Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: HighGTrn on October 19, 2011, 02:57:18 PM
-
All you 109 experts out there...
So does the use of flaps make a difference when maneuvering in a knife fight? Do you guys use them and if so, how? Also, I've seen the 109 do some pretty crazy stuff with rudders as well, mostly to evade or create overshoot (scissors, rolling scissors, barrel roll defense ect..) If you can touch on that, I'd appreciate it.
Oh yeah, someone told me that at near stall speed, use of engine torque is a mainstay tool as well.. Is that true?
Enlighten me.
Thanks.
S1n1ster
-
yes, 109's flaps are necessary.
they add lots of drag, so pop them out when necessary, and pull them in when not. Also, they have 5 notches (I think) so pop out only enough to do what you need.
-
Flaps and throttle work is key in 109's
-
109 flaps are as about as useless as a white crayon.
-
The BIG musts on the 109 are throttle, trim, and flaps. You can't pop them out at anything past 200mph to help with your instananeous turn, but they are really helpfull with sustained turns.
P.S., I don't know why, but for some reason, HTC chose to use the max deployment speed for the LANDING setting, or fully deployed, as the max deployment speed for the combat flaps. Same with removing the 30mm from the 109G-6, they just kind of came at us with that one out of the blue.
-
I'm REALLY far from these aces posting here but I do use flaps a lot in the 109
-
The reason that 109's are so hard to master, is the sheer amount of throttle control you must use with one (especially as engine power went up). The flap work is similiar to many other planes that have good useable flaps, the throttle work along with the flap work is what makes the 109 hard to fly at it's limits. The F4U is a busier plane to fly correctly then the 109, but the 109 is a harder plane to fly at an equivelant level. Stick time against a competent 109 guy that can teach, is the best way to learn it :aok
:salute
BigRat
-
And everything thats being said here is the same with the 190. Hard to master, very hands-on aircraft requiring lots of managment of the throttle, trim, and flaps, but VERY rewarding to learn.
-
Is what I am doing relevant to my opponent/situation? Thats all you need to know.
-
Is what I am doing relevant to my opponent/situation? Thats all you need to know.
I like that question! it is a very important question
I am not sure why all the emphasis on trim being "very important" for flying the 109
set trim for it's level flight top crusie speed ( top speed ) and leave it there........
what I find the most cumbersome to deal with when flying the 109's ( or the LA series , etc... ) are those damn slates
I hate slates, and enjoyed the 109's and LA's much more before HTC( aces High ) coded the slates into the game.......
I agree on Throttle work, flap work is something everyone should practice ( also known as E management practice )
TC
-
I'm not an ace, but I've had a lot of time in the 109s and have learned much, thanks to pilots like Ardy123 and EAce, etc.
Personally I don't touch trim unless it's to deal with compression, just because my trims are set to anilog controls and they can be a real pain in the arsch to constantly fondle with. :joystick:
The leading slats are both a curse and a blessing, once you get useto them it's not so bad.
Flaps and throttle control is key for the 109, for any plane really, but it speaks volumes for the 109. The most important tool for the 109, besides the engine torque, is it's rudder. Make good use of that rudder to slow down or cut inside turns and to hammerhead/tailslide at the top of a rope can make magic happen. When you're slow, you're rudder is going to help you in verticle siccors by cutting back down at the enemy when nessisary, and your torque will help you roll back over more quickly. :cheers:
-
If I want to turn as hard as I can and get inside and tight I will get them down as quick as I can. If I am trying to conserve E and do not need the additional edge for turning, then I keep them up or just 1-2 notches. It's just all feel once you realize what you are actually trying to accomplish with your flap deployments.
-
Trim is important (to me at anyrate) because you won't always be able to maintain your corner velocity. If you go over it, trim will keep you from feeling the effects of compression quite so much.
-
Trim is important (to me at anyrate) because you won't always be able to maintain your corner velocity. If you go over it, trim will keep you from feeling the effects of compression quite so much.
Trim in my opinion is point less, unless your compression, I just let the auto trim setting do its thing.
-
Trim is important (to me at anyrate) because you won't always be able to maintain your corner velocity. If you go over it, trim will keep you from feeling the effects of compression quite so much.
did someone teach you this? am curious as to your thinking this and your theory behind it???
TC
-
Trim is important (to me at anyrate) because you won't always be able to maintain your corner velocity. If you go over it, trim will keep you from feeling the effects of compression quite so much.
:headscratch: :headscratch: corner velocity has not much to do with trim. I just set my trim to the center, and keep the ball centered using the stick and the pedals.
Corner vel. has everything to do with speed, and in a dog fight, flaps help you get to a better sustained turn radius.
-
If I want to turn as hard as I can and get inside and tight I will get them down as quick as I can. If I am trying to conserve E and do not need the additional edge for turning, then I keep them up or just 1-2 notches. It's just all feel once you realize what you are actually trying to accomplish with your flap deployments.
This. Also, I'm in agreement that combat trim is fine for the 109s.
- oldman
-
found it on my own in the K4. Engine is so powerfull, you almost have to be idling to keep from starting to feel compression at times. Since trim just moves the controll surfaces, you'll have a larger elevator imput with trim than without it.
I guess a good way to put it is that trim helps get rid of some of that 'heavy' feeling in the controlls.
Ardy, I'm not saying trim helps you maintain your corner velocity, I'm just saying that once you go past it, and get into the range of mild compression, trim will take away some of the 'heavy' feeling to the controlls.
-
Ardy, I'm not saying trim helps you maintain your corner velocity, I'm just saying that once you go past it, and get into the range of mild compression, trim will take away some of the 'heavy' feeling to the controlls.
That's not what this saysTrim is important (to me at anyrate) because you won't always be able to maintain your corner velocity.
Anyway, in my opinion trim does no benifit, unless your compressing.
-
I believe Tank-Ace is correctly referring to the high speed handling characteristics of the 109s when you get fast enough so that trim helps you, and may even be necessary, to control roll and pitch. This speed is above corner velocity.
When we read what people post it's useful to think about how they may be correct instead of just how they may be wrong. Most of us are not particularly good at writing. :D
-
That's not what this says
Anyway, in my opinion trim does no benifit, unless your compressing.
I suppose unless you're train of thought paralleled mine, it doesn't say that.
What I was talking about is that, since you can't always maintain your corner velocity (and therefore mild compression can be a consideration in combat), trim will help you overcome the heavy controlls when you DO go above your corner velocity.
Sorry for any confusion.
-
Ardy, I'm not saying trim helps you maintain your corner velocity, I'm just saying that once you go past it, and get into the range of mild compression, trim will take away some of the 'heavy' feeling to the controlls.
ahh, I got ya, I think most of us were thinking of a fight where on is going slow enough to get flaps out, which is around 200 mph.
EDIT: BTW, O believe the corner velocity for a 109k4 is in the mid 200s, like 250 ish... but mathematically speaking the best would be at ~220ish with one notch of flaps, but that's not possible in game.
-
IIRC, HTC is using the max deployment speed of the 109's landing flaps as the max deployment speed of their combat flaps. Again, IIRC, the combat flap speed should be somewhere between ~275-300mph.
-
IIRC, HTC is using the max deployment speed of the 109's landing flaps as the max deployment speed of their combat flaps. Again, IIRC, the combat flap speed should be somewhere between ~275-300mph.
Have you come across any written evidence for the deployment speed of the flaps from a historical standpoint that we could present for a suggested change?
-
i did once but it was a supposed u.s. intelligence report from sept. 1944 and there was no way to validate it's authenticity. other than a few finn pilots saying something in post war interviews, that's it.
-
i did once but it was a supposed u.s. intelligence report from sept. 1944 and there was no way to validate it's authenticity. other than a few finn pilots saying something in post war interviews, that's it.
If enough seperate sources of pilots saying that they droped at a higher speed is presented, I would consider it worth presenting to HT.
However, the true aircrafts were in KM/H, I believe, so some math would have to be done in refference to what the pilots may have qoated ( they might have been speaking of KM/P and not MPH, or they might have only given ruff guestimates of what they think the equivalent speeds were in MPH).
-
there have been repeated debates about the 109 flaps and every argument conceivable has been presented. ain't gonna happen.
maybe if someone could find a legitimate copy of the luftwaffe standard issued in 1938 for 109 flap deployment... :headscratch:
-
IIRC, HTC is using the max deployment speed of the 109's landing flaps as the max deployment speed of their combat flaps. Again, IIRC, the combat flap speed should be somewhere between ~275-300mph.
300 kph might be believable but 300 mph is not. Wouldn't you think the slats served the same purpose as combat flaps?
-
FLS, you think the germans shouldn't even be able to deploy COMBAT flaps above ~186mph?
I don't have any origional sources, no. But I've seen websites, and translated german documents stating landing flap speed as being ~ 275km/hr.
A fair bit of anecdotal evidence suggests that flap deployment speed should be higher.
BTW, that 275-300mph number was for max theoretical deployment speed (i.e. before you begin to damage parts). I'll try to find the site I found that from.
-
It's not a question of what anyone should be able to do. The question is what were the pilot's operating instructions. Anecdotes are not evidence. A lot of players would like a higher flap deployment speed but that's a different issue.
You didn't answer about the slats. Do you think they planned for both slats and combat flaps?
-
It's not a question of what anyone should be able to do. The question is what were the pilot's operating instructions. Anecdotes are not evidence. A lot of players would like a higher flap deployment speed but that's a different issue.
pilots operating instructions were for full "landing flaps" and landing gear with full "landing flaps"...there are no instructions that pilot's had to avoid deploying 10 degrees of flap above a certain speed.
You didn't answer about the slats. Do you think they planned for both slats and combat flaps?
the leading edge slats were for low speed stability not high speed combat maneuvers.
-
Slats/flaps aren't the same thing, and don't serve the same purpose.
Anecdotes aren't evedence, but that doesn't mean they don't support evidence.
-
from a 109g-6/u4 manual - rough translation
Aircraft made genugten the building regulations of the dla and strength of december 1936 and the last special assumptions on this. It is intended for the use of Group H and comply with the requirements of the stress groups 5 and 4, depending on the load.
maximum speeds
employed in full flight landing flap - 250km/h
flight with landing gear - 350km/h
landing flap deflection was 40 degrees.
-
pilots operating instructions were for full "landing flaps" and landing gear with full "landing flaps"...there are no instructions that pilot's had to avoid deploying 10 degrees of flap above a certain speed.
the leading edge slats were for low speed stability not high speed combat maneuvers.
Slats and flaps are both high lift devices. The difference is slats don't work like landing flaps, slats only work like combat flaps. I'm not saying you can't have both. I just wanted Tank-Ace to realize that they solve the same problem from different ends.
-
i don't know man, those leading edge slats were designed for high angle of attack under low speed conditions...whereas combat flaps would produce different results at higher speeds. can't see where they would be useful except near stall conditions.
-
Notice the slats don't usually deploy unless you're at low speed ;).
And note: landing flap speed: 250km/hr (about 155mph), 40 degrees deflection. Nothing mentioned about lesser deployment of the flaps. 10 degrees would likely be available upto ~250mph, perhaps 275 or even 300mph at a strech.
-
Do you guys both think that it's incorrect when the slats deploy at 400 mph in Aces High as you pull G and they act just like auto combat flaps?
The slats always deploy at the same AOA. They deploy just when you need more lift. It's pretty clever. You just don't want them to deploy asymmetrically.
-
Do you guys both think that it's incorrect when the slats deploy at 400 mph in Aces High as you pull G and they act just like auto combat flaps?
I do.
Again, the slats are coming out simply because of the reduced air pressure on the tip of the wing. Slats are designed to give you a larger wing surface to procude more lift at slower speeds; flaps are designed to produce more lift but it has the effect of changing your AoA by diverting the airflow downwards.
Slats tend to be momentarily distabalizing when they pop out, not always nice to happen in a high G turn, and I'm not sure if it has any benefits on the turn rates or radious.
-
I do.
Again, the slats are coming out simply because of the reduced air pressure on the tip of the wing. Slats are designed to give you a larger wing surface to procude more lift at slower speeds; flaps are designed to produce more lift but it has the effect of changing your AoA by diverting the airflow downwards.
Slats tend to be momentarily distabalizing when they pop out, not always nice to happen in a high G turn, and I'm not sure if it has any benefits on the turn rates or radious.
The lower air pressure above the leading edge of the wing that deploys the slats results from the wing reaching a specific AOA. High AOA is more likely at low speed but it is also possible at high speed. Increasing lift while maintaining your speed increases your turn rate and decreases your radius.
-
Good to know, thanks for the education :cheers:
-
i get what you're saying fls but, 2 things...the slats don't deploy at 200+ in a high g turn let alone 400 and when they do deploy they don't do anything remotely like what 10 degrees of flap would do,
-
i get what you're saying fls but, 2 things...the slats don't deploy at 200+ in a high g turn let alone 400 and when they do deploy they don't do anything remotely like what 10 degrees of flap would do,
Lift and G loading comes from AOA and speed. When your speed is high enough you can black out while still at an AOA that doesn't deploy the slats. Anytime you establish the required AOA the slats will deploy. I can deploy slats at 400 mph in the BF109. Any time the slats deploy they increase lift and G loading. I don't know the actual difference in coefficient of lift between 10 degrees of flaps and slats. If you have some data on that it would be interesting to see it.
-
You're the one saying slats are just as effective as flaps. Burden of proof rests with the accuser.
-
You're the one saying slats are just as effective as flaps. Burden of proof rests with the accuser.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
-
Yeah, you can know pudding is vanilla if you eat it, and know that it isn't chocolate.
But you're trying to say that slats are just as effective as flaps at 10 degrees deflection when at high speeds, which is akin to trying to tell what ingredients are in the pudding.
Once again, burden of proof rests with the accuser. I'm interested to see what your source of information is.
-
Yeah, you can know pudding is vanilla if you eat it, and know that it isn't chocolate.
But you're trying to say that slats are just as effective as flaps at 10 degrees deflection when at high speeds, which is akin to trying to tell what ingredients are in the pudding.
Once again, burden of proof rests with the accuser. I'm interested to see what your source of information is.
You can learn a lot about the Aces High aircraft by flying them.
To continue with the pudding, yes, I gave you the ingredients. They don't appear to be helpful without the recipe. :D
Was there something in my explanation that wasn't clear? Nothing I posted is as controversial as you seem to believe.
-
You've said the slats are about as effective as 10 degree flaps at high speed, but have offered no evidence for your statment.
Slats only increase the wing area, while flaps either increase the camber of the wings or the area AND the camber of the wings.
slats are also relativly small, so the total increase in wing area is likely negligable.
-
i'm sorry fls, but there is no way the slats on the 109 are popping out at 400mph unless you effectively stall it out where there is zero forward movement on the leading edge of the wings...and then they are not doing anything for the aircraft. i've run the 109 in stall fights and the slats do nothing to decrease the turning radius compared to 1 notch of flap deployment.
-
You've said the slats are about as effective as 10 degree flaps at high speed, but have offered no evidence for your statment.
Slats only increase the wing area, while flaps either increase the camber of the wings or the area AND the camber of the wings.
slats are also relativly small, so the total increase in wing area is likely negligable.
No I never said that. I said essentially the opposite of that.
I don't know the actual difference in coefficient of lift between 10 degrees of flaps and slats. If you have some data on that it would be interesting to see it.
Slats and combat flaps both increase the Cl without adding a lot of drag. Which part of that do you disagree with?
-
i'm sorry fls, but there is no way the slats on the 109 are popping out at 400mph unless you effectively stall it out where there is zero forward movement on the leading edge of the wings...and then they are not doing anything for the aircraft. i've run the 109 in stall fights and the slats do nothing to decrease the turning radius compared to 1 notch of flap deployment.
It's all about AOA. You stall at a particular AOA, the slats pop out at a particular AOA. I didn't say it was a good idea to have that much lift at 400mph, you're over 6 Gs. The point is that they do operate and they do increase the Cl at those speeds
-
Tank Ace, you don't understand the basic principle of the slots on the Bf109s. They do NOT increase wing area. They allow airflow to duct over the top of the wing preventing loss of control in a stall. Thus you retain aileron control through the stall (at least, further into it).
I haven't read this entire thread, as it bloomed into 4 pages rather fast. IMO if you're using flaps in a 109 you need to be doing one of the following:
preventing stalling out at minimum speeds
trying to dead-slow out-turn somebody with max flaps
coming over the top of a hammer head of some sort
LANDING
Emphasis on the last bit.
If you're using flaps for turn advantage when you're not at stall speed, you're doing it WRONG in my opinion. They don't work like combat flaps on F4us or P38s. You can't work them like that and expect a benefit of similar gains.
If you're in a 109 use the vertical, use your horsepower, use your tight turn radius... But flaps are 99% useless for most of my sorties. Keep in mind I've landed too many 8,10,12 kill sorties in Bf109s to count. I'm no expert but I do know a few things about flying them in the MA environment.
-
i believe what tank ace and owlblink are getting at is, why can't the flaps on the 109 be used as combat flaps at higher speeds. there is nothing anywhere showing that 109 pilots didn't/couldn't use some degree of flaps to improve turn performance at high speeds just like the 51, 38 and other u.s. aircraft...not 300+ mph of course but maybe around 225mph or so.
-
i believe what tank ace and owlblink are getting at is, why can't the flaps on the 109 be used as combat flaps at higher speeds. there is nothing anywhere showing that 109 pilots didn't/couldn't use some degree of flaps to improve turn performance at high speeds just like the 51, 38 and other u.s. aircraft...not 300+ mph of course but maybe around 225mph or so.
It's probably better in general if the flight modeling is based on evidence of use instead of wishful thinking and a lack of evidence of non-use.
225 is about corner velocity for BF109F4. You don't need flaps if you can pull 6 Gs.
-
It's probably better in general if the flight modeling is based on evidence of use instead of wishful thinking and a lack of evidence of non-use.
i agree, but it's not...i.e. p-40
-
i agree, but it's not...i.e. p-40
Are you referring to the bug that they fixed after redoing the flight models?
-
not a bug...but i am talking about the manner in which the determination of the speed was deduced.
-
not a bug...but i am talking about the manner in which the determination of the speed was deduced.
Are you saying it was determined by a lack of evidence of non-usage? If you tell me specifically what you mean I can stop guessing ;)
-
:lol ok, without starting any long drawn out arguments (which i'm sure is not entirely possible), this is the deal...
initially the flap deployment speeds were determined by what is stated in the pilots manual...clean configuration no externals
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm94/Ack-Ack/P40manualpage.jpg)
then, baumer posted this
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/ahbbs2011/P40Fflapspeed.png)
and i agree with his statement...
I'm sorry, you are correct it calls for 1/2 flaps and not to retract below 160mph.
On the second point, my primary concern is that it is an educated guess unless it is specifically stated in a source document. Allowing some modeling for the P-40 based on a guess but holding other aircraft to only documented numbers seems contradictory to HTC's SOP.
the thing is, it's one thing to be prevented from doing something due to an electro-mechanical fail safe or whatever, but nothing except physics would prevent a manual device from working. obviously in a high g maneuver the 109 pilot has his hands full due to the design of the controls system where a p-40 or p-51 pilot wouldn't have such issues and could easily flick a switch.
-
Link? I missed that thread and I'm missing your point Gyrene. What do you think was modeled by a lack of evidence of non-usage? HTC doesn't publish which documents they have and use.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,322587.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,322587.0.html)
it's all in that discussion, just have to read it carefully.
hitech has specifically stated primary source for their decisions were the pilot's handbooks. my point is, there are no documents specifically stating 8 degrees of flap deflection is prohibited on the 109 at any speed for any reason, the only specification is full 40 degrees of flaps with landing gear down and just landing gear. and of all aircraft that should have flap deployment speeds above landing gear deployment speeds it's those with manual flap deployment systems.
-
I think you're over-reacting there gyrene...
The manuals are talking as if theres only one setting: full. The reality is the pilot could move the lever to whatever setting he wanted. If he wanted to crack them open just a bit, he could.
We had a similar issue with Bf109 flaps many years back, and evidence was produced from outside-of-manual sources showing the safe-to-deploy speeds for bf109 flaps being much higher for just a 10-degree flap setting, than for the normal flaps.
The fact that the P-40 has more than one flaps setting is to simulate this ability to deploy flaps to whatever angle you want. Otherwise it would be like the Spit1's flaps.
Also, you seem to be picking up on "do not retract below 160" -- this was not a mechanical limitation. The flaps were not blown back by windpower. This was a safety order to prevent green pilots from creating some turbulence or loss of lift without sufficient speed to stay in the air. I've seen footage of P-40s on the ground and on jack-stands raising and lowering their flaps (rather rapidly, as fast as the hand can push the hydraulic lever in the cockpit) again and again.
-
i'm not over reacting krusty and i know how the flaps work. just answering fls questions without opening a bigger can of worms.
my point of contention is mainly the manner in which the current speed setting was extrapolated and decided upon, with less evidence than you're saying was presented for the 109 long ago, yet to this day the 109 cannot deploy even 1 degree of flap at combat speeds.
-
I recall that POHs are a primary source when they are available and that other official documents are also used. I also think it's possible that 109 pilots were better off not using combat flap settings because they had the slats. Why deploy flaps for a Cl that you can achieve with AOA and/or slats? But not knowing the actual difference between them I can only guess. Hitech would know since he programmed it but my main point is that we don't know what documents HTC is using and stating that they they are guessing the speeds is just speculation.
-
I recall that POHs are a primary source when they are available and that other official documents are also used. I also think it's possible that 109 pilots were better off not using combat flap settings because they had the slats. Why deploy flaps for a Cl that you can achieve with AOA and/or slats? But not knowing the actual difference between them I can only guess.
you're still thinking the slats do something they don't. i take it you don't fly the 109 often. take a p-51 in ah and get it into a turn at 250mph without flaps, then do the same thing with 1 notch of flaps, see how much difference there is in a 180 degree turn.
Hitech would know since he programmed it but my main point is that we don't know what documents HTC is using and stating that they they are guessing the speeds is just speculation.
well, hitech has repeatedly stated the poh is the primary source used in making such determinations. and look at pyro's statement again.
-
you're still thinking the slats do something they don't. i take it you don't fly the 109 often. take a p-51 in ah and get it into a turn at 250mph without flaps, then do the same thing with 1 notch of flaps, see how much difference there is in a 180 degree turn.
well, hitech has repeatedly stated the poh is the primary source used in making such determinations. and look at pyro's statement again.
I'm pretty confident that I understand slats, flaps, and turn rate but I'm always happy to learn more.
I agree that the POH is a primary source. Hitech has also stated that primary sources can be unclear. Pyro or Hitech posted that 140 mph was a bug in the update where the full flap landing restriction was applied to all flap settings. You haven't supported your statement that HTC models performance based on a lack of evidence of non-usage. You don't know what they used to set the P-40 flap speeds or the BF109 flap speeds. The P-40 POH only shows a landing restriction that is likely for full flaps. This is clearly shown by the other manual showing 160 as the minimum flaps up speed with a drop tank. You are using your lack of information on their decisions to speculate that they didn't have necessary information on flap restrictions.
-
i'm not over reacting krusty and i know how the flaps work. just answering fls questions without opening a bigger can of worms.
I think you are... The following keeps becoming a theme...
yet to this day the 109 cannot deploy even 1 degree of flap at combat speeds.
This is false. The 109 CAN deploy flaps at combat speeds. You simply disagree how fast you want them to deploy. Just because the P-51 can do it doesn't mean the Bf109 could. If you want the flaps to start coming down at 400mph you have another thing coming to ya.
-
didn't realize the two of you were a mind readers...i'm not the one who brought this crap up, just answering the questions. if you don't like the answers, not my problem.
i dare either of you to prove that a clean undamaged 109 could not actually deploy even 1 degree of flap over 190mph tas at 15,000 feet or below.
-
didn't realize the two of you were a mind readers..
I knew you were going to say that. :D
...i'm not the one who brought this crap up, just answering the questions. if you don't like the answers, not my problem.
i dare either of you to prove that a clean undamaged 109 could not actually deploy even 1 degree of flap over 190mph tas at 15,000 feet or below.
I'm simply going by what you posted Gyrene. If you can justify your criticism of HTC's flight model fidelity in the Help forum please go ahead and do so. A new player reading that, and unaware of your habit of shooting from the lip, might actually believe you. So far your answers to me have just indicated that you're read some things a little too quickly. If you think I don't know how slats work be specific and tell me what it is I don't understand. Maybe I'll learn something.
Since I never claimed that any 109 couldn't deploy 1 degree of flap at 190 mph I'll take a pass on your request for proof.
-
:lol come on fls...i just passed the information to you. you kept asking the questions and well, simply put if you're going to continue asking me rather than investigate for yourself, i'm going to give you exactly what i think and it is not "off the lip". i've spent the time digging and translating manuals written in german. where the 109s are concerned, there is no concrete evidence either way that states max safe speed for anything except full flaps with landing gear down and the deployment speeds in ah reflect an estimation of deployment speeds from low to high based on full flaps with landing gear down. and as krusty said, the pilot could move the lever to whatever setting he wanted, but that is not possible above the speeds htc determined were acceptable. nothing to criticize, it is in plain english.
The data posted is not mutually exclusive. Some planes will have a different max speed for deploying the flaps than the max speed for having the flaps down. In AH we only have one speed per flap setting, so we have to bridge those differences as best we can.
-
I think you are... The following keeps becoming a theme...
This is false. The 109 CAN deploy flaps at combat speeds. You simply disagree how fast you want them to deploy. Just because the P-51 can do it doesn't mean the Bf109 could. If you want the flaps to start coming down at 400mph you have another thing coming to ya.
Krusty, I've read 109 manuals, and I haven't ever come across a sentence stating "the 109 cannot deploy flaps at speed above 310km/hr".
Theres a difference between "shouldn't" and "couldn't".
A6M couldn't drop flaps at 350mph
P-47's weren't advised to drop flaps while doing 375mph, but they could.
109 shouldn't drop flaps at 300, but they could
See? Its a matter of if HTC has decided the "shouldn't" number is a limitation of the aircraft, or just is what is advisable.
-
If you think I don't know how slats work be specific and tell me what it is I don't understand. Maybe I'll learn something.
forgot to answer this. higher cofl is created from angle of attack and speed, leading edge slats change the (i believe) camber of the wing to increase the cofl at slower speeds and thus allow the plane to fly at slower speeds than it could without them, not 400mph. the 109 used automatic slats (unlike some modern aircraft) that deployed when aerodynamic forces on the leading edge of the wings decreased to the point where they could deploy, still not 400mph. is that a sufficient answer?
-
I'm sure I dont have to tell you knowledgeable guys that the 109's used a wheel to lower flaps,above deployment speeds the wheel just turned and the flaps would not lower! It had a built in "slip" mechanism in the linkage so the pilot could lower flaps and break them! I believe little is written about the actual speed but it seems to be in the 300 to 350 KM per hour,300 kn is 186 mph which is around the speed that you can drop the first notch flaps in AH.
Remember a kilometer is 5/8ths of a mile every 80 km is equal to 50 mph,100 km is 62 mph!
YMMV
:salute
-
Even 350km/hr would be helpfull. Just so long as its at a speed seen in combat other than the "oh crap, I'm caught in a low speed turning game" situations.
-
I'm sure I dont have to tell you knowledgeable guys that the 109's used a wheel to lower flaps,above deployment speeds the wheel just turned and the flaps would not lower! It had a built in "slip" mechanism in the linkage so the pilot could lower flaps and break them! I believe little is written about the actual speed but it seems to be in the 300 to 350 KM per hour,300 kn is 186 mph which is around the speed that you can drop the first notch flaps in AH.
Remember a kilometer is 5/8ths of a mile every 80 km is equal to 50 mph,100 km is 62 mph!
YMMV
:salute
where did you find that information sir? unless i missed something in the ugly translation process, none of the manuals i have from the 109b to 109k4 show anything like that. and 350 kph would be much better than the current setting.
-
where did you find that information sir? unless i missed something in the ugly translation process, none of the manuals i have from the 109b to 109k4 show anything like that. and 350 kph would be much better than the current setting.
Actually read it on a site that was about myths and facts on the 109 series,had both Finnish and German pilot comments! Oh and I meant to say couldn't lower the flaps to break them. Gyrene,I simply googled 109 flap deployment speeds and waded through 14 or 15 pages of google,I went to many sites so I dont recall which 1 stated about the slip mechanism,but I'm pretty sure it was the myths site I mentioned.
Interestingly several Finish pilots report going over 850 KM per in dives which was more than 100 KM above VnE!!!! I believe those were G6's
Tank,350km is roughly 200 mph,or close enough to deployment speeds in AH,also from what I read it stated between 300 and 350 KM,50 KM is only 30 mph,ok 31.5
:salute
-
oh yeah i know what site you're talking about, i was just on it today, but i don't remember anything about a slip mechanism.
and 350kph is 217.5mph...not 189, i'll take the 217.
-
oh yeah i know what site you're talking about, i was just on it today, but i don't remember anything about a slip mechanism.
and 350kph is 217.5mph...not 189, i'll take the 217.
I said between those speeds,depending on source,remember these are pilot comments and gauges being what they are,we can take it as anecdotal and not factual.
One pilot stated he buried the needle,thats over 900Km in a 109 and he pulled out with 50 meters to spare,do you think this is fact?
It would make sense that some type of friction slip device was installed in the flaps wheel,there's several videos that show what you actually have to do to deploy the flaps in the 109. The only reference I could find about using them in combat was from Marseille,it's said he would offer turning combat and throttle down to reduce speed to deploy flaps. There's no mention of the airspeed,alt or how much flaps.
Another thing to consider,IAS and TAS,which one is the pilot referring to? you could be at 300mph TAS yet be at a low enough IAS to drop flaps,depends on alt.
Of course most fights in AH are at such low alts that the difference between IAS and TAS is negligible.
-
i know, i've read the interviews repeatedly and the diving speeds they claimed to have survived are a bit outrageous...the one comment that struck me was about the flap speeds they supposedly used at 20,000ft in spite of being told not to, the interviewer didn't question if it was ias or tas. oddly no other pilots interviewed over the years disputed it.
so, let me ask you this, do you agree that 217mph is a good maximum safe speed for landing gear but not for 8 degrees of flap?
-
Gyrene,
this 217 does it come from POH? is so I would think you would drop gear then start to drop flaps as you had to turn the wheel many times to get to full deployment.
Dont get me wrong,I'd love to see the 109's be able to drop flaps at higher speed,provided there's proof that they could in RL.
We only have to press a button,a 109 pilot had to rotate the wheel something like 15 times to get full deployment.
:salute
PS: It might have been in 1 of the videos that they state about the slip mechanism to prevent lowering at too high a speed,the ailerons also dropped with the flaps!
-
forgot to answer this. higher cofl is created from angle of attack and speed, leading edge slats change the (i believe) camber of the wing to increase the cofl at slower speeds and thus allow the plane to fly at slower speeds than it could without them, not 400mph. the 109 used automatic slats (unlike some modern aircraft) that deployed when aerodynamic forces on the leading edge of the wings decreased to the point where they could deploy, still not 400mph. is that a sufficient answer?
It's sufficiently wrong about the speed. Do you know what caused the aerodynamic forces to deploy the slats? As I mention a few times already in this thread, it's angle of attack. Any time you have the required AOA the slats deploy, regardless of speed. That's why they can deploy at 400mph. You can take 2 minutes and test this in AH. The K4 will be around 360 but the F will deploy over 400. Flaps and slats both increase Cl. This increases lift for a given speed and AOA. It doesn't just happen at low speeds. The physics don't change when the speed increases. Slats and flaps still increase the Cl at high speeds. This means that slats can deploy at speeds where you might want to use 8 degrees of flaps. You just need to pull to the required AOA. If you're blacking out before you reach that AOA then you don't need flaps or slats until you get slower.
-
Morf, there's also a good chance those WW2 tachs had major errors in high end speed. That's why they used ground speed confirmation with radar, not relying on instruments in the plane doing tests, for most official tests.
Edit: Also the ailerons both dipped either 10 or 15 degrees only on the maximum flap deployment. I thought that was rather clever of Messerschmitt.
-
Can we all agree that flaps in a 109 are necessary in a dogfight
-
It's sufficiently wrong about the speed. Do you know what caused the aerodynamic forces to deploy the slats? As I mention a few times already in this thread, it's angle of attack. Any time you have the required AOA the slats deploy, regardless of speed. That's why they can deploy at 400mph. You can take 2 minutes and test this in AH. The K4 will be around 360 but the F will deploy over 400. Flaps and slats both increase Cl. This increases lift for a given speed and AOA. It doesn't just happen at low speeds. The physics don't change when the speed increases. Slats and flaps still increase the Cl at high speeds. This means that slats can deploy at speeds where you might want to use 8 degrees of flaps. You just need to pull to the required AOA. If you're blacking out before you reach that AOA then you don't need flaps or slats until you get slower.
see that's where i think there is a small problem. on the g models the slats were installed on roller rails which made them more reliable and decreased the incidence of asymmetric deployment. but it also decreased the amount of aerodynamic pressure needed to make them retract because they weren't spring loaded. i did try it with the g6, g2, f4 and g14, below 5000ft high g turn at 335 up to 400+ mph and they do deploy as soon as you enter the turn, which doesn't make sense because they won't deploy when going into a nearly 90 degree climb at 350mph. close to the same aoa, should be the same aerodynamic pressure at the start as going into a turn.
i'm probably wrong and guilty of misinterpreting the technical information, been wrong before, but nothing i've studied says they should react the way they do in ah. you should peruse that site morfiend talked about...interesting first hand information about the slats
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/ (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/)
Gyrene,
this 217 does it come from POH? is so I would think you would drop gear then start to drop flaps as you had to turn the wheel many times to get to full deployment.
Dont get me wrong,I'd love to see the 109's be able to drop flaps at higher speed,provided there's proof that they could in RL.
We only have to press a button,a 109 pilot had to rotate the wheel something like 15 times to get full deployment.
:salute
PS: It might have been in 1 of the videos that they state about the slip mechanism to prevent lowering at too high a speed,the ailerons also dropped with the flaps!
the 217mph for max safe speed of landing gear deployment does come from the poh. do you have a link to the video talking about the slip mechanism? that myths site is a very interesting read, especially about high speed (400mph+) handling capabilities.
-
Gyrene,
I wish I had a link for you but I went through about 17 or 18 google pages on flap speed deployment,or as Bf109 flap speed deployment in the search and waded through alot of junk on models and such,I may have even linked to the video from one of the sites.
I assumed this was common knowledge and would actually like to see a drawing/blueprint on how it worked.
If you can supply definitive information on the speeds that both gear and flaps could be lowered or even anything about using then in combat I'd be the first to support you in having HTC look at the operation of them.
:salute
PS: yes Krusty I understand as much,thats why I asked if you,well not you specific, believed it was true.I'm sure that the pilot had more on his mind than the actual speeds involved and also above a certain speed I would imagine the rate of error would increase exponentially
-
see that's where i think there is a small problem. on the g models the slats were installed on roller rails which made them more reliable and decreased the incidence of asymmetric deployment. but it also decreased the amount of aerodynamic pressure needed to make them retract because they weren't spring loaded. i did try it with the g6, g2, f4 and g14, below 5000ft high g turn at 335 up to 400+ mph and they do deploy as soon as you enter the turn, which doesn't make sense because they won't deploy when going into a nearly 90 degree climb at 350mph. close to the same aoa, should be the same aerodynamic pressure at the start as going into a turn.
i'm probably wrong and guilty of misinterpreting the technical information, been wrong before, but nothing i've studied says they should react the way they do in ah. you should peruse that site morfiend talked about...interesting first hand information about the slats
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/ (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/)
the 217mph for max safe speed of landing gear deployment does come from the poh. do you have a link to the video talking about the slip mechanism? that myths site is a very interesting read, especially about high speed (400mph+) handling capabilities.
I think you're confused about what AOA is. Angle of attack is the angle that the air meets the wing. It has nothing to do with your aircraft angle in relation to gravity or the horizon. Remember lift is AOA plus speed. You can have a high angle of attack flying straight and level when you fly slow enough to require a high coefficient of lift. This is why there is a tendancy to think slats are for slow speed flight. When not turning, if speed is high AOA is low. With low AOA the slats aren't active. Even Gunthar Rall stated that slats were for landing and taking off and ignored the fact that they help turning too. That's anecdotal evidence that pilots aren't the best source for aerodynamic information. But it depends on the pilot. I've seen the site you linked and it explains everything I've been trying to tell you. There is also a pilot explaining that if you didn't have slats out in your turn you weren't turning your best. Note that even he mixes up low speed with the AOA at low speed as the reason for slat deployment. It's clear from his descriptions that he's taking about maneuvers at high AOA.
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.
The improved slats worked the same way as the older slat design according to the site you linked. Lift is mostly low air pressure above the wing. The high air pressure under the wing is a smaller portion of the total force. The pressure on the leading edge changes with AOA. A simplified picture of airflow over a wing doesn't show you the aerodynamic forces acting on the wing and may mislead your understanding of how air pressure moves the slats.
-
I think you're confused about what AOA is. Angle of attack is the angle that the air meets the wing. It has nothing to do with your aircraft angle in relation to gravity or the horizon. Remember lift is AOA plus speed. You can have a high angle of attack flying straight and level when you fly slow enough to require a high coefficient of lift. This is why there is a tendancy to think slats are for slow speed flight. When not turning, if speed is high AOA is low. With low AOA the slats aren't active. Even Gunthar Rall stated that slats were for landing and taking off and ignored the fact that they help turning too. That's anecdotal evidence that pilots aren't the best source for aerodynamic information. But it depends on the pilot. I've seen the site you linked and it explains everything I've been trying to tell you. There is also a pilot explaining that if you didn't have slats out in your turn you weren't turning your best. Note that even he mixes up low speed with the AOA at low speed as the reason for slat deployment. It's clear from his descriptions that he's taking about maneuvers at high AOA.
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.
The improved slats worked the same way as the older slat design according to the site you linked. Lift is mostly low air pressure above the wing. The high air pressure under the wing is a smaller portion of the total force. The pressure on the leading edge changes with AOA. A simplified picture of airflow over a wing doesn't show you the aerodynamic forces acting on the wing and may mislead your understanding of how air pressure moves the slats.
I'm not saying the 109's didn't use combat flaps (I can't since I haven't bothered to research it at all), but it's interesting that with a clear description of combat turning like this, there's no mention of flaps?
The sounds, vibrations, throttle use, control of speed, shape of turn, but no flap use? Especially when considering it was in reference to how technique may have differed between inexperienced and experienced pilots.
In AH, flap use would have been an early part of a description like that!
-
thank you fls, i think i understand aoa fairly well, obviously i'm no expert in aerodynamics. i do have trouble understanding aoa in relation to banked angles in downward spiral turns and upward spiral turns at the same speeds. or why the slats will deploy in an upward spiral turn but not in a downward spiral turn under the same speeds and g load. now i need some tylenol...
just my opinion but, one pilot is anectdotal, big fish that got away story, but multiple pilots from multiple countries with the same experiences in the same aircraft is a resource. when you look at their statements, aside from some obvious exaggerations trying to recall heat of the moment incidents and basic pilot bravado, the same things are said in slightly different ways. the ones who survived multiple combat engagements weren't college educated aeronautics experts but they neither were they low iq idiots.
the pilot you quoted was quite obviously talking about the stall buffet encountered when he pulled too hard in a low speed turn, several other pilots gave similar descriptions. every pilot on there said almost the same thing, pull hard (increase aoa) in a low speed turn to the point of near stall (decrease aerodynamic pressure on the leading edge) and the slats would pop. not one said anything about high speed slat deployment, but then what is considered high speed? 100mph on the ground is fast but at 3000 feet a 109 is near stall speed.
Me 109 G:
"- How often did the slats in the leading edge of the wing slam open without warning?
They were exteneded always suddenly but not unexpectedly. They did not operate in high speed but in low speed. One could make them go out and in by moving the stick back and forth. When turning one slat functioned ahead of the other one, but that did not affect the steering. In a battle situation one could pull a little more if the slats had come out. They had a positive effect of the slow speed handling characteristics of the Messerschmitt.
- Could the pilot control the leading edge slats?
No. The slats were extended when the speed decreased enough, you could feel when they were extended. "
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories
and every other source of information i can actually comprehend says the same thing, high aoa and low speed.
and thanks for indulging me in this sir... :salute
-
I'm not saying the 109's didn't use combat flaps (I can't since I haven't bothered to research it at all), but it's interesting that with a clear description of combat turning like this, there's no mention of flaps?
The sounds, vibrations, throttle use, control of speed, shape of turn, but no flap use? Especially when considering it was in reference to how technique may have differed between inexperienced and experienced pilots.
In AH, flap use would have been an early part of a description like that!
i'm glad you brought that up...
Me 109 F/G:
"- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories
Me 109 G-6:
"The story of Valte Estama's 109 G-6 getting shot down by a Yak-6 was also an interesting one. Their flight of nine planes was doing high-altitude CAP at 7,000 meters (23,000').
(snip) So it happened that the devil fired at him. One cannon round hit his engine, spilling out oil that caught fire. Estama noticed that it wasn't fuel that leaked or burned, just oil.
He pushed the nose of the plane and throttled up. His feet felt hot, but the fire was extinguished and there was no more smoke. The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. He pulled the throttle back, but the stick was stiff and couldn't pull the plane out of the dive. Letting the flaps out little by little gradually lifted the nose. The plane leveled at 1,000 meters (3,300').
Clarification of the escape dive: "It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims).
Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."
- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot
to morfiend, after 18 months of searching believe me, if i had just one solid document that showed 109 flaps being deployed above 190mph i would have posted it already...
-
The reason high AOA is associated with low speed is simply because it's more common than high speed high AOA. The pilot you quoted had the same experience that you did. At high speed he never pulled enough AOA to pop the slats. Once you were told it was possible and tried it you did it right away. The pilot I quoted said that his fellow experienced 109 pilots did not fully appreciate their slats. Slats improve high AOA handling because it improves lift. More lift is a benefit at any speed. That's just physics. Because more lift at high speed is likely to black you out it's normal to slow down to the point where the increased lift helps you without making you black out. For example the speeds where you would otherwise wish for combat flaps if you didn't have slats.
I think you'll find that every reference to slats only working at low speed actually describes entering a high AOA condition.
In a spiral climb you slow down and need more AOA for the same lift. In a spiral dive you speed up and need less AOA for the same lift.
Look on the bright side. At least there was no math. :D
Re: Edvald Estama If he's in compression then it's hard to understand how flaps helped compared to trimming the stabilizer. I'm not saying he was misquoted it's just puzzling. Typically in compression the higher air density at lower altitude is what helps you regain control.
Just to clarify my comment on Gunther Rall. I'm sure he was a gifted pilot that knew everything about flying the 109. He probably just preferred a lower G dogfight and didn't use slats at high speeds. If the pilots and POH writers knew they were going to be quoted in flight sim debates I'm sure they would have expressed themselves differently.
-
ok thank you, now i'm getting a clearer picture.
finally found a video that shows the slats performing exactly the way you described...start at 2:54 and watch the leading edge of the starboard wing very carefully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a_TETqe1Cg&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a_TETqe1Cg&feature=player_embedded)
Re: Edvald Estama If he's in compression then it's hard to understand how flaps helped compared to trimming the stabilizer. I'm not saying he was misquoted it's just puzzling. Typically in compression the higher air density at lower altitude is what helps you regain control.
Just to clarify my comment on Gunther Rall. I'm sure he was a gifted pilot that knew everything about flying the 109. He probably just preferred a lower G dogfight and didn't use slats at high speeds. If the pilots and POH writers knew they were going to be quoted in flight sim debates I'm sure they would have expressed themselves differently.
ya i'm not sure about what estama said. the other pilots who described high speed dive recovery said they used the "flettner" (trim tab?) to regain level flight. and i can only imagine what rall would have said with some of us asking him questions...but i would have been in hog heaven talking to the man.
-
gyrene, I found an official chart on 109 flap speeds, and in fact 109s can (and did) safely use up to 20 degrees flaps at speeds up to 450 kph! (which is 280 mph!!)
so 217 isnt even close either!
That being said, if 20 degrees is allowable at 280, 10-15 should be fine at 300+ agreed?
google "109 flap deployment speed" and you can find it in the top 3 results in ww2aircraft. net
Not to mention it's well known that Marseilles used flaps all the time at high speed to gain extra lead for deflection shooting!
Honestly though, if this improved historical flap deployment ability makes the 109 more competitive with top allied rides, (which it most certainly will) do you really think it will be fixed?
-
It already is competitive with allied rides. I trust my K4 more than any other ride in the game, save possibly a Panther tank.
-
STEELE,
If you can post a historically accurate document about it, then you never know it may just get changed. Happened before :aok
:salute
BigRat
-
gyrene, I found an official chart on 109 flap speeds, and in fact 109s can (and did) safely use up to 20 degrees flaps at speeds up to 450 kph! (which is 280 mph!!)
so 217 isnt even close either!
That being said, if 20 degrees is allowable at 280, 10-15 should be fine at 300+ agreed?
google "109 flap deployment speed" and you can find it in the top 3 results in ww2aircraft. net
Not to mention it's well known that Marseilles used flaps all the time at high speed to gain extra lead for deflection shooting!
Honestly though, if this improved historical flap deployment ability makes the 109 more competitive with top allied rides, (which it most certainly will) do you really think it will be fixed?
i think i know the chart you're talking about, and unfortunately it has been posted before in another discussion. it was a single page from a multi-page report and couldn't be corrborated with additional data. in all the searching i've done i actually found what was supposedly a u.s. intelligence report that in september 1944 the rlm posted a notice stating 109 pilots should not use flaps over a certain speed (225-235?mph) especially above 20,000ft. i disregarded it because i couldn't find any further data to support it and i figured i needed more than a single unsubstantiated piece of data to support the use of 109 flaps over what ah has modeled. haven't been able to find it again.
unfortunately, the rlm wasn't as thorough as the u.s. with written 109 pilot training manuals, and they all refer to the flaps as landeklappen (landing flaps).
-
gyrene, I found an official chart on 109 flap speeds, and in fact 109s can (and did) safely use up to 20 degrees flaps at speeds up to 450 kph! (which is 280 mph!!)
so 217 isnt even close either!
That being said, if 20 degrees is allowable at 280, 10-15 should be fine at 300+ agreed?
google "109 flap deployment speed" and you can find it in the top 3 results in ww2aircraft. net
Not to mention it's well known that Marseilles used flaps all the time at high speed to gain extra lead for deflection shooting!
Honestly though, if this improved historical flap deployment ability makes the 109 more competitive with top allied rides, (which it most certainly will) do you really think it will be fixed?
At 280 MPH you can already pull to blackout without flaps. How would being more unconscious make you more competitive? :devil
-
At 280 MPH you can already pull to blackout without flaps. How would being more unconscious make you more competitive? :devil
I could see dropping flaps as a means of slowing down faster. The gears rip off at 200mph so if dropping flaps at 280 or something created more drag would make sense to me.
-
I could see dropping flaps as a means of slowing down faster. The gears rip off at 200mph so if dropping flaps at 280 or something created more drag would make sense to me.
Combat flap settings don't add much drag so they don't make good speed brakes. Turning hard creates a lot of induced drag and slows you down very quickly.