the answer...nevermind...you're just trolling.
Thor is looking at the maximum speed 10 degree "combat flap" deployment issue, not a full flap deployment. Although the entire range of flap deployment speeds would be affected. Strangely enough if there is any record of a Luftwaffe pilot getting trained or just using the flaps in aerial combat rather than at landing/takeoff speeds, it's not readily available. There are a number of references from 109 pilots who mention using the "flettner" (named after the person who invented the trim tab) or trim setting at higher speeds.
Since I'm not as well versed on every aspect of flaps just a question: wouldn't the type and size of the flaps have a lot of influence on the aerodynamics when deployed? For instance the P-51D uses a "fowler flap" where the 109 uses a "slot" flap and I believe the Ki 84(?) had "split" flaps.
Those flap designs along with the length and width affected the flight characteristics differently, so applying the same values across the board wouldn't be very accurate either in my opinion.
well that is what i am proposing to find out gyrene ...
there is a constant to work with that should hold true at least in general which is the wind resistance at a given speed
i.e. we are not considering the way the wind effects each structure relative to the other structures.
what i am proposing is to see if the wind resistance changes in a consistent manner against each structure relative to itself over the differences in the deflection applied. which i believe should be true.
if that holds true then all we should need is one value of deflection/speed for any given flap structure and we should be able to predict the rest of the deflection/speed values.
-
109 and P-51 have plain flaps. KI-84's flaps are of the fowler type. 190 for example has split flaps. EDIT/Well, actually it is true that both 109 and P-51s flaps can be called to be more of the slotted flap type./EDIT
Yeah not much surface visible difference between the plain and slotted flaps is there? Not until you jump into "double slotted"... :confused: And the fact that the 109 flaps allowed the ailerons to droop up to 11 degrees in a resting position makes it even tougher to figure out.
Thank you for correcting me on the Ki84 flaps...wasn't there a Jap or Russian fighter that used slotted flaps? LaGG5 maybe?
-
109 ailerons drooped with the flaps? Slotted (I could be wrong) look like they have the same kind of benefit from air flowing thru the slot as leading edge slats do for the wing.
-
wasn't there a Jap or Russian fighter that used slotted flaps? LaGG5 maybe?
Lavotchkin series uses split flaps like the Yaks. The Japanese fighters pretty much used either the fowler (Maneuvering fowler flaps on JAAF aircraft are also called "butterfly-flaps") or Split-flap type.
-
Only the E-models used the drooping ailerons. With the F the whole wing was redesigned.
-
Must be only some of the E models - the AH 109E's ailerons don't droop.
-
Gavagui,
Thanks for showing this clip again. It shows a slightly over weight man, leisurely rotating a wheel a 1/4 turn at a time.
I ask you this: could you not at 19 or 20 years of age after a military boot camp and most likely being in the best physical condition of your life,,, and instead of awkwardly rotating the wheel with your left hand, could you not keep your left hand on the stick and reach over with your right hand (under your left arm) and spin the flap wheel faster with more rotation for every turn?
Thats the way I would do it.
This video shows how they worked, but does not prove they worked slowly. This guy is not in combat or trying to demonstrate how fast or slow the flaps can be deployed, hes just showing how they worked.
<S>
Jeff
-
Why would you do it with arms crossed? Wouldn't that get in the way of moving the stick?
-
Why would you do it with arms crossed? Wouldn't that get in the way of moving the stick?
Jeff is a lefty...can't fly with his right hand. :D
-
The stick is above your knee height,,,unless you are very tall.
My point being,,,this vid. Is nice, informative, educational but really adds nothing more to this discussion. Some are wanting to use it as a "bench mark" to the speed at with a 109 can open its flaps by how this guy shows it,,,,i dont know, seams petty to me.
<S>
Jeff
-
...if that holds true then all we should need is one value of deflection/speed for any given flap structure and we should be able to predict the rest of the deflection/speed values.
So what you really want, regardless of all this discussion, is to normalize the flap deployment speeds among all the aircraft in Aces High?
-
Jeff, remember that turning that wheel at speed requires significant force. The extra speed with which you could turn that wheel with your right hand comes at the expense of leverage. The elbow positioned over the wheel is optimal for turning it when there is resistance, though I would imagine it was easier to raise the flaps at speed than to lower them.
-
This is a heck of a thread, hopefully it won't get ruined with too much trolling/flaming, or a pink purse fight pic.
Anyway, I'll freely admit to a personal bias here. I would *love* to see the flight model changed to allow faster flap deployment on LW planes 190's in particular. Why? because that's what I fly and from a gameplay standpoint it would be a lot more interesting if when I see the guy in the American plane in front of me drop flaps to evade, I could attempt to do the same, to stay in the saddle. Now whether or not it's historically accurate I can't say. Whether or not it will meet the standard for acceptance in HTC's game is of course up to the developers. All I do know is if I picture myself in a 190 chasing some p51 or p38 and he suddenly jams down the flaps and tries to break turn, I'd probably try to do the same thing regardless of whether or not my pilot manual said it was OK or not (unless it was explicitly forbidden). It's better to risk damage to the plane than lose the fight. That said, I read somewhere the 190 had push button flap controls, with 3? settings I believe, one of them was a maneuvering* setting of 15 degrees supposedly deployable to 205?mph. Whether or not it's true I have no idea.
I guess I am just a Luftwhiner/weenie. Now before I completely destroy my credibility... any chance of a change to the R-2800 fuel burn rates? http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258807.0.html
Maybe it's just the big radial engines?
-
Gavagai,
<S>
I beg to differ with you on the last point you made. It does not take significant force. The wheel is connected to a gear that works as a gear reduction. Because of the worm gear and gear ratio, it takes very little effort to move a device of this construction. Like a chain fall or "come along".
Also, like I alluded to before. These pilots were in very good shape physically,,,they had to be.
But I guess we will never know,,,for all we know, maybe German pilots used flaps so much in a turn that it was just common sense and did not warrant mentioning ;)
Respectfully
Jeff
-
I forget who it was, but one of our virtual pilots interviewed Stigler and asked about flaps in combat. The answer was that they were only used for takeoffs and landings, never during combat.
-
It does not take significant force. The wheel is connected to a gear that works as a gear reduction. Because of the worm gear and gear ratio, it takes very little effort to move a device of this construction.
Jeff is correct here. Flaps were actuated via "telescoping" push rod with a worm gear inside it which extended the push rod which in turn moved new push rods via "control horns". Jeff, I have to disagree with you about that video though. Of course it can be used as a "benchmark". Obviously the time doesn't have to be exactly the same as in the video but IMO it can be used as a good quide. However, personally I don't think that there is a reason to touch the flap deployment speed of the 109 unless the whole planeset gets reviewed as there might be other inconsistancies aswell (Hurricanes come to mind).
-
I'd like to see every plane in AH be as accurate in its representation as possible. And I honestly don't care one way or the other what speed the flaps come out on the LW planes.
However, I think you're headed down a slippery slope when you start justifying aspects of the Fm based on the performance a plane "probably should" have been capable of, without strong evidence.
Where does this go if we distribute it across the plane-set? Should a zero also be capable of dropping some flaps at the same speeds? What about a B17?
Was construction type, materials, etc, consistent across the set? Does dropping 10 degrees of flap in the 109 match the F4U when it drops 10 degrees? Or does one expose more surface area as a result? Is it a consistent ratio, even if a different actual surface area? What about the physical effort required to drop the flaps? Is it consistent across the set? Are the planes basically equal, but just different looking?
If it was so obvious to a German pilot that they would leave it out of the manual, what does that say about dropping the gear (they mention that, right?), is that less obvious to the pilot? Or the trim? Or the engine management settings? Or switching between fuel tanks? Why would they make mention of something the pilot needs to do many times over (and would seem to stay fresh in the pilots mind), and leave out details that will be needed far less often, and in more stressful conditions? Did they just leave it up to each pilot, as a sort of "judgment call"? What about pilots who did use them effectively- wouldn't they share that information with others? Or keep it secret?
Was combat flap use in the LW planes so obvious that the manual writers felt it ok not to mention key aspects of their use, aspects that could kill a pilot? Even if the use was so obvious that it wasn't necessary to mention when they could/should be used, I'd expect to see references to times when they shouldn't be used. If not in the plane manual, how about in a training manual?
Where is the throttle located in the 109? Which hand operates it? Would it be possible for the pilot to operate the throttle and flaps at the same time. It is in the game... (can be said for any plane, of course).
Again, I'm not arguing one way or the other here. I really don't care. I care more about the game's credibility when they start to deviate from "proven" and head towards "probably" or "should" or "might". Just playing Devil's Advocate...
-
See rule #4
-
Quote:"I forget who it was, but one of our virtual pilots interviewed Stigler and asked about flaps in combat. The answer was that they were only used for takeoffs and landings, never during combat."
This is exactly what I think: In the 109G-6 it was more important to use the trim tail than paying the unaffordable cost of extra drag.
Maybe when the 109G-6 got MW-50 (G-14) it could, in theory, afford the extra drag of lowering flaps slightly when competing against Merlin Mustangs... But then maybe the pilot could just trim it more tail-heavy, pushing all the time on the stick for level flight, and then simply pull harder on the stick with MW-50 engaged: Simpler than turning that trim wheel at the last moment!
The one problem the non-MW-50 Me-109G-6 had, when turning with the Merlin Mustang, was what happened when the altitude ran out and a downward spiral could no longer compensate for its inferior speed retention in turns (which seems contradictory with the G-6's better climb rate, but there you go)... The 109G-6 could turn in a marginally tighter radius than a P-51 at medium-low speeds, but the Mustang retained speed much better in wider turns, and thus could afford using flaps to tighten up the turn. Many other types actually turned significantly tighter than the Merlin P-51s, most obvious among those the paddle-blade Razorback P-47D and the P-38, but these gave pilots the feeling that any extra drag would lose them more in speed than what they gained in radius.
The FW-190A had such good low-speed reserve acceleration, it is one of the rare WWII fighter types I heard that used the lowered flaps as a standard procedure for turning combat. But it was a specialized low-speed turn fighter, and I doubt the flaps did it much good above 250 MPH IAS, where its sustained turn performance was poorer than most other fighters. At higher speeds, it needed clean aerodynamics and a downward spiral desperately to remain even marginally competitive in turns with the Merlin Mustang... At low speeds it could match or beat the P-38 and even the Spitfire (especially if the latter was not a Mk IX!)...
Quote:
I think the ability to sustain speed in turns, similar amoung many types, should determine the useability of flaps at higher speeds,
Why? We are talking modeling limits, nothing to do with L&D curves of flaps.
HiTech
-I think the link between Load and Drag and the use of flaps is that better-turning aircrafts can pull at a higher angle of attack, and thus turn tighter, in effect the whole aircraft IS the flap. This puts them at the limit of loosing speed in a simpler way by just pulling harder on the stick, rather than altering the wing profile in a more complicated, less easily reversible, action. They reach the limit of loosing a lot of speed in the turn by just pulling on the stick, in other words.
With an aircraft like the Merlin P-51, that keeps an unusually high sustained speed for a given wider turn, but is not capable of a tight turning radius despite a competitive turn RATE in a wider radius, then it becomes worthwhile to go to the extra complexity of deploying flaps to reduce the radius, IF the acceleration available in reserve is up to the task of compensating for the extra drag. It was sufficient for the Merlin Mustang, and for the FW-190A at lower speeds, but the trade-off was not worthwhile for many others fighter types, which is why it is so absent from so many type's pilot accounts.
Quote; "In reference to your post: Are you referring to your own experience online in AH, NACA flight test reports or other data, or do you have actual combat time in Ki-43s, 109s, P38s and P51s?"
- No. I re-designed an old boardgame (AH's Air Force) as a hobby, doing research over several years. I take much of my conclusions from cross-referencing pilot anecdotes and comparative tests, which is why some of what I say is not the widely accepted dogma...
The Ki-43-I vs P-38 flap/drag comments I made were from an absolutely fascinating, and very detailed, 1944 fly-off report with a captured Oscar. I thought it came from Mike William's site, but I cannot find it right now. I will try to post the link later.
Gaston
-
-I think the link between Load and Drag...
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/ldrat.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/ldrat.html)
-
what do you mean by normalize?
if that means a method of accurately determining the flap deployment speed capabilities of all the aircraft replacing the method we have now, which i believe is flawed, then yes that is what i want on this issue.
in general what i want is an accurate yet playable game that is enough of a sim and enough of a game so that we can get a better feeling of where these planes all excelled, and all were weak, so we can get a better feel for what the battles were really like, without the necessity of the years of training usually required to reach a sufficient level of skill to confidently operate these aircraft in combat.
So what you really want, regardless of all this discussion, is to normalize the flap deployment speeds among all the aircraft in Aces High?
-
what do you mean by normalize?
if that means a method of accurately determining the flap deployment speed capabilities of all the aircraft replacing the method we have now, which i believe is flawed, then yes that is what i want on this issue.
in general what i want is an accurate yet playable game that is enough of a sim and enough of a game so that we can get a better feeling of where these planes all excelled, and all were weak, so we can get a better feel for what the battles were really like, without the necessity of the years of training usually required to reach a sufficient level of skill to confidently operate these aircraft in combat.
This argument has already been hashed out in the numerous threads about the auto-retracting flap feature. The answer is the same now as it was then, it pretty much boils down to a game play design decision. While I might want to have the option of running the risk of flaps jamming if I exceed limits, like in another flight sim, I can understand the reasoning and the decision behind it. At what point is there a structural failure? It's all a haphazard guess, I can't say for certain that the flaps on the P-38 will jam at 255mph or 300mph. The game would have to rely on a randomizer (like in that other flight sim), which is something HiTech has already mentioned is dislike of. In addition, there is the game design concessions that have to be made to attract and retain new players.
ack-ack
-
Thor: This will sound like a silly question at first but give it some thought before you reply.
in general what i want is an ACCURATE yet playable game that is enough of a sim and enough of a game so that we can get a better feeling of where these planes all excelled, and all were weak, so we can get a better feel for what the battles were really like, without the necessity of the years of training usually required to reach a sufficient level of skill to confidently operate these aircraft in combat.
Define ACCURATE in terms of flight modeling specificity relating to flaps.
HiTech
-
i will think about it hitech, i see the problem with "accurate" where specific data is missing. ...
can i ask you hitech, if you are content with the way things are even after all the discussions and information that we have had in this thread and others.
does it bother you that you are vulnerable to so many inconsistencies because you take such a stringent stance on subjective information. do you some times feel let down in your efforts to be objective because you have settled on this method and criteria?
after all no matter what information i find or can prove, none of that however compelling is going to change a flight manual that has already been printed 60+ years ago. it will take no small amount of research to address even one aircraft, and that information will still conflict with the criteria you have gone with for years.
i guess i am asking you if you are willing to make exceptions to your methodology in such cases?
would it make a difference if say Burt Rutan told you that the force load capabilities of a flap structure does not normally significantly change as the deflection angles change, instead of me?
-
i understand hitechs decision there, but that is not really what we are discussing ack ack.
what happens when you exceed the speed limits is a different issue than what the speed limits are.
once again i am not nit picking here, we are talking about a +200mph, +100% disparity.
This argument has already been hashed out in the numerous threads about the auto-retracting flap feature. The answer is the same now as it was then, it pretty much boils down to a game play design decision. While I might want to have the option of running the risk of flaps jamming if I exceed limits, like in another flight sim, I can understand the reasoning and the decision behind it. At what point is there a structural failure? It's all a haphazard guess, I can't say for certain that the flaps on the P-38 will jam at 255mph or 300mph. The game would have to rely on a randomizer (like in that other flight sim), which is something HiTech has already mentioned is dislike of. In addition, there is the game design concessions that have to be made to attract and retain new players.
ack-ack
-
No thor, we will not make an exception to basic methodology. But we may at one point change the methodology. What has to be show is that a different methodology would produce a better overall product, not just look at one data point and say it would be better in this case.
And that is one of the things I have been trying to help you to understand our thought process. We are always reevaluating how we do things. It is one of the reasons I am involved in this discussion. Items like your data post, are only another item for consideration, it really is not a conclusive , must be change what we do type piece of data.
does it bother you that you are vulnerable to so many inconsistencies because you take such a stringent stance on subjective information. do you some times feel let down in your efforts to be objective because you have settled on this method and criteria?
Again you make a statement with out any supporting evidence. You assume we are vulnerable, we can very easily say we are very consistent in our methods. You are wanting us to be completely inconsistent in our modeling by asking us to make an exception in the way we model flaps with the 109.
i will think about it hitech, i see the problem with "accurate" where specific data is missing. ...
You may be missing my question, I am not asking how to be accurate with missing data, I am asking to define what accuracy is. As I said, you may not quite see the difference because right now you are thinking the term accurate is an obvious word.
It is not so obvious when you think of the entire system, and that we are not real world but on a 2D screen with a key board and a Joystick for control, and the joy stick works nothing like a real joystick in a plane works.
after all no matter what information i find or can prove, none of that however compelling is going to change a flight manual that has already been printed 60+ years ago. it will take no small amount of research to address even one aircraft, and that information will still conflict with the criteria you have gone with for years.
You have only scratched the surface with this statement. The more you do research, the more you will find conflicting data from many different sources. As I said, your post is only 1 sheet, I.E. 1 data point with out any knowledge surrounding why the sheet was produced.
Even your sheet can be misleading with out basic knowledge of flight, I.E. it may be safe to drop flaps at those speeds with the plane at 1 G loads, what happens at greater loads? Maybe this is why your data sheet conflicts with flight manuals?
HiTech
-
well i did not expect change tomorrow, i will however take heart in having the word "change" in your post.
per your earlier question ...
"accurate" would mean that if i were able to get into one of these planes today i could expect the things that plane could do in the real world to be mirrored in the game up to the point where htc decides that there is a reality/game play adjustment to be made.
you may have missed this from my last post, i added this thought a little later. i am not used to such rapidly moving threads i am sorry ...
"would it make a difference if say Burt Rutan told you that the force load capabilities of a flap structure does not normally significantly change as the deflection angles change, instead of me?"
would an expert engineering opinion be a welcome addition to the information being considered?
i would ask the same for a current pilots observation as there are or will be flying examples of the two aircraft brought up so far.
thanks again for your attention in this matter hitech.
-
"would it make a difference if say Burt Rutan told you that the force load capabilities of a flap structure does not normally significantly change as the deflection angles change, instead of me?"
I do not understand this statement.
-
"would it make a difference if say Burt Rutan told you that the force load capabilities of a flap structure does not normally significantly change as the deflection angles change, instead of me?"
I do not understand this statement.
Wants to know if you would like some expert information on flap structural load capabilities at varying deflection angles from Burt Rutan himself.
-
well an expert anyway ...
imo this is a force load question and nothing more.
-
well an expert anyway ...
imo this is a force load question and nothing more.
And not sure if you are taking this into consideration or not but...force load is proportionate to air density + structure dimension + speed.
Since I'm not an aeronautical engineer see if I got this right.
Lift is equal to 1/2 the air density x true airspeed squared x area of the wing x lift coefficient ? ? ?
So if Thor is asserting that a slotted flap which measures 3 feet in length by 18 inches at 250mph TAS will produce the same results as a plain flap that measures 5 feet long by 22 inches wide...(which I seriously doubt)...that still leaves the question of wing mass, aircraft weight, air density, and structural limitations.
or am I waaaaay out in left field watching grass grow?
-
well an expert anyway ...
imo this is a force load question and nothing more.
Thor By load I was referring to the force on the flap when flying level vs force on flap when doing a 2 or 3 g turn.
-
Thor By load I was referring to the force on the flap when flying level vs force on flap when doing a 2 or 3 g turn.
hitech, i was not considering your g load statement, i fail to see how the g loads would effect one plane differently than another.
the force i am referring to is the (x)lbs of force, the structure can withstand and how that should not change significantly as the structure goes through its range of movement.
the wind speeds and deflection angles will obviously change to result in that force, but that is what we are discussing right?
the fact that the speeds must change as the deflections change in order to result on the same force being applied to the same structure.
-
no gyrene, i am not looking for a relationship between different structures i am looking for a way to predict the speeds/deflection for the same structure by using the force loading at a known speed/deflection on that structure.
i am not implying that one set of values be used for different systems, rather i am stating that the same system can manage the same force no matter what speed/deflection results in that force.
And not sure if you are taking this into consideration or not but...force load is proportionate to air density + structure dimension + speed.
Since I'm not an aeronautical engineer see if I got this right.
Lift is equal to 1/2 the air density x true airspeed squared x area of the wing x lift coefficient ? ? ?
So if Thor is asserting that a slotted flap which measures 3 feet in length by 18 inches at 250mph TAS will produce the same results as a plain flap that measures 5 feet long by 22 inches wide...(which I seriously doubt)...that still leaves the question of wing mass, aircraft weight, air density, and structural limitations.
or am I waaaaay out in left field watching grass grow?
-
Thor force on the structure will change with AOA, I just have never looked into exactly how much.
HiTech
-
Thor force on the structure will change with AOA, I just have never looked into exactly how much.
HiTech
i understand hitech, that does seem to make sense, what does not make sense is that that force would be very different for similar structures on different aircraft.
-
Thor: I am not claiming it does change between planes, what I am speaking about is the Flap limit chart you show does not give a context. I.E. was the chart a test done intended for landing and hence low g loads?
Was it simply a 1 g calculated max speed chart?
And if the chart was simply a max speed test with out considering G loads, this could be the discrepancy between it and the manuals.
HiTech
-
But the force load on a flap structure is different between planes depending on wing dimensions among other things, (or I'm really confused about the mechanics and need to drink more alcohol) but it seems pretty straight forward.
Considering this formula:
* L is the lift,
* ρ is the air density,
* V is the true airspeed of the airplane
* S is the planform area of the wing and
* CL is the aircraft lift coefficient
Planform and Chord are 2 determining factors on the load of a flap structure. If you were talking about an absolute exact same structure on absolute exact same wings...there would be no difference.
I wish I could find the same data on the 109 wings but here is data on the P47 wings take note of the "total projected wing area" that the "landing flaps" occupy:
(http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/wing.jpg)
Main members of the wing are the two main spars which support attachment of the wing to the fuselage and three auxiliary spars, one each supporting the aileron and flap and the other supporting the landing gear.
(http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/aileron.jpg)
Ailerons on the P-47, representing about 11.4% of the total projected wing area, are Firse type, aerodynamically and dynamically balanced.
Forged aluminum alloy hinges of the aileron are attached to the outboard auxiliary wing spar.
Landing Flaps
(http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/flap.jpg)
Landing flaps of the P-47, representing 13% of the total projected wing area, are NACA slotted trailing edge type. They are hydraulically operated, receiving pressure and fluid from the hydraulic system and during extension move first aft and then down and during retraction move first up and then forward; this movement, actuated by three trapezoidal linkage hinges, insures perfect positioning of the flap against the main panel, thereby maintaining the proper airfoil section. The linkage hinges are synchronized by attachment to a torque tube and the assembly is attached to the inboard auxiliary wing spar. Independent units are synchronized by hydraulic pressure. Flaps are pinned to the flap linkage assembly hinges with standard bolts.
-
hitech it could be but that is at least as much speculation as any other reasoning in this thread. it is just as likely that the persons in charge of those manuals wanted to discourage pilots from relying on combat flaps to solve angle problems they felt were better addressed in other ways. as you have stated there is no way of knowing the reasons for the disparity in our information with just the information we currently have available.
we may however possibly project all the deflection/speed values on one aircraft from a single deflection/speed value using the corresponding force as a guide.
gyrene forget multiple types of flaps, forget different planes, what i am saying is ...
if we know the flaps on a plane can hold up under 200lbs per sq inch of force at 60 degrees deflection, it may be reasonable to assume that those same flaps on that same plane can hold up under 200lbs per sq inch of force at 10 degrees deflection and therefore we may be able to assume that they hold up to the increase in speed required to achieve 200lbs per sq inch of force at 10 degrees whatever that may be.
understand?
Thor: I am not claiming it does change between planes, what I am speaking about is the Flap limit chart you show does not give a context. I.E. was the chart a test done intended for landing and hence low g loads?
Was it simply a 1 g calculated max speed chart?
And if the chart was simply a max speed test with out considering G loads, this could be the discrepancy between it and the manuals.
HiTech
-
Regardless of what deployment angle the load on flaps could theoretically allow, the real question for a simulation is; was this in-combat deployment actually worthwhile and used in real life? If the answer is no, then it makes sense for a simulation to treat flap deployment as a landing feature only, which could be what the manuals intended to do, discouraging, as Hitech says, an unprofitable use of those flaps.
In the 109 flap deployment video, it clearly shows a few simple turns of the wheel easily reached 10° or more in two-three seconds, with little effort, which is makes it not that unthinkable they could have been used in real life during high speed combat.
Yet we have Stigler on record saying flaps on the 109 were never used in combat. Maybe he meant they were never GAINFULLY used that way, given the non-MW-50 109G/K's poor speed retention in turns, but in any case that statement carries greater weight for me than what could theoretically be done with those flaps, especially since MW-50 use was not so common "in the field".
In a simulation, what I would then do is avoid offering a MW-50 equipped 109 model, since much less is known about it... It could be that those DID find it competitive to use flaps, accounting for their apparently greater turn performance... We may never know, but I'll add MW-50 did blow-up engines in dives, or burn them in climbs, with alarming regularity...
A trick we DO know was WIDELY used by the 109G was trimming the aircraft very tail-heavy, so that a constant push was required on the stick just to fly level. This allowed a much faster nose-up response when suddenly pulling the stick at higher speeds, elliminating the 109G/K's high speed mushing-delayed elevator response (Osprey BF-109F/G/K aces of the Western Front).
When was the last time you heard THAT trick being used on the 109G in a simulation game? Yet it was widely taught in Luftwaffe training, and was widely used, as apparently evidenced by the common observation by Allied pilots that a lot of the inexperienced 109G pilots tended to "Gear" up and down as they they tried to fly straight...
Quote, Hitech: "3. Make some assumptions and guesses that different methodologies were used when writting manuals, and then try to model all flaps as if the manuals were all written with the same mythology."
I think WWII comparative flight modeling IS guessing, regardless of what anyone claims about it. There are just too many dark holes for it to be tought of as "scientific", or to follow rigidly a methodology accross unrelated evaluations and manuals that may have had different criterias or purposes.
The best example of what not to do is applying math uniformly to the FW-190A's low-speed turn rate, ignore what virtually everybody in the Luftwaffe and elsewhere has said about it, and then say the non-MW-50 Me-109G or K out-turns it at low speeds by a significant margin, or that it (the FW-190A) is a great high speed (or even vertical!) fighter... By trying to be too "scientific", you get the exact opposite of reality...
Gaston
-
if we know the flaps on a plane can hold up under 200lbs per sq inch of force at 60 degrees deflection, it may be reasonable to assume that those same flaps on that same plane can hold up under 200lbs per sq inch of force at 10 degrees deflection and therefore we may be able to assume that they hold up to the increase in speed required to achieve 200lbs per sq inch of force at 10 degrees whatever that may be.
understand?
Ok I get what your aiming at now. And thank you for dummying it down for me.
There's something I remember from mechanical engineering class that makes me think your logic could be a bit off. In the case of airplane flaps there are way too many variables that you're leaving out that affect the load limit on a flap but just focusing on the stress limits.
With no variables at all and a using a static structure, a 60 degree angle can handle more vertical and lateral force than a 10 degree angle assuming there is constant equalized pressure...but you're not dealing with a static structure or constant equalized pressure.
If the critical stress limit (break of point) on a specific flap assembly at 60 degrees is 400mph at 300 feet altitude...that won't hold true for the same angle at 30,000 feet due to the thinner air (without doing the math, I would guess close to 450mph). A 10 degree flap angle at 300 feet can handle higher speeds without breaking due to the lower angle of resistance...assuming you're talking about flat horizontal movement and no other opposing forces being dumped into the mix.
Gaston, look real close at that video...there is no atmospheric resistance on those wings or the flaps while that guy is turning that wheel...looks like there is no slack in the mechanism either so each turn directly affects the angle of the flap. Pulling them up in flight would obviously be easier. Few if any pilots maneuvered their planes in combat with just one hand...throttle and stick have to be manipulated, and in some cases both hands on the stick to maintain control, so there is very little time to turn that wheel. So now we're still left with the conjecture part, possible vs probable.
I found a publication that has some "testimony" from Finnish and German pilots describing their use of the trim wheel in combat...not the flaps. I'll post them when I get home...leaving the office now.
-
if we know the flaps on a plane can hold up under 200lbs per sq inch of force at 60 degrees deflection, it may be reasonable to assume that those same flaps on that same plane can hold up under 200lbs per sq inch of force at 10 degrees deflection and therefore we may be able to assume that they hold up to the increase in speed required to achieve 200lbs per sq inch of force at 10 degrees whatever that may be.
understand?
I understand your statement, and it is not necessarily true depending on how the flap linkages are made. But assuming your assumption is correct, what are you trying to state by it?
HiTech
-
i am not trying to state anything now what i am proposing is that we look into it as a "theory" plotting and charting the flap values we know and seeing if there enough of a predictable pattern to feel comfortable using that process as part of the way these decisions are made in the future.
it is just a suggestion for using known values and physics to help fill in some gaps in our data.
I understand your statement, and it is not necessarily true depending on how the flap linkages are made. But assuming your assumption is correct, what are you trying to state by it?
HiTech
-
gaston wrote:
When was the last time you heard THAT trick being used on the 109G in a simulation game?
It is used many times in 109s in AH.
HiTech
-
i am not trying to state anything now what i am proposing is that we look into it as a "theory" plotting and charting the flap values we know and seeing if there enough of a predictable pattern to feel comfortable using that process as part of the way these decisions are made in the future.
it is just a suggestion for using known values and physics to help fill in some gaps in our data.
Thor, you are just wanting to do what we normally call a smell test. I.E. does the data stay with in the realm of reason. And we already do that.
HiTech
-
ok well i am just suggesting we use that smell test on the relative flap deployment speeds,
which i will do as part of my looking around and submit my results with whatever else i find.
i just wanted to see if that was an approach you might find valuable.
thanks, and sorry it took a while to get my idea across ...
t
Thor, you are just wanting to do what we normally call a smell test. I.E. does the data stay with in the realm of reason. And we already do that.
HiTech
-
i think and after 14 pages of endless discussion the question is: to drop or not to drop? the flaps i mean :noid
-
i think and after 14 pages of endless discussion the question is: to drop or not to drop? the flaps i mean :noid
They drop now...the question is how fast can you fly before not being able to.
and it's only 9 pages atm.
-
They drop now...the question is how fast can you fly before not being able to.
and it's only 9 pages atm.
Bzzzzt 3 pages. ;)
-
i think and after 14 pages of endless discussion the question is: to drop or not to drop? the flaps i mean :noid
It's not endless. It's a pretty good discussion from my POV; it's not stagnating because HT and Thorsim are actually cutting down argumentative obstacles on the way to the real bottom line.
-
I'm not an expert on aero... but here's an interesting idea that could be a nice compromise between "Pilot's Manual" and "Structural Limit".
Say I am in a FW190 A5 - the corner velocity is around 260 mph IAS. Where I would most want to have combat flaps ability is any speed under 260 mph IAS - any higher than that and I am bleeding more airspeed to do the same maneuver.
If we can come up with a consistent model and it passes a "smell test" for flap speeds well in excess of corner velocities for our aircraft (say the smell test says flaps could easily be deployed at 350 mph which is a differential of 100 mph above most corner velocities), we could easily just implement "corner velocity and below" combat flaps.
These "corner velocity flaps" would have their deployment speeds low enough not to violate any realism limits but high enough to be useful in gameplay. The in between settings could simply split the difference.
Admittedly I used a LW aircraft example because that is what I fly. However, this line of reasoning could EASILY be extended to any other aircraft. Simply increase the combat flap setting up to corner velocity. Again, if everything passes a "smell test", then these flap speeds would easily be within realism limits and high enough to be useful.
-
I'm not an expert on aero... but here's an interesting idea that could be a nice compromise between "Pilot's Manual" and "Structural Limit".
Say I am in a FW190 A5 - the corner velocity is around 260 mph IAS. Where I would most want to have combat flaps ability is any speed under 260 mph IAS - any higher than that and I am bleeding more airspeed to do the same maneuver.
If we can come up with a consistent model and it passes a "smell test" for flap speeds well in excess of corner velocities for our aircraft (say the smell test says flaps could easily be deployed at 350 mph which is a differential of 100 mph above most corner velocities), we could easily just implement "corner velocity and below" combat flaps.
These "corner velocity flaps" would have their deployment speeds low enough not to violate any realism limits but high enough to be useful in gameplay. The in between settings could simply split the difference.
Admittedly I used a LW aircraft example because that is what I fly. However, this line of reasoning could EASILY be extended to any other aircraft. Simply increase the combat flap setting up to corner velocity. Again, if everything passes a "smell test", then these flap speeds would easily be within realism limits and high enough to be useful.
So again, all we're talking about is normalizing flap deployment speeds on all aircraft. I'll exagerate to make the point, but why not normalize turning radius? Why not normalize armament? Why not normalize speeds? The fact that the individual aircraft in-game are representative of their real-life selves is the only thing that makes this game what it is, and not something you buy for X-Box. Currently, HTC uses a standard criteria for all planes with respect to flap deployment speeds. No need to start making arbitrary limits that may or may not have existed in real-life. Other games do that, and we criticize them for it.
-
Funny, this whole "by the book" vs "structural" debate.
I'll bet most of the ones arguing for the structural here, would be against say... allied ac going past max recommended duration of wep.
As we all know allied engines simply ceased to work after 5 min of wep. :rolleyes:
Going "by the book" is the best way to go. Be it flap deployment or duration of wep. This leaves no wiggle room. On any given day, were the people assembling parts on the axis wings more diligent than people assembling allied engines or vise versa?
-
not to open another whole can of worms here, but stoney deployment speeds should be pretty far down the list of "arbitrary limits that may or may not have existed in real-life" in regards to the flaps in AH.
i see little real reason AH players should be criticizing any other games about much. i don't see one as much better than the other in general at this point. some are better than others at some things and visa versa. feeling good about something that is incorrect because the criteria for causing them to be incorrect is consistent, vs. other games that are also in their own way trying to find correctness in their offerings seems slim consolation to me. they may have abandoned that criteria as limiting already and moved on to better ways of approaching these issues.
this "flight manual says it so it must be" is a mind set that will leave this game behind others in these regards, clearly AH has not used the flight manuals as irrefutable in other regards, it is just time that they look at it in this case and think about what their criteria may be doing to hurt the accuracy and credibility of AH relative to the other games in the market.
not bashing anyone or anything but closing your mind after considering one source when other better sources may and do exist is just limiting the possibilities of the game and it's ability to be correct.
i am glad that hitech is not completely committed to any one type of data and that there is a possibility for a change where their previous methodology may be proven to be flawed. i really see no reason not to consider that similar structures will react in a similar way to the exact same forces, of course there may be exceptions, but that would require that there be a norm from which to deviate. that being the case why would you not seek the norm and then find the exceptions.
? ? ?
So again, all we're talking about is normalizing flap deployment speeds on all aircraft. I'll exagerate to make the point, but why not normalize turning radius? Why not normalize armament? Why not normalize speeds? The fact that the individual aircraft in-game are representative of their real-life selves is the only thing that makes this game what it is, and not something you buy for X-Box. Currently, HTC uses a standard criteria for all planes with respect to flap deployment speeds. No need to start making arbitrary limits that may or may not have existed in real-life. Other games do that, and we criticize them for it.
-
this "flight manual says it so it must be" is a mind set that will leave this game behind others in these regards, clearly AH has not used the flight manuals as irrefutable in other regards, it is just time that they look at it in this case and think about what their criteria may be doing to hurt the accuracy and credibility of AH relative to the other games in the market.
The aim is to make the planes as representative of the most characteristic/common form of planes, historically. If you have a better methodology, you're welcome to suggest it to HTC. But don't do it by snubbing them over not having adopted it earlier, or ridiculizing the current method, that's just not gonna help.
-
Snip
So you wouldn't be opposed to allied ac going past 5 min of wep?
If you are opposed... hypocrite.
If not where do you set the arbitrary limit?
-
So you wouldn't be opposed to allied ac going past 5 min of wep?
If you are opposed... hypocrite.
If not where do you set the arbitrary limit?
I kinda see Bronks point in a way..."normalizing" the flaps across the board could compromise the current "realistic" flap settings for many ac. The question then becomes, should it be like IL2 and give all planes "combat flap" settings regardless of whether it existed or not? IMO that would degrade AH.
With mechanical flap mechanisms I personally don't think it was common practice for a pilot to put his plane into a high g maneuver then let go of the stick with one hand and move the flap mechanism to any degree...but it doesn't mean it never happened. Was there an actual "combat flap" setting in WWII German fighters? None documented...the wing flaps are referred to in all available documentation as "landing flaps".
The only thing brought to this discussion to contradict the pilot manuals so far is test data...and that should only be a reference point for seeking out more pertinent data, i.e. training manuals, pilot testimony, video, etc...
-
i see little real reason AH players should be criticizing any other games about much. i don't see one as much better than the other in general at this point.
It's not a "neener-neener" type of criticism Thorsim, its a definitive criticism, as in critique, of the game. IL-2's engine cooling model being the most conspicuous example I can think of.
My post you quoted was in response to Boomerlu's post, and that only. I know what the issues are here. All we need to do now is find some data to support what you're arguing for.
-
not sure why there would be much of a difference in the combat flap being used or the el trim gyrene they are two wheels connected to the same axle ...
no bronk i am not a hypocrite would you like for me to start listing examples of where AH deviates from the pilot manuals or documented norms of flight. what does the pilot manual say about combat with fuel in the p51s center tank for example?
i question your perception of the aim moot and i did not slight anyone, i fly most of these games currently, i offered my opinion. it is a fact that the criteria is different for different games. the smell test on the flap deployment speeds is not so great in AH, other games who also claim "accuracy" have widely different conclusions on these matters often 100% different than AH.
and stoney i have already posted some data, what i am told to do now is to find more data which i am doing.
no offense anyone
++S++
t
why all the static anyway, flap speed changes will not put the set out of whack, all the historic advantages would be the same. it is the curious anomalies that get constant unfavorable comments that will disappear.
no offense.
-
Thorism wrote:
why all the static anyway, flap speed changes will not put the set out of whack, all the historic advantages would be the same. it is the curious anomalies that get constant unfavorable comments that will disappear.
Why the static is simply the way you started the this topic. You did not start with data nor a valid argement. But simply and attitude of
"I know this is wrong so change it because I know it is wrong."
You have changed your discussion method as of late.
Thor to be clear, your argument is now that you believe flaps should be modeled to what they could structurally stand and not to what how manufacture suggested they should be used?
If this is not your view then please explain more.
HiTech
-
not sure why there would be much of a difference in the combat flap being used or the el trim gyrene they are two wheels connected to the same axle ...
Just throwing it out there Thor. Like I said, I've seen a lot of stuff including purported pilot interviews (mostly Finnish 109 pilots) where only a couple talked about using the flaps and those were at high alt (13,000 meters)...all of the rest of the references to using the controls talked about the el trim and landing flaps.
-
So again, all we're talking about is normalizing flap deployment speeds on all aircraft. I'll exagerate to make the point, but why not normalize turning radius? Why not normalize armament? Why not normalize speeds? The fact that the individual aircraft in-game are representative of their real-life selves is the only thing that makes this game what it is, and not something you buy for X-Box. Currently, HTC uses a standard criteria for all planes with respect to flap deployment speeds. No need to start making arbitrary limits that may or may not have existed in real-life. Other games do that, and we criticize them for it.
Why not normalize turning radius? Turning radius is a direct consequence of the physical model of the aircraft, not of some arbitrary limit we set as is the case with flaps deployment. E.g., this airplane had X horsepower at Y altitude, turning it Z AoA causes Q amount of drag which after we plug into the physics engine spits out P turning radius.
Why not normalize armament? We have standard loadouts that were historically representative (yes, this would be the argument to use AGAINST my suggestion). In some respect, it is also a consequence of the "physical model" ie that we're modeling WWII conditions. But then again, our model does make some compromises for gameplay albeit reasonable ones. It is in this spirit of "reasonable compromise" that I made my suggestion.
Why not normalize speeds? Again, top speeds are direct consequences of the physical model, not an arbitrary limit. X horsepower, Y drag factor, plug it all in and it gives Q top speed.
So you see, there is a difference between my idea and "X-box flightsims". Didn't you see my emphasis on the fact that this would not violate the realism limit?
In essence, I'm taking the "physicist's order of magnitude approach" - if we can show the flaps structural integrity to be maintainable at conditions approximately an order of magnitude greater than the maximum "practical conditions", then we can ignore the extreme conditions without violating realism because you would never want to use flaps in those cases. Then, with flaps being shown to be "safe" under say 400 mph IAS, you could painlessly implement corner velocity combat flaps.
Just so you guys don't mistake my meaning, I mean "arbitrary limit" as in how the flap speeds were set in the pilot's manuals, not how HTC chose them.
Again I don't have the data, but going off the general direction of what thorsim has posted thus far, the structural limits by far pass any necessary smell test for the flaps to be deployable under corner velocity which is where they would be most useful anyways. If this can be shown convincingly, we do not need to go through the trouble of a full structural model for flaps because such a model would include flaps speed far in excess of what is useful.
Anyways, just an idea, but I think it's the best compromise between full blown structural failure and strict pilot's manual adherence. It's kind of a piggyback off of what Thorsim has shown us that would save HTC time and money in implementation/research yet still give useful gameplay results. On the other hand, if HTC would like to actually go and do the full blown structural model... more power to them.
-
So you wouldn't be opposed to allied ac going past 5 min of wep?
If you are opposed... hypocrite.
If not where do you set the arbitrary limit?
Now that's actually an interesting question. I wouldn't be opposed.
As for where to set the arbitrary limit? The reason I mentioned flaps was because there is an EASY place to put that limit where it would get the most use yet almost surely dodge any un-realism. That place is corner velocity. Such a convenient limit would be much more difficult to find for WEP time.
-
Now that's actually an interesting question. I wouldn't be opposed.
As for where to set the arbitrary limit? The reason I mentioned flaps was because there is an EASY place to put that limit where it would get the most use yet almost surely dodge any un-realism. That place is corner velocity. Such a convenient limit would be much more difficult to find for WEP time.
Down that path lies just giving players unlimited WEP...because truth be told, many of the engines we're talking about stand a good chance of flying around for an hour or so at their "WEP" settings without coming apart.
-
Down that path lies just giving players unlimited WEP...because truth be told, many of the engines we're talking about stand a good chance of flying around for an hour or so at their "WEP" settings without coming apart.
Haha you like "Down that path" don't you BnZ?
Yeah, I hadn't considered that aspect. But to answer the "hypocrite" criticism which is meant to point out favoritism towards LW aircraft, I said "no" on a realism basis. On a gameplay basis... well... you brought up a very valid point.
-
So you wouldn't be opposed to allied ac going past 5 min of wep?
Planes can get more than 5 minutes of WEP. Just not continuous.
-
yes as far as the 190 and 109 flap settings in AH go, i know they are wrong, people who know, know they are wrong and have posted as such.
i am in the process of proving they are wrong.
i already showed you the data sheet with the allowable deployment speeds for the 109, over twice what yours are.
the guys bringing FWs back into flying conditions are very comfortable stating that 500kph was easily within the limits of the 190s system (as i have posted) the guys doing the recreations of the 190s concur, and i will hopefully be producing the needed documentation to make that clear to you as well.
you said you are willing to review data as i am able to produce it, and i believe you, however there are some here who seem to refuse to see that other data may be useful and start stating that i am trying to "normalize" a feature which i am not. i am only trying to shed some more light on this particular issue, in the hopes of clearing up some things that i believe to be incorrect, and having a direct bearing on the game-play and emerson factor in AH.
i am looking for correctness, yes hitech i believe that these understated flap deployment speeds like many other things in operating manuals were looked at and treated as guidelines especially as the fighters matured, and their pilots became more and more comfortable with them.
we can all state examples of that.
i also believe in fairness where there is conflicting data that some sort of compromise should be made. i do not think this will fundamentally hurt the game or its credibility after all other offerings have come to this conclusion already.
quite frankly, on this issue imo it is much less of a credibility problem imo to be 50mph over some data than to be so far under the flap deployment speeds that a particular plane can not deploy its
combat/maneuver/flight flap settings until after it is slow enough to extend its landing gears.
imo that is a clear sign that the deployment speeds are suspect.
as far as the overall modeling goes, when statements like this are made ...
In our game, to really succeed in some knock-down scissors fights you have to be prepared to drop full flaps and raise them up again in a number of seconds.
then it seems to me the parasitic/induced drag relationship in regards to the flaps needs to be reviewed. somebody keeps asking for examples in pilot reports, i would very much like to see how common pilot reports or how many pilot manuals approved that amount of flap deployment during combat. there should be a very narrow margin between max flap deployment speeds and stall speeds in these aircraft. way too narrow to ever make it into a pilots handbook other than when included in some sort of warning.
so yes i wonder why so much static in regards to the top end deployment speeds on a couple of FMs, when the flaps in general display such a deviation from the real world consequences associated with deploying flaps in combat, especially large or even maximum deflections.
no offense
++S++
t
Thorism wrote:
Why the static is simply the way you started the this topic. You did not start with data nor a valid argement. But simply and attitude of
"I know this is wrong so change it because I know it is wrong."
You have changed your discussion method as of late.
Thor to be clear, your argument is now that you believe flaps should be modeled to what they could structurally stand and not to what how manufacture suggested they should be used?
If this is not your view then please explain more.
HiTech
-
i am looking for correctness, yes hitech i believe that these understated flap deployment speeds like many other things in operating manuals were looked at and treated as guidelines especially as the fighters matured, and their pilots became more and more comfortable with them.
So, for example, what would the "new" P-51D flap deployment speed be? At what speed, above that listed as a limit in the POH, could it effectively use the first increment of flaps? Because, if 400mph is the book limit, then surely it could operate them safely at 450mph?
I'm being sarcastic of course, but what's the new criteria for performance data?
-
do you have trial data that is in conflict with the POH as in the case of the 109? a 100% 200+mph disparity?
if you do have such conflicting data then i would say split the difference until the matter can be settled conclusively.
that is what i would do, and the beauty of it is that no matter which data is correct you have addressed the situation very quickly and you solution can't leave you too far off the accurate mark whatever ends up being the conclusive accurate deployment speeds.
of course this is not my decision to make, it is just what i would do.
So, for example, what would the "new" P-51D flap deployment speed be? At what speed, above that listed as a limit in the POH, could it effectively use the first increment of flaps? Because, if 400mph is the book limit, then surely it could operate them safely at 450mph?
I'm being sarcastic of course, but what's the new criteria for performance data?
-
there should be a very narrow margin between max flap deployment speeds and stall speeds in these aircraft. way too narrow to ever make it into a pilots handbook other than when included in some sort of warning.
Why do you think this? Hell, even on the lowly Cessna 150 the flaps can be fully deployed at 100mph...stall speed is way down around 50. Full flaps on the B-24 can be out at 155mph...stall is around 85mph. B-17 flaps full at 144...stall around 75. Do you consider doubling the speed over stall as a "very narrow margin"?
-
well col you got any more pertinent examples, how about the pony with a combat load out?
in any case yea 50mph the difference between falling out of the sky and being in that state would probably warrant a warning or two, don't ya think?
what does the b-24 POH say about a full cross control roll at sea level with flaps fully deployed at say 110mph ...
two thumbs up? ???
Why do you think this? Hell, even on the lowly Cessna 150 the flaps can be fully deployed at 100mph...stall speed is way down around 50. Full flaps on the B-24 can be out at 155mph...stall is around 85mph. B-17 flaps full at 144...stall around 75. Do you consider doubling the speed over stall as a "very narrow margin"?
-
Quote Gyrene81: "Gaston, look real close at that video...there is no atmospheric resistance on those wings or the flaps while that guy is turning that wheel..."
-An absolutely valid point I overlooked.
Quote Thorsim: "not sure why there would be much of a difference in the combat flap being used or the el trim gyrene they are two wheels connected to the same axle ..."
-On the contrary, there would be a large difference in the air load to overcome, between altering by a few degrees an edge-first surface like the tail trim effect on the tailplane, and moving down a large flap surface completely into the wind... Even then, the aerodynamic forces on the tailplane were so great that to trim out of a dive, the trim was best set BEFORE the dive, as the forces involved would otherwise quickly "freeze" even those small easy movements...
Because the non-MW-50 Me-109Gs were not holding speed in turns well enough to compete very well in level sustained turns, I would not allow lowered flaps on them other than for landing, as historical pilot accounts say.
MW-50-equipped 109Gs would have flaps as an option at low speeds only, to take into account the air load, making them clearly superior-turning to non-MW-50 109s, which is historically accurate. Hartmann said the 109G could compete in the West ONLY with MW-50, and his gruppen immediately suffered heavy losses, including himself, when MW-50 use was discontinued...
FW-190As turned best below 250 MPH IAS in comparative tests, so that would be the plausible limit for combat flap use.
The P-51 seems a difficult subject, as there is a large range of deployable speeds and flap angles, but, like other fighters, the bigger effects appear to be confined to the lower speeds, combined with the pilot using a REDUCTION of engine power, along with a coarsening of the prop pitch, in several combat accounts, with the biggest turn performance boost occuring in this way below 200 MPH IAS! The Merlin Mustang did not like these speeds, but with all these actions by the pilot, it could apparently compete and more in level turns, on the deck, below 200 MPH against the Me-109G...
A Polish pilot declared the use of flaps on the Mustang "useful, but they made the stall dangerous", which again suggest lower-speed use.
I'm sure a lot of info is available on Mustang flap settings, as it is one of the few fighters for which flap use is prominent...
To me it seems their effect above 200 MPH was less dramatic, but they could be used up to 400 MPH, so it's a bit of a quandary on this one aircraft which is famous for using them...
Gaston
-
So, for example, what would the "new" P-51D flap deployment speed be? At what speed, above that listed as a limit in the POH, could it effectively use the first increment of flaps? Because, if 400mph is the book limit, then surely it could operate them safely at 450mph?
I'm being sarcastic of course, but what's the new criteria for performance data?
I have to point out that if we followed my "corner velocity" guideline, we would not even need to debate P51 flaps and more to the point there'd be no real use for them at those speeds.
If we are comfortable with flaps deployable at 400 mph IAS (say from some kind of structural simulation or model or fit to statistics), it shouldn't be a stretch to allow 260 mph flaps.
-
I have to point out that if we followed my "corner velocity" guideline, we would not even need to debate P51 flaps and more to the point there'd be no real use for them at those speeds.
If we are comfortable with flaps deployable at 400 mph IAS (say from some kind of structural simulation or model or fit to statistics), it shouldn't be a stretch to allow 260 mph flaps.
The purpose of having flapped over-engineered to the point they are deployable at 400mph even though they don't add really anything at that speed is to make damn sure they can be used at 200-300mph.
If you have no credible data to show that the flaps on a Fw-190 could be safely deployed at speeds higher than what HTC data tells them, then there is no case. You can't credibly argue "but they *COULD* take 260mph" without evidence.
Outside of what the manuals tell us, flap durability is really an unknown and to a certain degree unknowable factor. Just like with WEP times, HTC's "by the book/well within safely tested limits" policy is really about the only way to go. Any limit and attendant damage effect beyond those limits is just a game designer's guess. And I say this as someone who flies a 190 around and could *use* better flaps alot....
-
Quote: "If we are comfortable with flaps deployable at 400 mph IAS (say from some kind of structural simulation or model or fit to statistics), it shouldn't be a stretch to allow 260 mph flaps."
-Quite true for the 190, but for the Me-109 it is a matter of the practicality and speed of manual deployment against airflow, which should definitely be more restrictive...
Gaston
-
If you have no credible data to show that the flaps on a Fw-190 could be safely deployed at speeds higher than what HTC data tells them, then there is no case. You can't credibly argue "but they *COULD* take 260mph" without evidence.
I'm not the one who has the data to back it up. I'm hoping thorsim can produce it, whether through some kind of fit, actual documents etc whatever.
Once that happens (assuming it does), then we would not need a complex/expensive structural integrity model for the flaps. We could simply say they are safe at corner velocities and leave it at that.
Again, I'm not trying to provide data. I'm saying, if data is there, this would be the a cheap but useful way to put it into the game.
-
well col you got any more pertinent examples, how about the pony with a combat load out?
Aircraft load has nothing to do with flap limiting airspeeds.
in any case yea 50mph the difference between falling out of the sky and being in that state would probably warrant a warning or two, don't ya think?
No I don't. If you can't manage a 50 mph margin you'll never be able to fly it down final at 1.2 or 1.3 Vso.
[/quote]
-
The purpose of having flapped over-engineered to the point they are deployable at 400mph even though they don't add really anything at that speed is to make damn sure they can be used at 200-300mph.
and i suppose kurt tank did not understand this engineering principal ?
If you have no credible data to show that the flaps on a Fw-190 could be safely deployed at speeds higher than what HTC data tells them, then there is no case. You can't credibly argue "but they *COULD* take 260mph" without evidence.
yes i do if the 190 could handle 150mph at 60 degrees of deflection resistance than physics reasonably dictates that they should be able to handle 3x that speed at 1/6th that deflection.
Outside of what the manuals tell us, flap durability is really an unknown and to a certain degree unknowable factor. Just like with WEP times, HTC's "by the book/well within safely tested limits" policy is really about the only way to go. Any limit and attendant damage effect beyond those limits is just a game designer's guess. And I say this as someone who flies a 190 around and could *use* better flaps alot....
actually flap durability is very predictable, how do you think they calculate the limits to design them in the first place?
-----------------------------------
ahh col ...
Aircraft load has nothing to do with flap limiting airspeeds.
yer right there buddy got me again? ...
tell me does load out, you know weight, weight distribution and such have anything at all to do with stall speed, stall character, you know the other half of my point there you seemed to have missed.
No I don't. If you can't manage a 50 mph margin you'll never be able to fly it down final at 1.2 or 1.3 Vso.
oh i'm sorry col did you miss the part of the discussion that mentioned ACM you know air combat maneuvering, rolls inversions hard turns heavy Gs stuff like that ?
hey when are you taking the b24 out for those cross control roll at 110mph at sea level tests, i mean if it's perfectly ok ya know, cuz i'd like to be there to take pictures that would be very very cool ...
and i am missing that data on the pony you know with the stall speeds combat loaded and the flap deployment speeds, did i really give you a chance to be an expert on the pony that you took a pass on?
really ?
wow ...
-
while we're discussing making planes better. Can i get some phasers and photon torpedoes for my hogs? :x
Seriously, Your chart Thorsim said a notch of flaps could be dropped at 700kph? Wasn't the top speed of the Bf109 around 650 at 20k? are you talking dive flaps? what about those aerodynamic wing slats for low speeds?
Also wasn't the 109 designed for high speeds to catch bombers and not for an all out turn and burn fighter?well, anyway what do I know.
Here you can get the opinion of 2 experts and how they have to work like mad to get the flaps down.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199912/ai_n8870616/?tag=content;col1
-
must have missed any flap deployment difficulty, care to point it out in that article?
also do you have any reason to believe that a minimal deployment of the 109s flaps would significantly expose them to forces they could not handle even right up to the structural limits of the wing.
i would be happy to look at any data anyone has to dispute the chart i posted or to explain the disparity between the POH and the designers approved limits.
anyone?
-
and i suppose kurt tank did not understand this engineering principal ?
Irrelevant to the point we are discussing.
yes i do if the 190 could handle 150mph at 60 degrees of deflection resistance than physics reasonably dictates that they should be able to handle 3x that speed at 1/6th that deflection.
It does not follow.
actually flap durability is very predictable, how do you think they calculate the limits to design them in the first place?
Therefore, maybe we should pay attention to the limits in the POH?
-
kurt tank is irrlevant to the design of the FW-190, really? that is an interesting perspective ...
prove it does not follow, go ahead lets see you math. ...
not when the tactical trial data conflicts with the POH ...
or use the POH strictly to determine EVERY aspect of flight for EVERY aircraft no deviating at all ever ...
otherwise you are just cherry picking which data you wish to be strictly POH with and which data you are not.
Irrelevant to the point we are discussing.
It does not follow.
Therefore, maybe we should pay attention to the limits in the POH?
is this the real problem guys?
while we're discussing making planes better.
-
I have to point out that if we followed my "corner velocity" guideline, we would not even need to debate P51 flaps and more to the point there'd be no real use for them at those speeds.
Your "corner velocity" guideline is nothing more than normalizing flap deployment speeds. My point is that if we iterate higher flap deployment speeds away from what's listed as a limit in the POH, we'd have to iterate it for every aircraft, including those American rides with their already high flap deployment speeds. There's simply no way to be consistent.
-
Thor wrote.
do you have trial data that is in conflict with the POH as in the case of the 109? a 100% 200+mph disparity?
yes as far as the 190 and 109 flap settings in AH go, i know they are wrong, people who know, know they are wrong and have posted as such.
Ok gents I am done with this discussion. Hyperbole and false statements abound and hence it is no longer worth the discussion.
Thor to put it simply you are showing extreme LW bias. You assume that the chart you have posted is in conflict with flight manuals. You have no idea if this is true or not. All you know is they show different numbers, but you have no idea why they have different numbers. To date you still have show one chart and only one with out ANY surrounding descriptions.
You wish to find data on your airplane supporting your argument that 1 plane should be changed. You wish us to completly change our methods with only 1 chart that we have no idea why it was produced.
This type of posting, almost by definition is showing bias.
and then this.
then it seems to me the parasitic/induced drag relationship in regards to the flaps needs to be reviewed.
You now call our complete flight model into question with out even 1 simple reason why, not one data point, not one point of knowledge of real planes, nothing, but according to you we should revisit our entire flap modeling. You do again to try back up your argument that you want the 109 modeling changed. Notice no where in your entire posting have you mentioned any problems with any other plane besides LW planes?
HiTech
-
So you want to talk structural limits, ok, maybe a little math also. In 1942 the speeds that dogfights occurred were so high that the lightness and harmony of the controls and ac structural integrity became the 2 dominate factors to success. But let's not forget there is also a human being inside the ac and the g-forces involved. here is the way to calculate g-forces using the modern lift equation. pay attention because your argument is moot because whether you can put your flaps out at 500km/h is not going to matter.
The modern lift equation states that lift is equal to the lift coefficient (Cl) times the density of the air (r) times half of the square of the velocity (V) times the wing area (A).
L = .5 * Cl * r * V^2 * A the Fw 190 is 1.58 * 18.3 * .5 * 1.225 * 112^2 = 222152.045 N
Convert result in Newtons into kgf: 222152.045 Newtons = 22653.2 kgf
Divide result with a/c weight to get Max G: 22653.2 / 4270 = 5.3
Max G at 112 m/s (400 km/h): 5.3
Using the same equation the Max G at 125 m/s (450 km/h) is 6.6 G, so already at this speed the pilot will be blacking out in a full performance turn.
At 500 Km/h it is 8.25 at 650Km/h it is 13.8g's
Man, you made me get my engineering 101 textbook out to look that up. I'm done too.
-
kurt tank is irrlevant to the design of the FW-190, really? that is an interesting perspective ...
The statement you made about Kurt Tank's engineering knowledge was irrelevant to the question being discussed.
prove it does not follow, go ahead lets see you math. ...
You are the one seeking to change the flight model. You are the one making a statement that needs some sort of proof, "If the flaps can withstand 150mph IAS@60 degrees deployment, THEN they can withstand 450mph IAS@10 degrees deployment". YOU are the one who needs to "show some math".
or use the POH strictly to determine EVERY aspect of flight for EVERY aircraft no deviating at all ever ...
otherwise you are just cherry picking which data you wish to be strictly POH with and which data you are not.
is this the real problem guys?
That is what HTC does with flap deployment speeds and WEP limitations. The alternative to just guess at what speed the flaps "should" fail and the engine "should" come apart. If effects the 190 which in your opinion "should" be able to deploy flaps at higher airspeeds, if also effects say R-2800 equipped aircraft which "should" (going by tests) be able to run at 70'' MP until the cows come home. (IOW, Hitech doesn't have it out for the German aircraft you silly Luftwhiners :devil)
BTW, since the 190 is the plane under discussion, it is clear looking at the flap design that they were *not* primarily intended as an aid to maneuvering. The split type of flaps increases lift but also adds alot of drag. Their primary advantage I've read is simplicity of design and that they don't cause as much need for re-trimming when deployed.
-
Rule #4
-
not sure how the deployment of flaps adds a g load on the aircraft, could you explain?
i don't think i have discussed anything else here.
So you want to talk structural limits, ok, maybe a little math also. In 1942 the speeds that dogfights occurred were so high that the lightness and harmony of the controls and ac structural integrity became the 2 dominate factors to success. But let's not forget there is also a human being inside the ac and the g-forces involved. here is the way to calculate g-forces using the modern lift equation. pay attention because your argument is moot because whether you can put your flaps out at 500km/h is not going to matter.
The modern lift equation states that lift is equal to the lift coefficient (Cl) times the density of the air (r) times half of the square of the velocity (V) times the wing area (A).
L = .5 * Cl * r * V^2 * A the Fw 190 is 1.58 * 18.3 * .5 * 1.225 * 112^2 = 222152.045 N
Convert result in Newtons into kgf: 222152.045 Newtons = 22653.2 kgf
Divide result with a/c weight to get Max G: 22653.2 / 4270 = 5.3
Max G at 112 m/s (400 km/h): 5.3
Using the same equation the Max G at 125 m/s (450 km/h) is 6.6 G, so already at this speed the pilot will be blacking out in a full performance turn.
At 500 Km/h it is 8.25 at 650Km/h it is 13.8g's
Man, you made me get my engineering 101 textbook out to look that up. I'm done too.
-
You posted all of 1 chart, without its context. A couple of us told you this is what it would lead to. No supporting evidence, no leverage.
-
i brought up kurt tank because you brought up[ a general rule of engineering that you were suggesting was not met in the design of the FW190 ...
that is showing the math.
you are failing to recognize the conjecture on your part/s where you are assuming that a structure is weaker at an unstated setting than it is at it stated structural limits. once again i believe that general engineering rules would make that highly unlikely.
i only have pointed out that the POH criteria is not standing up to the smell tests in some cases, i have shown data that calls the POH into question, nobody has even shown the data from the POH or any other corresponding data to support the POH.
i am not sure what your interpretation on the design intent has to do with the actual design intent or with what speed at which they could be deployed. as for split flaps vs. other flaps you are welcome to prove your point there as well, there seem to be disagreements about that as well.
either way, the reasons to deploy flaps, much like the POH, does not necessarily have anything to do with the speed at which they can be deployed ...
does it?
The statement you made about Kurt Tank's engineering knowledge was irrelevant to the question being discussed.
You are the one seeking to change the flight model. You are the one making a statement that needs some sort of proof, "If the flaps can withstand 150mph IAS@60 degrees deployment, THEN they can withstand 450mph IAS@10 degrees deployment". YOU are the one who needs to "show some math".
That is what HTC does with flap deployment speeds and WEP limitations. The alternative to just guess at what speed the flaps "should" fail and the engine "should" come apart. If effects the 190 which in your opinion "should" be able to deploy flaps at higher airspeeds, if also effects say R-2800 equipped aircraft which "should" (going by tests) be able to run at 70'' MP until the cows come home. (IOW, Hitech doesn't have it out for the German aircraft you silly Luftwhiners :devil)
BTW, since the 190 is the plane under discussion, it is clear looking at the flap design that they were *not* primarily intended as an aid to maneuvering. The split type of flaps increases lift but also adds alot of drag. Their primary advantage I've read is simplicity of design and that they don't cause as much need for re-trimming when deployed.
-
Rule #4
-
Your "corner velocity" guideline is nothing more than normalizing flap deployment speeds. My point is that if we iterate higher flap deployment speeds away from what's listed as a limit in the POH, we'd have to iterate it for every aircraft, including those American rides with their already high flap deployment speeds. There's simply no way to be consistent.
Right, I'm saying this could apply for all aircraft - what do you mean there's no way to be consistent? Some would be lowered, some would be raised but in the end they would all be at corner speed.
Now we get into the subjective matter of whether those high flap deployment speeds on US birds are actually useful. In any case, I'm not hoping for anything anymore. This topic has kind of degenerated.
-
Rule #4
that's ok ...
-
i only have pointed out that the POH criteria is not standing up to the smell tests in some cases, i have shown data that calls the POH into question, nobody has even shown the data from the POH or any other corresponding data to support the POH.
One piece of scanned paper from a larger document without any context as to the criteria or circumstances that were used is not data that calls anything into question. It simply shows that on a single occasion in 1940 a test was conducted and produced a single set of results, every piece of relevant data to support that piece of paper is missing. For all you know, that is a projection of what was thought should be possible given the criteria known to the engineers at the time, not the actual results. Take a real close look at the n= notation next to the lines along the upper part of that curve.
Here is another page from the overall report, I'm still looking for more pages:
(http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/405468/AH%20Stuff/1-109.jpg)
either way, the reasons to deploy flaps, much like the POH, does not necessarily have anything to do with the speed at which they can be deployed ...
does it?
Yes it does. The reason to deploy them is just as pertinent as the reason for the flaps to exist in the first place. A method to dynamically change the maximum lift coefficient of an airfoil as it moves through the air. The increased maximum lift coefficient lowers the stalling speed of an aircraft which makes it possible for the aircraft to land safely. Hence the reason the common name and use for flaps is "landing flaps".
-
projection like you are doing now? gyrene ?
sorry can't read yours, got a bigger scan? ...
as far as my "projection" the translation said approved limits, not projected limits, or suspected limits ...
it sounds like my page could be the results, does it not?
i would very much like to see the rest of the document though, btw how did you conclude that they are parts of the same document, since you only have 1 pice of paper?
just curious ...
-
No Thor, I don't project anything. I look at all of the data with the same objectivity, and I never bank anything on a single piece of data. It's just like investigating anything else, you find all of the resources you can, cross reference known data, find other data that may not be directly linked but is nontheless pertinent to the path towards a conclusion, find supporting data, study the science behind the data, then put it all together and attempt to validate it using every aspect.
That one piece of paper is not absolute irrefutable evidence. The translation may say approved limits, but without any other pages from the test report, there is a significant lack of context under which that statement was made. Was it an experimental flap design? Was it an experimental wing design? Was it a controlled stress test of the flap and wing together or just the flap? Was it a live test to the point of failure on every increment (which means someone risked life and limb for each increment)? What exactly failed at each level? Those questions and others must be asked and answered before the data can be valid.
109/110 flap test sheet (http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/405468/AH%20Stuff/1-109-1.jpg)
I got that piece of paper from the same source that coughed up the one you have and he believed there were 9 sheets but didn't have them all.
-
i don't know man, they are over two months apart on the dates and those are the only similar markings on the two sheets ...
i'm not sure i revealed my source, wanna p.m. me so we can compare notes?
-
You think extensive tests are done overnight? If Bulldozer didn't get you that page, then I assumed in error. Check your pm's.
-
no i found the sheet in another discussion on the same topic on another board, i requested a copy from the poster.
it sounds like these were 2 pages of 9 he received in reply to a request he made on the subject.
sounds like the pages themselves may not be related other than that they refer to the same topic.
i.e. not part of the same report.
-
sounds like the pages themselves may not be related other than that they refer to the same topic.
i.e. not part of the same report.
That may very well be possible.
Having to rely on outside resources makes the data difficult to track properly. Complete works are extremely rare.
-
we just need to take black 6 out for a joy ride (did they fix it yet?) ...
with a strong man and a film crew ...
maybe some "VW Clown" experts so we can get everybody into the cockpit ...
:aok
-
we just need to take black 6 out for a joy ride (did they fix it yet?) ...
with a strong man and a film crew ...
maybe some "VW Clown" experts so we can get everybody into the cockpit ...
:aok
OMG...If I was a pilot I'd give my left testicle to put that plane through the paces, but I thought the Brits put it in a museum. No film crew needed, just a few mini-dv cameras mounted in the cockpit, 3 would get all the angles needed.
-
it just knaws at me that any aircraft designer would design any control surface (primary or secondary) that is weaker than it stated structural limits at any point in during its normal function.
i think there must be some other reason out there for the low speeds in the POH ...
-
i think there must be some other reason out there for the low speeds in the POH ...
Agreed...still looking.