Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: STEELE on November 05, 2011, 03:59:55 PM
-
The charts I've read show allowable deployment of the 109's infinetely adjustable flaps of up to 20 degrees at 450kph (280mph), why is this not modeled in game? :headscratch:
Also, they should be able to deploy about 15 degrees at 300+ mph
:noid
sorry, had to erase the link to ww2aircraft.net, as it put an adware on my screen after I got out! (was my source)
-
I cant access the charts on that forum but the only mention of 450km is in a question.
There's a long debate in help and training about this subject and no definitive answer was found,if you can supply documentation that shows deployment speeds above 300kph then maybe HTC will revisit the flap speeds on the 109's.
:salute
-
I cant access the charts on that forum but the only mention of 450km is in a question.
There's a long debate in help and training about this subject and no definitive answer was found,if you can supply documentation that shows deployment speeds above 300kph then maybe HTC will revisit the flap speeds on the 109's.
:salute
Actually, the person translated the charts and was just asking if he did it right. (which he did, it's impossible not to get it right if you can read German) :salute
I didn't see the thread in Training, thanks for pointing that out!
So we have the figure on 20 percent deployment, what's next?
-
I cant access the charts on that forum but the only mention of 450km is in a question.
There's a long debate in help and training about this subject and no definitive answer was found,if you can supply documentation that shows deployment speeds above 300kph then maybe HTC will revisit the flap speeds on the 109's.
:salute
I have some documents in question - but I seriously consider the source as impossible or they were falsely made - Russians captured a 109G and field tested it and the test pilot confirmed the flaps were able to deploy at high speeds, It would not go into details which 109G model was in question.
I want to say the model in question has to be pointed as a G-5/U2/R2 or G-6/U3 - and probably some kind of field modification to allow high speed flaps, but again the document I was reading was in Russian and I question its source behind it as "fairy tale".
This is speculation because the versions I listed above are what was operating in the area at the time, my speculation of which versions he has to be questioning.
For anyone's interest - it was around Leningrad, didn't give any dates, or units or any information that would help me research this more, perhaps someone can look at the units in the area and gather more information then I can.
I went through roughly 1200 pages of PDF files trying to hunt this information down without any clue to high speed flaps being answered.
-
Actually, the person translated the charts and was just asking if he did it right. (which he did, it's impossible not to get it right if you can read German) :salute
I didn't see the thread in Training, thanks for pointing that out!
So we have the figure on 20 percent deployment, what's next?
What's next is you post a document showing the IAS speed for flap deployment as normal practice.
-
What's next is you post a document showing the IAS speed for flap deployment as normal practice.
I would post the link to the original chart but I had to X out an advertisement last time I left that site. (adware?)
In Joachim Marseille's debriefings he uses flaps at high speed ALL the time for deflection shooting. (for 1 of many examples of flap usage at hi spd)
It's easy to find lots of info showing that 109 flaps were officially allowed to be / were used at speeds of 280 mph and up,
I'm not able to post them here with the device I'm currently using :frown:
P47 manual (and cockpit placard ingame!) "Do not lower flaps above 195 mph", and Holy Moley, they can use em at 375+??
Our 109 / 190 flaps magically raise when you get above 190mph or so indicated! :uhoh
109 flap speed should definitely be raised to 20 degrees allowed at 280, Then LuftVhiners can stop assuming there is a double flap standard in place. :noid
I understand there is lots to be done in the game, but this could be a very, very easy fix!
Can someone with the knowhow post the 109/190 flap speed charts for me? (not the old manual info on landing onlyflap operation)
PM me for the site if needed. :salute
Ps, German manuals also say 109 can safely be flown with gear down up to 350kph, FWIW
-
no offense steele, as much as i'd like to see the 109 flap deployment speeds change...i'd like to see the references you have that claims 20 degrees of flap at 280mph ias "officially allowed". that chart you're talking about is only 1 page from a bigger document and it cannot be corroborated with any other documentation, nobody accepted it as legit the last time it was posted in a flap discussion, i doubt those opinions have changed.
-
AFAIK Marseille used the flaps to make low speed "bat turns" while his mates provided cover at higher speed. His kills were normally while flapping inside the enemy, letting it overshoot/pass, and at extremely short range.
This was not common practise, and would in his case mean that he vacumed up the kills from his buddies.
I asked Gunther Rall about this, and it was simply in his case a NO. Took too long to deploy he said.
Have heard the number 30 seconds from nil to full, and slower at high speeds due to it becoming heavier to turn the wheel.
Rall also commented on the slats, which he did not prefer in fast/rough maneuvers, since they threw him out of the aim.
-
Then LuftVhiners can stop assuming there is a double flap standard in place. :noid
I think you're the only one making this a double standard, especially with your previous comment about how you think the reason this isn't done is a HTC-wide conspiracy to keep the LW planes nerfed so they can't "compete" with US rides...
-
Page 11 of the 109G6 pilot's handbook says "Flug bei voll angestellten Landeklappen" ("Flight with fully employed landing flaps") 250 kph (155 mph).
On the same page: "Flug mit ausgefahrenem Fahrwerk" ("Flight with deployed landing gear") 350 kph (217 mph).
Full flaps on the 109G was 40 degrees. For take-off they were set to 20 degrees. Combat setting was up to 10 degrees.
I assume it is this document that is in question:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2274853909_9421e9bf85_o.jpg)
-
What is the source for 10 degrees combat flaps?
-
Steele, most flap deployment speeds in POHs and placards are for full flaps. The problem is finding documentation of partial flap deployment speeds. U.S. rides have it. A lot of other countries don't, as it was a technique approved by the U.S. as the war progressed. I think it was another of Lindbergh's contributions.
[edit] doesn't mean some enterprising 109 pilot never did it, just that there's no documentation that says it was approved.
-
What is the source for 10 degrees combat flaps?
Anecdotal mostly, and nothing I can source at the moment. From what I've read 10 degrees of flaps could be used at will, even up to the 109G's vmax of 750 kph. One pilot I've read about used to crank out one turn of the wheel when attacking B-17's from altitude to avoid over speeding when diving away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8
-
Just like the P-40 discussion I would assume the best bet to finding higher documented flap speeds for the 109 (or any other plane), is to look for max weight take off procedures.
-
Anecdotal mostly, and nothing I can source at the moment. From what I've read 10 degrees of flaps could be used at will, even up to the 109G's vmax of 750 kph. One pilot I've read about used to crank out one turn of the wheel when attacking B-17's from altitude to avoid over speeding when diving away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8
Cranking one turn of flaps for dive speed control, with 30 cranks equal to 40 degrees, makes no sense to me. What seems more likely is the pilot cranked in some stabilizer trim.
-
I have to agree there. Especially after reading in the other thread where there was a slip gear so turning the wheel did nothing above a certain speed due to excess pressure.
More than likely he was trimming the stabs so that if he compressed he could nose back up to slow down.
-
I have to agree there. Especially after reading in the other thread where there was a slip gear so turning the wheel did nothing above a certain speed due to excess pressure.
More than likely he was trimming the stabs so that if he compressed he could nose back up to slow down.
the finnish pilots referred to the trim wheel as the "flettner" and that's what most of them remember using...only 1 or 2 pilots talked about using flaps for dive recovery, which i chalk up to a misinterpretation. as for the slip gear on the flap wheel, there is zero documentation regarding such a device.
and, fls it's not 30 cranks, it's only 12-15 from zero to full deploy...been a while since i watched the video.
-
I remember an old discussion on the 109 flaps. It was 8 complete 360* rotations of the wheel from full up to full down. So yes it could take up to 30 'cranks' on the wheel from full up to full down.
-
I remember an old discussion on the 109 flaps. It was 8 complete 360* rotations of the wheel from full up to full down. So yes it could take up to 30 'cranks' on the wheel from full up to full down.
or 16 180 degree turns...the only way 30 would occur is if the pilot was only doing 1/4 turns of the wheel. conceivable if the pilot was panicking or unfamiliar with the aircraft.
-
or 16 180 degree turns...the only way 30 would occur is if the pilot was only doing 1/4 turns of the wheel. conceivable if the pilot was panicking or unfamiliar with the aircraft.
If you look at the video posted earlier in this thread the flap wheel is cranked, i.e. an arm uses a reciprocating motion to impart a rotation to the flap wheel, 30 times from full down to up. It appears to be 22 from full up to down.
I'm not seeing how the person in the video could have done more than quarter turns.
-
Page 11 of the 109G6 pilot's handbook says "Flug bei voll angestellten Landeklappen" ("Flight with fully employed landing flaps") 250 kph (155 mph).
On the same page: "Flug mit ausgefahrenem Fahrwerk" ("Flight with deployed landing gear") 350 kph (217 mph).
Full flaps on the 109G was 40 degrees. For take-off they were set to 20 degrees. Combat setting was up to 10 degrees.
I assume it is this document that is in question:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2274853909_9421e9bf85_o.jpg)
I believe that's the one! Good find! Like I said, 450 kph or 280 mph 20 degrees of flaps allowed! Ten degrees allowed way over 500kph! Now what?? :tI think you're the only one making this a double standard, especially with your previous comment about how you think the reason this isn't done is a HTC-wide conspiracy to keep the LW planes nerfed so they can't "compete" with US rides...
Conspiracy?? Sorry, no. I have however, seen a few threads where you point out oddities in Luft FM's, 152 thread ring a bell? :D I didn't disagree with you on many,if any, of them. (for the record) :salute
Now can you honestly say that you think 190 mph speed limit on flap usage for 109 is correct? (look at the chart supplied by PRED4TOR, for one thing) In fact, 10 degrees of combat flaps is allowed at 750kph!!
You can see where one could throw in a couple :noid's here & there, no?
-
I find it funny the comment about conspiracy... If there is anything wrong with any given plane in this game it is isolated to that plane's modeling and only that plane. It isn't a grander design to nerf one side over the other. A flaw in a Fw190 is simply that, a flaw in the Fw190. It doesn't hint at any ulterior motives.
On this topic, I would question the diagram posted. It could possibly be telling mechanical stresses, the tolerance the flaps have before being destroyed, rather than actual policy (i.e. "you may deploy flaps to turn tightly").
I think overall there was almost no use of "combat flaps" in Bf109s throughout the war. I've heard of some tales specifically citing a Bf109 with flaps down, but all were slow speeds, preventing a stall. Manual flaps is simply a bad idea for a modern fighter design. Of all the modern parts of the Bf108 and Bf109, I have no idea why they left this with such an old fashioned chain-and-gear system.
I think the fascination and drive to prove there WAS massively widespread use of the flaps on bf109s is only from flight sim fans in the past 10+ years or so (Ubi, AH, and other fans, not specific to any one game) to get more performance for their favored ride in a game, rather than to prove any historical usefulness. I'm not picking at anybody on these forums, I am talking overall and in general. I've noticed some similar sentiments on other forums, discussion forums, and generally there's an element (big or small) of flight sim gaming and definite bias towards LW planes in "game X" for the people advocating this particular thought. Again, just what I think. Take it or leave it.
-
if you use flaps in a 190 rather then the roll and the vert the you are already dead.
Use instantaneous turn, roll up and around, and cut the turn or extend. The moment you deploy flaps, except in the vert kill shot, you are blowing all your e, which is the same as death.
-
For a 190, yes. But my comment about a 190 was just an example, the thread in general is about the bf109 :)
-
I find it funny the comment about conspiracy... If there is anything wrong with any given plane in this game it is isolated to that plane's modeling and only that plane. It isn't a grander design to nerf one side over the other. A flaw in a Fw190 is simply that, a flaw in the Fw190. It doesn't hint at any ulterior motives.
On this topic, I would question the diagram posted. It could possibly be telling mechanical stresses, the tolerance the flaps have before being destroyed, rather than actual policy (i.e. "you may deploy flaps to turn tightly").
I think overall there was almost no use of "combat flaps" in Bf109s throughout the war. I've heard of some tales specifically citing a Bf109 with flaps down, but all were slow speeds, preventing a stall. Manual flaps is simply a bad idea for a modern fighter design. Of all the modern parts of the Bf108 and Bf109, I have no idea why they left this with such an old fashioned chain-and-gear system.
I think the fascination and drive to prove there WAS massively widespread use of the flaps on bf109s is only from flight sim fans in the past 10+ years or so (Ubi, AH, and other fans, not specific to any one game) to get more performance for their favored ride in a game, rather than to prove any historical usefulness. I'm not picking at anybody on these forums, I am talking overall and in general. I've noticed some similar sentiments on other forums, discussion forums, and generally there's an element (big or small) of flight sim gaming and definite bias towards LW planes in "game X" for the people advocating this particular thought. Again, just what I think. Take it or leave it.
I remember reading or watching a video somewhere were a luft pilot did claim they used one notch of flaps to improve their turn in the 109.
-
Using flaps in a dive:
"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. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Using flaps in combat:
"- 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. Source: Interview of Franz Stigler.
-
If you look at the video posted earlier in this thread the flap wheel is cranked, i.e. an arm uses a reciprocating motion to impart a rotation to the flap wheel, 30 times from full down to up. It appears to be 22 from full up to down.
I'm not seeing how the person in the video could have done more than quarter turns.
check the video again...22 turns of less than 180 degrees each, to full down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8)
and as much as want higher speed flap useage on the 109s, with a lack of historical documentation stating specific speeds for useage other than what the pilot manual shows, it's pointless to argue about it.
-
Frankly, I hate auto-flap retraction. I think they should stay out, and if you exceed the maximum speed then they should take damage.
-
check the video again...22 turns of less than 180 degrees each, to full down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8)
and as much as want higher speed flap useage on the 109s, with a lack of historical documentation stating specific speeds for useage other than what the pilot manual shows, it's pointless to argue about it.
Either way, a bit of a heavy job if the flap wheel is mechanically linked to the control surface. Trim tabs even, at very high speeds, get extremely stiff. I'd guess, that unless there's some sort of assist from pulleys or something, that the flap wheel would be very stiff at speed. How stiff? Who knows...
-
i don't think so stoney but then, without any time in a 109 cockpit we're all guessing...
flap and aileron linkage diagram from a 109k4 maintenance manual...
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/405468/AH%20Stuff/109k4%20flap.gif)
-
...It appears to be 22 from full up to down.
check the video again...22 turns of less than 180 degrees each, to full down.
Gyrene anything jump out at you from these two quotes?
-
Gyrene anything jump out at you from these two quotes?
:headscratch: :D oh yeah...i was looking at the number 30 again. don't do that... :lol
-
i don't think so stoney but then, without any time in a 109 cockpit we're all guessing...
flap and aileron linkage diagram from a 109k4 maintenance manual...
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/405468/AH%20Stuff/109k4%20flap.gif)
I'm sure that's not all at scale, but my point was merely that unless there was some sort of 3:1 ratio or something, it could be pretty stiff at speed. On my Grumman, the back 1/3rd of the right elevator worked as the pitch trim. If I was doing 150mph +, it was tons stiffer than when i was in the pattern at 85mph. In the pattern, it was pretty mushy, so that introducing three or four turns (each which amounted to maybe 1/5th the circumference of the wheel) was easy to do. At speed, it took considerable effort to make small changes with one hand. That was with basically a 1:1 ratio on the cable gears. The bellcranks don't assist any, so, I'd assume that what we see in that video, with the plane stationary, becomes a little more of a job at 150mph +. Again, all speculation. Be interesting if anyone with warbird experience (on planes with a flap extension wheel) could chime in.
-
Look at part no 12. It's a jackscrew.
-
I'm with you Stoney. Any manual system on a control surface/tab is going to increase in load as the speed goes up (with the exception of servo tabs). On any airplane I've flown (Cessna to T6 to Mustang to B17 or B24) as the speeds increased the trim tabs become "stiffer".
On the Cessna's I've flown that have manual flaps there is a huge increase in load as the speed goes up. In the Cessna you have a handle about 22-26 inches long that gives a fair amount of leverage...at the max flap speed of 100mph it takes a very firm pull to get the flaps past 20 degrees. (Even had the flap cable structure come apart one day ending up with asymetric flaps -- there is a lot of load on the system).
The wheel in the 109 is much shorter than the flap lever in a Cessna, the 109 pilot wouldn't have as much mechanical advantage (at the handle/wheel end) as the Cessna pilot (and the 109 is going to be at much higher speeds than the Cessna). If the 109 system was geared to provide some mechanical advantage it is going to slow the rate at which the flaps extend/retract.
The 109 should be modeled with the correct flap extension speed (whatever it is). The trick will be working out just how fast the flaps should extend or retract, then coding that into the FM.
I know a guy that knows a guy that flew 109Es and 163s. I'll ask him to ask him.
-
Look at part no 12. It's a jackscrew.
Oh yeah - there is plenty of mechanical advantage built in there. The flap extension speed can't be all that fast, but it damn sure will happen according to that diagram. You got enough advantage there to jack up a car.
With a system like that, the flaps are definitely coming down - and there is no auto-retraction. The point of failure looks to be #10 - I suppose if you had the flaps down with too much stress you would break that bit of linkage and have the flap hanging loose.
-
Look at part no 12. It's a jackscrew.
Whoops...got my push-rods crossed and didn't see that. Still, that would mean that a turn of the wheel would equal a smaller amount of flap movement, right?
-
Much smaller. It takes several complete revolutions (about 7?) of the wheel to make the flaps move 40 degrees. So that's 7x360/40= about 60:1 gear ratio.
-
Much smaller. It takes several complete revolutions (about 7?) of the wheel to make the flaps move 40 degrees. So that's 7x360/40= about 60:1 gear ratio.
Which is cool to know, and stuff, but all flaps in AH move at the same speed , (about)
and that makes it a lot less complicated. Same with notches versus infinite adjustability which a lot of planes had .
The 109 should be able to deploy 20 degrees of flap at 280 mph, and 10 degrees of flap up to almost 400, (similar to Jug and Pony)
If this is correctied, 109 will not suffer as much turn loss at about 400 mph (when compressability starts) because we will be able to deploy 10 degrees flap.
This may scare Pony and Jug drivers, but, whatcha gonna do? :cool:
-
The 109 should be able to deploy 20 degrees of flap at 280 mph, and 10 degrees of flap up to almost 400, (similar to Jug and Pony)
And when you say "should", you're source is???
-
...If this is correctied, 109 will not suffer as much turn loss at about 400 mph (when compressability starts) because we will be able to deploy 10 degrees flap.
...
What turn loss? What do you think 10 degrees of flaps at 400 will do for you?
-
The 109 should be able to deploy 20 degrees of flap at 280 mph, and 10 degrees of flap up to almost 400, (similar to Jug and Pony)
If this is correctied, 109 will not suffer as much turn loss at about 400 mph (when compressability starts) because we will be able to deploy 10 degrees flap.
This may scare Pony and Jug drivers, but, whatcha gonna do? :cool:
whoa steele, where are you getting that information? don't just go by that chart (allowable speed according to flap deflection) without the rest of the document, i already know what will happen because it's been presented as evidence before.
-
If a 109 is flying at 400mph and you want to lower flaps, you're doing it wrong. I'm sorry. It won't "scare" anything, other than how it already does. You're acting like the plane is horrifically hobbled as-is in Aces High, Steele, and that's just not the case.
-
Bit of a tangent but I now understand why some in our community our miffed at pilots who have the trim tab programmed to a button on their joy stick. In real life you would have to stop what you are doing and turn a wheel a few times to gain the added turning benefit of the trim tabs. In this game, push a button. It is a form of "cheating" I suppose. All making sense to me now.
I swear, it's like reading a bunch of engineers. Good stuff.
Boo
-
It was common among experienced 109 pilots to trim the plane tail-heavy (nose-light) before combat to make pulling G's at high speed easier. However, it meant flying with a constant forward pressure on the stick to keep level flight.
-
PR3D4TOR:
I asked Gunther Rall about both the flaps and the slats.
Slats: Not preferred in combat, since they would throw you off your aim without a warning in rough turns,- the effect being that the outboard wing would drop. However necessary, for without them the landing speed would have been unacceptably high.
Flaps: Effective for landing, but too slow to deploy in combat.
I did ask him about this more than once, and he was very clear about this.
He was also very happy with the systems in the U.S. fighters. Deploy one quart flaps with a flick of a switch.
-
I think we've established that the flaps were slow to deploy, but they were used in combat by both Luftwaffe and FiAF pilots. There were no doctrines to use them. The Luftwaffe had a very individualist approach to how they practiced their art. They didn't even have checklists for normal procedures like take off and landing, which may have been a significant factor in their losses to accidents.
-
Rall vs Predator
its a close call but ... hmmmm ... I'm going to believe Gunther :)
-
... and call Franz Stigler a liar in the process?
-
Personally, in matters of air combat I'd take Ralls word over Stieglers anytime.
Just saying.
-
... and call Franz Stigler a liar in the process?
whichever way you look at it, you can't base the in game flight modelling on a bunch of often contradictory anecdotal evidence *shrug*
-
That's not what's in question here. Rall said he didn't like the slats and didn't use flaps in combat. Stigler said he did like the slats and that other pilots he knew liked them and used flaps in combat. These two statements are not mutually exclusive. They only show that pilots are individuals with different preferences and likes.
-
Personally, in matters of air combat I'd take Ralls word over Stieglers anytime.
Just saying.
granted stigler was a drunkard but how about the words of 4 finnish aces and another german ace with 100+ victories?
-
Calling Stigler a drunkard is a bit disrespectful considering his noble and heroic actions in the air. However there are significant differences between the service histories of Rall and Stigler which may have influenced their choice of tactics.
After France and the Battle of Britain Rall served on the Russian front, flying against Soviet aircraft at low to medium altitudes. Only in the summer of 1944 did Rall engage the western allies over Germany and shortly thereafter he was wounded and hospitalized; afterwards he became an instructor.
Stigler on the other hand served his entire career in Africa and in defense of the Reich in Austria and Germany with JG27. Later he joined the famous JV44 “Der Galland Zirkus” flying 262's. He was a personal friend of Adolf Galland, the only person he would lend his "lucky white 3" 262. That's until Leutnant Pirchhan persuaded Stigler to let him fly “lucky White 3”. Soon after taking off Pirchhan crashed north of the airfield, totally destroying the aircraft and was fatally wounded. He died a few hours later in a farmer’s field while being comforted by Stigler. A day before, Galland himself was wounded and passed command of JV44 to the indomitable Oberstleutnant Heinz Bär.
Franz Stigler survived the war having flown over 500 combat missions, was shot down 17 times, captured once briefly and had 28 confirmed victories to his credit, including 11 four-engine bombers, plus over 30 other “probables”. His decorations include the Iron Cross 2nd Class, the Iron Cross 1st Class, and the German Cross in Gold. The great conflict ended before he could receive the “Knights Cross” he had been nominated for.
And then there's the incident with Charlie Brown...
(http://www.militaryartgallery.com/images_3_b/b-A-Higher-Call.jpg)
-
What turn loss? What do you think 10 degrees of flaps at 400 will do for you?
Yes this is what I'd,at around 220 like to know! anything above corner speed and your G limited,meaning 6 G's and you blackout. The corner speed on the 109's is in the 220 to 240 range,I dont have the exact figgure on hand but I think most understand.
So having flaps that you can deploy above corner speed are of no use,ok you can blackout quicker I guess.
Now if you really want to help the luft planes,find out the deployment speeds for the 190's,at around 220 mph you can only pull about 2.5 G's before the wing stalls.
:salute
-
Angels...
(http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f15strikeeagle/046_1.jpg)
Using combat flaps at high speed allows for a tighter turn at the same G loading by bleeding E faster.
-
I have no idea about the deployment speed of flaps on the 109, but in an engineering sense, it would seem that the allowable speed for deployment of 10 deg would be higher than speed for deployment of full.
Also, with regard to use of flaps, you can find US pilots who never used flaps in combat for, say, the F4U and those that did use them in combat. It was much more common for pilots not to use flaps in combat, regardless of the plane, because much more of the combat in WWII was boom and zoom than it was stallfighting.
-
Rall was actually very happy with the flaps on the U.S. aircraft he tested. To be able to drop a notch with just flicking a switch. Same with the boosted ailerons of the p-38 which he also flew.
His words on the 109 flaps was that there was little time to work them in fast combat, and therefore they were generally not used.
On the slots, he claimed they were necessary because otherwise the landing speed would have been unacceptably high.
I have tested a small plane with slots, and I too tight tuns. It was funny, it jinked the nose a bit when they deployed.
-
Personally, in matters of air combat I'd take Ralls word over Stieglers anytime.
Just saying.
Why do you think either one is wrong or liar?
There are as many preference to flying and fighting as there are pilots. Some ME 109 pilots used flaps, some didn't. Some were able to use the advantage of slats in dogfight, some did not. Some liked to fly their 109 with 3 cannons, some didnt.
-
Some preferred a a low turning combat with a high speed cover, and some did not. Some preferred engaging at a superior speed and make a quick kill, such as Rall, who was a superb shot, but at a very high speed, dropping flaps is slower, the time for it will also be less, and slat reaction much more violent. Which is my point. It needs a special condition to release a hand for cranking a wheel, - generally a condition not preferred by 109 tacticians
-
Some preferred a a low turning combat with a high speed cover, and some did not. Some preferred engaging at a superior speed and make a quick kill, such as Rall, who was a superb shot, but at a very high speed, dropping flaps is slower, the time for it will also be less, and slat reaction much more violent. Which is my point. It needs a special condition to release a hand for cranking a wheel, - generally a condition not preferred by 109 tacticians
And Marseilles, who was an even better shot, and always used flaps at high speeds for deflection shootingwhichever way you look at it, you can't base the in game flight modelling on a bunch of often contradictory anecdotal evidence *shrug*
True, one should go by charts, such as the ones posted a few pages back :aok
-
(http://www.militaryartgallery.com/images_3_b/b-A-Higher-Call.jpg)
that is an awesome pic :aok
-
(thinking out loud) In the P47s u can put 1 notch of flap out at what 330-300mph? are there any cases/documentation in which they actually did in combat situations and were the flaps designed to come out that fast? What i am getting at, is couldnt the 109s flaps work in the same mannor even though they might not have been designed to.
this probably doesnt make sense to most, i couldnt think of a way to word it better. (probably shouldnt have typed it) sooo, let the bashing begin on that note.
-
that is an awesome pic :aok
Yes isn't it? I love the story behind it and how the two pilots found each other after the war and became like brothers.
-
Steele, Marseilles dropped speed and flaps for bat turning inside faster aircraft and shooting them at very close range.
Rall considered Marseille the best shot of WW2, while the German Fliegergemeinshaft consider Rall as the best one of the Luftwaffe, since he did hard deflection shots at very high speeds, and sometimes at quite some range.
My source, - Rall, eye to eye while sharing a meal of salmon bread, and then Willy Göbel (Ret. Col.) of the German Fliegergemeinschaft while looking through his book archive.
Life is sometimes wonderful ;)
Anyway, if anyone has more on Marseille, I am always curious.