Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: -error on November 26, 2013, 03:19:11 PM
-
Hello.
Recently I learned a strange thing - P-40 pilots were forbidden to use flaps with guns switch turned on. http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3133 page 23 paragraph d.
So they didn't? And what about other plane's pilots? F.e. in interview of Ivan Ivanovich Kozhemyako, hero of 107 GIAP, he sayed that they used flaps when fighting bombers(?) but never with fighters.
What do you know or think?
-
I know that the F4U and F6F both had flaps that were controlled by springs, so if set "down" (no more than two notches, though), they would blow back up above a certain airspeed, and drop again automatically as airspeed decreased, and I think there's been stories posted where Corsair and Hellcat pilots utilized this (and I keep arguing to add this functionality). The N1K2 also had its fully automated flaps.
The P-51 and P-47s also had flaps with a "maneuver" setting.
The problem is that it wouldn't have been possible to work flaps the way we can in the game with our HOTAS controls. Look at the Corsair's cockpit, and it's physically impossible to fly the plane, manage the throttle AND work the flaps up and down all at once.
-
With the exception of a few planes that had "combat flaps", I would think that most combat took place well above the speeds for flap deployment. Most air to air combat involved a bounce and an escape,you just didn't see the prolonged turn fights that we have in AH.
Most combat was hit and run type of engagements and likely the plane shot down nevr even saw the enemy who shot him. I'm not saying there were no turn fights but I don't think many evolved into a tight turn fight at 100 ft above the ground like we see in AH.
YMMV.
:salute
-
Saxman, pilots didn't glue their left hands to the throttle. Some of these aircraft needed a lot of work in the cockpit adjusting trim, prop, mixture etc., especially in Russian fighters. So the pilot's left hand would be quite busy in a fight. Ze Germans had it the easiest in their highly automated 109/190s.
-
Try this link to see encounter reports talking about flap usage in the P-51. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html) You'll have to scroll down the page a ways.
Gscholtz, why would you need to adjust the mixture or prop once in a fight? You would already have it in auto-rich or rich for max power, prop would be high RPM for max power, no need to mess with them until the fights over.
Saxman makes a good point about the advantage our HOTAS systems give us in a fight. In some cases it might not be possible to use flaps or trim ie; Mustang flap control is low left side of seat at back of left side console...if you're turned to the right watching the bogey it would be tuff to reach the flap handle.
-
My favorite example of flaps use. A P38 driver.
Lt. Royal Madden 370th FG, July 31, 1944
“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.
We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.
Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”
-
Colombo, not all allied rides had automatic mixture controls, and the workload in Russian aircraft was tremendous. When you engage WEP it's just a push of the button in AH, but in real life it was in many cases a much more complicated task of setting mixture and RPM controls, often according to altitude as well. Some early war fighters didn't even have constant speed props or automatic cooling systems. The 109 and 190 were special however, as they were completely HOTAS except for trim in the 109. The 190 was unique in that it didn't need any change of trim during combat maneuvers, even in dives.
Here a Yak-9 cockpit. Look at that throttle quadrant.
(http://walkarounds.airforce.ru/avia/rus/yak/yak-9/ds_yak-9_53.jpg)
Fw 190 for comparison. Single lever regulating throttle, RPM and mixture via an electro-mechanical computer. Also electric push-button controls for flaps and trim located nearby.
(http://www.airventure.de/hahnweide09/1/Hahnweide09_DG_FW190_3.jpg)
As for using flaps in combat:
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.
-
The problem is that it wouldn't have been possible to work flaps the way we can in the game with our HOTAS controls. Look at the Corsair's cockpit, and it's physically impossible to fly the plane, manage the throttle AND work the flaps up and down all at once.
It is most definitely an advantage that we enjoy with our HOTAS controllers. I also have a CH Virtual Pilot Pro and a Throttle Quadrant that once in a blue moon hook up to fly the P-38 and on the quadrant I have one of the levers programmed for flaps. It is much more cumbersome using the flaps with this controller configuration, especially in a turn fight when I'm trying to gain a lead on the bandit than it is with my regular CH HOTAS setup.
ack-ack
-
It is too bad some of this cant be modeled in to the planes. I know there is a line between game play and realism that needs to be drawn, but in certain situations it would be nice for certain aircraft to have benefits of their advanced engineering modeled.
-
Don't forget that for a pilot, speed is life. And since there is no easy re-up in a new plane in a real war... I expect that pilots would avoid flap speeds like the plague whenever possible.
We don't really die here, so we take all kinds of really foolish chances.
-
Colombo, not all allied rides had automatic mixture controls, and the workload in Russian aircraft was tremendous. When you engage WEP it's just a push of the button in AH, but in real life it was in many cases a much more complicated task of setting mixture and RPM controls, often according to altitude as well. Some early war fighters didn't even have constant speed props or automatic cooling systems. The 109 and 190 were special however, as they were completely HOTAS except for trim in the 109. The 190 was unique in that it didn't need any change of trim during combat maneuvers, even in dives.
I can't think of anything that wouldn't have been either a pressure carb, I really don't think mixture is going to be a problem..especially on the high performance engines being used in any of the WWII fighters. As for a need to adjust mixture or prop to engage WEP...you would already have the prop and mixture set for high power so there would be no need to adjust either, just push the throttle up and engage any injection system if used/needed.
Mustang pretty much the same way regarding trim, flew it from 80ias to 400ias without adjusting trim...not saying there wasn't some stick force.
Here a Yak-9 cockpit. Look at that throttle quadrant.
Yep, it has a throttle, all you need once set for the fight.
-
Don't forget that for a pilot, speed is life. And since there is no easy re-up in a new plane in a real war... I expect that pilots would avoid flap speeds like the plague whenever possible.
We don't really die here, so we take all kinds of really foolish chances.
One would think but read those Mustang encounter reports. Guys report using "full flaps" "turning with 109 at 130ias" etc, etc. Pretty interesting reading from the guys there WERE there, DOING that.
-
I can't think of anything that wouldn't have been either a pressure carb, I really don't think mixture is going to be a problem..especially on the high performance engines being used in any of the WWII fighters. As for a need to adjust mixture or prop to engage WEP...you would already have the prop and mixture set for high power so there would be no need to adjust either, just push the throttle up and engage any injection system if used/needed.
Mustang pretty much the same way regarding trim, flew it from 80ias to 400ias without adjusting trim...not saying there wasn't some stick force.
Yep, it has a throttle, all you need once set for the fight.
In a Pony you'd have to change RPM to 3000 for WEP, and back to 2700 for MIL. In the Yak you'd in addition have to manually adjust radiator flaps, oil cooler flaps, supercharger speeds, and mixture. Virtually the only automation was a constant speed prop.
-
In a Pony you'd have to change RPM to 3000 for WEP, and back to 2700 for MIL. In the Yak you'd in addition have to manually adjust radiator flaps, oil cooler flaps, supercharger speeds, and mixture. Virtually the only automation was a constant speed prop.
Military power is also 3000 RPM. You're probably thinking of max continuous power.
-
I'd have to dig a bit but some of may know the P-51 story of round and round the slag pile, slowing more and more,, I believe two notches of flaps ended up keeping the pony stable for the kill
-
I have read or heard first-hand accounts of using flaps in combat for P-51's (vs. LW planes), P-38's (vs. LW planes and in one mock dogfight of a P-38 vs. a Spit 14), and F4U's (vs. Zeros of all things). Those are the ones that I remember solidly. I have vague recollections of reading first-hand accounts of using flaps in combat for F6F's and P-47's.
-
Military power is also 3000 RPM. You're probably thinking of max continuous power.
You're right. My bad. :)
-
Yes one can find various crazy reports of using flaps, gears, bomb bay doors etc. in combat. Of course, the pilot always attributes his success to the wild card it pulled. Even, and especially if that move was forbidden by his commanders he'd emphasize it as it gave him more prestige.
When I read these, I can't help but thinking about pilots who lost combat. I have never read a report of a pilot that lost combat and died. This is very odd because statistics tell us that some pilots were shot down, but somehow their story never appears in the after action reports. The only logical conclusion is that in order to survive WWII air combat, it was absolutely vital that you fill an after action report.
Now seriously (for those that did not get it):
Same as in AH, the fact that the pilot pulled out his flaps does not mean that he won the fight just because of that, or that it even helped one bit. What we are missing are all the anecdotes of pilots who pulled these stunts and were killed inspite of it - or because of it. It always bring a smile to my face when I see a F4U in a furball with his flaps and gears out - I quickly switch target and blast him, then wait to see him complain in ch200 or PM how I am a no skill picker, which turn my smile into a big laugh. F4U is just an example because people talk so much about flaps and gear usage like they are some magic tricks, the basic premise applies to all planes.
I remember reading that in one RAF Mustang squadron the CO forbade the use of flaps in combat. He feared that pilots will lose fights to stalls or being picked and that the false confidence that the flap magic will encourage them to enter that kind of situations. Of course the pilot telling the story emphasized that point because he did just that and entered a prolonged low alt circle fight vs a 109. Maybe he won because of the little extra turn he got out of the flaps, but was he not picked by another 109 because he had his flaps out? Some people do dumb things and get away with it.
-
My favorite example of flaps use. A P38 driver.
Lt. Royal Madden 370th FG, July 31, 1944
“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.
We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.
Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”
It sounds to me like he only notes maneuvering flaps, and the 60 degrees is the deflection angle at which he fired.
-
It sounds to me like he only notes maneuvering flaps, and the 60 degrees is the deflection angle at which he fired.
Maneuvering flaps are the flaps. He probably didn't fully extend them, but that is almost always a bad idea in AH too.
-
P-38's have a "maneuvering" flaps setting which is approximately half extended.
-
It always bring a smile to my face when I see a F4U in a furball with his flaps and gears out -
Not a great move with gear out in combat.
In the F4f it took 27 turns on a hand crank to raise your gear. Think it was that way on a lot of plane.
-
The Corsair's gear were powered, but their only purpose in combat was as dive brakes. You can find images of Corsairs on dive-bombing runs or rocket attacks with their gear extended. They wouldn't have been used in air-to-air combat, for all the reasons it's a bad idea in Aces High.
-
Maneuvering flaps are the flaps. He probably didn't fully extend them, but that is almost always a bad idea in AH too.
Yes, it just sounded like the account was being put forward as a historic justification for the type of low altitude fully deployed flap, gear, bomb bay, low energy "ACM" we so often see in AH. I so I wanted to point out that the 60' degree comment sounded more like the deflection angle than a flap setting to me, and therefore was in no way a historic justification for the usage we so often see in the video games. Does the p38 flap even deploy to 60 degrees?
Just wanted to clarify my response.
-
What we are missing are all the anecdotes of pilots who pulled these stunts and were killed inspite of it - or because of it.
That's a "partially" valid argument...
But, in order for it to be used legitimately in this argument we'd of course need to realize that we're also missing all of the anecdotes of pilots who didn't pull these "stunts" and were then killed in spite of that - or because of that.
Were more pilots killed as a result of using flaps, or as a result of failing to use them?
-
Well, flaps were certainly seen as a combat tool by some, hence American and Japanese "combat" settings for flaps and the automatic flaps on the N1K2-J.
-
That's a "partially" valid argument...
But, in order for it to be used legitimately in this argument we'd of course need to realize that we're also missing all of the anecdotes of pilots who didn't pull these "stunts" and were then killed in spite of that - or because of that.
Were more pilots killed as a result of using flaps, or as a result of failing to use them?
How about pilots that never used their flaps but still ended up as triple aces or more and never got shot down?
The mere use of the flaps indicates either to a desperate situation or someone deliberately putting himself into a dangerous situation that is likely to get him killed.
If a pilot believed that flashing the nav lights makes him turn better he will use it and attributes his success to the nav lights, providing he was lucky to survive a slow turn fight in a fur ball. Human psychology is like that.
-
The mere use of the flaps indicates either to a desperate situation or someone deliberately putting himself into a dangerous situation that is likely to get him killed.
Those are two possible reasons for the use of flaps.
A third reason (in the case of combat flaps) would be using the tool (in this case, the airplane) in the manner it was designed to perform.
-
Those are two possible reasons for the use of flaps.
A third reason (in the case of combat flaps) would be using the tool (in this case, the airplane) in the manner it was designed to perform.
If this means the ~10 degree setting some planes had then I agree.
-
If this means the ~10 degree setting some planes had then I agree.
I believe that for P-38s, Ki-43s, Ki-44s, Ki-84s and J2Ms the initial setting was a combat setting. I am not sure if the N1K2-J's automatic combat flaps would deploy beyond 10 degree in heavy maneuvering or not.
-
I believe that for P-38s, Ki-43s, Ki-44s, Ki-84s and J2Ms the initial setting was a combat setting. I am not sure if the N1K2-J's automatic combat flaps would deploy beyond 10 degree in heavy maneuvering or not.
Not sure about other planes, but as mentioned before, the Corsairs and Hellcats could set up to two notches of flaps (I think technically the blow-back worked on all flap settings, but beyond two notches there was a risk of the flaps jamming). I think each notch was 10 degrees, so these two at least could have up to 20 degrees.
Really wish HTC would allow model that. The German planes already have their leading edge slats so the mechanics for auto-deploying surfaces like these are already in place, so why not give the N1K2 it's automatic flaps, and the Corsairs/Hellcats their spring flaps.
-
Some planes suffer much less drag/e-reduction with flaps out than they should when you look at the plane in person and see the size and angles of deployed flaps.
-
Some planes suffer much less drag/e-reduction with flaps out than they should when you look at the plane in person and see the size and angles of deployed flaps.
That's cool that you can tell the actual amount of drag by just looking at it sitting on the ground. Do us all a favor and tell us what the drag currently is in AH and what it should be in order to be correct. Thanks.
-
Some planes suffer much less drag/e-reduction with flaps out than they should when you look at the plane in person and see the size and angles of deployed flaps.
I'm sure you have the data to back up your claims or is it like most stuff you post, nothing but fluff?
ack-ack
-
My point is that there are some minute adjustments that could be made in game to closer mimic the behavior of flaps and slats.
Aces High planes with slats seem to come to a dead stop when they come up but putting out barn door sized flaps have less of an effect on slowing the plane.
Slats were used because they induce less drag........though the camber change of the wing does allow higher angle of attack which increases drag.
My beef is that the slats have more drag than flaps.......maybe not as much as full landing flaps at maximum angle but landing flaps were never designed for anything but landing.
I've noticed, ackack, that you are absent from most threads discussing the flight characteristics of real life airplane operations and incidents which probably means you haven't the experience necessary.
What made you suddenly decide you had the experience to discuss how real life planes fly VS aces high planes?
-
Icepac you seem to be confusing your impressions with actual data. If you have useful information please post it. If you have a question about drag from flaps and slats, just ask.
-
You can't tell just by flying around and your feel for things that this or that is out of whack. You'd have to measure it first.
Then you have to have some info from the real-life plane (or at least from some comparable real-life tests) that shows what it should be.
Without these two things (measure it in game and know what it should be), there will be skepticism of claims that this or that is not in line with how it should be.
-
I guess that means nobody on this thread should be discussing the subject of the title.
-
It's easy to mislead yourself when you consider parts of aircraft in isolation instead of thinking about how they work together.
-
How often did pilots boast about their successes in these reports, ie inflate them more than what really happened? (ie maybe they didn't use flaps but disagreed with the directive so they claimed they did to spite the directive, etc...)
Its well known that all sides had inflated kill numbers which historians later rectified when access to records on both sides were available.
-
I've noticed, ackack, that you are absent from most threads discussing the flight characteristics of real life airplane operations and incidents which probably means you haven't the experience necessary.
What made you suddenly decide you had the experience to discuss how real life planes fly VS aces high planes?
I don't need to be a real life pilot to know when someone is talking nothing but BS...
ack-ack
-
I guess that means nobody on this thread should be discussing the subject of the title.
There is a difference between discussing historical accounts of flaps usage in real combat (for a topic titled "flaps usage in real combat") and statements like "flaps have too little drag in AH".
I don't think it's inappropriate to give an opinion like "flaps have too little drag in AH" and love to discuss such things on the boards, but when you don't give any backup other than your own feeling on the matter, don't be annoyed or surprised when other people say things like "says you". ;)
-
I listen to my father re his experiences and note that many a pilot believed this or that about how is aircraft flew best.
Much of these opinions originated more from the Officers Mess than learning in combat, where there was no real opportunity for trial and error learning.
I would agree with Angus that required pilot input on VVS craft was higher than contemporaries in the LW. In practice I believe that VVS aircraft were flown with less efficiency when pilots were subject to the heat of battle..... I think the question here is to what degree?
As the AH Yaks have fully rated engines there is no real consideration for WEP adjustment outside of normal rpm, mixture and throttle control. What AH lacks is the mixture element or any consequential modelling that gives nodding recognition that a pilot had to consider this.
Lavochkins had WEP settings that were achieved not only thru increased engine speeds but also thru drag reduction with respect to the engine cooling vanes.
Flight trim is already a manual function in AH
It would seem appropriate that there be some small "lag" in response to player inputs that represents the degree of cockpit automation. I suspect that this would in practice be very small as left hand stuff would have become very automatic over the period of training be it ever so short.
-
Hello.
Recently I learned a strange thing - P-40 pilots were forbidden to use flaps with guns switch turned on. http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3133 page 23 paragraph d.
So they didn't? And what about other plane's pilots? F.e. in interview of Ivan Ivanovich Kozhemyako, hero of 107 GIAP, he sayed that they used flaps when fighting bombers(?) but never with fighters.
What do you know or think?
The warning in the handbook seems like a safety issue. Combat procedures for a P-40 could be a little different in this case, but I am not shure. I think I have seen axis guncam footage in youtube where allied fighters have their flaps deployed during the dogfight. Don`t remember what footage exactly.
-
There are distinctly two different "schools of thought" concerning the historicity of micro-management of internal gadgetry during actual combat, in comparison with our tendencies as simulation gamers during simulated combat. I believe both sides have been adequately represented by some very good veteran players who posted before me, and therefore I probably need not repeat any of them.
I'll just say I agree with bozon. The interpretation of historical facts and anecdotes seem to suggest that while the use of "exotic tricks and maneuevers" did exist in the field, all other facts and statistics in regards to the gross majority -- the average and everyday combat pilots of those days -- would suggest that ignoring the manual/protocol/S.O.P. would have been considered as a very bad idea, which pilots would in most cases would actively tried to avoid -- assuming that such thought would even cross the mind in the first place during the confusion and terror of deadly combat.
It is also important to recognize anecdotes for what they are -- they are first-hand experiences and citations which works best in delivering the feelings and emotions of combatants to the listeners and readers. However, they are also notoriously inaccurate, most often embellished, exaggerated, straight-off bragging which in many cases cannot be cross-checked against historical data -- a modern-day "dime novel", or "wild-west story", if you will.
Ofcourse, I am not saying the pilots lied in their testamonies. I am sure that the pilots themselves were in everyway earnest in their testimonies, and they tell stories of how combat went down in the way they remember it. I'm sure they truly believe in everything they say, because they really do remember everything happening that way. However, it is a known fact that memory is a very, very unreliable thing.
I do believe that a handful few group of pilots -- whether they be experienced and adept, or just plain cocky and crazy with balls of steel -- would no doubt try their hand in fidgeting with all the set levers and buttons inside the cockpit when they had the chance, but considering the fact that rookie pilots with less than average 5 mission/sorties would likely make habitual mistakes of pushing the wrong button or pulling on the wrong lever, I'd wager that such practice was fairly uncommon and most pilots would adamantly try stick to rules and regulations. If anything, in times of critical danger, (contrary to popular belief) most people really can't think "outside the box" and would not be able to try anything crazy in the first place.
-
If anything, in times of critical danger, (contrary to popular belief) most people really can't think "outside the box" and would not be able to try anything crazy in the first place.
And in WWII "most people" like that became a little swastika painted on the side of a fuselage, or a line on a rudder.
(http://fly.historicwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/HighFlight-Marseille6.jpg)
“You’ve got to be able to shoot from any position. From left or right turns, out of a roll, on your back, whenever… a series of unpredictable movements and actions, never the same, always stemming from the situation at hand. Only then can you plunge into the middle of an enemy swarm and blow it up from the inside.”
- Hans-Joachim Marseille
-
And after all that, poor Hans smashed into his rudder, not in battle.
-
After another 100+ victories, yes...
Sometimes fate is an ironic SOB.
-
Didn't he claim 17 kills in a single day when the RAF lost fewer aircraft than that?
-
Yes, it just sounded like the account was being put forward as a historic justification for the type of low altitude fully deployed flap, gear, bomb bay, low energy "ACM" we so often see in AH. I so I wanted to point out that the 60' degree comment sounded more like the deflection angle than a flap setting to me, and therefore was in no way a historic justification for the usage we so often see in the video games. Does the p38 flap even deploy to 60 degrees?
Just wanted to clarify my response.
How many different combat reports would be enough to support the use of flaps. Understand the guy I quoted and many others were flying ground attack and if they ran into enemy aircraft they were being bounced. They were not in an adventagous position so using everything they could was part of surviving that.
Again, we have this same discussion every year or two. Use the search function. Read the 5th Fighter Command book put together during the war where the vet 5th AF pilots experience was gathered to pass on to the newbies. More than one talks about being in a situation where you do anything to lose the guy on your six, including dropping flaps.
Did Spitfire pilots use flaps? Nope. Two position flaps didn't do the trick. But were there birds that did? Absolutely. Combat flaps are still flaps, unless somehow that doesn't count now. Was it an offensive move? No. But if you were in a turning fight and trying to get inside the other guy, if you had combat flaps, they'd get used. Track down some of the Mustang driver combat reports posted over the years. Why would they make it up?
-
More from the 38 drivers of the 370th FG
Dan/CorkyJr
Lt.Richard Berry 370th Combat report June 14, 1944
“I was leading Yellow flight and we had completed our mission and were returning home at 3000 feet. We had lost our flight leader in clouds and haze after an identification pass at friendly A/C. We had just gone on instruments and were about to enter the overcast when we were bounced from 4 O’Clock by four Me 109s which had just broken out of the overcast. Yellow 2 called for me to break right into the E/A. The entire flight broke and I found myself after a half-turn of a Lufberry, turning inside the lead E/A. I fired a four second burst from 200 yards at approximately 20 degrees deflection and observed strikes on the engine. The E/A started to smoke and leveled off. I fell into trail behind him and fired a 6-second burst at 0 Degrees deflection and again observed strikes, this time on the fuselage and right wing root. Fire broke out and enveloped the entire right wing root as the E/A disappeared into cloud. I did not follow him because I was low on fuel. The other E/A disappeared into the clouds after the initial break. We all used our maneuver flaps and had no difficulty in out turning the E/A. I saw no one bail out from the plane I hit and in my opinion the pilot was hit and at least wounded on my first burst because he leveled off and flew at a very slight climb.”
Captain Paul Sabo, 370th FG July 31, 1944
“I was leading Blue Flight circling the target area giving Red Flight Top Cover as they were dive bombing the target. Circling above us at about 12,000 feet were 12 Me 109s. I kept watching them; then 8 of them half rolled and got behind my flight. I gave the order to jettison our bombs and break. I dropped flaps and started in a tight Lufberry. When I had completed one turn I was alone, and at that time I saw an Me 109 in a vertical turn coming in front of me so I started firing at him at a 90 degree deflection shot. He flew right into the pattern and I saw strikes on him from nose to tail. The plane seemed to shudder and slow down. I was about 200 yards when I started to fire. The Me 109 then made a 90 degree turn to the left and started to climb as if he was going to loop. I followed him, closing to about 100 yards, fired and saw strikes all over his canopy, fuselage and tail surfaces. As he was about at the top of his loop and almost on his back, I saw what looked like his canopy come off, as the plane seemed to hang there. It looked like I had wounded the pilot during the first 90 degree deflection shot and he was rolling it over on his back to jettison his canopy and bail out.
About that time I looked in my rear view mirror and saw an Me 109 on my tail. I dropped flaps and turned into him. He half rolled and went down. As I rolled out I saw an Me 109 coming down in front of me. I opened up again and gave him a 90-degree deflection shot. He ran into my pattern and I saw strikes all over the plane. I followed him and kept firing from directly behind him, seeing strikes on his tail surfaces. Then he proceeded to go down in a wild dive from about 5000 feet. I looked back in my mirror again, because all during this time I was still alone. My flight had left me. I saw another Me 109 coming in on my tail. I dropped flaps, leveled out and turned into him. He automatically went into a steep climb and I lost him in the sun. When I looked I saw no more enemy and called my Flight to join me.”
-
Search, then cut and paste saves me typing this again
Another 38 driver
Quoting Lt. Robert Blandin
"The 109 was in front of me now and still in a pretty steep climb. I had him in range and was firing. I could see my tracers looping behind his tail but I didn't have enough speed to pull the lead I needed to hit him. To get it, I cracked some combat flaps which gave me added lift and let me bring the nose up without stalling. The next time I fired I hit him aft of the cockpit...."
-
Yep, we do this discussion all the time. Another one I typed in the past regarding a 4th FG P51 pilot combat report.
Search is working well.
A quote from a combat report of 4th FG pilot Willard Millikan in his combat report of April 22,1944, flying a P51B:
"The Hun kept up his attack and turned steeply to come in on my number 4's tail, so I pushed everything forward and dropped flaps to turn inside him. Through the early stages of the turn he outturned me, but I pulled up and corkscrewed inside him and laid off a deflection shot which hit him hard enough to cause him to flick out of his turn. He started to split-ess but my shots forced him to turn back the other way. Immediately I managed to get a few strikes and he began to skid and slow up and prepare to bale out. I was closing very rapidly so I dropped full flaps and throttled back completely....."
-
Didn't he claim 17 kills in a single day when the RAF lost fewer aircraft than that?
Yeah, but IIRC that was a case of faulty research. Marseilles flew three sorties that day, and most of his adversaries were not RAF. Specifically No. 1, 2 and 5 Squadron SAAF, No. 92, 213 and 238 Squadron RAF, and 57th Fighter Group USAAF. Several of Marseille's victories that day have been identified: Lieutenant Bailey (SAAF), Major P. R. C. Metelerkamp (SAAF), Flying Officer I. W. Matthews (RAF), Pilot Officer Bradley-Smith (RAF), Sergeant A. Garrod (RAF), Lieutenant Stearns (USAAF), Lieutenant Morrison (USAAF), Lieutenant W. L. O. Moon (USAAF), and Lieutenant G. B. Jack (USAAF). Source: The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace Who Dominated the WWII Skies by Walter J. Boyne, Albert H. Wunsch III, Colin D. Heaton and Anne-Marie Lewis (12 Nov 2012).
The majority of these kills were P-40s and Hurricanes. Metelerkamp managed to nurse his ride back to base.
-
From "Twelve to One" the 5th AF Fighter pilot's 'bible"
Allen Hill, pilot of "Hills Angels" in the 80th FS
"In cases where you are really latched, it doesn't matter much what you do, but do something and do it violently"
Cy Homer of the 80th
"When caught just above the tree tops or water at slow speed, you can only hope to throw his aim off by jerking and skidding, at the same time striving for altitude. Drop full flaps if necessary--anything to make him overshoot."
"If you find your tail is dirty, then it is time to get violent at the controls"
-
"If you find your tail is dirty, then it is time to get violent at the controls"
I do that anyway... fluffluff'n 'don't move your controls so rapidly' BS...
-
Slamming on the brakes with full flaps is not what you were putting forward historically before guppy. Nobody disputes the use of flaps in combat. The way they are used in AH is what is in dispute. ACM with full flaps out all the while, is what tends to bother people. That and the some can and some can't deploy the same flap systems aspect of the video game.
However your posts do point out quite plainly that even unprepared and panicked flap deployments did not seem to be a big dealto those pikots, and points to how suspect the flap deployment restrictions are in AH. I would bet with all your research You have never ever run across an instance of overspeed flap damage in a fighter in ww2, not surprising considering the sturdy construction requirements and the "margin of safety" factors. Flap restrictions should probably go away if the game is to mirror real world capabilities, then maybe the 109 guys could match your flap maneuvers just like the affor mentioned HJM did in the real world.
-
MA is a lot of fighting on the deck at low speed. In that environment, using lots of flaps is a good tool. Scenario fighting is much less of that and a lot more higher alt and higher speed fighting, usually also many on many. The style of fighting then is different and tends to be more historical in nature.
As for flap restrictions, they are very likely based on documentation for that aircraft (such as pilot's manual or flight-test data). Some planes could deploy flaps at much higher speeds than others. Ones you are reading about are P-51's and P-38's, which could deploy flaps at high speed. Some 109's would have had a very hard time deploying flaps in combat because it took lots of turns on a wheel to get a little bit of flaps out -- it would take forever to get them out and back in again. (I'm not sure if Marseille used flaps in combat -- could be wrong, but don't remember reading that he did.) Nevertheless, there are 109's in the game that use flaps all the time once they are scrambling around on the deck.
Complaining about some planes having better flaps or flaps that are deployable at higher speeds is like complaining that the Zero is slower than F4U's, and because of an account here or there (like Boyington being shot down from behind by a Zero), all planes should be given about the same top speed.
-
I don't need to be a real life pilot to know when someone is talking nothing but BS...
ack-ack
Yeah but it surely helps as does having walked up to and seen the actuation of flaps on many warbirds in person and discussing it with guys like howard wolko as you are watching the surfaces actuate.
Me and Nels Wolko, his son, used to get lectures from howard on how the various control surfaces worked on the RC airplanes we built in his workshop.
Flaps allow more lift at slower speeds but with a substantial penalty of drag and do not allow higher angle of attack.
Slats allow more lift at slower speeds by allowing more angle of attack to be utilized.
My argument is that the flaps in aces high are allowing more angle of attack instead of simply increasing lift and lowering stall speed while the slats don't offer any more useful angle of attack than the flaps do yet they also add greatly to the drag even at zero angle of attack.
In real life, you don't pull more angle of attack when using flaps but rather use the additional lift to get around more quickly when in a high G banked turn at the same angle of attack.
My point is that I know how they work, have discussed it with people who regularly fly planes with slats and flaps, and have flown a pretty good variety of planes myself.....thought most of them did not have slats.
I just think a few things could use a little adjustment for the sake of reality but HTC has to walk a fine line between full realism and having a sim where the extreme realism brings on enough difficulty that people decide they don't enjoy flying it.
This is why you don't see spins as easily entered by pulling hard Gs with controls crossed as you did in warbirds before version 3.
A sim is no good if nobody want's fl fly it.
I don't have the exact numbers but neither does anybody else on this thread.
The experienced may not need the exact numbers because experience here and in the real world would indicate flaps and slats don't quite act as they should..........close, but some inaccuracies that could be closer.
-
Slamming on the brakes with full flaps is not what you were putting forward historically before guppy. Nobody disputes the use of flaps in combat. The way they are used in AH is what is in dispute. ACM with full flaps out all the while, is what tends to bother people. That and the some can and some can't deploy the same flap systems aspect of the video game.
However your posts do point out quite plainly that even unprepared and panicked flap deployments did not seem to be a big dealto those pikots, and points to how suspect the flap deployment restrictions are in AH. I would bet with all your research You have never ever run across an instance of overspeed flap damage in a fighter in ww2, not surprising considering the sturdy construction requirements and the "margin of safety" factors. Flap restrictions should probably go away if the game is to mirror real world capabilities, then maybe the 109 guys could match your flap maneuvers just like the affor mentioned HJM did in the real world.
So, for clarity on your "suspect flap deployment restrictions" thing, are you proposing unlimited use of flaps at any speed in any plane? That makes sense?
I'd add that you must not fight many good 109 pilots here. The ones I do are most defintely using flaps and when they do are able to turn quite nicely.
-
I think they should simply snap off or get stuck if actuated at too high a speed except for planes in which they use spring tension to limit their actuation into a position that would snap them off.
-
Flaps allow more lift at slower speeds but with a substantial penalty of drag and do not allow higher angle of attack.
Slats allow more lift at slower speeds by allowing more angle of attack to be utilized.
My argument is that the flaps in aces high are allowing more angle of attack instead of simply increasing lift and lowering stall speed while the slats don't offer any more useful angle of attack than the flaps do yet they also add greatly to the drag even at zero angle of attack.
In real life, you don't pull more angle of attack when using flaps but rather use the additional lift to get around more quickly when in a high G banked turn at the same angle of attack.
I don`t know if icepack is right or wrong but how do you see what gives you what angle of attack in Aces High. You can`t see the airflow direction, can you? Also slats may allow more angle of attack but only on the part of the wing these are fitted. The rest of the wing could be stalling and creating a lot of drag. Planes also have different weight, power etc, so it is pretty difficult to make accurate assumptipns imho.
-
Yeah but it surely helps as does having walked up to and seen the actuation of flaps on many warbirds in person and discussing it with guys like howard wolko as you are watching the surfaces actuate.
Me and Nels Wolko, his son, used to get lectures from howard on how the various control surfaces worked on the RC airplanes we built in his workshop.
Flaps allow more lift at slower speeds but with a substantial penalty of drag and do not allow higher angle of attack.
Slats allow more lift at slower speeds by allowing more angle of attack to be utilized.
My argument is that the flaps in aces high are allowing more angle of attack instead of simply increasing lift and lowering stall speed while the slats don't offer any more useful angle of attack than the flaps do yet they also add greatly to the drag even at zero angle of attack.
In real life, you don't pull more angle of attack when using flaps but rather use the additional lift to get around more quickly when in a high G banked turn at the same angle of attack.
My point is that I know how they work, have discussed it with people who regularly fly planes with slats and flaps, and have flown a pretty good variety of planes myself.....thought most of them did not have slats.
I just think a few things could use a little adjustment for the sake of reality but HTC has to walk a fine line between full realism and having a sim where the extreme realism brings on enough difficulty that people decide they don't enjoy flying it.
This is why you don't see spins as easily entered by pulling hard Gs with controls crossed as you did in warbirds before version 3.
A sim is no good if nobody want's fl fly it.
I don't have the exact numbers but neither does anybody else on this thread.
The experienced may not need the exact numbers because experience here and in the real world would indicate flaps and slats don't quite act as they should..........close, but some inaccuracies that could be closer.
I think you're a little confused about flaps. Flaps change the effective incidence of the wing so if you maintain pitch attitude the increased lift actually comes from increased AOA as well as increased co-efficient of lift. Flaps also allow a higher AOA because they change the shape of the wing.
-
I don`t know if icepack is right or wrong but how do you see what gives you what angle of attack in Aces High. You can`t see the airflow direction, can you? Also slats may allow more angle of attack but only on the part of the wing these are fitted. The rest of the wing could be stalling and creating a lot of drag. Planes also have different weight, power etc, so it is pretty difficult to make accurate assumptipns imho.
The flapped portion of the wing is at a higher AOA then the rest of the wing so it's the first to stall. That's why your ailerons are more effective in the stall with flaps down. You can see AOA with smoke on and in films with trails on. The smoke or trails show you the attitude in relation to the relative wind. Here's an example. You see the tail move above and below the smoke as the AOA changes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuTycIGXfno
-
Flaps change the angle of incidence of a wing.........not the usable angle of attack of the airplane.
-
Flaps change the angle of incidence of a wing.........not the usable angle of attack of the airplane.
Angle of incidence is fixed....like with bolts and stuff and can not be changed. An exception being the F8U Crusader.
-
I would not say that the flaps change the incidence of a wing. First of all the incidence is measured at a point where the wing meets the fuselage. On some aircraft (P-51 for example) the flaps are mounted away from the point where incidence is measured, so these do not change it. Secondly if angle of incidence is measured between a chord line and reference axis then spilt flaps for example should not change the chord line. The upper trailing edge is further away from the drooped trailing edge.
What is "effective incidence" and where is it measured?
I would not say that the flapped portion of a wing is always at a higher AOA because the chord line doesn`t seem to change with split flaps.
Does the smoke trail really show the attitude in relation to the relative wind? AOA is usually measured relative to the airflow in front of the aircraft, shouldn`t attitude as well? Does the wing downwash affect the smoke trailing the aircraft in AH2 as it could in real life?
-
I think they should simply snap off or get stuck if actuated at too high a speed except for planes in which they use spring tension to limit their actuation into a position that would snap them off.
I Would like to see documentation of that being an actual recorded normal consequence of above speed warning speed flap deployment.
-
I would not say that the flaps change the incidence of a wing. First of all the incidence is measured at a point where the wing meets the fuselage. On some aircraft (P-51 for example) the flaps are mounted away from the point where incidence is measured, so these do not change it. Secondly if angle of incidence is measured between a chord line and reference axis then spilt flaps for example should not change the chord line. The upper trailing edge is further away from the drooped trailing edge.
What is "effective incidence" and where is it measured?
I would not say that the flapped portion of a wing is always at a higher AOA because the chord line doesn`t seem to change with split flaps.
Does the smoke trail really show the attitude in relation to the relative wind? AOA is usually measured relative to the airflow in front of the aircraft, shouldn`t attitude as well? Does the wing downwash affect the smoke trailing the aircraft in AH2 as it could in real life?
Compare the attitude for the 0 lift AOA with and without flaps. The difference in attitude is the change in effective incidence.
-
MA is a lot of fighting on the deck at low speed. In that environment, using lots of flaps is a good tool. Scenario fighting is much less of that and a lot more higher alt and higher speed fighting, usually also many on many. The style of fighting then is different and tends to be more historical in nature.
As for flap restrictions, they are very likely based on documentation for that aircraft (such as pilot's manual or flight-test data). Some planes could deploy flaps at much higher speeds than others. Ones you are reading about are P-51's and P-38's, which could deploy flaps at high speed. Some 109's would have had a very hard time deploying flaps in combat because it took lots of turns on a wheel to get a little bit of flaps out -- it would take forever to get them out and back in again. (I'm not sure if Marseille used flaps in combat -- could be wrong, but don't remember reading that he did.) Nevertheless, there are 109's in the game that use flaps all the time once they are scrambling around on the deck.
Complaining about some planes having better flaps or flaps that are deployable at higher speeds is like complaining that the Zero is slower than F4U's, and because of an account here or there (like Boyington being shot down from behind by a Zero), all planes should be given about the same top speed.
The determination that a structure that is deemed safe at x speed and y deflection is some how not safe at any higher speeds at 1/2 to 1/45 y deflection can not be reconciled with real world physics. As far as documentation goes it would be silly for the poh to offer more than a max deployment warning for landing on the 109 because it had no other fixed settings. Should they post numbers for every degree of deployment? Also I fail to see how a procedure that is simple enough to use at low speeds and altitudes somehow becomes more complicated with altitude and speed.
Restricting the FDS by POH (while ignoring the basic physics involved) in an air combat simulation is like a rally racing game limited to the car's operators manual. It may be easy to justify, right up to the point where you see the actual real world operation of a rally car by a rally car driver in a race extracting the maximum possibilities from his vehicle.
Once you see the truth the video game would leave you a bit disappointed, wouldn't it.
-
The determination that a structure that is deemed safe at x speed and y deflection is some how not safe at any higher speeds at 1/2 to 1/45 y deflection can not be reconciled with real world physics. As far as documentation goes it would be silly for the poh to offer more than a max deployment warning for landing on the 109 because it had no other fixed settings. Should they post numbers for every degree of deployment? Also I fail to see how a procedure that is simple enough to use at low speeds and altitudes somehow becomes more complicated with altitude and speed.
Restricting the FDS by POH (while ignoring the basic physics involved) in an air combat simulation is like a rally racing game limited to the car's operators manual. It may be easy to justify, right up to the point where you see the actual real world operation of a rally car by a rally car driver in a race extracting the maximum possibilities from his vehicle.
Once you see the truth the video game would leave you a bit disappointed, wouldn't it.
Some airplanes have information in pilots manuals and/or flight-test data that give flap deployment speeds for different settings of flaps. My guess is that HTC does not pick flap-deployment speeds arbitrarily but instead based on information they have.
Here's a video of using flaps in one model of 109 -- doesn't look like it would be too easy during a dogfight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded) In AH, all we have is the keyboard, so it's easier in the game than in real life, but then flaps are restricted to several discrete settings, rather than continuously variable on the 109 that has continuously-variable deployment.
-
Here's a video of using flaps in one model of 109 -- doesn't look like it would be too easy during a dogfight.
Why would you say that? The wheel next to the flap-wheel is the elevator trim-wheel, which the pilot would have to use in combat. The position and side-by-side arrangement of these wheels were considered a good feature in the 109 cockpit since it allowed lowering flaps and trimming for flaps-down in one motion with one hand (109 became nose-heavy with flaps down).
-
Flaps allow more lift at slower speeds but with a substantial penalty of drag and do not allow higher angle of attack.
Slats allow more lift at slower speeds by allowing more angle of attack to be utilized.
My argument is . . .
Angle of attack is not the important factor. Both devices alter the lift and drag profiles of the wing, and what ends up being important are things like what C_L_max is (at whatever AoA), and what max L/D is (at whatever AoA).
Also, I don't think that there is a way for anyone, by feel in the game, to figure out whether or not flaps or slats are incorrectly modeled (unless they are drastically off, which I doubt).
I don't have the exact numbers but neither does anybody else on this thread.
Years ago, there were arguments that "the F4U turns better than it should, especially with flaps." These arguments were made by folks based on feelings and personal intuition, but without any knowledge of the basics of aircraft dynamics. So, I decided to take a crack at it using standard, well-accepted aircraft dynamics to see if they agreed with the performance shown in Aces High -- including stats with and without flaps deployed. They do. It is also a decent overview of some basics of aircraft dynamics:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html
I could probably do the same picking a 109 and including the modeling of slats. I'll look at it at some point and, if it's not so much work, I'll take a crack at it. First, though, I'll probably work on adding more accuracy to my analysis given above (adding some more-picky factors to it, making it more akin to this: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092640_1993092640.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092640_1993092640.pdf)).
In case of any interest, some of my favorite books on aircraft dynamics.
Airplane Performance Stability and Control, by Courtland D. Perkins and Robert E. Hage
Theory of Flight, by Richard Von Mises
Fundamentals of Flight, Second Edition, by Richard S. Shevell.
Aerodynamics Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics, Second Edition, by Barnes W. McCormick.
Introduction to Flight, by John D. Anderson, Jr. (best introduction to the field of all books of this list)
-
Why would you say that? The wheel next to the flap-wheel is the elevator trim-wheel, which the pilot would have to use in combat. The position and side-by-side arrangement of these wheels were considered a good feature in the 109 cockpit since it allowed lowering flaps and trimming for flaps-down in one motion with one hand (109 became nose-heavy with flaps down).
It's based on how cramped it is for the left hand and how many turns it takes. Yes, you could maybe do a crank or two in and out, but I don't think you'd be going in and out of full flaps (or even half flaps) in a dogfight with it like we commonly have here.
-
No, full flaps wouldn't even be useful in real life combat. "Combat flaps" however could be achieved with a couple of cranks on that wheel.
-
Some airplanes have information in pilots manuals and/or flight-test data that give flap deployment speeds for different settings of flaps. My guess is that HTC does not pick flap-deployment speeds arbitrarily but instead based on information they have.
Here's a video of using flaps in one model of 109 -- doesn't look like it would be too easy during a dogfight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8&feature=player_embedded) In AH, all we have is the keyboard, so it's easier in the game than in real life, but then flaps are restricted to several discrete settings, rather than continuously variable on the 109 that has continuously-variable deployment.
All you need is one "safe" deployment speed/deflection relationship to get the safe force load, from that you can adjust the other variables to match the forceload. Since the flaps are the same size and the internal structure and mechanics are the same then it would be quite unreasonable to assume that the safe forceload would change. You could easily do the math if you we're doing lift and drag calculations, and you could cross check your work with published data from other aircraft that have the low deflection deployment speeds in their POH. After all the forces are the same and the structures are either identical or very very similar. Better IMO then pretending that if it is not spelled out specifically then it can not be figured out.
-
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.
I can attest to those slats being useful while drunk! :old:
-
No, full flaps wouldn't even be useful in real life combat. "Combat flaps" however could be achieved with a couple of cranks on that wheel.
Yes, I agree that a little bit of flaps in combat looks possible.
-
All you need is one "safe" deployment speed/deflection relationship to get the safe force load, from that you can adjust the other variables to match the forceload. . . .
Perhaps, unless there is data (like on US planes) showing safe speeds at different deflections. Then you don't need to guess -- you just use the real data. It is not necessarily OK to assume a flap mechanism can take the same force at different deflections -- so that's one significant assumption you otherwise make -- as how far various parts of the mechanism are extended, moment arms, etc. are going to change as deflection changes. Also, computing torque on the flaps might not be as easy as you think and thus end up being another significant estimation/assumption.
As long as there is data on what speed that first notch of flaps can be deployed at, that's the main thing; and for that, what matters most is if you can pop them when in a stallturn with flaps up. So the 109 is fine there.
That's the big disadvantage of some planes -- that you can be doing a stall turn flaps up and not be able to deploy a notch of flaps but have to slow down first (which means weakening your turn to deploy them). How many planes are in that category? Maybe the FW 190, the A-20, not sure what else; and they are probably there because of data that says "don't deploy any flaps above X speed".
-
Angle of incidence is fixed....like with bolts and stuff and can not be changed. An exception being the F8U Crusader.
I don't mean that the static angle of incidence of the entire wing changes like the f8 crusader but rather that the change of shape of the wing by the flaps changes the angle of incidence which is calculated relative to the fuselage.
-
Perhaps, unless there is data (like on US planes) showing safe speeds at different deflections. Then you don't need to guess -- you just use the real data. It is not necessarily OK to assume a flap mechanism can take the same force at different deflections -- so that's one significant assumption you otherwise make -- as how far various parts of the mechanism are extended, moment arms, etc. are going to change as deflection changes. Also, computing torque on the flaps might not be as easy as you think and thus end up being another significant estimation/assumption.
As long as there is data on what speed that first notch of flaps can be deployed at, that's the main thing; and for that, what matters most is if you can pop them when in a stallturn with flaps up. So the 109 is fine there.
That's the big disadvantage of some planes -- that you can be doing a stall turn flaps up and not be able to deploy a notch of flaps but have to slow down first (which means weakening your turn to deploy them). How many planes are in that category? Maybe the FW 190, the A-20, not sure what else; and they are probably there because of data that says "don't deploy any flaps above X speed".
We will need to disagree, I have confidence that designers of combat aircraft design flight control surfaces appropriately, and knew how to use safety factors.
so IMO the "significant estimation/assumption" would that a structure less exposed to the forces it was designed tested and safety certified to withstand, would get weaker in the process of deployment when as stated it is less exposed to the force it was designed to withstand.
BTW does anybody know of an overspeed damage report on a fighter flap system in WW2 ?
-
We will need to disagree, I have confidence that designers . . .
OK, but really, what difference does it make? All that really matters is if you can drop that first notch of flaps in a turnfight or not, and only a handful of aircraft can't.
Do you have any data that a FW 190 could drop 10 deg of flaps at, say, 200 mph instead of 175 (or whatever it is right now in the game)?
If not, are you saying that the FW 190 should be able to drop flaps at 200 mph anyway, regardless of what data says?
-
If not, are you saying that the FW 190 should be able to drop flaps at 200 mph anyway, regardless of what data says?
I think without actually answering this direct question now at least twice that's exactly what he's saying.
Just sayin! :D
-
What it really comes down to is someones favorite cartoon airplane doesn't perform as they believe it should so it must be a modeling problem.
Why not just enjoy the pretend fighter pilot world for what it is. As I've said before. This discussion comes up every so often. More often then not it's really nothing more then a veiled Luftwhine.
-
OK, but really, what difference does it make? All that really matters is if you can drop that first notch of flaps in a turnfight or not, and only a handful of aircraft can't.
Do you have any data that a FW 190 could drop 10 deg of flaps at, say, 200 mph instead of 175 (or whatever it is right now in the game)?
If not, are you saying that the FW 190 should be able to drop flaps at 200 mph anyway, regardless of what data says?
FYI the 190 has no speed warnings for it's maneuver, flight, or take off settings, which like the 109 were also not fixed for a specific degree of deflection BTW. Just an over and under speed warning for the landing fully deployed setting.
So the question is, do you guys have any data saying it can't deploy 10 degrees of flap safely at a higher speed than it can safely deploy them at 60 degrees?
So I think that most other operators did not feel a speed warning for low deflection flap settings were a very big concern. Much like guppy's pilot accounts suggesting the same thing.
As far as missing data goes, did anybody find an overspeed flap damage report or account or anecdote yet?
-
FYI the 190 has no speed warnings for it's maneuver, flight, or take off settings, which like the 109 were also not fixed for a specific degree of deflection BTW. Just an over and under speed warning for the landing fully deployed setting.
So the question is, do you guys have any data saying it can't deploy 10 degrees of flap safely at a higher speed than it can safely deploy them at 60 degrees?
I don't, but are you saying that no pilot's manual or flight-test document says "don't deploy flaps if you are faster than X"?
So I think that most other operators did not feel a speed warning for low deflection flap settings were a very big concern.
If a document says "don't do X, or things will break" then doing X is unwise, and I can't fault a simulation for either precluding X or having things break if you do X. If doing X won't break things, then documents generally don't say "don't do X". That would be silly.
Much like guppy's pilot accounts suggesting the same thing.
No, those are pilots flying planes that clearly have the ability to deploy flaps at higher speeds, designed into them on purpose (contrary to most aircraft).
-
In the 190 there were three flap positions available: Retracted, take-off (13 degrees) and landing (58 degrees). The flaps were electrically actuated and the pilot selected flap positions with push-buttons in the cockpit.
As for 109s using flaps in combat here's an anecdote from a Pony driver named John C. Meyer on May 12, 1944:
"In about a turn and a half, I was on his tail. Then he dropped some flaps, unlike other Huns, who in similar situations have broken for the deck and set themselves up and I was unable to get sufficient deflection. This Jerry continued his tight turn and seemed very willing to continue the fight. I tried dropping ten degrees, then 20, of flaps and although this helped momentarily to decrease the radius of the turn, my airspeed dropped off so much that nothing was gained by this."
-
I am Pretty sure the 190s flaps were +/- several degrees (maybe 7 degrees either side of) 11 or maybe 13 degrees for the flight setting. They were adjusted and set per load out and pilot preference by the ground crew.
I am not sure whether the landing setting could be adjusted from the 58 degrees and I am also not
Sure that no buttons depressed was the fully retracted setting giving the 190 two low deflection options in flight.
I am also wondering if at some point they were hydro deployed and maybe electronically controlled.
Te 190 was very different internally mechanically. Probably part of the reason captured examples performed so poorly compared to operator testing.
Brook I think the problem lies in the different definitions or interpretations of what x means. The 190 poh discusses flap settings with several names only ascribing landing to the 60 degree setting. Then only specifies speed warnings for the landing setting one do not exceed and one do not go below. So in the case of the 190 do not do x is only talking about 60 degrees not the other settings. As you yourself have noted there is a suspicious hole in the flight envelope where airflow is such that some flaps are required yet unavailable because of speed restrictions. I ask you sir, have you ever heard of that being a noted issue in the real world accounts of the 190 pilots?
-
Brook I think the problem lies in the different definitions or interpretations of what x means. The 190 poh discusses flap settings with several names only ascribing landing to the 60 degree setting. Then only specifies speed warnings for the landing setting one do not exceed and one do not go below. So in the case of the 190 do not do x is only talking about 60 degrees not the other settings. As you yourself have noted there is a suspicious hole in the flight envelope where airflow is such that some flaps are required yet unavailable because of speed restrictions. I ask you sir, have you ever heard of that being a noted issue in the real world accounts of the 190 pilots?
I haven't, but flaps usage the way we commonly use them in the MA was not common in real life. I have read some accounts of LW flying ("The First and the Last", "JG26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe") as well as lots of accounts from allied side and don't recall any specific mentions of flap usage by LW pilots. I only recall a few (maybe 5 or less) from the allied point of view. So, I'm not sure not having heard of it means it wasn't an issue.
My contention is that HTC picked flap deployment speed based on some statement and not on their belief.
Is the "landing configuration" (full flaps) deployment speed in the manual you have the same as the first-notch deployment speed in AH (something like 175 mph), or is it lower than that?
-
(http://www.dirktanis.net/web_images/fw_190_cockpit.jpg)
There is a cluster of buttons just just aft of the throttle. On the left side there is a row of three buttons; one for each flap setting: Retracted, take-off, and landing. The two buttons to the right in that cluster are for the landing gear (also electrically actuated). To the immediate right of the cluster is a flip switch that controls elevator trim, with the trim indicator in front of it at to the right of the throttle. At the very bottom of the picture you can see the landing gear indicator lights.
-
There are more then five accounts recalled in this thread at least two from the LW. I agree the usage in AH is not realistic, point of fact is that not a lot about the flaps or trim in AH is realistic.
The game is what it is is I revert to the rally racing game based strictly on the owners manuals example. Not very realistic, and when the French cars are allowed to use their parking brakes to rotate their cars in a corner and the other cars are not just because the French owners manuals mentions the possibility of doing that, and the other manufactures do not suggest that the parking brake could be used for anything but parking. Well that would have real consequences in the game, and since anyone who cares to look knows that all the cars have parking brakes and can and are used for all kinds of car handling solutions in the real world then you will have lots of justifiably disgruntled players. Like I said easy to defend but known to be wrong and unfair and defending that decision will eventually reflect poorly on whoever tries.
-
There are more then five accounts recalled in this thread at least two from the LW.
Yes, as I've said, there are a bunch I've read from US point of view, but I (that is myself) have not read any first-hand accounts from LW point of view. The ones posted here from LW point of view are what someone else has read in a reference, but I didn't read that reference; and one of those are 109's, right?
I agree the usage in AH is not realistic, point of fact is that not a lot about the flaps or trim in AH is realistic.
I completely 100% disagree with that statement. This from my point of view knowing about aircraft dynamics and having flown some real aircraft (including mock combat at Air Combat USA).
-
Yes, as I've said, there are a bunch I've read from US point of view, but I (that is myself) have not read any first-hand accounts from LW point of view. The ones posted here from LW point of view are what someone else has read in a reference, but I didn't read that reference; and one of those are 109's, right?
I completely 100% disagree with that statement. This from my point of view knowing about aircraft dynamics and having flown some real aircraft (including mock combat at Air Combat USA).
The statement you quoted in 100 % disagreement was 1/2 directed to you in agreement to your previous agreement with the observation that player flap usage in AH is often not historically accurate.
As far as accuracy goes; this thread is about how the physical limits of deployment speeds are not accounted for in game and instead POH documentation is used. Add to that the different types of flaps that are all treated the same by the game, consequently creating limited or expanded settings for most models, representing split, simple, etc. the same would also be incorrect. Now I am not sure they are not treated differently, but when you consider the specifics of operation are not taken into account, we have no reason to expect that the specifics of the different types are taken into account either.
Trim is also one size fits all even though different aircraft get about trimming very differently. Different approaches have different consequences so treating them the same can also only be unrealistic.
-
The statement you quoted in 100 % disagreement was 1/2 directed to you in agreement to your previous agreement with the observation that player flap usage in AH is often not historically accurate.
The planes are modeled correctly, I believe. The difference is that the Main Arena conditions of battle are not (and cannot be) like scenarios.
As far as accuracy goes; this thread is about how the physical limits of deployment speeds are not accounted for in game
I believe that they are accurate and based on data. Your opinion seems based only on personal feeling, as you don't post any data or analysis.
and instead POH documentation is used
I don't think that either of us knows the source of data used.
Add to that the different types of flaps that are all treated the same by the game
I don't believe that to be true, based on things like http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html (http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html).
, consequently creating limited or expanded settings for most models, representing split, simple, etc. the same would also be incorrect. Now I am not sure they are not treated differently, but when you consider the specifics of operation are not taken into account, we have no reason to expect that the specifics of the different types are taken into account either.
I don't think so. I don't know why you would think that, as you don't seem to have any contrary data or analysis, and from your comments, it seems like you have not read much about the field of aircraft dynamics.
Trim is also one size fits all even though different aircraft get about trimming very differently. Different approaches have different consequences so treating them the same can also only be unrealistic.
Same comment as above.
-
Brooke,
He's correct about trim to a point: I believe the 190 didn't have rudder trim at all, and some other aircraft didn't have trim for all three axes.
-
Brooke,
He's correct about trim to a point: I believe the 190 didn't have rudder trim at all, and some other aircraft didn't have trim for all three axes.
Yes, but to go from something like that to a statement that the trimming overall in Aces High is not realistic and has unfortunate consequences is a very large leap.
-
Yes, but to go from something like that to a statement that the trimming overall in Aces High is not realistic and has unfortunate consequences is a very large leap.
Sometimes it's more miscommunication then disagreement.
-
Trim usage is very important to become good at dogfighting in AH, while historically it was nearly inconsequential in a dogfight.
There are significant differences between fixed tabs adjusted on the ground and adjustable tabs adjusted in flight. Even more different are the possible consequences of the differences in a trim tab and a "flying" stabilizer system.
Does trim generally work in AH yes, but it's necessity to maneuverability is severely over represented according to historic pilot accounts.
As far as data goes, my rally game explains that quite well. As I have explained how relatively simple it is to calculate and verify the force load speed/deflection relationship. I have also explained why it would be pointless to post speed restrictions on variable deflection flap systems that did not have specific settings like the 109, especially since flap overspeed damage was so rare that it is as far as I have seen impossible to find any documented instances of that on any WW2 fighter aircraft from any operator, and since I have been asking for any of the well informed experts here to post anything they have on that subject and days later no one has even chimed in to say they have ever heard of that actually happening I will consider my point made, until someone steps forward with anything to the contrary.
Now my original reason for chiming in was to dispel the idea that flying around with all the drag you can produce and maneuvering the way people do in AH could only end poorly in real world air combat, and specifically that guppy's example that stated 6o degrees was not a reference to the flap deployment angle but rather to the deflection shot that the pilot was attempting.
That being said, I think I am done here. I am sorry that the operators in ww2 did not anticipate all our data desires and have everything ready for us to plug into our video games.
I think they had other things on their mind, and that means that if we want the truth of things we will need to look for it, and sometimes even figure it out for ourselves convenient data available or not.
-
Trim usage is very important to become good at dogfighting in AH, while historically it was nearly inconsequential in a dogfight.
Does trim generally work in AH yes, but it's necessity to maneuverability is severely over represented according to historic pilot accounts.
I haven't seen anything to support these statements. Trimming becomes automatic, why would pilot reports mention it? Trim is not for maneuverability. Combat trim was not a feature in WW2. Trim is for drag reduction and accurate shooting.
-
I haven't seen anything to support these statements. Trimming becomes automatic, why would pilot reports mention it? Trim is not for maneuverability. Combat trim was not a feature in WW2. Trim is for drag reduction and accurate shooting.
Trimming is a natural part of flying any aircraft effectively. It's doubtful that pilots would give a blow by blow account of how and when they trimmed the aircraft, just as they wouldn't describe how they adjusted manifold pressure and RPM during a dogfight. The tactics and how effective they were are more important in an after action report. :salute
-
I haven't seen anything to support these statements. Trimming becomes automatic, why would pilot reports mention it? Trim is not for maneuverability. Combat trim was not a feature in WW2. Trim is for drag reduction and accurate shooting.
Double tap...
-
Trim usage is very important to become good at dogfighting in AH, while historically it was nearly inconsequential in a dogfight.
There are significant differences between fixed tabs adjusted on the ground and adjustable tabs adjusted in flight. Even more different are the possible consequences of the differences in a trim tab and a "flying" stabilizer system.
Does trim generally work in AH yes, but it's necessity to maneuverability is severely over represented according to historic pilot accounts.
I almost never need to fuss with trim in combat, and trim in AH works about the same as it does in real life. I'm very surprised to see anyone making an issue out of something as minor an issue and as well-handled as trim.
As far as data goes, my rally game explains that quite well. . . .
That's not data -- that's your personal feelings. When a person says something like "flap deployment speed in the FW 190 is wrong -- it should be X mph", data backing up that statement are references on the FW 190 that say things like "do not drop first setting of flaps in FW 190 at over X mph."
As I have explained how relatively simple it is to calculate and verify the force load speed/deflection relationship.
You have to start with some data before you calculate anything. You keep stating that flap-deployment speeds are wrong, but you give absolutely no specifics or data.
I have also explained why it would be pointless to post speed restrictions on variable deflection flap systems that did not have specific settings like the 109, especially since flap overspeed damage was so rare that it is as far as I have seen impossible to find any documented instances of that on any WW2 fighter aircraft from any operator, and since I have been asking for any of the well informed experts here to post anything they have on that subject and days later no one has even chimed in to say they have ever heard of that actually happening I will consider my point made, until someone steps forward with anything to the contrary.
For the 109 it doesn't matter, since the limiting speed is high enough so that if it were higher it wouldn't matter. There are only a small number of aircraft where a higher flap-deployment speed would matter. The FW 190 is one, so if you have some data for the 190 saying it's wrong in AH, that would be useful. Same for A-20.
Now my original reason for chiming in was to dispel the idea that flying around with all the drag you can produce and maneuvering the way people do in AH could only end poorly in real world air combat,
My point is that (1) flying around with lots of flaps happened rarely in WWII, but not never, and there are plenty of accounts, and (2) that if the combat environment of WWII were like the MA, probably many more fights in real life would have entailed flying around with full flaps.
AH models flaps correctly. Whether or not people use them is up to them. Whether or not things would end poorly depends entirely on the fight and the situation.
-
Trimming is a natural part of flying any aircraft effectively. It's doubtful that pilots would give a blow by blow account of how and when they trimmed the aircraft, just as they wouldn't describe how they adjusted manifold pressure and RPM during a dogfight. The tactics and how effective they were are more important in an after action report.
Oh, as if YOU should know!
Geez, some people....
- oldman
-
In the game, the only time trim becomes important,, in my opinion,, is in the chase, if I'm trying to catch someone,, or trying to run for what ever reason I will always use the trim wheels ( set up on my throttle) it does make a difference in top speed to trim it in as well as slight turns and elevation changes to use the trim wheels instead of the stick,, I found this out in a 262 in one of the racing leagues ,,,I could gain a good bit more speed flying with combat trim off using the trim wheels to fly the plane! I would bet it was the same in real life,, trim was important for top speed but flight control input during hard maneuvers would probably not be effected enough to mess with,, especially if the pilot was busy trying to fight for his life!
-
Oh, as if YOU should know!
Geez, some people....
- oldman
:rofl
-
I would bet it was the same in real life,, trim was important for top speed but flight control input during hard maneuvers would probably not be effected enough to mess with,, especially if the pilot was busy trying to fight for his life!
This. That's what the actual control surfaces are for. The only thing where it'd mess you up here is with CT constantly changing due to your speed. Getting slow it pushes the nose up and you're fighting the stick down, etc. No CT in RL tho. I just use CT as a sort of "quick trim" toggling it on and then off at a given speed to sort of center the controls. But generally I like a touch of nose down.
-
The Memorandum AAF Report of 6 December 1943 describes the use of the maneuver flap setting of a captured 190 in mock combat, addressing your concerns about using the flaps to stave off a stall. It does not note deployment speeds just some stall numbers but clearly the Allies believed that flaps could be used for maneuver assistance even if the corresponding POH does not specifically spell it out. They also correctly identify the setting as "Maneuver" not landing.
article may be found at;
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg
-
The Memorandum AAF Report of 6 December 1943 describes the use of the maneuver flap setting of a captured 190 in mock combat, addressing your concerns about using the flaps to stave off a stall. It does not note deployment speeds just some stall numbers but clearly the Allies believed that flaps could be used for maneuver assistance even if the corresponding POH does not specifically spell it out. They also correctly identify the setting as "Maneuver" not landing.
article may be found at;
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg
That sounds good, and thanks for posting the reference.
I don't think that anyone is disputing that FW 190's can use flaps like any other plane in that regard.
The argument is about at what speed the flaps can be first deployed to that setting. Some think (you aren't the only one) that min deployment speed for that first notch of FW 190 flaps is too high.
I have no idea, myself, but my suspicion is that HTC bases such things on data from somewhere.
-
I have no idea, myself, but my suspicion is that HTC bases such things on data from somewhere.
Pilot notes in most cases.
-
Pilot notes in most cases.
Pilot experience would place the flap deployment speeds well above the POH and the speeds in AH. Lots of accounts of high speed flap usage in all kinds of aircraft, especially fighters, in ww2. No acounts of flap overspeed damage that I have seen though. (anybody else yet?) So I must assume HTC finds it's data elsewhere.
That sounds good, and thanks for posting the reference.
I don't think that anyone is disputing that FW 190's can use flaps like any other plane in that regard.
The argument is about at what speed the flaps can be first deployed to that setting. Some think (you aren't the only one) that min deployment speed for that first notch of FW 190 flaps is too high.
I have no idea, myself, but my suspicion is that HTC bases such things on data from somewhere.
FYI I believe that FDS are too slow in all the aircraft to be real world accurate, especially in the aircraft where the low deflection safe deployment speeds are not spelled out someplace. However that test does state that they were successfully used to reduce maneuver stall speed at 2 g from 180 to 140 so from that report we know the allied test pilots were comfortable to drop 10 degrees some what above 180 on an irreplaceable airframe. (captured and test worthy) An aircraft which also had, for them at least, the maneuver power on stall described as being abrupt, with little warning, so a reasonable thinking researcher would also conclude that the flaps were probably deployed comfortably above 180 so as not to surprise them with a stall before they were out.
-
Pilot experience would place the flap deployment speeds well above the POH and the speeds in AH. Lots of accounts of high speed flap usage in all kinds of aircraft, especially fighters, in ww2. No acounts of flap overspeed damage that I have seen though. (anybody else yet?) So I must assume HTC finds it's data elsewhere.
No accounts posted here of anything other than US planes deploying flaps at higher speeds that I've seen.
FYI I believe that FDS are too slow in all the aircraft to be real world accurate, especially in the aircraft where the low deflection safe deployment speeds are not spelled out someplace. However that test does state that they were successfully used to reduce maneuver stall speed at 2 g from 180 to 140 so from that report we know the allied test pilots were comfortable to drop 10 degrees some what above 180 on an irreplaceable airframe. (captured and test worthy) An aircraft which also had, for them at least, the maneuver power on stall described as being abrupt, with little warning, so a reasonable thinking researcher would also conclude that the flaps were probably deployed comfortably above 180 so as not to surprise them with a stall before they were out.
Then what was said doesn't give deployment at anything over 140 mph. The rest is you making your own suppositions.
By the way, do you know what speed the FW 190A-8 deploys flaps in AH? 180 mph.
-
No accounts posted here of anything other than US planes deploying flaps at higher speeds that I've seen.
Then what was said doesn't give deployment at anything over 140 mph. The rest is you making your own suppositions.
By the way, do you know what speed the FW 190A-8 deploys flaps in AH? 180 mph.
Pretty sure there are lots of accounts posted of other types using flaps at higher speeds and to close turns, and solve angles by pilots in planes from everywhere. Maybe you should look around again.
You are mistaken about the report as well, in the report the numbers are for stall speeds not deployment speeds.
Point was that they used the flaps to delay the stall.
Now I am Pretty sure for the flaps to keep you from staling at 180 they need to be out already.
That means that the process of deploying the 10 degree maneuver setting on the flaps must have started above 180.
Probably well above 180 so the pilots were comfortable that the stall would not take them by surprise before they could deploy the flaps before the airspeed dipped to or below 180 in order to delay the stall down to 140.
Hope you followed that as someone else will need to make it more simple for you if you were not able get it,
as that is pretty much as simple as I feel like making it for you right now.
The in game 180 number is the stall speed, and that is as I recall your issue with the 190 and a20,
stalling before the ability to use flaps to counter the stall.
So you really should make an effort to understand that report because I have just posted the data you need to present to solve or at least 1/2 solve your stated problem in the game with those two FMs, assuming HTC in interested. your welcome btw.
Lots of stuff there about not needing trims much either btw. Still no overspeed flap damage to report ?
-
No accounts posted here of anything other than US planes deploying flaps at higher speeds that I've seen.
From JG 26 - Top Guns of the Luftwaffe, by Donald L. Caldwell (Ivy Books, New York 1991), ISBN 0-8041-1050-6 (First Ballentine Edition, June 1993), at page 276:
[The following occurred on the afternoon of September 17, 1944 - the first day of Operation Market-Garden]:
The Third Gruppe [of JG26] also fought a battle with Mustangs, with ruinous consequences for itself. In mid-afternoon, Major Mietusch assembled about fifteen Bf 109s of his scattered command and headed for the landing zones, climbing all the way. The weather had taken a turn for the worse, and there was a continuous layer of thin cloud at 15,000 feet. The Germans climbed through it, and then, while above the Dutch-German border, Mietusch spotted a squadron of P-51s below them. He radioed, “Otter Mietusch, I am attacking!” and dove through the cloud. His first burst of fire destroyed the Number 4 plane of the trailing cover flight. Oblt. Schild hit the Number 2 Mustang’s drop tank, and it dove away trailing a solid sheet of flame. The events of the next few minutes are best stated in the words of the leader of that P-51 flight, Lt. William Beyer of the 361st Fighter Group’s 376th Squadron:
* * *
I was the flight leader at the tail end of the squadron. We had flown back and forth between checkpoints for a couple of hours. My wingmen apparently got tired of looking around for enemy aircraft. Only by the grace of God did I happen to look behind us at that particular moment, because in no more than a couple of seconds the enemy would have shot the whole flight down.
I saw about fifteen German fighters closing fast with all their guns firing. I immediately broke 180 degrees and called out the enemy attack. My Number 4 man went down in flames, and my wingman got hit and spun out. I headed straight back into the German fighters and went through the whole group, just about in the center of them. We were separated by only a few feet...
I immediately made another 180-degree turn, picked out one of them, and started to chase it. The rest of the fighters zoomed back up into the clouds and disappeared. We made many violent high-G maneuvers with wide open throttle. When I started to close and fire, I noticed that his plane seemed to have stopped in the air. I had to decide whether to shoot and run, or to try to stop my plane. I cut throttle, lowered flaps, and dropped my wheels - I still kept closing. I had to fishtail and do flat weaves to stay behind him. This maneuver was repeated three times, and on one occasion I almost cut his tail off, we were so close...
Then we started into steep dives. The last one was at around 1,000 feet with flaps down. This last maneuver was deadly and nerve-racking. He went straight down toward the ground, hoping I couldn’t pull out. If I pulled out early, he could have come in behind me, so I stayed with him. If we had had our wheels down when we pulled out, we would have been on the ground.
It was after this pullout that I finally was able to get my sights lined up and fire at him. I must have hit him with the first burst, because he kept turning and went into the ground and broke up. Knowing the caliber of this German pilot, I am sure that if I had taken the time to get off some shots when he was slowing down he could have possibly shot me down or made a getaway. My other combat victories were not nearly as spectacular as this one, and it is with this in mind that I can recall it so vividly.
* * *
Lt Beyer’s victim was Klaus Mietusch. Mietusch was one of the most fascinating individuals in the Geschwader’s history. He was a career officer, had joined the Geschwader in 1938, and was its senior pilot in length of service when he died at age twenty-five. His early combat career was marked by a seemingly endless series of failures and frustrations. A member of the successful 7th Staffel under Muencheberg, he did not come into his own until he succeeded to the command and led it on detached assignment in Russia in 1943. He was the opposite of the typical extroverted, self-confident fighter pilot. He compensated for what he believed to be his lack of ability by an act of will. According to Priller, Mietusch’s combat motto was, “Bore in, until the enemy is as large as a barn door in your sights.” Again quoting Priller, duty as Mietusch’s wingman was an “unforgettable experience.” Mietusch was shot down ten times and was wounded at least four times. He was said never to have turned down a mission, and he had logged an incredible 452 combat sorties at the time of his death. His seventy-two victories brought the award of the Oak Leaves to his Knights’s Cross, two months after his death.
-
Pretty sure there are lots of accounts posted of other types using flaps at higher speeds and to close turns, and solve angles by pilots in planes from everywhere. Maybe you should look around again.
I think the higher speed deployment examples here were all US examples. Feel free to post a link to a previous post in this topic if I've overlooked it.
You are mistaken about the report as well, in the report the numbers are for stall speeds not deployment speeds.
Point was that they used the flaps to delay the stall.
Now I am Pretty sure for the flaps to keep you from staling at 180 they need to be out already.
That means that the process of deploying the 10 degree maneuver setting on the flaps must have started above 180.
Probably well above 180 so the pilots were comfortable that the stall would not take them by surprise before they could deploy the flaps before the airspeed dipped to or below 180 in order to delay the stall down to 140.
Here is a paraphrase of what you posted about the test: to pull 2 g's without stalling needs 180 mph; with flaps, 2g's needs 140 mph. That can mean that you fly around without flaps and test what speed you need to pull 2 g's. Then you fly around with flaps (deployed at whatever speed -- you could start at 90 mph if you want) and test what speed you need for 2 g's. The statement "to pull 2 g's without stalling needs 180 mph; with flaps, 2g's needs 140 mph" does not say "I flew around in mock combat starting at 300 mph down to 180 mph and noticed that below that I couldn't still pull 2 g's, and sped back up and popped some flaps at 250 mph and flew around some and slowed down to 140 mph and found that was the slowest I could go and still pull 2 g's."
Hope you followed that as someone else will need to make it more simple for you if you were not able get it,
as that is pretty much as simple as I feel like making it for you right now.
Thanks. I only can get as far as things like this:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html
The in game 180 number is the stall speed, and that is as I recall your issue with the 190 and a20,
stalling before the ability to use flaps to counter the stall.
So you really should make an effort to understand that report because I have just posted the data you need to present to solve or at least 1/2 solve your stated problem in the game with those two FMs, assuming HTC in interested. your welcome btw.
I don't have any issue or problem with them. I want them to be modeled at whatever the real-world data says, whatever that happens to be, which is what I suspect the case to be right now (i.e., no need for any changes). My point was that the 190 and a20 are the only planes I know of where a higher flap-deployment speed would matter, not that I have an issue or problem with it. This was in response to you continuing on about the 109 having too low a flap-deployment speed -- my statement being that it doesn't matter on the 109 if flap-deployment speed is higher.
Here's what we have been talking about.
First, you posed that flaps don't work correctly in AH, which is wrong.
Next you posted that flap-deployment speeds in AH are too high, which I suspect is wrong (because HTC tends to set models based on data, but I have no data on it myself) but, even if it weren't, it matters in only a couple of cases (190 being one).
So, we talked about the 190, and you keep posting things that don't say what the flap-deployment speed is and telling us that it implies X, when it only your surmising that implies X.
-
Now I am Pretty sure for the flaps to keep you from staling at 180 they need to be out already...
That depends on your radial G. It's not a given, so your point isn't made.
-
Hello.
Recently I learned a strange thing - P-40 pilots were forbidden to use flaps with guns switch turned on. http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3133 page 23 paragraph d.
So they didn't? And what about other plane's pilots? F.e. in interview of Ivan Ivanovich Kozhemyako, hero of 107 GIAP, he sayed that they used flaps when fighting bombers(?) but never with fighters.
What do you know or think?
:airplane: Pretty interesting discussion on flaps! A couple of quick points, #1- there are four types of flaps, Plain or hinged, (like on the P-51), split flaps, (such as on a B-17), fowler flaps, ( such as those on a B-29), slotted flaps, (such as those on a storch). #2- Flaps are on aircraft for two purposes, A- reduce stalling speed by changing the camber of the wing, such as on the B-29, and B- to change the angle of attack of the wing as it pertains to attitude of the aircraft relative to the on coming air, basically to allow the pilot to turn the aircraft quicker due to the AOA of wing, while using flaps, and to reduce stalling speed for safer landings!
Flap extention speeds, as set by Hi Tech in this game, I am sure were established by consulting the POH of each aircraft, as the design engineers or test pilots set the VFe of each aircraft flying today with flaps. Most, if not all aircraft in real life, can extent flaps above the VFe, but can have dire results if exceeded to much above VFe.
It would be interesting to see a stat on turn radius with flaps extended or retracted for each aircraft in this game, but that would be a lot of trouble to produce, I guess.
-
The in game 180 number is the stall speed, and that is as I recall your issue with the 190 and a20,
stalling before the ability to use flaps to counter the stall.
180 mph is most certainly NOT the stall speed in AH. Even the best climb speed is slightly lower than 180.
Pilot experience would place the flap deployment speeds well above the POH and the speeds in AH. Lots of accounts of high speed flap usage in all kinds of aircraft, especially fighters, in ww2. No acounts of flap overspeed damage that I have seen though. (anybody else yet?) So I must assume HTC finds it's data elsewhere.
Pilot notes are not pilot stories. These are the operational instructions to the pilot in the form of a booklet.
HTC enforces the operational instructions to the pilots because there is practically zero data on flap durability and how they will function (mechanically) outside the intended speed range. If not adopting the pilot notes, HTC will have to invent some rules for flap damage that are pure fantasy and speculation. The easiest and most logical solution is to enforce the instructions to the pilots even if a pilot could break these "rules". Somewhat similar is the rule for WEP limit - pilot notes say "dont use this setting for more than 5 minutes" and we get a 5 minute WEP limits even though pilots often exceeded that limit with no ill effects. NO do not start a discussion on HTC WEP modeling, that is an entirely different subject. I mentioned it only regarding to the choice of modeling operational instructions instead of mechanical limits.
-
Speed does not matter, it is the forces that matter. It is impossible to match the forces at 10 degrees deployment that you get at 60 degrees of deployment with the power and speed available to these aircraft.
That is why you can not find any reports of flap overspeed damage incidents. There are no POH speed warnings for the low deflection flaps in most planes because there was no danger of damage from wind forces. It is a control surface on a fighter warplane in ww2 they are quite durable.
However you are the one making the presumptions about how they went about the test. Presuming they flew around slow in order to drop their flaps before they sped up to stall speed at 2 g in a combat capability evaluation, that is quite an presumption. Speed is life being what it is and all. I really do think you have trouble understanding what people were doing, and why.
Oh and bonzon POH stands for pilot operating handbook, you know like the ones that come with a WRX STI that probably says noting at all about throttle, brake, or hand break steering. Pretty important stuff if you intend to get the best from it.
-
Oh and bonzon POH stands for pilot operating handbook, you know like the ones that come with a WRX STI that probably says noting at all about throttle, brake, or hand break steering. Pretty important stuff if you intend to get the best from it.
and I thought POH had something to do with OH ions. Silly me. Who is this bonzon guy? he sounds awesome!
It is a control surface on a fighter warplane in ww2 they are quite durable.
How durable is "quite"?
Now excuse me while I google "WRX STI".
-
and I thought POH had something to do with OH ions. Silly me. Who is this bonzon guy? he sounds awesome!
How durable is "quite"?
Now excuse me while I google "WRX STI".
Well sorry for the confusion since POH had been in my posts for a while now as the suspected source of htc's data.
It is a car, popular for racing and rally racing, and I realize the term then would be operators manual, and not POH. However it was a spin off comment from my earlier comparison.
P.s. sorry about the miss spell earlier mostly doing this from mobile devices while in transit so that will happen.
My Apologies.
-
P.s. sorry about the miss spell earlier mostly doing this from mobile devices while in transit so that will happen.
My Apologies.
I am familiar with the horrors of typing on a smartphone. I do not have the thumbs of a teenage girl, yet I still attempt it on long boring train rides.
Only point I was trying to convey is that HTC do not like to make stuff up. When they cannot simulate something physically in an accurate enough fashion, they seem to prefer to enforce the operational regulations from an official source. Still, I am sure that here and there some info was missing and they had to interpolate or even extrapolate a bit.
The only way to get something changed is to find an official document that states otherwise.
-
and I thought POH had something to do with OH ions. Silly me.
Phosphorus hydroxide -- the essential compound for aircraft operation. :aok
(And Bonzon is an awesome guy!)
-
However you are the one making the presumptions about how they went about the test. Presuming they flew around slow in order to drop their flaps before they sped up to stall speed at 2 g in a combat capability evaluation, that is quite an presumption. Speed is life being what it is and all. I really do think you have trouble understanding what people were doing, and why.
I'm not making any presumptions at all -- that's my point. It doesn't say what speed they deployed flaps at. You are making many presumptions when you conclude that flaps were deployed above 180 mph.
-
I'm not making any presumptions at all -- that's my point. It doesn't say what speed they deployed flaps at. You are making many presumptions when you conclude that flaps were deployed above 180 mph.
Yea I am presuming for a test pilot to report that, the 2g maneuver stall that usually occurs at 180 can be delayed until the airspeed drops to 140, he musts have had to deploy the maneuver flaps before he stalled at 180 at 2g.
I am also presuming that if X x Y = Z then <X must be multiplied by >Y to = Z
Call me crazy.
Done leading horses, you fellas drink if you have a mind to refresh yourselves.
-
Yea I am presuming for a test pilot to report that, the 2g maneuver stall that usually occurs at 180 can be delayed until the airspeed drops to 140, he musts have had to deploy the maneuver flaps before he stalled at 180 at 2g.
I wouldn't make that presumption. We're talking about min speed for pulling 2 g's here. If I were trying to determine that in AH aircraft, I would not be flying around at a constant 2 g's while messing with flaps, power, airspeed, my turn, etc. I would get the plane near the condition I wanted, get flaps out, then go into a 2 g turn, slowing until it stalls, noting where it stalls. This process says almost nothing of what speed I deploy flaps at.
I am also presuming that if X x Y = Z then <X must be multiplied by >Y to = Z
I suggest something more like this:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/stallSpeedMath.html
-
Done leading horses, you fellas drink if you have a mind to refresh yourselves.
So produce some data...
You haven't "lead" a dang thing yet, let alone horses.
You may have a valid point, and I for one would love to see all of the planes (including the 190) modeled as accurately as possible.
However, rather than coming across as presenting valid information/data, you're coming across as a whining know-it-all. You present nothing objective, and then resort to finger-pointing and what essentially amounts to name calling when nobody bows down to your incomplete, unsubstantial information. Worse yet, you appear to be asking everyone else to prove your point for you.
Nice of you to give these folks permission to drink! But, I think you're taking far too much credit, if you think you've lead anyone to the water, lol.
Produce some data! Get the adjustments you think are warranted! We'd all like to see that happen.
FYI, the car performance manual vs real life performance isn't an apples -to-apples comparison, since I presume the real car is still available for real-life testing/verification? And I bet they're comparatively cheap, and available, and some pretty hard core testing could be safely performed and therefore factually modeled? Manual or not? That's not the case with the aircraft in question, so the analogy doesn't hold water (not even enough to sip).
-
From 'Too Young to Die', a Kiwi Corsair pilot's memoir..
[P.233] Relating to the thread topic, while flying in Japan, on occupation duties..
"Whilst on patrol, we frequently engaged in dogfights with Australian Mustangs & found that
the Corsair had superior manoeuvrability, particularly if we employed the manoeuvring flap
setting of up to 20`which could be applied at up to 175 knots.
Under these conditions, as we tightened the turns the Mustangs would eventually flick out
& we had no trouble keeping behind them."
He adds, [P.324] Re Mustang vs Corsair..
"... - the similarity in performance was surprising, considering that the aircraft were completely the opposite in construction, although together they represented the cream of American design.
The 5-bladed 2,000hp Griffon-engine Spitfires which frequently visited our base had however
considerably higher performance than either the Mustang or Corsair..."
&,
"When pilots of the Indian Spitfire Squadron performed aerobatics overhead, the incredible performance, & the deafening screech of the Griffon, was almost frightening."
-
Sounds like that corresponds with how things are in AH.
-
yeah, sounds about right.... I think in terms of a pure dog fighter, the spits were the best in the world. The mustang had the range that a spit could only dream of but it was no spit.
-
After watching the Bf109 flap actuation film visa muscle power. Was lowering the Bf109 flaps then depended on the speed at which the pilot was strong enough to achieve some pivot movement with the wheel?
So who's state of fitness is Hitech modeling? Da Terminator's or Billy Gates?
-
After watching the Bf109 flap actuation film visa muscle power. Was lowering the Bf109 flaps then depended on the speed at which the pilot was strong enough to achieve some pivot movement with the wheel?
So who's state of fitness is Hitech modeling? Da Terminator's or Billy Gates?
Hydraulic state of fitness
-
After watching the Bf109 flap actuation film visa muscle power. Was lowering the Bf109 flaps then depended on the speed at which the pilot was strong enough to achieve some pivot movement with the wheel?
So who's state of fitness is Hitech modeling? Da Terminator's or Billy Gates?
Based on how it's possible to trim out of dives in some planes, I would expect our pilots to have trouble fitting into many cockpits due to muscle mass.
Wiley.
-
Based on how it's possible to trim out of dives in some planes, I would expect our pilots to have trouble fitting into many cockpits due to muscle mass.
Wiley.
Trim is relatively easy to adjust. I expect the flap crank was geared so it was easy to turn also, that's why it took so many turns.
-
Trim is relatively easy to adjust. I expect the flap crank was geared so it was easy to turn also, that's why it took so many turns.
Wasn't really referring to the ability to adjust the trim, I was thinking more in terms of the anecdotes I've read in passing where a P38 or P47 pilot was referring to the control stick feeling like it was set in concrete when trying to pull out of an overspeed dive. It's possible to do in game though it takes a while. The stick pulling is what made me think the pilot guy in game must be pretty beefy.
Wiley.
-
AcesHigh doesn't properly model trim tabs. :(
-
AcesHigh doesn't properly model trim tabs. :(
How so?
-
& what about the defacto kommando-gerat-type engine management applied to US & Soviet
radial powered fighters, that certainly provides an unrealistic combat advantage too..
-
How so?
AH isn't equipped with any trim tabs, so it moves the whole elevator, rudder and ailerons
-
AH isn't equipped with any trim tabs, so it moves the whole elevator, rudder and ailerons
All a trim system does (whether it is tabs, like most planes, or moving a whole stabilizer, like the 109) is change the zero-stick-force point. That is exactly the effect in Aces High, and so it is completely realistic.
In other words, there is the graphics of what it looks like (such as "I don't see a trim tab moving") and there is the underlying math modeling (which is how the dynamics work, which is the important point). You could have an airplane fly realistically and have graphics not show the control surfaces moving at all. Graphics are just the look of it, not the working of it.
-
AH isn't equipped with any trim tabs, so it moves the whole elevator, rudder and ailerons
Actually trim tabs move the whole elevator, rudder, and ailerons. That's how they work.
-
(http://www.fs-force.com/help2/images/trim_tab.gif)
Trim tabs move separately to that of the surface they are attached to.
This is not in AH.
-
(http://www.fs-force.com/help2/images/trim_tab.gif)
Trim tabs move separately to that of the surface they are attached to.
This is not in AH.
The math of how AH handles it is correct. Display is irrelevant to its modeling.
-
Ok then Brooke, how does the Vne/compressibility/control forces stack up,
A-H/virtual vs real test results?
- i.e. F4U-1s should not be remaining combat manoeuvre controllable @ ~100mph over listed Vne..
Does the A-H virtual roll rates follow the published test figures for degree/speed ratios?
-
Brooke, I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it isn't modelled like the picture I posted shows.
AH does not have proper 3D modelled trim tabs, but rather because it moves the whole control surface it is not modelled properly/correctly/fully.
I have not questioned the maths of how AH handles it.
-
Does A-H include the improvement in aileron/roll performance allowed by spring tab ailerons
on aircraft such as the Tempest & F6F - which were fitted with them in later production series?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temproll.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/jv224.pdf
-
Does A-H include the improvement in aileron/roll performance allowed by spring tab ailerons
on aircraft such as the Tempest & F6F - which were fitted with them in later production series?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temproll.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/jv224.pdf
I strongly suspect that it does.
AH models things based on flight-test data. So, when they get results like roll rate vs. speed, it is modeled.
-
Brooke, I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it isn't modelled like the picture I posted shows.
AH does not have proper 3D modelled trim tabs, but rather because it moves the whole control surface it is not modelled properly/correctly/fully.
I have not questioned the maths of how AH handles it.
Yes, but the graphics are just how it looks. The look of trim tabs (as long as the actual dynamics of how it is handled in the game is physically correct) is quite minor, in my opinion. There are lots of things in the graphical depiction that are going to be short cuts.
-
& how difficult is it for you Brooke, ( in order to allay suspicion & establish valid data)..
- to fly a Tempest test & compare A-H virtual performance with that actual test chart posted?
& then - how would any significant difference be resolved?
Same goes for the contentious F4U-1 Vne/compressibility A-H gross over-speed issue.
Here are some more fighter roll rates - as charted by NACA..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
-
& how difficult is it for you Brooke, ( in order to allay suspicion & establish valid data)..
- to fly a Tempest test & compare A-H virtual performance with that actual test chart posted?
& then - how would any significant difference be resolved?
Same goes for the contentious F4U-1 Vne/compressibility A-H gross over-speed issue.
Here are some more fighter roll rates - as charted by NACA..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
Why should Brooke test it? How about you test it and let us know if you notice any anomalies. And please post data for your other claims.
-
Why Brooke?
Coz.. he-da-man.. ..unless you got the goods too..
Do you carry the weight to make needful changes?
Have you checked on the F4U thread running currently - for corroborative data?
Earl has run the A-H F4U test-trip & it don't match the real-world test findings..
-
J.A.W., why have you chosen to pollute our aircraft and vehicle forum with your unsubstantiated claims?
I find it curious how everyone else is wrong about everything and you are always right. You have lost all credibility here if you had any to begin with.
Now run along before you're banned from the AH BBs for your incessant trolling.
-
Well now Baldy, them's purty bold words to choose for a smoke screen ol' buddy..
How 'bout jest lettin' the facts speak, 'stead of gettin' all ornery & ad-hominem, again - huh?
-
Well now Baldy, them's purty bold words to choose for a smoke screen ol' buddy..
How 'bout jest lettin' the facts speak, 'stead of gettin' all ornery & ad-hominem, again - huh?
ad-hominem?
The facts have spoken in every tread you've posted in yet you refuse to believe them or post any substantiating references of your own.
Like I said, no credibility. You're just another simple minded internet troll.
-
Hey Baldy - why not actually post some useful data - instead of repeating your useless trolling?
& do you really read - or even comprehend - the data?
If so, kindly contribute to the discussion, rather than produce blather..
-
Hey Baldy - why not actually post some useful data - instead of repeating your useless trolling?
I might ask you to do the same.
-
Point out some of your posts that reference valid data sets then, please, Baldy..
I'll gladly critique them..
All I've seen in your 'contributions' so far - is mindless filibuster..
So, sadly - unless you can step up - then perhaps it would be best to set you on 'ignore'..
-
Yeah he knows everything and will stand on his assumptions when dead nuts wrong.
Case in point, the Space Shuttle. Nearly everything white you see is fabric covered. His explanation was it's some sort of protective blankie. Or they don't fly with it. Or when shown a photo in orbit they were avionics blankets. What about the upper wing surface, fuselage, tail, engine cowl? Or....if...but...
Told me all I needed to know about the bozo. I'll take the community here in A&V over this Jaw flapper any day.
-
Here's a relevant question to hopefully move closer to topic: Should flap deployment speeds be based on TAS or IAS?
I've seen this plenty of times: The first notch of flaps in the Corsair always deploys at 250mph IAS, regardless of altitude. End result, that first notch of flaps comes out at a wide array of airspeeds. While I don't fly many of the other aircraft, they seem to function the same way, and flap deployment speeds are based on IAS.
-
IAS.
-
& how difficult is it for you Brooke, ( in order to allay suspicion & establish valid data)..
- to fly a Tempest test & compare A-H virtual performance with that actual test chart posted?
& then - how would any significant difference be resolved?
It takes a time investment in the flying and, depending on what is being tested, possibly some calculation as well. Also, it takes having the data, keeping in mind that not all data is of the same quality and that there will be variability in the data, source to source.
I haven't done that except for a couple of aspects for the F4U (because there was so much unsubstantiated complaining about the F4U's turning ability with full flaps some years back). My testing, data, and calculation matched how the plane is in AH, so I didn't see any discrepancy.
For anyone, if they spot a discrepancy vs. some credible data, they can send their observation and the data to HTC, and HTC will look at it.
-
Here's a relevant question to hopefully move closer to topic: Should flap deployment speeds be based on TAS or IAS?
I've seen this plenty of times: The first notch of flaps in the Corsair always deploys at 250mph IAS, regardless of altitude. End result, that first notch of flaps comes out at a wide array of airspeeds. While I don't fly many of the other aircraft, they seem to function the same way, and flap deployment speeds are based on IAS.
IAS is more relevant. Air density varies with altitude, and various properties and forces (lift, drag, etc.) are dependent on air density. IAS approximately normalizes everything to how it is at the same air density. So, lift, drag, etc. are approximately the same at 250 IAS at 10k or 1k, even though TAS is much different at 10k vs. 1k.
One caveat for those truly interested in small picky details. Real aircraft have true airspeed (the speed they are really going relative to the atmosphere), indicated airspeed (what their airspeed indicators say in the cockpit), and calibrated airspeed (what their airspeed indicators in the cockpit would say if they didn't have various calibration errors as a result of things like where the pitot tubes are placed, airflow into them that isn't perfectly in line with the tube, etc.). Most pilot's manuals I've seen for WWII aircraft have a table in them that allows a person to convert from IAS to CAS. CAS is probably what we see on our airspeed indicators in Aces High, as otherwise, they would have to model the inaccuracy of the system on each plane (which would be a hassle for not a lot of benefit, in my opinion). Sometimes in manuals, it isn't clear when they give an airspeed (such as stall speed, for example) whether it is given in IAS or CAS, and you have to check some different sections of the manual to make sure which they mean. The difference between IAS and CAS is typically about a couple mph.
-
Here's a relevant question to hopefully move closer to topic: Should flap deployment speeds be based on TAS or IAS?
I've seen this plenty of times: The first notch of flaps in the Corsair always deploys at 250mph IAS, regardless of altitude. End result, that first notch of flaps comes out at a wide array of airspeeds. While I don't fly many of the other aircraft, they seem to function the same way, and flap deployment speeds are based on IAS.
Which should tell any person reasonably familiar that the FDS is a air FORCE issue, not an air speed issue so the safe deployment speeds is easily calculated at all the design allowed deflection angles when you know one deflection/ias relationship because the safe force limit will not change when the deflections and air speed are adjusted, as long as the new relationship meets the force limit.
Btw Brooke nice math but not really pertinent are they. lift calculations are not really applicable to safe airspeed limit calculations like we were discussing are they?
Still no real world overspeed damage reports posted either I see.
And there are consequences to trim tab vs. adjustable stab trim, differences HTC does not take into account as it treats all systems the same as you all have stated.
TAS and IAS have consequences they are just on different aspects of flight. Pretty sure Brooke will or should agree.
-
Which should tell any person reasonably familiar that the FDS is a air FORCE issue, not an air speed issue so the safe deployment speeds is easily calculated at all the design allowed deflection angles when you know one deflection/ias relationship because the safe force limit will not change when the deflections and air speed are adjusted, as long as the new relationship meets the force limit.
Btw Brooke nice math but not really pertinent are they. lift calculations are not really applicable to safe airspeed limit calculations like we were discussing are they?
Of course things depend on force. No one said otherwise. However, since force is about the same at a given IAS (as a result of the physics and math behind aerodynamics), that is why everyone (we here, and pilot's manuals, and flight tests) talk about what the IAS is when you can deploy flaps.
All you need to know is at what IAS can you deploy flaps to a given setting. What you seem to think is that some source said "60 degrees of flaps can be deployed at X" and that HTC is then using X as the speed at which 10 degrees of flaps can be deployed. They don't do that. As you can easily verify with many aircraft in AH, you can deploy the first notch of flaps at a higher speed than for the 2nd notch, and the 2nd notch at a higher speed than full flaps. So, they are already taking into account that less deflection of flaps is less force.
You seem to feel that the speed at which that first notch of flaps can be deployed is too low. Find some credible references that say otherwise, and you are all set.
Still no real world overspeed damage reports posted either I see.
Just because you can't find any references that say "I deployed flaps at higher than X and damaged my flaps or crashed and died" doesn't mean that a game that models aircraft should take what is posted in a pilot's manual, which says "don't deploy flaps at speeds higher than X", and ignore it. That would be, in my opinion, stupid.
And there are consequences to trim tab vs. adjustable stab trim, differences HTC does not take into account as it treats all systems the same as you all have stated.
Oh? What are those that result in different behavior in AH?
-
Of course things depend on force. No one said otherwise. However, since force is about the same at a given IAS (as a result of the physics and math behind aerodynamics), that is why everyone (we here, and pilot's manuals, and flight tests) talk about what the IAS is when you can deploy flaps.
All you need to know is at what IAS can you deploy flaps to a given setting. What you seem to think is that some source said "60 degrees of flaps can be deployed at X" and that HTC is then using X as the speed at which 10 degrees of flaps can be deployed. They don't do that. As you can easily verify with many aircraft in AH, you can deploy the first notch of flaps at a higher speed than for the 2nd notch, and the 2nd notch at a higher speed than full flaps. So, they are already taking into account that less deflection of flaps is less force.
You seem to feel that the speed at which that first notch of flaps can be deployed is too low. Find some credible references that say otherwise, and you are all set.
Just because you can't find any references that say "I deployed flaps at higher than X and damaged my flaps or crashed and died" doesn't mean that a game that models aircraft should take what is posted in a pilot's manual, which says "don't deploy flaps at speeds higher than X", and ignore it. That would be, in my opinion, stupid.
Oh? What are those that result in different behavior in AH?
The planes we were discussing did not state deployment speed limits on their low deflection flap settings, so your stupid/opinion comment does not apply. Landing is a setting, as is maneuver, flight and takeoff.
The credible data is the deployment speeds of other aircraft stated in their POH ...
I.E. no argument can be made for accuracy when one set of flaps can deploy 3x faster at 1/6 their full flap deflection
While another aircraft is limited to 1.3x faster at 1/6 it's full deflection (when their relative deflection ranges are very similar) because it is all force related and the forces are the same. So the situation that exists is that the force loads that are generated by the same airspeeds, and air density, and degrees of measurement of deflection are treated differently because of the lack of documentation that is not at all a factor. Not at all a factor in the forces being represented, or in the ability for anyone to figure out the limits. I.E. htc is missing nothing required to figure out the true limits. The resulting incorrect representation in the game is simply a choice by HTC.
Not finding any reports of overspeed damage supports the fact that FDS was not limited as strictly by real world forces as it is by the game, and since the data selected by HTC has different priorities determined by the original operators those different priorities causes a resulting reduction of capabilities in some aircraft in the game compared to others. Those reduced capabilities have no relationship to history or real world physics, they only exist in the game because of what one operator thought was important to include in their POH compared to what other operators thought was important enough to include in their POH, and of course since it is one of the few aspects of the FMs HTC decided to strictly adhere to POH data as their data requirement.
At some point airflow over surfaces (consequences of TAS) becomes more of a limiting factor that resistance forces. (Consequences of IAS) at least for a while (VMAX/CSF) this is one of the situations where different types of trim systems have different consequences real world wise. Why flaps and trim would not recover a compressing 38 and may recover a compressing ME-109 or FW-190.
-
I.E. no argument can be made for accuracy when one set of flaps can deploy 3x faster at 1/6 their full flap deflection
While another aircraft is limited to 1.3x faster at 1/6 it's full deflection (when their relative deflection ranges are very similar) because it is all force related and the forces are the same.
That is not correct. Different aircraft have different mechanisms. Some can withstand very large forces (P-51 as an example), and others cannot. Even if aircraft have the same wing and flap dimensions, forces on internal structures can be hugely different depending on how those internal structures are designed. They are not all similar. Likewise, not all aircraft have the same top speed, same stall speed, same g limit, same Vne, same ability to handle high-load carrier landings, and so on.
So the situation that exists is that the force loads that are generated by the same airspeeds, and air density, and degrees of measurement of deflection are treated differently because of the lack of documentation that is not at all a factor. Not at all a factor in the forces being represented, or in the ability for anyone to figure out the limits. I.E. htc is missing nothing required to figure out the true limits. The resulting incorrect representation in the game is simply a choice by HTC.
No, you are lacking documentation. HTC probably has documentation that lists the deployment speeds. You are arguing that they should disregard that in favor of your preferences and your incorrect idea that all flaps should be able to deploy at the same speeds, regardless of interior mechanism and many other factors (such as pitch moment, for example).
Not finding any reports of overspeed damage supports . . .
It doesn't support anything. No data on X > Y doesn't mean that X < Y. X could still be > Y, = Y, or < Y -- you don't know.
At some point airflow over surfaces (consequences of TAS) becomes more of a limiting factor that resistance forces. (Consequences of IAS) at least for a while (VMAX/CSF) this is one of the situations where different types of trim systems have different consequences real world wise. Why flaps and trim would not recover a compressing 38 and may recover a compressing ME-109 or FW-190.
Outside of compressiblity, all trim works about the same -- it changes the zero-force point. In compressibility, there are many factors at work with regard to how the plane handles. Trim does in some cases work differently in compressibility between trim tabs and moving the horizontal stabilizer. This is certainly true between the 109 and the P-38 (which in compressibility has the tail in a compressibility stall as well and so trim tabs have no effect). However, do you know that in AH, in a vertical dive in compressibility, that you can pull a Bf 109 out of it with up trim but you can't do that in a P-38? So, in AH, that works correctly after all.
-
Brooke I believe Hitech has posted that IAS is modeled with the position errors.
-
Brooke I believe Hitech has posted that IAS is modeled with the position errors.
Interesting. There isn't a large difference between indicated air speed and calibrated air speed, but my compliments to HTC if they model the difference.
-
That is not correct. Different aircraft have different mechanisms. Some can withstand very large forces (P-51 as an example), and others cannot. Even if aircraft have the same wing and flap dimensions, forces on internal structures can be hugely different depending on how those internal structures are designed. They are not all similar. Likewise, not all aircraft have the same top speed, same stall speed, same g limit, same Vne, same ability to handle high-load carrier landings, and so on.
No, you are lacking documentation. HTC probably has documentation that lists the deployment speeds. You are arguing that they should disregard that in favor of your preferences and your incorrect idea that all flaps should be able to deploy at the same speeds, regardless of interior mechanism and many other factors (such as pitch moment, for example).
It doesn't support anything. No data on X > Y doesn't mean that X < Y. X could still be > Y, = Y, or < Y -- you don't know.
Outside of compressiblity, all trim works about the same -- it changes the zero-force point. In compressibility, there are many factors at work with regard to how the plane handles. Trim does in some cases work differently in compressibility between trim tabs and moving the horizontal stabilizer. This is certainly true between the 109 and the P-38 (which in compressibility has the tail in a compressibility stall as well and so trim tabs have no effect). However, do you know that in AH, in a vertical dive in compressibility, that you can pull a Bf 109 out of it with up trim but you can't do that in a P-38? So, in AH, that works correctly after all.
No sir you are misrepresenting what I posted. The relationship is between the force and each structure. Not between one structure to another.
Your argument is also convoluted and contradictory. You recognize that it is force and not speed that is the limiting factor but you defend the retarding of the speeds and therefore perverting force/speed relationship in cases where the speeds per deflection angle are not available in the POH. As I stated that argument can not be defended.
You are suggesting, without any supporting data I might add, that the strength of the same structure varies in deployment and actually falls below its POH stated safe force load. An assumption that if it were true would make it Impossible to deploy safely at its stated safe speed when passing through your assumed weak phase while being deployed. There is no real world rational or example of a control surface being so designed, it is contrary to design principals of flight control surfaces. Landing gear maybe yes but structures intended to be used for flight control, not a chance.
You make this unsupported assumption because you say you must have data to support a force load you already know from the stated limit at other deflection angles. Yet you assume correct another deployment speed that is not found in the POH. So no data for retarded deployment speeds is ok, but no data for deployment speeds that match the known stated force load per the POH are unacceptable? It just makes no sense and therefore can not be defended under informed scrutiny.
-
Brent,
You are arguing with Brooke to set him up as a proxy for Hitech. You have yet to tell Hitech exactly what you want from him based on your arguments, that so far you are trying to support solely on the pedigree of your aviation engineering knowledge as your resume to pick your fight with Hitech. But, the aircraft in question are not being supported by you with specific data, rather a floating target of engineering principles your audience is versed in as well as yourself.
Would you mind telling Hitech exactly what you want from him instead of using Brooke as a shill to get away with insulting Hitech while hiding behind engineering babel.
-
No sir . . .
I disagree with just about everything in that post.
Nevertheless, it is very simple: if you think that a max flap-deployment speed in AH is wrong, post some data that shows this.
So far, your argument seems to be: "I can't find anything contradicting my claims, so they must be true; and anyways here are my ideas on how the engineering and physics of it should work." Both aspects of that don't work. Just because you can't find anything contradicting your claims doesn't mean your claims are true; and your justifications based on your ideas of engineering and physics have flaws.
In addition, you keep misrepresenting or misunderstanding all of my points. If I were your instructor in an engineering or physics course, I would give you an F (or maybe a D, since you at least listed some reasoning). ;)
-
Firstly you have posted no data to dispute my observations, you just keep asking me to produce numbers that the publishers did not print in the POH because I can only conclude they thought them unnecessary or they would be included, I even gave some very good reasons why that might be the case.
Secondly, I didn't start this thread or the many others on this very subject. I just posted a way to show why people, many people (including other game designers, and reseachers) find HTC's decision on this aspect of the game suspect, and an alternative common sense method used by others to achieve a more realistic conclusion.
I wouldn't presume to ask anybody anything just offering another valid pov on things, and why it is probably correct, or at least more correct.
The force is the limiting factor, on that we agree. Now it does not treat the same types of things differently, the same speeds and deflection angles produce the same force per sq inch so there is no argument that can be made that changes that. A structure of this type that is safe at 100psi will always be safe at 100psi no matter the combination of angle and speed you use to get to 100 psi. That is just how it is everywhere, except in HTC world. For some reason on that you choose to disagree, and have yet to present your case as to why.
Once again I feel we are at an impasse, so instead of asking for data thought not important enough to print 70 years ago. Why don't you show me why I am incorrect about all this stuff.
-
Why don't you show me why I am incorrect about all this stuff.
I have. I'll summarize yet again.
1. You feel that max flap-deployment speed for aircraft in AH is too high.
2. You have no data giving flap-deployment speeds that contradict AH.
3. You say that, because you haven't found a pilot's statement of flaps failing at higher speeds, this supports your claim. (That is incorrect reasoning because the absence of an example is not at all a counterexample. Just because you can't find statements of "X > Y" does not imply that X < Y. It can still be >, =, or < Y.)
4. You seem to think that, because forces on flaps are lower at lower deflections, this helps validate your claim. (That is incorrect. First, AH already models lower force on lower deflections, the proof of it being that deploying one notch of flaps happens at higher speeds than deploying more than one notch of flaps. Second, this says nothing about what the low-deflection flap-deployment speed should be.)
5. You seem to think that all planes should have about the same flap deployment speeds. (That is incorrect. Different mechanisms, even for the same flap area, will have different strengths. Some planes will be able to deploy flaps at a higher speed, or higher forces if you want me to talk about it that way, than others because they certainly do not all have the same internal designs for actuator mechanisms. This is about as straightforward as realizing why all WWII fighter planes didn't have the same stick pull per g of effect, the same roll rate, the same Vne, the same max g, etc.)
Please feel free to tell me if you actually don't think 4 and 5. I can't tell on some things because you don't tend to answer direct questions directly.
other game designers, and reseachers) find HTC's decision on this aspect of the game suspect
I generally don't see that level of bald-faced fabrication outside of politics. ;)
There are, however -- posting in this topic and for certain -- people with substantial experience and backgrounds in engineering, physics, aerodynamics, and mathematical and computational modeling who disagree with you.
-
BUTTFACES!
-
I have. I'll summarize yet again.
1. You feel that max flap-deployment speed for aircraft in AH is too high.
2. You have no data giving flap-deployment speeds that contradict AH.
3. You say that, because you haven't found a pilot's statement of flaps failing at higher speeds, this supports your claim. (That is incorrect reasoning because the absence of an example is not at all a counterexample. Just because you can't find statements of "X > Y" does not imply that X < Y. It can still be >, =, or < Y.)
4. You seem to think that, because forces on flaps are lower at lower deflections, this helps validate your claim. (That is incorrect. First, AH already models lower force on lower deflections, the proof of it being that deploying one notch of flaps happens at higher speeds than deploying more than one notch of flaps. Second, this says nothing about what the low-deflection flap-deployment speed should be.)
5. You seem to think that all planes should have about the same flap deployment speeds. (That is incorrect. Different mechanisms, even for the same flap area, will have different strengths. Some planes will be able to deploy flaps at a higher speed, or higher forces if you want me to talk about it that way, than others because they certainly do not all have the same internal designs for actuator mechanisms. This is about as straightforward as realizing why all WWII fighter planes didn't have the same stick pull per g of effect, the same roll rate, the same Vne, the same max g, etc.)
Please feel free to tell me if you actually don't think 4 and 5. I can't tell on some things because you don't tend to answer direct questions directly.
I generally don't see that level of bald-faced fabrication outside of politics. ;)
There are, however -- posting in this topic and for certain -- people with substantial experience and backgrounds in engineering, physics, aerodynamics, and mathematical and computational modeling who disagree with you.
1; nope never said that, or at least never meant to communicate that. What I said is that the low deflection FDS are too low on most FMs in AH, And that if the low deflection FDS are not specifically stated in the POH, HTC's apparent preferred source, that the unlisted speeds could be easily calculated using the calculated force loads calculated from the "known" or in this case POH stated deflection/s safe FDS.
2; since the accepted data is limited to one type of source in this case, no I can not produce safe deployment speed statements for deflection angles that the publishers of the documents did not include. Otoh neither can HTC, yet he does so anyway, just at substantially lower speeds than a lot of other sources of data and or information would put them.
3; the absence of reports of a problem, is strong evidence that there was no problem. Especially when fighter pilots are involved. ;)
4; my point is that since the wind forces are the same, and the flap is the same, then the relationship between the flaps and the wind forces should be the same.
5; no, flaps are different size, type, have different max deflection angles, and or a deflection angle settings, all will result in different FDS for different aircraft. However (and this is what you are not getting) the relationship between deflection angle and airspeed and force should be the same. The reason is this simple, each flap system does not change shape, size, or structural integrity in its deployment process. What changes is its deflection angle into the airflow. The limiting factor is the structural integrity of the device. It takes much more air speed to reach the structural integrity limit at 1/10 it's fully deployed setting then it would at 10/10 it's fully deployed setting. That is what is the same that relationship. whatever the specific angle and speeds may be for each specific flap system the relationship should be the same (or I should say so similar as to make very little difference) I.e. if plane 1 can deploy 45 degrees of flaps at x speed and 5 degrees of flaps at 4x speed safely, then any aircraft that can deploy 45 degrees and 5 degrees should be able to use the same factors of what ever is their safe 45 and 5 degree speed, say z and 4z.
furthermore 10 - 20 degrees of deflection results in so low a force on a flap structure that that range would pretty much be available at any speed these aircraft are capable of achieving, so to deny the vast majority of aircraft with the capability to deploy 20 degrees or less until below the speed that the landing gear can be deployed is as far from realistic as one can get.
Last time I played il2 FDS was @ 300ias for most planes with low deflection flap settings, ask anyone who knows about 10 degrees of flaps vs 60 degrees and safe deployment speeds and se what they say.
Funny all I see here is you and all you do is ask for "data" and when I provide some all you do is go to extreme amounts of supposition to attempt to refute it. Where is your army of experts that say flaps get weaker at lower deflection angles?
-
Why would you use flaps at 300 IAS? No G limits?
You mention other sources with flap speed data but you don't list them.
-
furthermore 10 - 20 degrees of deflection results in so low a force on a flap structure that that range would pretty much be available at any speed these aircraft are capable of achieving
If a compressing aircraft needs trim tabs to assist control surfaces you really believe they can just drop flaps? That's beyond silly.
-
If you learn aerodynamics from iL2 there's probably a few bits missing.
-
If a compressing aircraft needs trim tabs to assist control surfaces you really believe they can just drop flaps? That's beyond silly.
Really? Why is that? What device stops them? What is the structural difference between a split flap and a p38 speed flap? FYI the plane we were discussing did not have trim tabs so you should either be more clear or re read the thread.
Why would you use flaps at 300 IAS? No G limits?
You mention other sources with flap speed data but you don't list them.
The same reasons p51 pilots used their flaps at high speeds.
Point being they were similar structures designed and used for the same things.
What is the difference between a p51 flap and a 109 flap? Do you know?
No I said others came to different conclusions. when the data was not conveniently specific enough.
If you learn aerodynamics from iL2 there's probably a few bits missing.
I Was discussing il2 s different conclusions from the same data pool as HTC, not relative aerodynamic credibility. BTW the same could be said of using HTC as an aerodynamic reference.
-
If a compressing aircraft needs trim tabs to assist control surfaces you really believe they can just drop flaps? That's beyond silly.
Compressibility effects vary greatly between different aircraft. In the 109 both trim and flaps were used to pull out of dives.
"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. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
-
3; the absence of reports of a problem, is strong evidence that there was no problem. Especially when fighter pilots are involved. ;)
The absence of reports of a problem could also mean that the flaps on some aircraft were not used the same way that they were used on others or people don`t feel the need to search for such information. Pilots in WW2 probably didn`t calculate forces and deployment speeds for flaps at lower settings based on some information found in POH. So maybe overspeed damage is missing because they were not used in such a way.
-
Why would you use flaps at 300 IAS? No G limits?
You mention other sources with flap speed data but you don't list them.
Kilometers per hour.
-
1; nope never said that, or at least never meant to communicate that. What I said is that the low deflection FDS are too low on most FMs in AH
Sorry, meant to say that "You feel that max flap-deployment speed for aircraft in AH is too low" (mistyped "high" instead of "low" in my previous post -- but I mean low). "You feel that max flap-deployment speed for aircraft in AH is too low" means the same thing as "the low deflection FDS are too low on most FMs in AH".
, And that if the low deflection FDS are not specifically stated in the POH, HTC's apparent preferred source, that the unlisted speeds could be easily calculated using the calculated force loads calculated from the "known" or in this case POH stated deflection/s safe FDS.
As I've said before, since low-deflection flap deployment happens at a higher speed than higher-deflection flap deployment, that is proof that HTC takes it into account already.
2; since the accepted data is limited to one type of source in this case, no I can not produce safe deployment speed statements for deflection angles that the publishers of the documents did not include. Otoh neither can HTC, yet he does so anyway, just at substantially lower speeds than a lot of other sources of data and or information would put them.
It's not limited to that, and you have no idea what HTC has as data. Do you think that a manual says "full flap deployment shouldn't be done above X speed" so they make X the limit of deploying 10 degrees of flaps? If you think that, you are mistaken, because the planes in AH deploy 10 degrees at a higher speed than full flaps.
3; the absence of reports of a problem, is strong evidence that there was no problem. Especially when fighter pilots are involved. ;)
Yep, not much of a problem. Probably because no one was trying to deploy flaps at 250 mph in their FW 190's.
The absence of reports of people deploying flaps at high speeds is strong evidence that people didn't much do that; hence, no problems.
4; my point is that since the wind forces are the same, and the flap is the same, then the relationship between the flaps and the wind forces should be the same.
Let me try another approach. One barn door in the wind has a 8 year old holding it open and another barn door of exactly the same configuration in the same wind has a strong 21 year old holding it open. Force on the barn door is the same, yes, but which one will be held open in the strongest wind? Obviously the one with the 21 year old. Now, replace 8 year old and 21 year old and barn doors with actuator mechanisms and flaps. You get the idea.
5; no, flaps are different size, type, have different max deflection angles, and or a deflection angle settings, all will result in different FDS for different aircraft. However (and this is what you are not getting) the relationship between deflection angle and airspeed and force should be the same. . . .
See above comment.
Last time I played il2 FDS was @ 300ias for most planes with low deflection flap settings, ask anyone who knows about 10 degrees of flaps vs 60 degrees and safe deployment speeds and se what they say.
The last time I flew planes in Battlefield 1942, it gave me the idea that a P-51 should carry 50 bombs and have a turning radius of 100 ft.
Funny all I see here is you and all you do is ask for "data" and when I provide some all you do is go to extreme amounts of supposition to attempt to refute it.
You haven't provided any data at all on flap deployment speeds. Thoughts and discussions are not data.
Where is your army of experts that say flaps get weaker at lower deflection angles?
Flaps getting weaker at lower deflections? That's the opposite of what I've been saying. That the force on flaps is lower at lower deflections is about one of the only things I agree with you on.
-
With all of the EU companies now rebuilding 109 and 190, why haven't any of you gone through the laborious process of contacting those companies and asking them about flap actuation?
So far there is no one in this argument presenting a reason for Hitech to change his choice of modeling. Only a reverse logic of: if you cannot prove me wrong, and my argument is only a comparative observation presenting no specifics for you to refute on the data for each aircraft in question, then Hitech is and idiot and I win. Internet era anonymous identity debate skills.
Brooke,
Didn't someone start this same argument about 7 years ago in our forum as his reason for never playing AH again? Because Hitech refused to make the 109 and 190 flaps actuate at the same speeds IL2 did?
Brook and Brent,
Contact this company who restores Bf 109 and ask them about flaps. I have to go through laborious crap like this to research gunsights from around the world. Otherwise, this whole conversation has been about calling Hitech an idiot in his own forum while getting away with it.
Hartmair Leichtbau GmbH
Michaelsweg 9
D-85356 Freising (Ortsteil Tüntenhausen)
Tel. 0 81 67 - 69 37 43
mail@leichtbau-gmbh.de
-
Kilometers per hour.
Thanks, that makes a little more sense but if it includes US aircraft then they got neutered.
-
Really? Why is that? What device stops them? What is the structural difference between a split flap and a p38 speed flap? FYI the plane we were discussing did not have trim tabs so you should either be more clear or re read the thread.
The same reasons p51 pilots used their flaps at high speeds.
Point being they were similar structures designed and used for the same things.
What is the difference between a p51 flap and a 109 flap? Do you know?
No I said others came to different conclusions. when the data was not conveniently specific enough.
I Was discussing il2 s different conclusions from the same data pool as HTC, not relative aerodynamic credibility. BTW the same could be said of using HTC as an aerodynamic reference.
The P-38 dive flap is not a high lift device. You can't compare it to regular flaps.
The 109 slats are essentially all speed "combat flaps". The P-51 has the speed limited combat flap setting of 10 degrees.
-
BUTTFACES!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LUIiX8TDF2c
-
The absence of reports of a problem could also mean that the flaps on some aircraft were not used the same way that they were used on others or people don`t feel the need to search for such information. Pilots in WW2 probably didn`t calculate forces and deployment speeds for flaps at lower settings based on some information found in POH. So maybe overspeed damage is missing because they were not used in such a way.
Or you could read the pilot account below and realize that low deflections result in low levels of stress on a flap structure, no matter who manufactures the aircraft in question.
Compressibility effects vary greatly between different aircraft. In the 109 both trim and flaps were used to pull out of dives.
"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. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
-
...
Let me try another approach. One barn door in the wind has a 8 year old holding it open and another barn door of exactly the same configuration in the same wind has a strong 21 year old holding it open. Force on the barn door is the same, yes, but which one will be held open in the strongest wind? Obviously the one with the 21 year old. Now, replace 8 year old and 21 year old and barn doors with actuator mechanisms and flaps. You get the idea.
...
Flaps getting weaker at lower deflections? That's the opposite of what I've been saying. That the force on flaps is lower at lower deflections is about one of the only things I agree with you on.
Just going to address the above two comments as this is where you are missing my point.
I agree with you analogy however that has nothing to do with what I am saying.
So now imagine the 21 year old and the 8 year old have different size doors so that each of them can open their respective door to 45 degrees into the wind at 50 miles an hour. Since the same wind speed results in the same ability to open the door at 45 degrees that means that whatever the wind speed happens to be, their ability to open their respective doors should result in the same angles of deflection because the wind speed is the same at the same side of the barn and no matter what angle the door is at or how fast the wind is blowing the boys are the same Strength, not compared to each other, but compared to themselves when the wind was 50 mph and the door was at 45 degrees. That is what I am saying, and that is not anything like the way HTC represents things in the game.
-
I think diving bf109's up to 950km/h is solid flying.
:aok
-
Just going to address the above two comments as this is where you are missing my point.
I agree with you analogy however that has nothing to do with what I am saying.
So now imagine the 21 year old and the 8 year old have different size doors so that each of them can open their respective door to 45 degrees into the wind at 50 miles an hour. Since the same wind speed results in the same ability to open the door at 45 degrees that means that whatever the wind speed happens to be, their ability to open their respective doors should result in the same angles of deflection because the wind speed is the same at the same side of the barn and no matter what angle the door is at or how fast the wind is blowing the boys are the same Strength, not compared to each other, but compared to themselves when the wind was 50 mph and the door was at 45 degrees. That is what I am saying, and that is not anything like the way HTC represents things in the game.
Why would you assume that all manufacturers normalized the flap structural strength to the same airspeed? It makes no sense.
In some planes flaps were clearly not intended to use for anything other than landing. This is abundantly clear in the low wingloaded planes that employ the most simple and primitive flaps. They needed the extra drag much more than high AoA lift - their landing speed was already quite low. High wing loaded planes absolutely needed effective flaps (i.e., lift not just drag) in order to lower their otherwise very high landing speed. That meant deploying them at a higher speed to begin with, which in turn required them to be stronger.
A rule of thumb in engineering is not to over-spec. If the flaps do not need to be stronger, they are not made stronger because this means weight, cost and complexity. For this reason very few planes used Fowler flaps. They are effective, but also heavier, complex (less reliable, more maintenance) and increase the costs. In something as big and heavy as the P-38 that seemed like a reasonable thing to install. Not so much in a spit. In the P-38, which was already heavy, adding a little extra strengthening to the flaps at the cost of more weight made little difference to the total weight, but would allow the flaps to be deployed at combat speeds. Lockheed probably recognized a weakness in the 38's turn ability due to the high wing loading and decided to offer a partial solution through complex flaps instead of making the wings bigger. In that specific case, designing the flaps for use at 200+ mph may have made sense. Why would a Spit or a Zero need to deploy flaps at speeds in which they can pull into a blackout?
Bottom line, different flaps on different planes were not designed for deployment at the same speeds, or withstand the same forces. A spit flaps will likely suffer damage at a lower speed than a P-38's flaps. Kurt Tank obviously did not think his 190s need to turn better. Giving up low speed turning is what made these planes so effective.
-
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LUIiX8TDF2c
:rofl
-
Why would you assume that all manufacturers normalized the flap structural strength to the same airspeed? It makes no sense.
In some planes flaps were clearly not intended to use for anything other than landing. This is abundantly clear in the low wingloaded planes that employ the most simple and primitive flaps. They needed the extra drag much more than high AoA lift - their landing speed was already quite low. High wing loaded planes absolutely needed effective flaps (i.e., lift not just drag) in order to lower their otherwise very high landing speed. That meant deploying them at a higher speed to begin with, which in turn required them to be stronger.
A rule of thumb in engineering is not to over-spec. If the flaps do not need to be stronger, they are not made stronger because this means weight, cost and complexity. For this reason very few planes used Fowler flaps. They are effective, but also heavier, complex (less reliable, more maintenance) and increase the costs. In something as big and heavy as the P-38 that seemed like a reasonable thing to install. Not so much in a spit. In the P-38, which was already heavy, adding a little extra strengthening to the flaps at the cost of more weight made little difference to the total weight, but would allow the flaps to be deployed at combat speeds. Lockheed probably recognized a weakness in the 38's turn ability due to the high wing loading and decided to offer a partial solution through complex flaps instead of making the wings bigger. In that specific case, designing the flaps for use at 200+ mph may have made sense. Why would a Spit or a Zero need to deploy flaps at speeds in which they can pull into a blackout?
Bottom line, different flaps on different planes were not designed for deployment at the same speeds, or withstand the same forces. A spit flaps will likely suffer damage at a lower speed than a P-38's flaps. Kurt Tank obviously did not think his 190s need to turn better. Giving up low speed turning is what made these planes so effective.
No#1 the use of Factor of safety procedures is universal so aircraft are always designed to be stronger than they need to be. Especially combat aircraft and more stringent are fighter aircraft Factors of safety. They are designed so as to never fail under foreseen stress loads, as much as possible.
No#2 since after much discussion we have all come to agree that it is the force load that is the limiting factor in FDS,
And that less deflection means more speed then my barn door explanation begs the question as to why some aircraft
That have fully extended flap speeds that are so very similar have low deflection flap speeds that are so far apart. physics and aerodynamics can not account for the difference, only the data selection process explains that. And data selection 60 years after the fact has little to do with real world capabilities in WW2.
No#3 since we know that there was at least one button on the FW-190 flap deployment control called maneuver, you are again mistaken about Mr. Tank's design intentions.
-
Button label is great, but maneuvering at what speed? The discussion is pointless unless somebody comes up with official numbers. HTC will not change anything otherwise.
-
In modeling, you only make assumptions if you have to.
1. If you have data that says "don't deploy 10 degrees of flaps above X mph", then you use that.
2. If you only have data that says "don't deploy full flaps above X mph", then you make some assumptions based on force to decide when 10 degrees of flaps can be deployed.
HTC clearly does either 1 or 2 for each aircraft, since 10 degrees of flaps in AH aircraft can be deployed at a higher speed than can full flaps.
What you are arguing, Brent, is that:
-- In the cases where HTC is doing 1 above, it is a bad choice because the stated data is too conservative, and that they should always do 2; and
-- In the cases where HTC is doing 2 above , they are misestimating when 10 degrees of flaps should be deployed.
I feel that 1 is preferable to 2 when you have the data; and in the cases where HTC is doing 2, I trust their estimations still. Also, it doesn't even matter except for maybe a couple of aircraft that I know of in the game (the 190 and the A-20).
As for the barn-door example, what is your pick of two planes that have the same full-flap deflection speed but significantly different 10-degree flap deflection speeds?
-
I have stated before that specific data is easier, and that I would not presume to redesign the perameters that HTC uses to define the FMs, at least not for free.
However in the case where data is "known" for one plane that data source could be used as a guide for other planes with similar capabilities yet lacking the easy data. You could estimate conservatively and still be reasonable, that would solve the problems especially with really problem FMs like the a20 190 etc.
I think however you look at the deployment speeds in the game you will find that the FDS speeds/deflections are much more pronounced at low angle setting then they are as you approach max deployment for all the aircraft allowed the higher low deflection angle speeds when compared to those not granted that ability because of the data selection choices. Try the 109 e vs the p51d same type of flight flaps and max deflections are pretty close and the size difference fits nicely with my barn door example. Computer modeling allows you to do whatever you want no limits are put on the designer, IMO the proof of success in a sim of this type is how well it plays vs. real world combat accounts, as these types of games are not really flight simulators as much as they are air combat simulators. Otherwise the education burden would be impractical for an entertainment source. As an entertainment source they do pretty well IMO.
-
at least not for free.
I don't think you need to worry about that. ;)
However in the case where data is "known" for one plane that data source could be used as a guide for other planes with similar capabilities yet lacking the easy data. You could estimate conservatively and still be reasonable, that would solve the problems especially with really problem FMs like the a20 190 etc.
You don't know which have data, and which are estimates (if any). If there are any that are estimates, you don't know how good an estimate it is. You don't know any of that because all you are doing is assuming that, if one plane as a higher flap-deployment speed than another, that it's wrong. A-20 and FW 190 don't have flight-model problems. You keep saying that. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are the only ones I know of that would benefit from a higher flap-deployment speed, not that the speed picked is wrong. The P-51 would benefit from another 50 mph in top speed, but I don't think the P-51's top speed is wrong.
I think however you look at the deployment speeds in the game you will find that the FDS speeds/deflections are much more pronounced at low angle setting then they are as you approach max deployment for all the aircraft allowed the higher low deflection angle speeds when compared to those not granted that ability because of the data selection choices.
I don't think so.
Try the 109 e vs the p51d
I don't care about the 109's. If they had higher flap-deployment speeds, it would not matter to me at all or be, in my view, any advantage at all.
-
190 might not have higher flaps speed, but taking away things like the 2*13mm would make it a bit better plane overall ( they did that on pilots request afaik)
You don't need those considering it already has all the fire-power it needs, and would help its nose-heavy performance.
-
I don't think you need to worry about that. ;)
I am Sure you are correct, and not worried at all ;)
You don't know which have data, and which are estimates (if any). If there are any that are estimates, you don't know how good an estimate it is. You don't know any of that because all you are doing is assuming that, if one plane as a higher flap-deployment speed than another, that it's wrong. A-20 and FW 190 don't have flight-model problems. You keep saying that. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are the only ones I know of that would benefit from a higher flap-deployment speed, not that the speed picked is wrong. The P-51 would benefit from another 50 mph in top speed, but I don't think the P-51's top speed is wrong.
Right HTC keeps all that dark so there is no chance of independent review.
I don't think so.
Well if you look, it is pretty clear.
I don't care about the 109's. If they had higher flap-deployment speeds, it would not matter to me at all or be, in my view, any advantage at all.
Well you asked for a pair to compare per my version of the barn door example sooo I gave you one.
-
If I have my facts straight AH doesn't really model plane performance as much as apply it's weight, drag, lift, thrust, etc. to a physics model. Somewhere around here there's a diagram of the airflow modeling over the wing surface with something like twelve data points across the wing from root to tip and then from leading to trailing edge. I remember it being a big deal when extra data points were added.
If I'm right about that then flap/control surface size, shape and deflection are simply fed into the physics engine. The only variable that could be modeled at that point is the strength of the actuating mechanism. This has to be modeled into each plane otherwise you wouldn't have compression in some planes and not in others.
It seems to work quite well actually as I encountered mach tuck in a Me163 offline going for an altitude record. I can't think of any other situation in the game where you'd run into that and It doesn't seem like something someone would consiously model for given the low likelyhood of someone entering a state where it would be experienced.
Skuzzy has often said that AH is CPU intensive due to the computational load of the physics modeling and it makes sense in comparison to the better racing games which are also based on a physics model with the car models simply providing the raw data that the physics model then acts on.
So, I wouldn't be surprised if AH planes didn't exactly match real world performance but they seem to be very close in most cases so the physics model must be working well across the variability of the plane set. The question then is where do you find data on the strength of the actuating mechanisms. I'd guess much of that is difficult to find and therefor based largely on anecdotal evidence.
Personally I'm happy that they went through all the effort to model all of this and that it turned out so well so would be forgiving of a few issues of which I have no personal experience anyway. I'm also gald that HT doesn't just start changing plane performance based on every player's wishes but stick to their guns until indesputable proof is provided, the burdon of which is on the person looking for the change.
-
Yea B.E.it just seems an odd thing to stake so much of that aspect of the flaps so heavily on the POH. They are not strictly engineering documents, and there are so many settings not specified by the respective POHs that it is bound to lead to perpetual muttering, and for what? I mean the lack of specified setting data still leaves you mostly guessing or estimating or whatever they do without the specific spelled out deflection safe speeds. I would think another route would be more elegant and explainable. Especially since as you point out they seem to go to so much trouble elsewhere. Enough muttering, people gonna think I am not a fan and don't enjoy playing.
Best of the season to everyone, I am off Christmas~ing.
-
HTC has done an amazing job concerning gameplay and I gladly pay to play here when there are plenty of alternatives..........which just don't come close to comparing.
-
Well you asked for a pair to compare per my version of the barn door example sooo I gave you one.
Yes, you are correct. My apologies.
OK, so do you have references for max flap angle of the Bf 109G-2?
Also, what is your calculation of how torque on a flap changes with deployment angle?
-
HTC has done an amazing job concerning gameplay and I gladly pay to play here when there are plenty of alternatives..........which just don't come close to comparing.
The whole "realistic vs arcade" argument comes up with many games, Falcon 4 with 110% realism is amazing, except it took me a good year or more to even get near figuring things out. Aces high has a pretty nice balance which I've never seen any simulator come close to this, let alone a WW2 sim.
War Thunder is all for Arcade and cheesy Graphics, while it does look good, I flew for a few weeks with a mouse and would shoot down 5 planes without any effort.
I only wish there were enough subscribers to do Snapshots and FSO more often, this is one thing I really wish someone would do a decent AI for, I'd like to fly a campaign with "BoB" or "Guadalcanal" for more then a single hour.
Something like Battle of Britain IL-2, except without the 10,000 bugs that comes along with it.
-
Yes, you are correct. My apologies.
OK, so do you have references for max flap angle of the Bf 109G-2?
Also, what is your calculation of how torque on a flap changes with deployment angle?
The landing flap position, max extension, is 40 degrees.