Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: STEELE on June 20, 2011, 10:53:12 PM
-
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/section6.htm
In this copy of the P-47 flight manual, it says never lower flaps above 197 mph.
All of our 47's can lower a notch well above 300mph. Who is correct?
-
They are talking about the flap while landing. Nothing during flight.
-
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/section6.htm
In this copy of the P-47 flight manual, it says never lower flaps above 197 mph.
All of our 47's can lower a notch well above 300mph. Who is correct?
Those instructions are what you should follow - When it says do not lower flaps above 197 mph it means that you shouldn't, not can't!
All aircraft have what you might consider as safe, do not exceed limits set. The truth in WWII, is you will probably do whatever you can, safety takes a back seat in combat.
-
Blagard, that's not the case. Aces High models pilot limits, not plane limits. We limit flaps settings based on POH and manuals and such.
Now the question is: Is it true? Or is it talking about full flaps, or some other qualifying comment?
-
A quick jump in the D-11 and I could get one notch of flaps out at 400mph or so, the same as the P-51.
-
Maybe it was talking about "landing flaps" and not "maneuvering flaps". IIRC the P-51s and 47s have 1 notch of maneuvering flaps that can be deployed in combat to help get that extra edge of maneuvering capability. I may be wrong though.
-
Blagard, that's not the case. Aces High models pilot limits, not plane limits. We limit flaps settings based on POH and manuals and such.
Now the question is: Is it true? Or is it talking about full flaps, or some other qualifying comment?
What I find funny is that 190/109 flaps just plain wont come out over 200mph, and when U do get them out, they auto-retract as soon as U hit 200 again.
:bhead
-
What I find funny is that 190/109 flaps just plain wont come out over 200mph, and when U do get them out, they auto-retract as soon as U hit 200 again.
:bhead
And? It is 168mph for the Ki-84's combat setting. All aircraft in AH are supposed to follow their pilots handbook limitations.
Personally I think there is unrecorded information and the first position for the landing settings was limited to 168 on the Ki-84 and the combat limit was higher, but I have no idea if supporting info even exists.
-
By now Steele, you should know that its part of the HTC Conspiracy to pork Luftwaffe planes and buff U.S. rides to play towards the preconceptions of the majority U.S. player base...
Research requires looking at more than one resource before forming an opinion...
-
What is the difference in flap designs to enable others to deploy only at <200mph and others at 400mph?
I'd does seem that it is an artificial limitation based on manual recommendations, not the actual structure and its strength since that kind of data is hard to get.
If one manual says 197 mph for P47, it should ring a bell, even if it is just one source. IMO it does give certain planes an unfair advantage unless it can be verified from somewhere that those American planes really did have an exceptional flap arrangement compared to other planes of the era.
-C+
-
The OP didn't reference a manual, he referenced a web page. There's a P-47N manual in the AHWiki.
-
The manual for B, C, D, and G says "never lower flaps above 195 mph".
-C+
-
The manual for B, C, D, and G says "never lower flaps above 195 mph".
-C+
You might note that the warning is part of the landing instructions.
-
You might note that the warning is part of the landing instructions.
Why would that make a difference?
No claim to expert status here, but the only WWII fighter I've read about that used flaps in combat was the P-51, which had flaps specially designed for that purpose. Certainly I haven't come across anything like the widespread use of flaps we see in AH.
- oldman
-
The OP didn't reference a manual, he referenced a web page.
thats just a transcript of the pilot notes for the -B, -C, -D and -G which matches my copy (01-65BC-1). it also says that extending flaps trims the aircraft slightly nose-down. there is no mention at all of using flaps for maneuvering in there apart from landing and takeoff. same with the -N manual.
one more thing makes me wonder if flaps were used in ACM - the flap lever isnt notched like on eg. a cessna, its a hydraulic system and the lever gives you more or less flap with a neutral position in the middle. you nudge the flaps up or down, checking the amount of extension using the 10o markings on the flaps' leading edges, and making sure its the same extension on both wings. not the kind of thing you would want to do with people shooting at you ...
-
the flap lever isnt notched like on eg. a cessna, its a hydraulic system and the lever gives you more or less flap with a neutral position in the middle. ,
thats exactly how both c172's ive flown have worked... electric, not hyrdraulic though. but there were no "notches"
-
We limit flaps settings based on POH and manuals and such.
We?
-
"the flap lever isnt notched like on eg. a cessna"
I recall that there is a possibility to lock the knob to: up, 10 deg(?) and 40deg i.e. full down.
-C+
-
Why would that make a difference?
No claim to expert status here, but the only WWII fighter I've read about that used flaps in combat was the P-51, which had flaps specially designed for that purpose. Certainly I haven't come across anything like the widespread use of flaps we see in AH.
- oldman
The difference is that landing uses full or near full flaps for drag as well as slow speed lift. I've read recommendations for 50% flaps at high alts for P-47s in order to improve handling. It's likely that they were going faster than 195 MPH at 30-40k altitude.
-
thats just a transcript of the pilot notes for the -B, -C, -D and -G which matches my copy (01-65BC-1). it also says that extending flaps trims the aircraft slightly nose-down. there is no mention at all of using flaps for maneuvering in there apart from landing and takeoff. same with the -N manual.
one more thing makes me wonder if flaps were used in ACM - the flap lever isnt notched like on eg. a cessna, its a hydraulic system and the lever gives you more or less flap with a neutral position in the middle. you nudge the flaps up or down, checking the amount of extension using the 10o markings on the flaps' leading edges, and making sure its the same extension on both wings. not the kind of thing you would want to do with people shooting at you ...
I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the site, just pointing out that it wasn't the source document.
As you mentioned the manuals do not specify speed limits for flap extensions for maneuvering.
-
The manual for B, C, D, and G says "never lower flaps above 195 mph".
-C+
Its also a manual dated Jan 43, IIRC. That flap speed restriction is for full flaps. This has been discussed here before--repeatedly about all of the U.S. aircraft vs. the other planes in the plane set. The issue is that there is documentation supporting the use of combat flaps on U.S. aircraft at speeds above their listed flap operation speeds for full flaps. Without digging through everything, the P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U, F6F, etc. (off the top of my head--I could be wrong about the individual models) were all authorized to use combat flaps at higher speeds than the speed restrictions listed in their respective operating instructions .
-
yup its an early manual, the 47N manual however is from 1/9/1945 ...
have you found any instructions on using flaps for maneuvering? I'd be interested to know what I should be trying to do at least :)
-
yup its an early manual, the 47N manual however is from 1/9/1945 ...
have you found any instructions on using flaps for maneuvering? I'd be interested to know what I should be trying to do at least :)
You mean with respect to what speed you should be able to use them, or how to maximize their effectiveness?
-
We?
We, as in us in this game. Not IL2. Not WB. Not TargetWare, not Cliffs of Dover. We, Aces High.
Same as the We in "We Are Marshall" and all that.
Don't try to twist it, you know perfectly well what I meant and what my point was.
-
Since you'r at it Stoney why don't you comment my earlier post too:
"What is the difference in flap designs to enable others to deploy only at <200mph and others at 400mph? I'd does seem that it is an artificial limitation based on manual recommendations, not the actual structure and its strength since that kind of data is hard to get."
I cannot think of anything that would prevent any plane from using "some" flaps for maneuvering, if the system supports partial deployment as eg. in Spit it doesn't but again bf109 gives you opportunity to deploy any amount of flaps you possibly want, except the strength of flap system or the flap itself.
"have you found any instructions on using flaps for maneuvering?"
"You mean with respect to what speed you should be able to use them, or how to maximize their effectiveness?"
Have you found a n y instructions?
-C+
-
You mean with respect to what speed you should be able to use them, or how to maximize their effectiveness?
effectiveness in specific maneuvers is what I was hoping for. In the jug I tend to use a notch pretty much every time I need to turn more than a little, but only one notch. maybe 2 at the top of a loop if I'm starting to float.
-
effectiveness in specific maneuvers is what I was hoping for. In the jug I tend to use a notch pretty much every time I need to turn more than a little, but only one notch. maybe 2 at the top of a loop if I'm starting to float.
Well, flaps create both a higher Coefficient of Lift for the flapped area, and some drag (and with fowlers, like on the P-38) some additional wing area. So, the balance is to use flaps when the extra lift counteracts the penalty of the extra drag. If you're in a situation where the extra drag is hurting your performance worse than the benefits the extra lift gives you, they don't do you any good.
Badboy showed a chart one time demonstrating the F4U and how each notch of flaps affected its performance. I think turn rate increased up until he had 3 notches in, and the 4th and 5th notch merely added more drag and slowed the rate. I'll caveat that by saying that they may not benefit the Jug in the same manner, and that testing in-game with your ride of choice, at a specific weight (say 50% fuel and half ammo or whatever you feel best represents a typical average combat weight for you) will give you the best fidelity. I hardly ever use flaps in the Jug unless I'm in a knife fight, or sometimes when I'm trying to get over the top of a loop.
-
Since you'r at it Stoney why don't you comment my earlier post too:
"What is the difference in flap designs to enable others to deploy only at <200mph and others at 400mph? I'd does seem that it is an artificial limitation based on manual recommendations, not the actual structure and its strength since that kind of data is hard to get."
I don't know. I assume different types of actuating mechanisms are inherently stronger (and probably heavier) than others. From what I understand, it is all about manual (or other documentation, like supplemental operating instructions) limitations. If the documentation says no flap use above 250 mph, then that's what we have in-game. If the documentation says something like "up to 20% flaps may be used at 350 mph IAS" then that's what we have in-game. Its just like the F4U landing gear door thing. Yeah, there might be another aircraft that you can drop the gear at 400mph and not have it ripped off, but its the only aircraft in the game where the manual says you can do it without ripping it off.
I cannot think of anything that would prevent any plane from using "some" flaps for maneuvering, if the system supports partial deployment as eg. in Spit it doesn't but again bf109 gives you opportunity to deploy any amount of flaps you possibly want, except the strength of flap system or the flap itself.
Agreed, but we don't know, and HTC has to draw a line somewhere. We don't know whether or not it would have damaged the system or not, because it wasn't approved beyond a certain speed.
"have you found any instructions on using flaps for maneuvering?"
"You mean with respect to what speed you should be able to use them, or how to maximize their effectiveness?"
Have you found a n y instructions?
-C+
I haven't looked exhaustively...
EDIT: P-38 POH limits the use of "maneuvering flaps" (which is 50% of full flaps) to 250 mph IAS and full flaps to 150 mph IAS. So, you can go test whether or not there is fidelity with that restriction in-game, just make sure you're looking at IAS when you do it. If you can keep 3 notches of flaps beyond 250mph IAS, we'll know there's an issue...
-
The P-47 flaps are fully variable like the 109. Looking at various POH's for the P-47D's they state:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/p47flap1.jpg)
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/p47flap2.jpg)
From this we can infer that the stated restriction is most likely the lower bound limit for full flap extension for landing and not limits for partial flap extensions.
-
In the jug I tend to use a notch pretty much every time I need to turn more than a little, but only one notch. maybe 2 at the top of a loop if I'm starting to float.
The rule of thumb is that if you can pull the (instantaneous) G you need without any flaps, you are better off without them - unless drag is something you desire (for rapid loss of speed).
Generally what flaps will do is allow you to reach higher AoA and hence higher lift for the price of extra drag (the statements about lift gain are only instantaneous before speed is lost). If you can achieve the lift needed without the use of flaps, you will have less drag and hold the E better. The advantage of flaps kicks in at low speeds when the maximum AoA still does not give you enough insta-lift and you want a bit more - this is the case in an unsustained tight turns or when trying to fly as slow as possible (landing or smallest turning circle).
This is not 100% accurate over all envelope and types of flaps, but a very good approximation. I guess fowlers may behave slightly differently since they also add effective area to the wing, but to first order the rule of thumb applies.
-
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/section6.htm
In this copy of the P-47 flight manual, it says never lower flaps above 197 mph.
All of our 47's can lower a notch well above 300mph. Who is correct?
I would bet hitech knows more than the web home for Pat and Randy Wilson.
-
"Generally what flaps will do is allow you to reach higher AoA and hence higher lift for the price of extra drag"
I'd say no. Me bets you can actually pull less AoA because what the flaps do they increase the camber of the wing, but that happens in relation to fuselage, so in fact for the same speed -as you deploy flaps- you'd need to push nose down to maintain same altitude.
Only slats enable you to pull more AoA than would be normally possible for that particular wing profile.
-C+
-
I'd say no. Me bets you can actually pull less AoA..
That's correct. Flaps decrease the stall AoA of the flapped area, but increase the Clmax of the flapped area. So, at the same AoA you get more lift from the flapped area.
-
I would bet hitech knows more than the web home for Pat and Randy Wilson.
Its actually a very good web resource on the P-47.
-
I would bet hitech knows more than the USAAF, who commissioned, tested and flew jugs in combat.
fixed. still want to bet?
-
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/section6.htm
In this copy of the P-47 flight manual, it says never lower flaps above 197 mph.
All of our 47's can lower a notch well above 300mph. Who is correct?
My wife's grandfather, the late Ted Davis, was a naval aviator instructor during WWII. He was stationed in TX. Before he passed away I had many wonderful conversations with him regarding the F4F/FM2, F4Ux, F6F, and some other aircraft. One of the things he mentioned was the menouvers they were not supposed to attempt or teach, but did anyway. The manuals, the company reps, and the Sr. instructors were all dead set against doing things the manurfacturer said not to do. When out and away from the tower, the actual instructors pushed those aircraft to the limit and did things they were never supposed to do.
I think that would include deploying flaps at certain "forbidden" speeds. :D
-
The difference is that landing uses full or near full flaps for drag as well as slow speed lift. I've read recommendations for 50% flaps at high alts for P-47s in order to improve handling. It's likely that they were going faster than 195 MPH at 30-40k altitude.
I can't find where I read this so I may be confusing it with another aircraft. I found a reference for a P-47B that if you dropped flaps above 190 MPH they would only deploy a few degrees until your speed reduced. No mention of this in the POH for the later models so I can't say if that changed.
-
"Generally what flaps will do is allow you to reach higher AoA and hence higher lift for the price of extra drag"
I'd say no. Me bets you can actually pull less AoA because what the flaps do they increase the camber of the wing, but that happens in relation to fuselage, so in fact for the same speed -as you deploy flaps- you'd need to push nose down to maintain same altitude.
Increase in camber increases lift coefficient (in most cases). Basically, at given speed you get more lift, hence you can increase max AoA with flaps.
-
Basically, at given speed you get more lift, hence you can increase max AoA with flaps.
Typically, your stall AoA decreases. Or, to be more precise, the effective AoA of the wing increase because the chord line slope increases when flaps are deployed (the trailing edge of the wing is lowered, hence the chord line is "steeper"). So, no, you don't increase your max AoA. You do increase your Clmax though, hence more lifties. Slats can increase max AoA, but not flaps. Slats give the chord line a more shallow slope, which lowers the effective AoA.
This link illustrates better what I'm trying to relate here...
http://www.nordian.net/pdf/easa_principles_of_flight_demo.pdf
-
I can't find where I read this so I may be confusing it with another aircraft. I found a reference for a P-47B that if you dropped flaps above 190 MPH they would only deploy a few degrees until your speed reduced. No mention of this in the POH for the later models so I can't say if that changed.
Crump (banned :noid) posted pages and pages of material on the fw 190's , including but not limited to, the fact that flaps could and were deployed as combat flaps at speeds in excess of 300mph. If your search this forum for said info, U will find it has been erased or get a "404" message (page not found) :noid
So all of our AH 47's get to deploy flaps well above 300mph despite what the manuals say, but the 190's/109's H E double hockeysticks NO! Now what??
-
We don't have the P-47B. If you have an actual reference for a FW190 deploying flaps at 300 mph please post it.
-
Yes, and the 109 could get flaps out up to 700 km/h
we have had that flight curve in this forum before.
The P-47 flaps are fully variable like the 109. Looking at various POH's for the P-47D's they state:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/p47flap1.jpg)
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/p47flap2.jpg)
From this we can infer that the stated restriction is most likely the lower bound limit for full flap extension for landing and not limits for partial flap extensions.
-
Crump (banned :noid) posted pages and pages of material on the fw 190's , including but not limited to, the fact that flaps could and were deployed as combat flaps at speeds in excess of 300mph. If your search this forum for said info, U will find it has been erased or get a "404" message (page not found) :noid
So all of our AH 47's get to deploy flaps well above 300mph despite what the manuals say, but the 190's/109's H E double hockeysticks NO! Now what??
Like i said Steele, HTC obviously wants the Luftwaffe rides to underperform... :rolleyes:
p.s. The conspiracy talk just strengthens your overall argument.
-
Pyro's statement on 109 flaps...
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.
What about the P-47 flaps? It appears there isn't consistency like the 109 manuals regarding the flap limits.
P-47B/C/D/G manual (TO No. 01-65BC-1) - 195 mph limit
P-47D manual (AAF No. 50-5) - no mention of flap limits
P-47D-25 to D-35 manual (AN 01-65BC-1A) - don't extend flaps / have them full down above 190 mph
P-47N manual (AAF 51-127-4) - no mention of flap limits
-
Like i said Steele, HTC obviously wants the Luftwaffe rides to underperform... :rolleyes:
p.s. The conspiracy talk just strengthens your overall argument.
STEELE = Crumpp??? :noid
:D
-
just for comparison the RAF manual for the Mustang III has the following limits:
Flaps down 10o 400mph
Flaps down 20o 275mph
Flaps fully down 165mph
-
You do increase your Clmax though, hence more lifties.
Yes, that's what I've said. And if your wing has more lift, your max achievable AoA will be higher.
To illustrate that better, look in publication you posted link to, specifically figures PF 6.2 and PF 6.3
-
Yes, that's what I've said. And if your wing has more lift, your max achievable AoA will be higher.
To illustrate that better, look in publication you posted link to, specifically figures PF 6.2 and PF 6.3
"
Look at those two graphics. The x-axis is AoA. When flaps are used, Clmax increases, but stall AoA decreases. Just underneath PF 6.3, you'll find this excerpt: Wings with deflected flaps usually stall at a lower AoA than wings without flaps
Flaps do not increase your "max achievable AoA".
-
Look at those two graphics. The x-axis is AoA. When flaps are used, Clmax increases, but stall AoA decreases. Just underneath PF 6.3, you'll find this excerpt: Wings with deflected flaps usually stall at a lower AoA than wings without flaps
Flaps do not increase your "max achievable AoA".
Hence why flaps are put in the wing root not the wing tips. Makes the root stall before tips and hence makes a more docile stall.
HiTech
-
Look at those two graphics. The x-axis is AoA. When flaps are used, Clmax increases, but stall AoA decreases.
Flaps do not increase your "max achievable AoA".
Yes they do. Look at the right portion of PF 6.3. As you lower the flap, you increase the effective camber and change the effective chord line. See how effective alpha has changed (increased). Look also at PF 6.4.
Just underneath PF 6.3, you'll find this excerpt: Wings with deflected flaps usually stall at a lower AoA than wings without flaps
Yes, but this in reference to the geometrical chord line of the main airfoil, as depicted on PF 6.4. which is clearly mentioned just bellow:
The lower stall AoA is here measured to the chord line of the main aerofoil. The stall AoA measured from a chord line from the leading edge of the main aerofoil to the trailing edge of the flaps can be higher.
-
"Yes, but this in reference to the geometrical chord line of the main airfoil, as depicted on PF 6.4. which is clearly mentioned just bellow:
Quote: The lower stall AoA is here measured to the chord line of the main aerofoil. The stall AoA measured from a chord line from the leading edge of the main aerofoil to the trailing edge of the flaps can be higher."
Of course. As the camber of the wing changes it usually tolerates more AoA. However, the observable AoA by the pilot is less with flaps down than with flaps up, as I stated earlier and with which you disagreed, i.e. as the camber of the wing changes it happens in relation to the fuselage. That causes that you observe that the whole airframe tolerates less AoA with flaps down than with flaps up.
-C+
-
...However, the observable AoA by the pilot is less with flaps down than with flaps up, as I stated earlier and with which you disagreed, i.e. as the camber of the wing changes it happens in relation to the fuselage. That causes that you observe that the whole airframe tolerates less AoA with flaps down than with flaps up.
-C+
2bighorn: Alpha is generally referenced from the geometric chord as per what Charge (quoted above) and Stoney say. Otherwise you wouldn't be comparing apples to apples and any comparartive discussion becomes meaningless.
-
Of course. As the camber of the wing changes it usually tolerates more AoA. However, the observable AoA by the pilot is less with flaps down than with flaps up, as I stated earlier and with which you disagreed, i.e. as the camber of the wing changes it happens in relation to the fuselage. That causes that you observe that the whole airframe tolerates less AoA with flaps down than with flaps up.
Yes, I missed your "in relation to the fuselage"
2bighorn: Alpha is generally referenced from the geometric chord as per what Charge (quoted above) and Stoney say. Otherwise you wouldn't be comparing apples to apples and any comparartive discussion becomes meaningless.
Well, in that specific article we talked about, they made distinctive difference between geometric chord line of the main airfoil and effective chord line (when high lift devices are deployed) to illustrate the difference in pressure at critical AoA. So, I didn't compare apples to oranges, article did.
If you'd go by that article, than effective chord line is equal to geometric chord line of airfoil with no high lift devices deployed. Which is true. After you deploy flaps and airfoil geometry changes (increased camber), you could say that geometric chord line changes (if you measure from flaps trailing edge), or you could made distinction (effective chord line) as they did. Which terminology is right, whether theirs or yours, is matter of semantics.
It doesn't change the fact how Cl and AoA are correlated.
-
2bighorn: I'm not trying beat you up over semantics brother :). Why someone would choose a frame of reference to measure aoa other than the angle of an airfoil's fixed chord line relative to airflow is beyond me, so I'll stick with the usual aero definition of aoa vs. some wonky effective aoa with respect to the modified camber chord line ;).
-
Typically, your stall AoA decreases. Or, to be more precise, the effective AoA of the wing increase because the chord line slope increases when flaps are deployed (the trailing edge of the wing is lowered, hence the chord line is "steeper"). So, no, you don't increase your max AoA. You do increase your Clmax though, hence more lifties.
That is because of the poor definition of AoA that is commonly used (what is zero AoA?). If you define AoA=0 when zero lift is generated then you can get a higher achievable max AoA, but true, not necessarily. The addition of slots often contribute much to the higher acheiveable AoA. I don care about the angle at which the wing is attached to the fuselage or the instantaneous angle at the moment of deployment. The change in the shape of the wing redefines the point of L(AoA)=0 and the current AoA.
-
Why someone would choose a frame of reference to measure aoa other than the angle of an airfoil's fixed chord line relative to airflow is beyond me
Baffles me as well. Why simple when they can make it complicated :lol
-
Hence why flaps are put in the wing root not the wing tips. Makes the root stall before tips and hence makes a more docile stall.
HiTech
Dosen't washout do the same exact thing? Incidentally the fw 190 series all have a few degrees washout. With a notch of flaps, I can see where all the pilot accounts of slow speed turnfighting in even the heavier, late model A series
would be highly possible. (without violently flipping over to the left). Actually, most 190 pilots say with some flaps out, the stall when it finally does come, is reversed, or to the right.
-
That is because of the poor definition of AoA that is commonly used (what is zero AoA?). If you define AoA=0 when zero lift is generated then you can get a higher achievable max AoA, but true, not necessarily. The addition of slots often contribute much to the higher acheiveable AoA. I don care about the angle at which the wing is attached to the fuselage or the instantaneous angle at the moment of deployment. The change in the shape of the wing redefines the point of L(AoA)=0 and the current AoA.
I apologize if the article I linked was confusing. I was merely looking for a resource that had images that would illustrate was I was talking about. I suppose I should have taken the time to draw my own graphics.
Typically, the AoA = 0 means that the chord line is parallel to the relative wind. You can't say AoA = 0 when the lift = 0 because on most airfoils in use, which have camber, the actual angle of attack would have to be negative in order to be at zero lift. The definition of angle of attack in most aerodynamic texts is the angle between the chord line and the relative wind. Using that definition, you cannot increase the stall AoA of a flapped area of wing by lowering flaps.
Neither incidence or pitch angle of the aircraft change the stall AoA of an airfoil/wing.
-
Dosen't washout do the same exact thing?
Its supposed to help low-speed handling, yes. But, merely including washout doesn't mean that an aircraft won't exhibit nasty stall characteristics.
-
Using that definition, you cannot increase the stall AoA of a flapped area of wing by lowering flaps.
That would depend on type of flaps, wouldn't it? For example type of flaps which can maintain boundary layer a bit longer and delay flow separation at high AoA.
-
That would depend on type of flaps, wouldn't it? For example type of flaps which can maintain boundary layer a bit longer and delay flow separation at high AoA.
Theoretically its possible, but since none of the aircraft in-game have those types of flaps, I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion.
-
Theoretically its possible, but since none of the aircraft in-game have those types of flaps, I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion.
P-38 and Ki-84 for example, both fowler and butterfly types help with boundary layer, not as much as slotted flaps, but still, both increase stall AoA for a few degrees.
-
I suppose I should have taken the time to draw my own graphics.
-
you also arent suppost to do slip landings with flaps down in 172s.but ive done em before
-
you also arent suppost to do slip landings with flaps down in 172s.but ive done em before
Totally and completely irrelevant to the discussion we're having here.
-
Totally and completely irrelevant to the discussion we're having here.
point is,just because its not in the flight manual doesnt mean u cant do it.
-
I find it curious that if manual says: "Do not extend flaps above 195mph!" people say that it means the pilot is not supposed to extend full flaps.
I don't know about you guys, but if I were a pilot student and read that, I'd take it means: do not extend ANY flaps above 195mph.
Hell, maybe it's just badly written manual. Did anybody read them anyway? :rolleyes:
-C+
-
I find it curious that if manual says: "Do not extend flaps above 195mph!" people say that it means the pilot is not supposed to extend full flaps.
I don't know about you guys, but if I were a pilot student and read that, I'd take it means: do not extend ANY flaps above 195mph.
Hell, maybe it's just badly written manual. Did anybody read them anyway? :rolleyes:
-C+
I think the confusing part is that it was listed under "landing" and there was no speed limit mentioned in the section describing flaps operation. The similar P-51 manual lists the speed limit for full flaps under "landing".
-
I find it curious that if manual says: "Do not extend flaps above 195mph!" people say that it means the pilot is not supposed to extend full flaps.
I don't know about you guys, but if I were a pilot student and read that, I'd take it means: do not extend ANY flaps above 195mph.
Ok, then I guess that takes care of the FW190, Bf109, P-38 and P-51. All we really need is the primary documentation that HTC used to decide that the P-47 shared basically the same maneuvering flap deployment speeds of the Pony.
-
Might explain why Jugs were noted by the Luftwaffe to be significantly less manuverable than other craft, if they weren't using any flaps above 195mph?
-
Might explain why Jugs were noted by the Luftwaffe to be significantly less manuverable than other craft, if they weren't using any flaps above 195mph?
Krusty, do you honestly think HTC would have flap speeds modeled in a manner that wasn't consistent with documentation, after all 800 flap speed threads that have occurred on this board?
-
Why would that make a difference?
Quite common in many makes of aircraft to have different limit speeds for different flap deflections. As an example the Cessna P206 (1968) lets you put the first 10 degrees of flap out at 160mph while for full flaps you have to slow to 110mph.
Flap limit speeds may be based on more than just the "strength" of the flap itself...the deployment mechanism may be the limiting factor.
-
Colmbo is correct.
Maybe HTC could allow higher speeds for deployment but have them snap right off the plane (one at a time) when you go over the critical speed.
-
Colmbo is correct.
Maybe HTC could allow higher speeds for deployment but have them snap right off the plane (one at a time) when you go over the critical speed.
With respect Icepack, seeing how you haven't been around for long, this issue has been debated probably as much or more than anything else on this forum. Obviously from Dtango's quote, since at least 2006 (when I started playing) and before then even I'm sure. HTC has always had a very definite policy on how flap speeds are implemented, and they continue to follow that. Your idea has been suggested before. Now, if someone can provide new documentation to HTC regarding flap deployment in any aircraft, I'm sure they'd be more than interested and willing to change how they are modeled. Barring that documentation, its not going to change, unless they change their policy.
-
Colmbo is correct.
Maybe HTC could allow higher speeds for deployment but have them snap right off the plane (one at a time) when you go over the critical speed.
The manual for the P-47B stated that hey wouldn't snap off they would blow up. If they blew up asymmetrically you'd have a control issue. :joystick:
-
you also arent suppost to do slip landings with flaps down in 172s.but ive done em before
If you truly believe that you need to re-read the 172 POH. With the exception of the 1969 model there is no prohibition against slipping with flaps in a 172. There is a caution that caution should be used in slips with full flaps...but it is NOT a prohibiting statement.
I find it scary how many people are flying airplanes and don't have a friggen clue what the POH says.
-
Hell, maybe it's just badly written manual. Did anybody read them anyway? :rolleyes:
The manuals of that era weren't very well written. The B-24 manual in the section on engine loss during takeoff, two engines out says "This shouldn't happen to a dog." While I whole-heartedly agree with the statement I doubt it adds a lot to the knowledge needed to fly the airplane. (Sheesh, just thinking about flying with 2 out on one side makes my leg start shaking)
-
The manual for the P-47B stated that hey wouldn't snap off they would blow up. If they blew up asymmetrically you'd have a control issue. :joystick:
Was the 47B even deployed? If so...likely not very long (that being said, I couldn't tell you the difference between the B and the C)
-
Was the 47B even deployed? If so...likely not very long (that being said, I couldn't tell you the difference between the B and the C)
No, it wasn't, but I think the manual FLS mentions covered the B, C, early D's, and G models. For the most part, other than some semi-major, combat related changes between the B and C models, they were very similar. But, I don't think the flap system changed from the B to the M, and was merely larger for the N model. The only thing is that the idea of maneuvering flaps, on the whole, was something that evolved over the course of the war. So, there's a good chance early POH's don't mention them anyway. I don't know if anyone know's whether or not the P-38E/F/G POHs mention "maneuvering" flaps like the latest J/L POH does?
-
No, it wasn't, but I think the manual FLS mentions covered the B, C, early D's, and G models. For the most part, other than some semi-major, combat related changes between the B and C models, they were very similar. But, I don't think the flap system changed from the B to the M, and was merely larger for the N model. The only thing is that the idea of maneuvering flaps, on the whole, was something that evolved over the course of the war. So, there's a good chance early POH's don't mention them anyway. I don't know if anyone know's whether or not the P-38E/F/G POHs mention "maneuvering" flaps like the latest J/L POH does?
Stoney the quote specific to the B model was from a pdf on the P-47B. Unfortunately the title page with the manual number is missing. I didn't see the reference to flaps blowing up in the B,C,D,G or the N manual.
-
P-47 flaps have a 3-position lever. Up, Neutral and Down. Flaps can be set at any position between fully up and full down. The pilot moves the lever to the down position. When the flaps were lowered to the desired position, the pilot then moves the lever to the Neutral position to lock them there. In game, we have 5 flap positions. However, like the real F6F-5, a real P-47 has an infinite number of possible flap positions. I imagine that this could be incorporated into the game, much like adjusting elevator trim.
-
like the real F6F-5, a real P-47 has an infinite number of possible flap positions. I imagine that this could be incorporated into the game, much like adjusting elevator trim.
B-17 and B-24 were this way also...infinite number of possible flap settings.
-
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.
-
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.
In the Mustang it wouldn't be a big deal, it has detents so a quick flick of the flap lever would select the flaps. I don't see it being a huge deal in any of the aircraft IF the flap control could be reached easily with the throttle hand. You wouldn't have to look at the gauge to determine exact amount of flap extension, you could go by feel and get it close.
-
interesting conversation, glad i'm not the one that brought it up. :D the first discussion i got into about flaps around here, i was told the specifications being used came from information in the pilot manuals. i have a bunch of scanned to pdf format bf109 pilot manuals, some have "safe speed" specifications and some don't.
so now that someone else has mentioned it, if the bf109-g4 and the bf-109g6/u4 pilot manual had the following information would it be considered relevant to the models in ah considering the flap types and deployment mechanisms are the same across the entire line of 109s?
das flugzeug genügt den bau - und festigkeit vorschriften des dla vom dezember 1936 sowie den sonderlastannahmen hierzu. es ist bestimmt fur die verwendungsgruppe h und entspricht den anforderungen beanspruchungsgruppe 5 und 4 je nach beladung.
the aircraft complies with the building - and the strength dla provisions of december 1936 and the last took on special purpose. it is intended for the reuse group h and meets the requirements to test group 5 and 4, depending on load.
höchstzulässige geschwindigkeiten
maximum speeds
flug bei voll angestellten landeklappen ..... 250 km/h
fully employed in flight landing flap .... 155.34 mph
flug mit ausgefahrenem fahrwerk .... 350 km/h
flight with landing gear ..... 217.48 mph
sturzflug .... 750 km/h
nosedive .... 466.03 mph
none of the pilot manuals or technical documents i've found state any speed restrictions for any degree of flap deflection other than full deployments, yet in ah you cannot deploy even 10 degrees above 195 ias in an aircraft that used a hand cranked manual flap deployment mechanism.
-
flug bei voll angestellten landeklappen ..... 250 km/h
fully employed in flight landing flap .... 155.34 mph
flug mit ausgefahrenem fahrwerk .... 350 km/h
flight with landing gear ..... 217.48 mph
sturzflug .... 750 km/h
nosedive .... 466.03 mph
The first number represents the speed when you can open full flaps - es stimmt.
350km/h can be the the highest speed you can open the flaps - almost stimmt, you cant open the flaps over 195, the gear over 200mph.
But 466mph?? It must be some dive recovering mechanism, but im sure your planes flaps dont really appreciate when you try to open them at 450mph+.
-
The first number represents the speed when you can open full flaps - es stimmt.
350km/h can be the the highest speed you can open the flaps - almost stimmt, you cant open the flaps over 195, the gear over 200mph.
But 466mph?? It must be some dive recovering mechanism, but im sure your planes flaps dont really appreciate when you try to open them at 450mph+.
that's not how it reads debrody, "es ist bestimmt" = "it is determined", how that gets changed to "it is intended" in that long sentence i don't know. i'm still looking for documentation on those "groups" mentioned.
the 466 mph is maximum safe dive speed, has nothing to do with the flaps or landing gear...considering the information relayed by pilots about how heavy the controls get with high speeds, i suppose one can assume anything above 466 mph in a dive becomes unrecoverable, but then some of it might depend on the pilots physical ability.
-
P-47 flaps have a 3-position lever. Up, Neutral and Down. Flaps can be set at any position between fully up and full down.
...
Which explains why the manual only gives the limit for full flaps. It would not specify limits for arbitrary flap positions, unless such specific flap angles has a specific intended use. Clearly they didn't.
-
Which explains why the manual only gives the limit for full flaps. It would not specify limits for arbitrary flap positions, unless such specific flap angles has a specific intended use. Clearly they didn't.
That being the case, it makes one wonder how HTC decided the speed limits for each increment of the P-47's flaps in AH?
-
That being the case, it makes one wonder how HTC decided the speed limits for each increment of the P-47's flaps in AH?
there are a few aircraft that question applies to
-
there are a few aircraft that question applies to
Indeed. I am curious about the method used for all of them.
-
i know the copy of the p-40 manual i have which covers mostly the later models but includes information for the early models as well, has several "do not do this" type things with illustrations, mostly manuevers like spins, outside loops, tail slides, and a "do not taxi with flaps deployed".
an interesting supposed online copy" of a p-40 manual that i've had bookmarked for while, shows a flap speed warning in section 3:
"Flaps should not be lowered at over 140 m.p.h. and should be raised for taxiing."
http://www.keyos.org/avia/usa/curtis_tomahawk_p40/manual1.htm (http://www.keyos.org/avia/usa/curtis_tomahawk_p40/manual1.htm)
-
i know the copy of the p-40 manual i have which covers mostly the later models but includes information for the early models as well, has several "do not do this" type things with illustrations, mostly manuevers like spins, outside loops, tail slides, and a "do not taxi with flaps deployed".
an interesting supposed online copy" of a p-40 manual that i've had bookmarked for while, shows a flap speed warning in section 3:
"Flaps should not be lowered at over 140 m.p.h. and should be raised for taxiing."
http://www.keyos.org/avia/usa/curtis_tomahawk_p40/manual1.htm (http://www.keyos.org/avia/usa/curtis_tomahawk_p40/manual1.htm)
Just note that the online transcription is for a "Tomahawk I" manual. So first, its British, and second, its probably not representative of later manuals.
-
That being the case, it makes one wonder how HTC decided the speed limits for each increment of the P-47's flaps in AH?
I guess that either they have some source that does specify limitation for some deployment angles or that they interpolate/extrapolate for other sources.
Personally I'd rather see all flaps extremely limited in their usage. In the current state (other flight sims are the same) the nasty punishments of misuse of flaps are not apparent in the flight models, which makes the over-usage of flaps a no brainer. If G also played a role in flap limits, flaps either jammed or blown-up asymmetrically, and spins were really nasty we would see them used much less. Imagine pulling a hard turn at 250 mph when only one flap auto retracts (as some did in reality), throwing the plane into a spin that takes 5000 feet to get out of.
-
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.
Speaking of 'mental'...how did DA go with what's-his-name? :lol
-
I guess that either they have some source that does specify limitation for some deployment angles or that they interpolate/extrapolate for other sources.
hitech has said they use the limitations shown in the pilot manuals.
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
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260495.msg3429425.html#msg3429425 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260495.msg3429425.html#msg3429425)
Personally I'd rather see all flaps extremely limited in their usage. In the current state (other flight sims are the same) the nasty punishments of misuse of flaps are not apparent in the flight models, which makes the over-usage of flaps a no brainer. If G also played a role in flap limits, flaps either jammed or blown-up asymmetrically, and spins were really nasty we would see them used much less. Imagine pulling a hard turn at 250 mph when only one flap auto retracts (as some did in reality), throwing the plane into a spin that takes 5000 feet to get out of.
that would not go over very well considering the amount of documentation where pilots acknowledge the use of combat flap settings at speeds over 250mph, the type of stuff some people call "anecdotal evidence" on one hand then turn around and explicitly use the same as "valid evidence" in a different discussion. depending on the country of origin, some pilot manuals have specific "do not" warnings, others do not. since no on actually dies in toonville, give people an inch and they will take a mile. for instance, the p-40, p-47 manuals give specific instructions on how to perform a "safe dive" and the possible consequences for not following the procedures, including a blown engine or worse, but in toonville people will go into a dive at full wep, exceed the "maximum safe speed" and are able to recover. those same manuals state spins and snap rolls should not be performed, especially at high speeds, yet people will still perform those maneuvers without consequence or any thought of such. programming a limitation or a specific consequence to prevent those maneuvers will do nothing more than make people mad.
-
hitech has said they use the limitations shown in the pilot manuals.
I may be wrong but I doubt I have ever stated anything like this.
HiTech
-
hitech has said they use the limitations shown in the pilot manuals.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260495.msg3429425.html#msg3429425 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260495.msg3429425.html#msg3429425)
that would not go over very well considering the amount of documentation where pilots acknowledge the use of combat flap settings at speeds over 250mph, the type of stuff some people call "anecdotal evidence" on one hand then turn around and explicitly use the same as "valid evidence" in a different discussion. depending on the country of origin, some pilot manuals have specific "do not" warnings, others do not. since no on actually dies in toonville, give people an inch and they will take a mile. for instance, the p-40, p-47 manuals give specific instructions on how to perform a "safe dive" and the possible consequences for not following the procedures, including a blown engine or worse, but in toonville people will go into a dive at full wep, exceed the "maximum safe speed" and are able to recover. those same manuals state spins and snap rolls should not be performed, especially at high speeds, yet people will still perform those maneuvers without consequence or any thought of such. programming a limitation or a specific consequence to prevent those maneuvers will do nothing more than make people mad.
The problem is that you have this problem across almost every aspect of the game. Engine limitations are an excellent example for one. A lot of the restrictions that are in place were restrictions imposed by the manufacturer or by the using air force, regardless of whether or not the aircraft could perform differently in reality. Robert Johnson used to talk about pulling 75" of MP in his Jug after his mechanic modified the turbo mechanism--it was possible to do, but should it be included in-game? No. Same for the flap settings. There has to be some sort of baseline. The flap deployment speeds for the P-51 and P-38, two examples previously mentioned and discussed, have documentation to support their use at the speeds in question. [Rhetorical question not directed at you Gyrene] Why not just ask HTC how they arrived at the flap deployment speeds of the P-47 if you can't find documentation, instead of "demanding" equality with what's represented for the Luftwaffe rides, in order to correct some sort of perceived inequity? I guarantee that the 109 and 190 in-game achieve the same modeling fidelity as the U.S. rides, at least as far as HTC has documentation to make them so. Now, if the Luftwaffe special instruction #4056, that detailed new approved flap deployment speeds, got burned up with Goering's dresses on 7 May, then we may never know, but it won't be because HTC didn't want the Luftrides to perform properly.
-
There was a baseline for flap deployment speed. Was.
"I guarantee that the 109 and 190 in-game achieve the same modeling fidelity as the U.S. rides, at least as far as HTC has documentation to make them so. Now, if the Luftwaffe special instruction #4056, that detailed new approved flap deployment speeds, got burned up with Goering's dresses on 7 May, then we may never know, but it won't be because HTC didn't want the Luftrides to perform properly."
Of course, would there be any sense without that assumption? However, lots of things got lost in 1945 when Germany burned but that is not a good reason to cherry pick data and presume these "pursuit" planes had something others didn't.
-C+
-
that would not go over very well considering the amount of documentation where pilots acknowledge the use of combat flap settings at speeds over 250mph, the type of stuff some people call "anecdotal evidence" on one hand then turn around and explicitly use the same as "valid evidence" in a different discussion.
I didn't say it was impossible or never done. What I said was that it was dangerous to do so and some squadron commanders ordered pilots not to use them, even though they brag about doing so, implying it was not standard practice - you do not brag about lowering flaps for landing like everyone else. The dangers involved in deploying flaps in hard maneuvers are not well represented in the flight model. Not to belittle the FM, we are talking about an extreme corner of the flight envelope and things beyond "simple" aerodynamics.
-
Gyrene81 you should probably highlight this part in bold also.
"#2 has possibilities but also very quickly becomes open to interpretation."
-
I may be wrong but I doubt I have ever stated anything like this.
HiTech
so the bolded text "...implementing the pilot manual flap speed limitations" directly quoted from that discusson wasn't you? :headscratch: maybe i misinterpreted the way it was written.
The problem is that you have this problem across almost every aspect of the game. Engine limitations are an excellent example for one. A lot of the restrictions that are in place were restrictions imposed by the manufacturer or by the using air force, regardless of whether or not the aircraft could perform differently in reality. Robert Johnson used to talk about pulling 75" of MP in his Jug after his mechanic modified the turbo mechanism--it was possible to do, but should it be included in-game? No. Same for the flap settings. There has to be some sort of baseline. The flap deployment speeds for the P-51 and P-38, two examples previously mentioned and discussed, have documentation to support their use at the speeds in question. [Rhetorical question not directed at you Gyrene] Why not just ask HTC how they arrived at the flap deployment speeds of the P-47 if you can't find documentation, instead of "demanding" equality with what's represented for the Luftwaffe rides, in order to correct some sort of perceived inequity? I guarantee that the 109 and 190 in-game achieve the same modeling fidelity as the U.S. rides, at least as far as HTC has documentation to make them so. Now, if the Luftwaffe special instruction #4056, that detailed new approved flap deployment speeds, got burned up with Goering's dresses on 7 May, then we may never know, but it won't be because HTC didn't want the Luftrides to perform properly.
i agree stoney, there has to be a baseline but what dictates that baseline, the pilot manual or manufacturer testing documents or something else? if it is the pilot manuals, is it the speeds in the take off instructions or landing instructions, or maximum safe speeds? obviously there is some room for interpretation if a mechanical adjustment such as the flap mechanism on the bf109 is artificially prevented from working even 5 degrees at speeds above "maximum safe speed for full deployment". i have pdf versions of original bf109b/e/f/g/k pilot manuals that people have been kind enough to share on other sites, and i've gone through the painstaking process of translating most of them. i'm still attempting to translate the 190 pilot manuals i've acquired. i have only seen one document that states the luftwaffe command imposed flap speed limitations on pilots and that was supposedly a u.s. intelligence document that was dated sometime in november 1944, and i couldn't get a copy of it. if you have a copy of that luftwaffe special instruction #4056, would you mind sharing it? you're the first person i've seen that mentions it.
but this isn't about just the luftwaffe aircraft. the p-40, p-47 and p-39 manuals have specific warnings and descriptive consequences if certain things are done/not done, yet some things can be done in ah without consequence due to no artificial limitations on those actions. there is no doubt that the p-47, p-51, f6f, f4u and other u.s. fighters could deploy a combat flap setting at speeds over 300 mph, as combat reports from pilots show, but the manuals don't have that information in them. try imposing an artificial barrier below 250 mph in any of those aircraft because the information is not in the pilot manuals and a riot will ensue.
with all of the knowledge and information that has passed just on these boards by people like stoney, krusty, karnak, colmbo and numerous others, is anyone actually foolish enough to believe that the u.s. was the only country in the world that had aircraft that could deploy as little as 10 degrees of flap deflection over 190mph ias?
-
if you have a copy of that luftwaffe special instruction #4056, would you mind sharing it? you're the first person i've seen that mentions it.
Sorry, I made it up in an attempt at sarcasm.
...is anyone actually foolish enough to believe that the u.s. was the only country in the world that had aircraft that could deploy as little as 10 degrees of flap deflection over 190mph ias?
Its not about "foolish". Its about what is documented.
-
Sorry, I made it up in an attempt at sarcasm.
ah gotcha :aok or rather you got me with it.
Its not about "foolish". Its about what is documented.
ok, so look at the documentation...the easiest documentation to find is pilot handbooks, neither the u.s. or the luftwaffe manuals state anything about combat flaps, but they do have specifics about maximum safe speeds and safe take-off/landing procedures. so in the absence of information, do what?
-
so the bolded text "...implementing the pilot manual flap speed limitations" directly quoted from that discusson wasn't you? :headscratch: maybe i misinterpreted the way it was written.
As I said I may be wrong, I hadn't read the 2nd part.
HiTech
-
The dangers involved in deploying flaps in hard maneuvers are not well represented in the flight model.
What are these dangers you speak of? I've stuck the flaps out on a lot of airplanes over the years and never really considered it a hazardous thing to do.
-
What are these dangers you speak of? I've stuck the flaps out on a lot of airplanes over the years and never really considered it a hazardous thing to do.
did you deploy them and then try a 5G turn? Some flaps had sort of a spring loaded auto-retract. Ask the dedicated P-38 drivers in the game what happens when their flaps auto retract in a high G turn. The other thing I was referring to are stalls and spins regardless of flaps - we have no fear of them in the game, they are super easy to handle, while if they were feared as in real life pilots would be a little reluctant to try high speed stalls or deep stalls. The speed limits in manuals refer to a level-wings, 1G or slightly less flight which (taking a wild guess here) is how you used flaps.
-
did you deploy them and then try a 5G turn? Some flaps had sort of a spring loaded auto-retract. Ask the dedicated P-38 drivers in the game what happens when their flaps auto retract in a high G turn. The other thing I was referring to are stalls and spins regardless of flaps - we have no fear of them in the game, they are super easy to handle, while if they were feared as in real life pilots would be a little reluctant to try high speed stalls or deep stalls. The speed limits in manuals refer to a level-wings, 1G or slightly less flight which (taking a wild guess here) is how you used flaps.
you do know the auto retract function on the flaps in ah is not what actually happens in reality right? in toonville the flaps don't auto retract under g load on any airplane, there are pre-programmed speeds that dictate what angle of flap deflection is possible to deploy that's all. if you're referencing the "blow back" mechanism referenced in some u.s. fighter manuals, my understanding is they were designed to prevent damage to the flaps at high speeds, nothing to do with high g maneuvers.
stalls can happen at high or low speeds and flaps don't always have anything to do with when they will occur. excessive aileron force at high speed with full power can cause a stall, at least that's one of the cautions in some pilot manuals. i do it a lot with 109s. low speed stalls generally occur at very low speeds and can occur in level flight or in a maneuver, adding power and returning to level flight usually allows recovery.
-
did you deploy them and then try a 5G turn? Some flaps had sort of a spring loaded auto-retract. Ask the dedicated P-38 drivers in the game what happens when their flaps auto retract in a high G turn. The other thing I was referring to are stalls and spins regardless of flaps - we have no fear of them in the game, they are super easy to handle, while if they were feared as in real life pilots would be a little reluctant to try high speed stalls or deep stalls. The speed limits in manuals refer to a level-wings, 1G or slightly less flight which (taking a wild guess here) is how you used flaps.
I've had flaps auto retract several times in game, other than hearing the flap sound I haven't notice anything exciting happening, can't remember if I've done it in a P-38 in game.
I don't "fear" stalls/spins in my real life flying. I do respect that corner of the envelope. It is not uncommon to pull to buffet when fighting an airplane, it is a corner of the envelope to be exploited, not feared.
G load doesn't do anything to the flaps. Some aircraft are G limited with flaps deployed but again, that isn't because of an issue with the flaps.
Do you have any real-life flight experience?
-
excessive aileron force at high speed with full power can cause a stall, at least that's one of the cautions in some pilot manuals.
Can you expound on that some? The stall occurs due to excessive angle of attack, the aileron wouldn't change AOA except perhaps in the regard of the roll causing a higher AOA on the descending wing.
Now near stall if you try to pick a wing up with aileron you can cause a stall. The increased camber of the drooped aileron allows that section to stall at a slightly lower aoa than the rest of the wing. Do that in a B-17 and you get to look "up" at the ground, same with many aircraft of that era.
-
ok, so look at the documentation...the easiest documentation to find is pilot handbooks, neither the u.s. or the luftwaffe manuals state anything about combat flaps, but they do have specifics about maximum safe speeds and safe take-off/landing procedures. so in the absence of information, do what?
There is documentation in U.S. manuals about the use of combat/maneuvering flaps.
-
Can you expound on that some? The stall occurs due to excessive angle of attack, the aileron wouldn't change AOA except perhaps in the regard of the roll causing a higher AOA on the descending wing.
sorry colmbo, i meant elevator force not aileron...complete misquote on my part.
There is documentation in U.S. manuals about the use of combat/maneuvering flaps.
would you happen to know which ones? it's not in any of the manuals i have for p-39, p-40, p-47 or f4u.
-
P-38 manual in the AH Wiki has information on maneuvering flaps. Nothing in the P-47 manuals that I know of. I think the P-51 manual touches on it as well, but I'd have to go back through it to find it.
-
ok, so look at the documentation...the easiest documentation to find is pilot handbooks, neither the u.s. or the luftwaffe manuals state anything about combat flaps, but they do have specifics about maximum safe speeds and safe take-off/landing procedures. so in the absence of information, do what?
There is documentation in U.S. manuals about the use of combat/maneuvering flaps.
would you happen to know which ones? it's not in any of the manuals i have for p-39, p-40, p-47 or f4u.
My F4U Corsair manual has information on combat flaps.
It begins by mentioning that the flaps can be moved in 10 degree steps to "FULL DOWN" 50 degrees.
It then describes the "blow up" system which is set mechanically so that at full flaps and in level flight the flaps will begin to "blow up" at 90-110 kts indicated. At lesser flap settings, the blow up speeds will be greater. As speed decreases the flaps will return to the original setting.
There's a paragraph that reads-
"NOTE
The landing (and maneuver) flap control shall not be placed in position for lowering flaps at speeds in excess of 200kts even though the flaps are protected by an overload release mechanism. If the flap release mechanism is not in operation, the restricted speed with flaps open varies from 130kts with flaps deflected 50 degrees to 200kts with flaps deflected 20 degrees."
Then-
"The flaps are also designed for use in maneuvering the plane in combat. With typical maneuvering flap deflections of 20 degrees or less (see Section II, paragraph 15, b) the airplane may be maneuvered at equivilant limiting "flaps up" accelerations up to 200 kts."
Section II, 15, b reads-
"MANEUVER FLAPS- The wing flaps have been designed for possible use in maneuvering. The flaps may be used to increase lift and thereby decrease the radius of turns at low speeds. The flaps are also helpful in increasing the drag of the airplane so that it may be quickly decelerated to the optimum speed for a short radius turn. In general, flap deflections of 20 degrees or less will be most helpful in improving maneuverability. therefore a setting of 20 degrees has been established as the "maneuver flap" condition."
The "20 degrees" idea does factor in very closely to AH in-game flap use as well. 30 degrees is arguably helpful, but 40-50 degrees hurts more than it helps.
-
mtnman, you are proof as to why it is better to have more than one set of eyes looking at something. the f4u manual i have is a british repro of the models 1-4 and it has a little blurb about maneuver flaps of up to 20 degress at 200 knots in the basic flight section. thank you.
now i have to wonder why just the f4u and p-38 manuals have specific information on maneuver flaps. the p-40 manuals i have don't mention maneuvering with flaps, and i haven't found any reference to them in the one p-47 manual i've read so far.
makes one wonder if the u.s. was the only country to consider the use of flaps in aerial combat maneuvering considering the fact that several countries had been at war at least 3 years prior to u.s. involvement with supposedly advanced aircraft and combat experienced pilots. that sort of information isn't always in the pilot manuals, considering the different methods and aircraft used to train pilots at the time.
-
As heavy as the U.S. aircraft were, especially compared to the Axis aircraft early in the war, I think it follows. Its not like the Japanese, British, or Germans needed to develop techniques for combat flaps since their aircraft turned well without them.
-
As heavy as the U.S. aircraft were, especially compared to the Axis aircraft early in the war, I think it follows. Its not like the Japanese, British, or Germans needed to develop techniques for combat flaps since their aircraft turned well without them.
they approached it differently with butterfly flaps (oscar, frank, tojo) or slats on the leading edge (109's, lala's)
once germany lost strategic air superiority their design focus became one more of speed and guns. japan was already going that way, as was the US via fowler flaps (38's). i can't really opine on the VVS tactics or designs.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmcDue6Q7Dg&feature=related
if I recall,they talk about dive breaks and using flaps during combat.there are 4 parts of this video(ths one being the 2nd)
-
the p-40 manuals i have don't mention maneuvering with flaps
The P-40 had split flaps, not a great flap for increasing lift, more drag than anything else. Perhaps that is why using them as combat flaps isn't noted.
-
Yet, in game, they act similar to jug's