Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: PJ_Godzilla on June 17, 2011, 01:37:47 PM
-
What's this fluffy wet brown stuff I'm reading about the Shiden Kai's autoflap system ( http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=525 ) ?
I'm wondering if our model has this feature - which is to say I doubt it. I fly the George occasionally. I had a nice streak in it last pm, getting 5 landed kills, then another one before Juggler ruined my fun. Then I logged - not a bad half hour. Anyway, the George is a mother superior. However, I don't hear any flap deployment going on when I'm turning.
-
Flaps in this game deploy manually, only. No wonder about it, that's just how this game works.
I'd much rather have flaps at my own discretion rather than automatically. It had some mercury capsule sensing angle and deployed. This would probably end up hurting you a lot more than helping. It was intended to help greenhorn pilots with little to no experience in turn fighting.
-
Flaps in this game deploy manually, only. No wonder about it, that's just how this game works.
I'd much rather have flaps at my own discretion rather than automatically. It had some mercury capsule sensing angle and deployed. This would probably end up hurting you a lot more than helping. It was intended to help greenhorn pilots with little to no experience in turn fighting.
I believe most modern fighters have some form of auto-configuration for maximum lift when needed. However, I largely agree. In the main, it would complicate the game, the sudden change in pitch trim in conjunction with combat trim could have deleterious effects, and managing your own maneuvering flaps is not complicated in AHII at all anyway.
-
Most fly by wire planes control all surfaces independently, so it doesn't really compare :)
-
I am more interested in the claims I have seen about the N1K2-Ja being able to carry four 250kg bombs. That would be a nice tool to even things up with the ordnance laden American fighters in AvA settings involving the N1K2-J.
-
Last count I saw it only had the 3 hardpoints... Would be an interesting claim.
-
It was intended to help greenhorn pilots with little to no experience in turn fighting.
It is beautiful how you get in the heads of these designers and read their minds! I have to say, I'm intrigued to hear more!
-
If the greenhorns could manage a takeoff and landing, I should of though they might be able to cope with an additional lever, wheel or switch for flaps. I would have thought the designer's intention was to reduce workload during combat.
Would be nice to have as an option on those models so equipped. The mercury switch could be easily modelled in the code.
-
It is beautiful how you get in the heads of these designers and read their minds! I have to say, I'm intrigued to hear more!
Trolling now?
[EDIT: I'm going to try not to be snarky by being the better man. Sorry to those that read my snarky retort to Wmaker there.]
-
What I find intersting is the name of the N1K's engine: the Homare :rofl
-
If the greenhorns could manage a takeoff and landing, I should of though they might be able to cope with an additional lever, wheel or switch for flaps. I would have thought the designer's intention was to reduce workload during combat.
Would be nice to have as an option on those models so equipped. The mercury switch could be easily modelled in the code.
I agree. While BnZs point is well taken and we all know how automatic tat (traction control, anyone?) can be annoying as hell, if the real thing was so equipped, we give up a little fidelity here. Further, I note the in-game flap deployment is speed limited. I'm unsure if the real thing was as such.
As for the Homare radial, Steele, is it the Ho or the Homa part in which you're interested? Yuk, yuk...
-
Flaps in this game deploy manually, only. No wonder about it, that's just how this game works.
I'd much rather have flaps at my own discretion rather than automatically. It had some mercury capsule sensing angle and deployed. This would probably end up hurting you a lot more than helping. It was intended to help greenhorn pilots with little to no experience in turn fighting.
I agree with you about prefering manual rather than automatic flaps. But you forgot about the F4U. I'm always forgetting to raise those flaps that auto-deploy on takeoff. At least on the -1D model.
-
I am more interested in the claims I have seen about the N1K2-Ja being able to carry four 250kg bombs. That would be a nice tool to even things up with the ordnance laden American fighters in AvA settings involving the N1K2-J.
Same here :aok
-
Trolling now?
[EDIT: I'm going to try not to be snarky by being the better man. Sorry to those that read my snarky retort to Wmaker there.]
He is right. It had nothing to do with helping green pilots and everything to do with making the aircraft more combat effective. The U shaped mercury switch was very good at using flaps when they should be used from all I have read and that would certainly help a pilot, any pilot, who was pulling Gs keep his hands on the stick and mind on the enemy.
You persistently portray the Japanese as absolute incompetent idiots. I agree they made a lot of mistakes, but not literally everything they did was a mistake.
-
I agree. While BnZs point is well taken and we all know how automatic tat (traction control, anyone?) can be annoying as hell, if the real thing was so equipped, we give up a little fidelity here. Further, I note the in-game flap deployment is speed limited. I'm unsure if the real thing was as such.
As for the Homare radial, Steele, is it the Ho or the Homa part in which you're interested? Yuk, yuk...
HOing Nightmare : Homare ;)
-
You persistently portray the Japanese as absolute incompetent idiots.
That is an outright fabrication. I do no such thing.
-
Fabrication?
Can you tell us where you came up with this: "It was intended to help greenhorn pilots with little to no experience in turn fighting."
Your statement does not include source of "maybe" or "probably" and as such it is presented as a fact, and if it has no basis in reality what so ever it is fabrication. :D
***
What I don't understand is that if an aircraft is capable of creating G in a turn what does it need the flaps for? I'm not a combat pilot but I'd be deploying flaps when I'm not able to pull enough Gs anymore i.e. my speed has bled off and I'm not creating enough lift to keep up the Gs and my turn rate starts to suffer.
Anybody have an idea what the mercury switch actually does and how it functions?
-C+
-
Respectfully Krusty, you do mostly come across as rather biased against the Japanese aircraft.
-
That is an outright fabrication. I do no such thing.
You admit the Japanese built 250-450 Ki-84-Ib aircraft, yet insist they were too stupid to have any idea what to do with them once they had left the factory. You know, or should know at least, that the Japanese were pretty aggressive about destroying documents before we got hold of them and there are many, many gaps in our knowledge of the Japanese side of the war as a consequence of that. I cannot say for sure that they ever used the Ki-84-Ib, though it seems pretty likely, but I cannot see the evidence to support your claim that they absolutely did not use them.
You insisted for a very long time that all Ki-43s were armed with one 7.7mm and one 12.7mm gun despite the fact that the article you were using as a reference source for that claim explicitly stated that it pertained specifically to the Ki-43-I.
Those are just two examples.
-
You admit the Japanese built 250-450 Ki-84-Ib aircraft, yet insist they were too stupid to have any idea what to do with them once they had left the factory.
LOL!!! I KNEW you would try throwing this in my face.
Here's your false quote: You're taking offense at the idea and implying I made an insult when I did not. I never implied "too stupid" (your words purely, and only your words intended to slander me) and no you cannot prove any of those 4x 20mm Ki-84s ever saw combat so far. That's a totally different discussion with tons of precedent behind it.
If you want to rehash old topics, go resurrect them when you can bring anything new to the table. Until then don't slander me, put words in my mouth, or try to make me the bad guy.
To the topic at hand, although I suspect you don't give a rat's arse other than to attack me on another subject....
Green pilots freak out. They have blinders. They don't look around. They can only focus on so much. They don't have experience, or the calm ability to perform tasks. You cannot claim ignorance about the fact that the Japanese air force and navy pilots were mostly inexperienced "greenhorns" (to use my own term) at the time the N1K2-J was produced. The auto flaps was for these green inexperienced pilots to give them any edge that experienced pilots wouldn't need.
I never said they were ignorant. I said it was to help them. There's a big difference and you jump to a conclusion you want. You want to make me the villain. Sadly I must squash your desire here.
If you're going to slander me and twist everything I say, I might as well use a couple of very recent and very relevant quotes. I'll let you try slandering these folks instead. They're saying the same thing I was, but about flaps use in general.
the thing is, how simple was it to apply the equivalent of a notch or 2 during a split ess or something, while maybe firing guns at a fleeting target, and then just as quickly removing said notch or 2?
It wasn't easy at all... Which is one reason why flaps were not commonly used in dogfights. It takes practice and mental training to do multiple things at one time. Trying learning Heel and Toe braking/down shifting... Takes a lot of practice to get it nailed consistently.
-
Fabrication?
Can you tell us where you came up with this: "It was intended to help greenhorn pilots with little to no experience in turn fighting."
Your statement does not include source of "maybe" or "probably" and as such it is presented as a fact, and if it has no basis in reality what so ever it is fabrication. :D
Why don't you answer the above Krusty?
What's your source for that statement?
Or did you just make it up as you typed it?
-
That is an outright fabrication. I do no such thing.
have to say krusty i dont think you like them japanese planes either...
-
have to say krusty i dont think you like them japanese planes either...
That would be based on... what? Wmaker picking fights he can't support in the Ki-43 thread? Karnak picking fights in this thread based on another thread that has nothing to do with it? Nrshida and I have disagreed rather heatedly on the characterization of the A6M3 (back before we had it added to the game) so he may think I dislike it. In fact I enjoy the Japanese aircraft, and like reading about them and the history behind them. That doesn't seem to matter all that much in this thread though. The only person staying on track was Charge.
Charge, as WMaker pointed out I glossed over your response, and sorry for that. No specific source but it has been tied to diminishing pilot training or pilot standards late in the war in a small handful of places. I believe it has also been mentioned in a discussion on these very forums many years back (this is NOT the first time auto flaps on the N1K2 have been brought up). No one single source, and a general impression backed up by the words from my previous reply.
Also, if you're interested in the mechanism, look on these forums. I know the search function only half-works, but somebody spelled out the exact method the mercury switch used and how it worked and all that stuff. I think they had diagrams and drawings showing it also. This was a number of years ago.
-
Nothing I have ever read has suggested, or even hinted, that it had anything to do with compensating for green pilots, Krusty. Everything states it was intended to increase the maneuverability of the aircraft. The aircraft was pushed by a veteran pilot, though Saburo Sakai says the guy wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
You wholly made up your claim. Admit it and back down.
-
Wmaker picking fights he can't support in the Ki-43 thread?
I'm not picking fights, I'm correcting your factual errors. And it's the other way around as it always has been with you. You just babble incoherently, I back up everything I post with sources.
-
Krusty we argued about the Ki-84 twice and the Ki-100 once. It was someone else about the A6M3, roll rates I believe was the point in question there?
Anyway, please take it from someone who isn't trying to burn you or humiliate or embarrass you, but you really do come across more often than not as someone who thinks they are the absolute expert and that when people disagree with you they are wrong because you know differently / better. When pressed for sources you often decline to supply them or cite Websites that support your beliefs. Even when people are citing references from several different literary sources.
You do tend to show up on every Japanese plane discussion and do your thing. Perhaps you do this with everything, I don't know, I do not follow every thread.
I'm not going to berate you because I know you WWII aircraft are a passion of yours and you read a lot etcetera. I would suggest to you, respectfully, that you should listen to people more and check their claims which are often validated before you get insistent and belligerent.
The academic method is probably best, distinguish between known facts and 'feelings' or 'impressions' formed containing assumptions and so on. You cannot build anything on quicksand.
Please consider what I have said in the spirit it was intended.
:salute
-
"I know the search function only half-works, but somebody spelled out the exact method the mercury switch used and how it worked and all that stuff."
Well, since you mentioned it I recall such posts but could only find these:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,120633.75.html
(http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm) :rock
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,194854.15.html
The other talks about AoA and the other about G loading which is more logical to me.
-C+
-
I call highjack. This was my thread until some clowns got in here and commenced to chucking firebombs and falling down on the lawn in an effort to get me locked out and otherwise persecuted (this cross be's heavy). Beyond that, I'll let what appears to be a very old and gnarly sleeping dawg lie. Have at it - but please find a different ring in the circus for this particular klownshow, one where I can watch and get all cotton-candy sticky as I chuckle 'til I lose control of various bodily functions (yeehaw). Otherwise, Charge's second link on 38 tactical advice was fascinating, but, man, them echeloned Nat-Zee pee-foe-teez look really scary.
What this thread needs is better data on the turn impact of the auto-deploying flaps. Ideally, an A:B comparison. Sadly, I doubt any such exist, though it could be tested virtually with a manual deployment. Of course, what we'd really need is someone like BadBoy, KING OF ALL THAT IS VIRTUAL ACM-RELATED (PBUH), to develop E-M envelopes for the N1K2 with and without.
On a side note, I note that the 38 tactical advice bit recommended opening the intercoolers up at low (best climb) speed - where the drag penalty wouldn't hurt you as much as the power increase would help. I don't fly the 38 much but doubt we have manual control on the ic inlet setting. These are the kinds of things I'd like to see enriching our models. Why? It's not that I think they'll benefit me right now, but they would serve to help differentiate the aficionado from the amateur. Likewise, we'd see the impact of those a/c with automated systems like the bespoke on the N1K2 and the vaunted d-9's "computer" for pilots less inclined to get "busy" in the cockpit.
-
Sometimes this happens Godzilla, because the data is now very old and was scarce to begin with, then people start adding in opinion with fact and it starts to get a bit messy and all about reputation and into fierce debate about the tiny details: 'No the flap switch was red', 'No the flap switch was blue', etc.
I think it was a very good post & the flaps should be modelled as they were on the real aircraft. Note the dates, however, of those other posts about suggested changes to the flaps.
-
Sometimes this happens Godzilla, because the data is now very old and was scarce to begin with, then people start adding in opinion with fact and it starts to get a bit messy and all about reputation and into fierce debate about the tiny details: 'No the flap switch was red', 'No the flap switch was blue', etc.
I think it was a very good post & the flaps should be modelled as they were on the real aircraft. Note the dates, however, of those other posts about suggested changes to the flaps.
I understand and have been around this forum long enough to know that you are entirely correct. I'm only half annoyed anyway. It's always kind of funny watching these guys go at it. I also like the fact that they argue about the credibility of their assertions. That's a pretty good place to focus and a noble goal. Christopher Hitchens, known to turn a phrase, said that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'd add a corollary about that which is asserted with anecdotal evidence as well.
-
PJ it's also the ebb and flow of personality. There are guys in this thread who attack any post without documentation, and documentation must be linked etc.... Then there are guys who will further dispute the veracity of the documentation. So, when guys say the _____ had ____ without evidence beyond innuendo, then the pot is stirred. Especially when you have a decade of this back and forth.
-
The scientific research that has gone into the designs of these planes is based on natural sciencies like physics and math, exact sciencies. They leave zero room for speculation. Either something is or it isn't.
It is like in any academic research. Either you provide a source or do the research which can be verified by others and then you *are* the source. There's really no two ways about it.
Who point the above fact out aren't the idiots. Idiots are the dimwits that can't crasp the concept no matter how many times it is explained to them and then think that their persona is being attacked and start crying about it..
-
The scientific research that has gone into the designs of these planes is based on natural sciencies like physics and math, exact sciencies. They leave zero room for speculation. Either something is or it isn't.
It is like in any academic research. Either you provide a source or do the research which can be verified by others and then you *are* the source. There's really no two ways about it.
Who point the above fact out aren't the idiots. Idiots are the dimwits that can't crasp the concept no matter how many times it is explained to them and then think that their persona is being attacked and start crying about it..
I didn't name any names, WMaker. As I say. I appreciate the idea that we argue free of ad hominem attacks - and, as corollary, that we do not interpret legitimate questioning as ad hominem.
-
As I say. I appreciate the idea that we argue free of ad hominem attacks - and, as corollary, that we do not interpret legitimate questioning as ad hominem.
I completely agree with you and I'm guilty of loosing my temper. The reason for that is the frustration that some people bring by posting complete Bravo Sierra over and over and over again and then being totally obtuse to any sources or refuting arguments. These kind of individuals dramatically worsen the signal/noise -ratio of any thread a through that greatly diminish the value of the whole BBS itself.
-
I completely agree with you and I'm guilty of loosing my temper. The reason for that is the frustration that some people bring by posting complete Bravo Sierra over and over and over again and then being totally obtuse to any sources or refuting arguments. These kind of individuals dramatically worsen the signal/noise -ratio of any thread a through that greatly diminish the value of the whole BBS itself.
Like I say, it didn't really bother me. I'm always kidding around. For your own peace of mind, though, remember that reason is a currency and, like any currency, is only negotiable in markets that accept it. I know how frustrating these things can be, believe me. Twain said something famous along these lines but I'll refrain.
-
Twain said something famous along these lines but I'll refrain.
heh.
:rofl
-
heh.
:rofl
You laugh, but in this case, the Dilbert version of the Twain quote is probably more appropos. I just don't want to get into the flaming.
-
PJ, you and WMaker and your not-so-veiled insults can take a flying leap for all I care.
Do you even know the definition of an ad hominem attack? Becuase WMaker's main repertiore is to make them. I'm sure if you 2 hash it out he'll bring you up to speed on the best methods and uses of them.
-
PJ, you and WMaker and your not-so-veiled insults can take a flying leap for all I care.
Do you even know the definition of an ad hominem attack? Becuase WMaker's main repertiore is to make them. I'm sure if you 2 hash it out he'll bring you up to speed on the best methods and uses of them.
You seem to need a reading comprehension plug-in aswell. :) What a waste of prefectly good oxygen.
-
And here I though I was being a model of diplomatic ambiguity... Okay, let the lashing out continue apace!
-
Krusty,
Provide a source for the claim that the automatic flaps were for green pilots. Given how strongly you are backing that statement I am sure you have a source, right?
-
Hmm, maybe the system detects that AoA is increasing and G is declining and tries to maintain a certain equilibrium...
-C+
-
PJ, you and WMaker and your not-so-veiled insults can take a flying leap for all I care.
Do you even know the definition of an ad hominem attack? Becuase WMaker's main repertiore is to make them. I'm sure if you 2 hash it out he'll bring you up to speed on the best methods and uses of them.
You would think at some point you might catch on that it may indeed be you that's the issue.
-
Karnak, you confuse defending the position with defending myself. It only comes down to personal attacks with some of these folks. I very well could be wrong in the nature of the flaps, but that doesn't excuse the behavior and tone of the responses towards me.
Slash, before you hitch your wagon to that particular high horse, you should know that I dared question the national pride invested in WMaker's Brewster as modeled in-game. He went into such an expansive tyrade it persists to this day. He has told me he will follow me around and refute anything I post on the forums and (to paraphrase) make me miserable in response to my questioning the modeling of the BREW.
He's true to his words but he has no moral ground to stand on. Just so you know some of the back story as to why he can't resist insulting or picking on me in any thread I visit.
-
I'm not hitching my wagon to anything. You're one of the biggest jokes in AH and that somehow escapes you.
-
I'm not hitching my wagon to anything. You're one of the biggest jokes in AH and that somehow escapes you.
Now see, when I read Krusty's note, I thought, "you really don't NEED to defend yourself." The "audience" here will recognize if you're being personally attacked and willl likely not tolerate it.
Then you have to publish this, Slash. You may feel this way about Krusty but I see little purpose to going after him in this manner. Stay on topic, as has Karnak. There's no point in engaging in character assassination here. He's obviously already in defensive mode. All this kind of thing does is dig the trench deeper.
NO. I want Krusty to answer fact-related questions and to prove/disprove the merits of his arguments based on logic and fact. His character is another matter - and I'd caution anyone against making snap judgments about same based on the interactions within what is a relatively insignificant and obscure backwater of a BBS.
-
I'm not going to apologize for it. It would be nice to read a thread without some bs involved in it espeacially his. I won't enage him anymore in your thread and I admit it served no purpose to insult him but he just wear real thin real fast. And for the record my judgement of him was formed over the course of several years, not this thread.
-
It serves no particular purpose, that's true, but enough bs is enough bs.
-
Note: The following is speculation on my part - just to clarify - and more of a 'what if' discussion (since we have so little information about how this system operated):-
Maybe the problem is the use of the word 'switch' which makes us think of U-shaped tubes of Mercury with electrical contacts etc. leaving us wondering if it measured angle of attack or G-force etc.
However, what if the Mercury 'switch' wasn't a switch at all but a Manometer, then you could monitor the differential pressure between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing and deploy flaps according to the magnitude of difference. I believe the flaps where electro-hydraulic so could be deployed in an analogue fashion, rather than the AH step-based approach.
Is that theoretically sound?
-
However, what if the Mercury 'switch' wasn't a switch at all but a Manometer, then you could monitor the differential pressure between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing and deploy flaps according to the magnitude of difference. I believe the flaps where electro-hydraulic so could be deployed in an analogue fashion, rather than the AH step-based approach.
Is that theoretically sound?
I don't know and am also speculating but this strikes me as counterintuitive, given that, at higher pressure differentials upper/lower, you're making more lift - as in higher aofa/speed. OTOH, diifferentials left/right would signal a turn. At the same time, the idea of the mercury switch is also somewhat troublesome to me, if the turn is coordinated.
-
I've read a lot of this thread with the same bewilderment as when it started. Why do you guys care enough to argue about this relentlessly? I've tried, but I can't make myself care enough to have an opinion either way. Oh, I've got a life away from this game.... :bolt: :neener:
-
I've read a lot of this thread with the same bewilderment as when it started. Why do you guys care enough to argue about this relentlessly? I've tried, but I can't make myself care enough to have an opinion either way. Oh, I've got a life away from this game.... :bolt: :neener:
Yet you cared enough to read the thread and even went through the extra effort to respond to it... Interesting.
Maybe your life away from the game isn't as glorious as you make it sound?
When you read through the thread, which part made you think an "opinion" was being asked for?
The thread began as questioning whether the N1K flaps acted the same in game as in RL. It got into a side-track argument, but has come back to a discussion on how the flap system worked in RL. That portion of the thread doesn't ask for "opinion".
Are you stating you have no opinion on the argument aspect?
-
TOPIC
"N1K2 Flaps"
Just in case you smack tards fergot.
-
Instrumentation schematics of the N1K's flap system:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/N1K3.jpg)
-
Perhaps it works the same as in the J2M3, from an article in July, 1971 Air Enthusiast
Manoeuvre flaps of Fowler type are fitted, and are controlled by a safety switch and trigger on the stick. These are extended only when the trigger is depressed and retract immediately the trigger is released, and their operation is superior to any used on our aircraft.
-
Yet you cared enough to read the thread and even went through the extra effort to respond to it... Interesting.
Maybe your life away from the game isn't as glorious as you make it sound?
When you read through the thread, which part made you think an "opinion" was being asked for?
The thread began as questioning whether the N1K flaps acted the same in game as in RL. It got into a side-track argument, but has come back to a discussion on how the flap system worked in RL. That portion of the thread doesn't ask for "opinion".
Are you stating you have no opinion on the argument aspect?
I was out of town for a few days and NOT checking anything online. However, mtnman, I commend you on your ability to understand the written word - and contrast your post with the self-serving posturing that engendered it. Thank you.
-
Instrumentation schematics of the N1K's flap system:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/N1K3.jpg)
Maker, should I have my wife translate..? What a stupid question. I'll put her on to it. I want to know, asked originally... Thanks for the source material .
-
Maker, should I have my wife translate..? What a stupid question. I'll put her on to it. I want to know, asked originally... Thanks for the source material .
It would be awesome if she could but I'm afraid there's quite a bit of pretty technical vocabulary to translate. There's quite a bit more text with those schematics.
I'm hardly an expert on hydraulics, transducers or electrics for that matter. Stupid me has taken the classes but they were years ago...
Anyway, it looks like there's sort of spring-mass type of acceleration transducer there (masses M1 and M2) which at least partly controls the hydraulic cylinders of the flaps. On the left it looks like there's some sort of cam-cylinder solution and electric circuit which together with the acceleration data provides control voltage and changes in it probably drive the cylinders.
I'll send you more of this stuff a bit later via PM.
-
Here's a quick and dirty translation:
1. The top left diagram is the automatic electrical operation schematic. Pressure from the pitot tube raises/lowers a hydraulic piston 2. Relay A is used for flap extension and Relay B is for retraction. The relay at the bottom of pressure Tank 1 retracts flaps automatically from pitot pressure only if electrical power is lost.
2. The blue drawing below shows the flap extension piston and guide rail mechanism.
3. The top right diagram is the mechanical operation schematic. At the top is an oil tank and high-speed pump that provides boost for the flap lever (there is no indication of a switch, it is a lever). The blue labeled L and l devices are levers with M as counterweights and the springs are obvious. l3 path is flap extension and l4 is retraction oil path. The pilot can switch between high and low speed flap operation using an arm.
-
I'm well past the hardware portion of my career as well but the pitot signaling is only going to be good for determining speed, be it based on dynamic, statis, or differential pressure. I'm thinking the one on the right looks more like a something that uses a lateral g signal.
I'll see if I can get a little of the "written" portion out of the wife this pm. I'm off this week, she's on.
-
The schematic does not make sense to me.
1. There is no apparent connection between electrical and hydraulic part.
2. If the lever L3 goes down valve V2 opens "down" and the flaps are opened by pressure in l3 but at the same time V1 is also forced open "down" too by L3 and V1 tries to push the flaps closed via l4.
Only thing logical seems to be that all the G that affects M1 and M2 aims to prevent the operation of flaps.
Also the operation of S1 is weird.
:confused:
-C+
-
I'm well past the hardware portion of my career as well but the pitot signaling is only going to be good for determining speed, be it based on dynamic, statis, or differential pressure. I'm thinking the one on the right looks more like a something that uses a lateral g signal.
It is both, G and speed dependent.
-
That's genius. A self adjusting analogue system reacting to both airspeed and G-force. Thanks for posting that WMaker.
-
Wonder what the fifth hydraulic jack is for (on the bottom right of the page).
-
It's not a hydraulic jack. The diagram says its an arm that switches between high and low speed flap operation.
-
I'm not sure we are talking about the same component Rolex. Beneath the four jacks that actuate the flaps there is a fifth hydraulic jack with it's own feed and return, do you mean this jack actuates a valve in the hydraulic system to change the speed of the other jacks?
-
Thanks for the translation Rolex!
Here's what is being said on the upper part of the same page which those scematics are from:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/N1K4.jpg)
Electrical/hydraulic scematics of the whole plane:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/N1K2.jpg)
Positioning of the hydraulic components:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/N1K1.jpg)
-
Sorry, but there is a page previous to this one that starts the explanation of how the system works. We're looking at the middle of it, not the beginning.
I don't have time to translate and analyze all the diagram components right now (give me some time), but the text says:
The pilot uses his left hand to work weapons levers and his right hand to fly. His feet are on the pedals. Once he's tracking one or several bandits in combat, setting optimum (Fowler) flaps is near impossible to do efficiently. There is a button to control extension and retraction of flaps under normal flying conditions.
In combat though, the pilot is so busy, it's not humanly possible to set optimum flaps for a particular g loading and airspeed condition. Could it be done automatically? That is what the designers set out to do. A pilot under high g loading in turns couldn't reach and set flaps, so they created an automatic system to extend and retract them based on g loading and airspeed.
I'm sorry I don't have time to give a more complete translation of the new schematics posted. Later...
Note to Krusty: There is no mention that this system was developed to compensate for poorly skilled pilots.
nrshida: it's a lever or arm and not another hydraulic jack (they are pistons). The hydraulic system has two speeds or pressures and the pilot selects high speed or low speed hydraulics. High is for landing gear operation and low is for flaps operation. The pilot has to select high speed to extend gear, then back to low speed after gear is down and locked to operate flaps, and vice-versa for gear retraction.
-
I understand, thank you for your explanation. A very clever and elegantly simple solution. Fascinating to see the engineering solution with the available technology of the day.
So has the case been successfully made for the request to add automatic combat flaps the Aces High's N1K?
-
I'm not satisfied that I understand the complete operation or mechanism of the system yet. I would need to see more pages of the book with all the text. Some of the text is clipped.
I was wrong about there being two flap speeds until I had the text to explain there was a selector between flaps and gear operation within the unified hydraulic system. Apparently gear and flaps cannot be operated independently. I'd like to see more text describing the automatic flap mechanism.
I'm not a translator by trade, so please bear with me as I try to help.
-
Hello.
This is busa01.
Since I am making the skin now, I cannot use much time about this affair.
(The skin of A6M3 Model32 was submitted last month) .
And the work of A6M5 and M2 is continued.
By the way, I have Pilot Hand book and the manual of N1K.
Translation of Pilot Hand book has been performed mostly.
I make an extract and introduce about how to use Automatic Combat Flap later.
I have to explain a control system before it.
It will be difficult for me to explain it by translation software.
Although it may go wrong, I will challenge.
I write ACF [ Automatic Combat Flap ] after this.
I want you to think first that this system is equipment which raises a flap.
Probably I think that it can understand ACF easily.
By the way, the sketch of the control unit of ACF has two faults.
I think that this sketch is very unkind.
And the two points are the maximum important parts of an ACF controller.
Notes are following two.
No.1 This electrodes of different length is interlocked with a flap angle.
No.2 The height of a mercurial column does not specify what is shown.
I give explanation which contains notes No.1 first.
About the state when gravity is 1G
When speed is 0.
In an initial setup of this equipment, the flap becomes a full down. Therefore, the cam shaft is rotated to maximum. The electrodes is set to the lowest position.
But since there is no dynamic pressure, two electrodes do not contact mercury. In my memory, the electric system at this time sends a flap lowering signal.
Similarly by my memory, the oil pressure system is protected by the bypass circuit at this time.
I am sorry,I am not checking these two points this time.
Then, I will increase the speed of N1K.
Incidentally the stall speed of N1K2-J is the following.
71kt No flap weight 3900kg(about fuel 80%)
66kt 30deg flap wight 3900kg(about fuel 80%)
Normal fighter full road (full of fuel No DT) is 4000kg.
When the speed of N1K passed over stall speed and set to 73kt.
By increased dynamic pressure, a mercurial column becomes high and contacts electrodes of the shorter one. The electric system sends the signal which raises a flap. Flap goes up, a cam shaft rotates and electrodes also goes up.
When it becomes constant speed.
The electrodes goes up and only the longer one will be in the state of contacting mercury. The electric system suspends the operation of a flap.
Furthermore, I will increase the speed of N1K.
A mercurial column becomes high by increased dynamic pressure. Flap goes up, a cam shaft rotates and electrodes also goes up. It continues to 106kt and a flap angle is set to 0 after it.
To be continues.
-
I understand, thank you for your explanation. A very clever and elegantly simple solution. Fascinating to see the engineering solution with the available technology of the day.
So has the case been successfully made for the request to add automatic combat flaps the Aces High's N1K?
I think the case to add it has been made, depending on the criteria for inclusion. IF inclusion requires that the system existed and was used, then I'd say we're airtight. OTOH, I do not know the criteria, so my point could be moot.
Additionally, even if we can say that the case to add is made, the "how" of it is still open - i.e., I think what we'd really need is a 3d surface showing flap deployment versus speed and lateral load, if, as Rolex asserts, the system is both speed and lateral-g dependent (and this makes intuitive sense).
Also, thanks for the explanation, Busa - the system appears to control flap retraction. My wife will be gratified that I'm not bugging her to translate anything (yet).
-
Then, the case when G increases this time is explained.
Supposing I have succeeded in explanation of the operation in 1G, this may not have necessity.
When G increased and the mercurial column of manometer lower.
Both of electrodes un-contact a mercurial column.
The electric system sends the signal of flap lowering.
Flap lower and electrodes of the longer one contacts a mercurial column.
Then, an electric system suspends the operation of a flap.
When G decreases, short electrodes contacts mercury and a flap goes up.
When dynamic pressure increases, a flap goes up similarly.
That is, the optimal flap angle is decided by the cam shaft.
To what is the optimal?
Probably, about it, everybody knows well.
Coefficient of Lift=nW/SPd.
About variable n/Pd of this formula
In the early stages of development, Kawanishi Avi tended to measure n(G) by G sensor.
The dynamic pressure tended to measure by the diaphragm.
However, it has been noticed that the height of the mercurial column of manometer is h=Pd/n(G).
The ACF controller was able to be made to small measurement by this suggestion.
And it became hardly breaks down.
By the way,When speed is incidentally 250kt or more, a restriction circuit operates by the diaphragm.
And in inverted flight, a flap goes up by inverted flight electrodes.
Did I succeed in translation? .
An intelligible sketch.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Manometerunit_of_the_Automati cAircombatFlap.jpg
You can see the original data to the following sites.
http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/index.html
N1K2-J prototype plane Manual.
A03032263000
About reference data
N1K1 Rex 2 stage Combat flap test report.
A03032133000
In addition, Pilot hand book and production plane Manual are not processed electronically.
How to use ACF is written in later again.
Thank you.
-
Thank you so much Rolex and Busa!
Sorry for my late reply!
Rolex, here's the page where that chapter starts. There were pages with full of pictures before that last part so I assumed that was all there is to it. Hard when you can't read a single writing symbol...
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/N1K5.jpg)
(Sorry for the poor scan which leaves text out from the bottom, this is all I have I'm afraid. :( )
-
Note to Krusty: There is no mention that this system was developed to compensate for poorly skilled pilots.
Everything from what I've read about the flaps on the N1K2 was that they were designed to aid the pilot, not so much to compensate for any lack of skill but rather to keep the pilot from having to do an additional task while in combat.
ack-ack
-
Here's something from a different publication:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/N1K6.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/N1K7.jpg)
-
Did I succeed in translation? .
Yes and thank you :salute