Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Tac on January 30, 2002, 08:38:35 PM
-
... or make it an option in the SETUP, just below the Combat Trim.
Gripe: The one plane that heavily relies on its flaps (P38) is getting KILLED because they retract automatically the instant the speed ticker hits 250mph. Any kind of prolonged loop fight in which the 38 does not pull hard will make the plane go beyond 250mph for a second b4 the plane goes nose up again and bleeds the speed down to 120'ish.. but before that, the flaps retract, and you're pulling while they retract, SPIN, and the happy con you were following turns on your 6.
And lo if you have more than 1 notch deployed, 250mph mark reached, retract one, spin, while trying to recover plane goes below 250, flaps stop retracting, recover ( IF the con hasnt shot you down by then: plane quickly goes to 250, ANOTHER flap is retracted, SPIN again! . Oh joy.
Can we please have the option to not make them autoretract? If the flaps are down at 250mph make the plane start to shake, the higher above 250mph the worse it shakes until maybe 320mph at which point you could have the flaps ripped out and some kind of damage to the wings.
-
Seconded!
-
Thirded!
Quite happy if the auto retract dissappeared when switching off the auto combat trim............
Further what about deleting the speed threshold for lowering the flaps............
Why cant they act like the gear.......... lower it when too fast..........loose it!!!
Tilt
-
It's not autoretracting, it's backdriving. If somebody wants to present evidence that a particular plane had non-backdriving actuators then they might change it.
I think the maximum flap extenstion speeds are based on actuator force/torque limits too. It's not that the flaps would break off the airplane, it's that the actuator didn't have enough power to extend flaps above a certain speed.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
It's not autoretracting, it's backdriving. If somebody wants to present evidence that a particular plane had non-backdriving actuators then they might change it.
I think the maximum flap extenstion speeds are based on actuator force/torque limits too. It's not that the flaps would break off the airplane, it's that the actuator didn't have enough power to extend flaps above a certain speed.
The La 7 & La5 FN had split hydraulically operated flaps.
See flaps here (http://www.tilt.clara.net/White77/flap1.jpg)
So yes there would be a pressure at which the force was too high for the actuator to push them down........ I do not know what it is.
I am sure that there was no pressure operated return valve in the circuit ( I have the circuit at home and will check and post)
The pilot had a simple 3 position hand valve. Item 10 on this drawing (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/cockleft.jpg)
and the handle to the left here (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/instruments.jpg)
and here with the handle pushed forward (http://www.tilt.clara.net/White77/instport.jpg)
My understanding is that the centre blocked the circuits, pushing one way raised flap, pushing the other lowered flap. Hence flaps would not auto retract unless the valve was left in the forward position which would risk bleeding the air/oil accumulator. (air from which also drove down the gear)
Given that there was an IAS which provided enough back force to stop full deployment I would profer that various degrees of partial deplyment could have been executed at various IAS.
Tilt
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I think the maximum flap extenstion speeds are based on actuator force/torque limits too. It's not that the flaps would break off the airplane, it's that the actuator didn't have enough power to extend flaps above a certain speed.
Lt. Col. (then-Lt.) Besby Holmes, 347th FG (Guadalcanal, P-38Gs):
"I tripped my maneuver flaps, which was illegal, for when I looked at the airspeed I was still doing 350, I think the tech order said 260 indicated was the maximum speed to trip a maneuver flap. At that stage of the game I didn't care about that as long as the wings stayed on me. Unless I got there fast, Barber was a dead duck."
-
I say set them up to break off or jam - even better - instead of auto retraction, then again I don't use them :)
As soon as HTC were to make the change, more ppl would be complaining about them breaking/jamming than are now complaining about the auto retraction..
-
Was flying the P-47d-30 yesterday offline.. and was playing around with it.. I did a split-s at 200 with 3 notches of flaps down and by the time a finished the move.. I was at 300mph with one notch of flap still down.. I was thinkin to my self wish the 38 could do this... So I rolled over did a swallow dive and the min. I pasted 300mph the flaps went up.. the rest of the way.. And i stayed with dive and the 47 dives damn good! So HTC jus needs to model the flap retraction after the 47d-30 atleast.. 1 notch of flaps stay down until u get past 300mph.. and in AW if you left your flaps down in a 38 and went into a dive and got some speed up say 300 or 325 mph. The nose would tuck and your pitch control got real sluggish like in a dive but with the buffeting. maybe HTC could modeled it like that.. HMmm I dunno. and HTC needs to redo thedive flaps on the 38 to they suck.. Plain and simple.
CW
-
Not all flap systems are the same. I think we need to remember that.
There are different designs. Some have strong linkages, some are not so strong. I think some had the capability of "blowing up" to some degree in an overspeed; some did not.. probably most. Some were manually deployed, some used hydraulics and there were probably even some electrics. Some aircraft really buffetted when flaps were oversped; some didn't buffet all that much. Some generated a need for high stick forces to counter flap over speed (force feedback); others weren't as bad (usually depending on where they were on the wing).
Point is, if you're going to do it RIGHT, flap modeling is going to have to be a whole lot more complex and airplane specific.
So, while I'm speaking neither for nor against, I am pointing out that to do this RIGHT all across the planeset... it's going to be a BIG project.
Thank you... and goodnight. ;)
-
Hi everyone,
it seems to me that auto-retracting is a kludge introduced for ease of modelling.
As far as I know, manual, hydraulic and electric flaps were not subject to auto-retraction, and I'd think it would have required quite some sophisticated system to implement it in real life. (Post-war Gloster Meteors had one.)
In WW2, there were pneumatically operated flaps as well, and these could actually be auto-retracting. The FM-2 Wildcat manual describes this process, which sounds like a great feature for go-arounds. However, I believe that despite its advantages the auto-retraction really was a side-effect of the kludge Grumman used for lowering the flaps :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Tac. I hear ya on this one. I do not like the auto retract myself either, granted I never use it in the Dora :) but for those that do use them it should not retract Auto.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
The La 7 & La5 FN had split hydraulically operated flaps.
I have just read in another publication that the hydraulic actuating cylinder for the Lagg3 flaps had an inbuilt pressure relief valve that allowed oil to flow (in both directions) across the piston in the event of over pressure.
I have every reason to believe that this was the same cylinder used in later La5 and La7 variants.
This is in line with the hydraulic plan I have, which is more pictural than schematic. (just shows the pipe going to the cylinder)
Hence as airspeed increased it is possible that the flaps lifted pushing the actuating cyliders piston down the cylinder whilst the control valve was still closed.
My assertion that they would be held in position by the operating valve was incorrect.
AH's modeling of them able to be pushed back by air pressure is correct. (at what airspeed I have no idea)
we live and learn
Tilt
-
Nice research Tilt.
I will try to find hydro schematics for US planes. If they all used cylinders I wonder if they had pressure relief valves too.
A more modern setup is to use a rotary hydraulic motor driving a gearbox and shaft system, or driving a jackscrew. These would probably not backdrive due to the gear ratios and/or friction in the jackscrew. But I don't know if this was used in WWII aircraft.
I think most of the UK planes used pneumatics, which I'm pretty sure would backdrive as well.
P-39 and Fw 190 used electric flap actuator. I don't know details of the Cobra but I think the 190 had an electric motor driving a jackscrew. In general jackscrews will not backdrive so that system shouldn't "autoretract". I'll look into this further.
-
Tilt-
In a discussion with Oleg on this during the Il-2 beta he indicated that the design of the Lagg flaps would not do this. In fact he indicated that the flaps had enough pressure to open at almost any extreme speed, to the point where the cylinders would actually warp the frame supports and the flaps would not later retract.
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]
Tilt-
In a discussion with Oleg on this during the Il-2 beta he indicated that the design of the Lagg flaps would not do this. In fact he indicated that the flaps had enough pressure to open at almost any extreme speed, to the point where the cylinders would actually warp the frame supports and the flaps would not later retract.
I think it it is pretty certain that there was a pressure bypass valve in the flap actuating cylinder.
The question I cannot answer is at what IAS would the back pressure be high enough to to lift this pressure relief valve.
The hydraulics were generally limited to 30 / 35kg/cm^2. What the flap pressure relief valve was set at I do not know. Even that data is worthless without the actuator piston dia and any linkage MA.
BTW looking at the design its the linkages between actuater and (most probably starboard) flap that would fail first (one actuator located in the port wing operated both sets of flaps)
So if you can fish up "OLEGs" notes to help us......................
Tilt
-
Preachin to the choir bro!
This is prolly the one glaring problem I have with AH so far. The whole autoretract thing makes no sense to me at all in a sim that screams out for realism. I'm against auto-anything pretty much. Mo' workload=mo' better to me. Just sayin.
Drano
Originally posted by Tac
... or make it an option in the SETUP, just below the Combat Trim.
Gripe: The one plane that heavily relies on its flaps (P38) is getting KILLED because they retract automatically the instant the speed ticker hits 250mph. Any kind of prolonged loop fight in which the 38 does not pull hard will make the plane go beyond 250mph for a second b4 the plane goes nose up again and bleeds the speed down to 120'ish.. but before that, the flaps retract, and you're pulling while they retract, SPIN, and the happy con you were following turns on your 6.
And lo if you have more than 1 notch deployed, 250mph mark reached, retract one, spin, while trying to recover plane goes below 250, flaps stop retracting, recover ( IF the con hasnt shot you down by then: plane quickly goes to 250, ANOTHER flap is retracted, SPIN again! . Oh joy.
Can we please have the option to not make them autoretract? If the flaps are down at 250mph make the plane start to shake, the higher above 250mph the worse it shakes until maybe 320mph at which point you could have the flaps ripped out and some kind of damage to the wings.
-
Hi Tilt,
>I have just read in another publication that the hydraulic actuating cylinder for the Lagg3 flaps had an inbuilt pressure relief valve that allowed oil to flow (in both directions) across the piston in the event of over pressure.
Knowing nothing about hydraulics, I wonder if this overpressure valve was actually meant to limit the forces once the piston had run against a stop?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Tilt,
>I wonder if this overpressure valve was actually meant to limit the forces once the piston had run against a stop?
It may well have been Ho Hun but the point was that the relief valve is explicitly described as operating "when the plunger (piston) is in either end position".
Ie it was not the more common use of a relief/non return valve that most hydraulic systems have to protect them today.
This quite clearly shows that given a high enough force the flaps linkages could push the piston down the cylinder allowing oil to pass from one end to the other by means of the pressure relief valve.
Again I do not know at what IAS that would occur or even if the linkages were strong enough to do so.
I can advise that pilots notes only ever refer to them as landing flaps.
Tilt
-
Unfortunatly Tilt those posts were in the old beta forum at BB that is now wiped and was never archived :(
He indicated at that time that the flaps were used as brakes during dive bombing and that they had ample pressure to open at high speeds. I suspect that the pressure to that cylinder was far higher than 35kg. The Lagg and La5 systems seemed to have too crude a construction to have items like a pressure limiter involved.
However I emailed him asking him for more information, he is back from his vacation now, I assume he is horribly busy but he might answer soon.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Nice research Tilt.
I will try to find hydro schematics for US planes. If they all used cylinders I wonder if they had pressure relief valves too.
A more modern setup is to use a rotary hydraulic motor driving a gearbox and shaft system, or driving a jackscrew. These would probably not backdrive due to the gear ratios and/or friction in the jackscrew. But I don't know if this was used in WWII aircraft.
I think most of the UK planes used pneumatics, which I'm pretty sure would backdrive as well.
P-39 and Fw 190 used electric flap actuator. I don't know details of the Cobra but I think the 190 had an electric motor driving a jackscrew. In general jackscrews will not backdrive so that system shouldn't "autoretract". I'll look into this further.
Neither do the P-38's flaps "blow up". They are mounted in roller tracks, moving aft and down. They cannot "back drive". To do so means they must move forward and up within the roller tracks. Cannot happen. Go too fast in the P-38 with flaps down and you will start bending metal, but they will not retract.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]
Unfortunatly Tilt those posts were in the old beta forum at BB that is now wiped and was never archived :(
He indicated at that time that the flaps were used as brakes during dive bombing and that they had ample pressure to open at high speeds. I suspect that the pressure to that cylinder was far higher than 35kg. The Lagg and La5 systems seemed to have too crude a construction to have items like a pressure limiter involved.
However I emailed him asking him for more information, he is back from his vacation now, I assume he is horribly busy but he might answer soon.
Agreed re crude construction etc.......
The oil used was from the central engine sump it was not a separate circuit although it had its own pump etc.
35kg/cm^2 is nearly 500 PSI.......... from the sketches the cylinder would have a piston of about 30 to 40mm giving a force at the piston of between approx 150 to 350 kg. (after deducting the shaft/rod)
This is across both flaps. The actual force at the flaps to push them down is subject to the mechanical advantage gained by the linkage set up. I have no idea what this is.
The pressure relief valve of the type described could be equally crude. It need be no more than a ball bearing and a spring tensioned by a screw.
This relief valve that is mentioned could indeed be set to a much higher (or lower) pressure than that of the relief valve at the hydraulic pump (which is the main system limiter).
Unfortunately (in the absence of other data) logic would lead me to suspect that it would be used to limit the main system pressure further ( ie lower) to protect the flap linkages.
It would be the cheapest way to do it. The main function of the Hydraulics was to raise and lower the gear. This is pretty heavy weight stuff with the hyd cylinders directly pushing and pulling the gear strut. Higher pressures would be advantagious so as to keep the cylinders as small and compact as possible.
Having designed the gear system to its optimum the easiest way to protect the flap system is to also construct this to its optimum weight and load bearing capabilities then protect it with a simple relief valve in the hydraulics. REM constant efforts were made to lower the overall weight of Laggs/ Lavochkins.
However given all this I still have no evidence as to what air speed would cause the flaps to lift. Olegs statement could still be true. The force and mechanical advantage could have been such that they would work safely at much higher speeds than AH currently models.
Previously my understanding of the La hydraulic flap circuit was one of a three position valve with a closed centre position that would have locked the flaps in position.
Hence the flaps would have stayed in place until some thing broke.
Now I believe that there was a speed at which they would have lifted........ I do not know what that speed was...
Tilt
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Neither do the P-38's flaps "blow up". They are mounted in roller tracks, moving aft and down. They cannot "back drive". To do so means they must move forward and up within the roller tracks. Cannot happen. Go too fast in the P-38 with flaps down and you will start bending metal, but they will not retract.
I forgot to mention that the P-38 flaps are actuated by hydaulic screwjacks, which will not "back drive" either.
My regards,
Widewing
-
So TAC: Basicly you want the flaps on the 38 to work at higher speed?
The auto retract flaps is a very intentional choice, when they exceed there max speed they must either break,or be retracted.
Breaking them would be more of a pain and detract, not add to the fun of combat.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
So TAC: Basicly you want the flaps on the 38 to work at higher speed?
The auto retract flaps is a very intentional choice, when they exceed there max speed they must either break,or be retracted.
Breaking them would be more of a pain and detract, not add to the fun of combat.
HiTech
Same could be said for gear................ but we do get an audible warning..............
Tilt
-
Hitech we just want more control over the planes we fly..
I flew AW for years before I started to fly AH and the 38 and f4u were my main rides.. I could have one click of flaps down in a 38
up to but 325mph before the controls hardened up an the nosed tucked badly.. But after a month or so I learned not to exceed
a certain airspeed. With flaps down on a 38.. And doing high speed high G moves having a notch of flaps down in a 38 at about
320-300mph I could bleed my E down to the point where I was at corner speed and shortly there after the bogey I was fighting would be dead. Hitech we just want more control over the planes we fly... As for this Breaking them would be more of a pain and detract, not add to the fun of combat. After the 1st few times the flaps rip it would suck but after I would just remember to raise the flap.. And yall would have to give us some speed between 250-320mph before they did rip out.. But if yor are already above 250mph with no flaps down you shouldn't be able to to put any flaps down.. But if you aleady some some flaps down make to where we have some space before they did rip out..
I also have some requests
Give the F4u a little mirror in the top of the canopy
like in real life so we can see our 6 alittle better.. The 38 also had a mirror in the canopy but I don't have any trouble with see in a 38. And loosen up on the 38s compressiblty I'll come down to yalls office this week if yall will listen to what I have to say.. I live in Ft. Worth and i have the week off :)
Cw
Cody
-
"So TAC: Basicly you want the flaps on the 38 to work at higher speed?
The auto retract flaps is a very intentional choice, when they exceed there max speed they must either break,or be retracted.
Breaking them would be more of a pain and detract, not add to the fun of combat."
No HT, the 38L did have locks to prevent the fowler flaps from deploying if the plane was 250mph +
All I ask for it for the flaps to not retract on their own if the speed indicator goes past 250mph. Or give it a higher threshold for retracting, like 350 mph, a speed that does not come up during manouvering with flaps.
250mph is a speed thats easily attainable on the bottom portion of a loop, specially at hi alts. And thats when they royally kill the 38 by making it spin.
Hopefully, when ye folks add the 38F/G/H those could not have the lock that prevented flaps from deploying past 250.. would be much fun :)
Making the plane shake/buffet if its speed is past 250 and flaps are still down would be a nice thing, tells the pilot his flaps are under stress... if they are not retracted at, say, 350 mph, ye can rip them out or have them "freeze" in their deployed position (as if the structural damage had jammed the flap)...or both! Have them freeze at 350 and ripped out at 400 *G* :)
I would consider it as the equivalent of the rip-wing problems other planes have at high speeds/pulling a high G.
I dont know if other planes in AH besides the P38 have this problem, when I fly them I dont use the flaps that much.. and never had a stall from them auto-retracting. But then again, I dont fly them as much as the 38. Ill let others comment on that.
-
Originally posted by hitech
So TAC: Basicly you want the flaps on the 38 to work at higher speed?
The auto retract flaps is a very intentional choice, when they exceed there max speed they must either break,or be retracted.
Breaking them would be more of a pain and detract, not add to the fun of combat.
HiTech
Let's play Devil's advocate for a moment. Flap VnE for the "maneuver" setting is extremely conservative. I suggest that you consult with Stan Richardson, one of the foremost experts on the P-38 alive today. I'll be happy to provide his e-mail should you so choose. Stan will tell you that it was perfectly safe to push well into the 300 mph range without damage. The real danger would arise if you attempted to dive with the flaps at this 8 degree setting. Why? Because it greatly exacerbated the nose tuck problem associated with the P-38.
My suggestion is this: Model the flaps to provide the groan warning at 250, jam at 300, detach at 350. Once jammed, the flaps cannot be retracted and will effect flight characterisitics throughout the balance of the sortie. Should they be detached, there will need be a loss of overall lift, as the flaps were integral to the wing structure and profile. I'd also employ a random event generator to determine if the separated flaps cause damage to the horizontal stabilizer. This gives guys like TAC some relief, while providing greater realism, albeit with a potentially severe penalty for inattentiveness.
While you guys are on the topic of the P-38, consider remodeling the dive recovery flaps for it and the P-47D-30. Currently, they do not induce pitch-up. They should. Trimmed neutral, the P-38 should pull out of a dive, hands off, at a steady load of three Gs.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I think HTC is modeling the factory settings for the planeset in AH Widewing. If not we'd have P47's running at unholy manifolds field mods.. and Drex & Frenchy would wipe the floor with our red tulips ;)
I believe the late 38J and all 38L's had a lock to prevent the flaps from deploying when faster than 250mph. That's fine with me, I do expect to see that setting in the L model (it already is woot!) in AH, but not in the F/G/H models when introduced.
"Should they be detached, there will need be a loss of overall lift"
Losing a flap (shot out) in the 38 now makes that wing be really touchy in any kind of manouver. I dont fly real planes so I dunno, but I wouldnt try sustained turns while missing a flap in AH :)
"Model the flaps to provide the groan warning at 250, jam at 300, detach at 350"
Me like. I imagine a below horizon low g turn with 1 notch of flap at 200mph, accel'ing to 250.. hearing the groan of the plane like when its compressed... retracting the sucker.. or else getting 300mph and hearing the "door.wav" (whine-like mechanical sound) as the flaps jam into place.. panicking, con in 6, diving.. 350mph "RRRIIIP" .
-
Originally posted by hitech
So TAC: Basicly you want the flaps on the 38 to work at higher speed?
The auto retract flaps is a very intentional choice, when they exceed there max speed they must either break,or be retracted.
Breaking them would be more of a pain and detract, not add to the fun of combat.
HiTech
Don't confuse >>deploy<< with >>retract<<, which is what I *think* we're talking about.
I'd be dead against being able to DEPLOY flaps at ridiculous speeds a'la IL-2. That doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me.
As to the autoretract thing, I'd much rather have something similar to what AW had. (Yeah I know, I know!--just hear me out)
There you *couldn't deploy flaps* until your speed dropped to a certain speed that varied from plane to plane depending on whether said plane had combat flaps or not and what speed they would have been available. This much is common to AH.
Once flaps were deployed they'd stay out *until you retracted them yourself*. This could be a very bad thing tho. If speed increased past a certain point, the flaps would jam down but could be retracted again if you slowed to below flaps speed (again depending on plane). If you continued, they'd become damaged and you *couldn't* retract. If you allowed your speed to still continue to build with flaps out the plane would start to do some bad stuff! For starters you'd get a nasty buffet followed by a sharp nose down pitch (tuck-under) that didn't respond to the stick. This condition often made for "ye olde lawn dart" as often times by the time you discovered what you'd screwed up it was too late! ;) Even if things didn't degenerate to near this level, if you forgot to retract your flaps after takeoff or whatever--you wouldn't accelerate because of the drag.
I'd much rather have control over my own flaps. I wouldn't like to see folks using flaps at 400 mph so as to make "bat turns" but I like to use flaps in a turn fight to maintain a certain speed range and as it is now I'll lose flaps when nose low even with throttle chopped. This leaves me in the wrong configuration to be pulling as little as 3 G's with no warning and with no input from me--other than I passed 151 MPH (or whatever) even momentarily--flaps just aren't there and I'm in a snap roll--! I hate that!
I like the flaps for the extra lift yeah--but I like the extra drag that even one notch can provide to help maintain my speed and therefore, turn rate better.
If I lost a fight or auger'd because I messed up my plane's flap configuration then so be it. Hehe just add that to the list! You're not gonna hear me whine about that--as its my fault! As it is now the game does that *for me* a lot of times that I could have maybe avoided if I'd had control over the situation myself . Seems I have control over most everything else.
Generally I'm against auto-anything. Pile on the workload amigo! That's where the fun is for me!
Drano
-
Hi Tilt,
>The oil used was from the central engine sump it was not a separate circuit although it had its own pump etc.
>It may well have been Ho Hun but the point was that the relief valve is explicitly described as operating "when the plunger (piston) is in either end position".
>Previously my understanding of the La hydraulic flap circuit was one of a three position valve with a closed centre position that would have locked the flaps in position.
Did the hydraulic pump run continuously? If so, I'd assume the centre position of the three position valve returned the pressure oil to the sump. The other two positions would guide the oil to either side of the cylinder.
Since the valve was hand-operated, it would be standard procedure to let the piston run against the stop and then return it to centre position manually after a finite amount of time. Since oil is incompressible, a force-feeding pump might build up destructive overpressure during that delay. Hence the need for the bleed valve in the cylinder.
Just some speculation :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Tilt,
>I can advise that pilots notes only ever refer to them as landing flaps.
The FM-2 manual explains that in a wave-off, the pilot shouldn't change flap settings as this would happen automatically with increasing speed.
Is there a go-around procedure in the La-5 pilot's notes? This might tell us some more about its flaps.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
>Did the hydraulic pump run continuously? If so, I'd assume the centre position of the three position valve returned the pressure oil to the sump. The other two positions would guide the oil to either side of the cylinder.<
It would be more normal to put a pressure relief valve at the pump such that the whole circuit is held to a design pressure and the pump returned oil to the sump at that point.
As to did it run continuous ly... on the basis that it was a mechanical pump then it would seem the answer is yes..... yet with all Laggs and La's plagued with oil cooling problems generally, one would have thought that a continously running hydraulic pump was less than desirable.
>Since the valve was hand-operated, it would be standard procedure to let the piston run against the stop and then return it to centre position manually after a finite amount of time. Since oil is incompressible, a force-feeding pump might build up destructive overpressure during that delay. Hence the need for the bleed valve in the cylinder.<
The centre port did have a through port but it is shown going directly to the end of the piston valve assembly. In hydraulics to day this would be refered to as a manually operated/pilot (pilot valve not an aeroplane pilot) assisted valve. Whereby the oil pressure is used to lessen the force the operator must apply to push the slide across.
With this type of system the operator would be able to vary the flap deployment angle to suite his needs (between 0 and 60 degrees) but he could indeed push and leave the valve completely on one side or another for full or zero deployment with the pilot valve holding it in position positively.
We could speculate even further with respect to the publication which describes the by pass valve. A recent issue of "Aeroplane" magazine. The term actuator could have been lost in translation to mean the valve its self and not the cylinder actuator in the port wing. It could then be describing the pilot valve as this relief valve in error. (word plunger still applies)
However if we speculate potential error we can go in all sorts of directions.
All I can say is that where as once I was certain that La flaps stayed deployed until retracted or broken...........now I am not so certain.
Tilt
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Tilt,
Is there a go-around procedure in the La-5 pilot's notes? This might tell us some more about its flaps.
I have no notes that are so comprehensive
Tilt