New Patch Today

[gyrene81]

those are take off instructions for the added weight of a drop tank...

[Baumer]

Thanks I didn't know that. 

[gyrene81]

Thanks I didn't know that. 

well then einstein, the clean max flap deployment speeds shouldn't be dictated by the added lift needed for the extra weight and drag of a drop tank. unless speculation is the new standard...

[TwinBoom]

well then einstein, the clean max flap deployment speeds shouldn't be dictated by the added lift needed for the extra weight and drag of a drop tank. unless speculation is the new standard...

look here

The data posted is not mutually exclusive.  Some planes will have a different max speed for deploying the flaps than the max speed for having the flaps down.  In AH we only have one speed per flap setting, so we have to bridge those differences as best we can.

Iam happy with the new setting not what she used to be , but i can live with it . its at least flyable now
TB

[gyrene81]

i know twinboom, i saw it. i won't argue that the new setting is better than the old, because it didn't make much sense but...

[Ack-Ack]

If the fix is incorrect then it should be "fixed".

ack-ack

[colmbo]

Given that you had to set 3/4 flaps and not retract them under 160mph when fully loaded probably played into them making the decision..

It calls for 1/4 to 1/2 flap for short field takeoff, not 3/4 flap.

I am conflicted about how HTC should model this stuff btw. If this is true for the P-40 then it should be true for other planes as well.

What should be true for other planes?  The P-40 used a simple split flap, probably the worst flap for providing increased lift.  Most other US aircraft had better flap designs, no reason to punish them because of the P-40s issues.

[Baumer]

The data posted is not mutually exclusive.  Some planes will have a different max speed for deploying the flaps than the max speed for having the flaps down.  In AH we only have one speed per flap setting, so we have to bridge those differences as best we can.

I guess anyone can look like an Einstein to a Jarhead. I didn't make the decision about the flap speed, I just provided data that indicated that flaps can be deployed above 140mph. And as I stated above, I'm not completely comfortable with this either.   

[Baumer]

It calls for 1/4 to 1/2 flap for short field takeoff, not 3/4 flap.


What should be true for other planes?  The P-40 used a simple split flap, probably the worst flap for providing increased lift.  Most other US aircraft had better flap designs, no reason to punish them because of the P-40s issues.

I'm sorry, you are correct it calls for 1/2 flaps and not to retract below 160mph.

On the second point, my primary concern is that it is an educated guess unless it is specifically stated in a source document. Allowing some modeling for the P-40 based on a guess but holding other aircraft to only documented numbers seems contradictory to HTC's SOP.

[STEELE]

I'm sorry, you are correct it calls for 1/2 flaps and not to retract below 160mph.

On the second point, my primary concern is that it is an educated guess unless it is specifically stated in a source document. Allowing some modeling for the P-40 based on a guess but holding other aircraft to only documented numbers seems contradictory to HTC's SOP.

Agreed, the P-47 manual says DO NOT lower any flaps above 195 mph
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/section6.htm

[gyrene81]

What should be true for other planes?  The P-40 used a simple split flap, probably the worst flap for providing increased lift.  Most other US aircraft had better flap designs, no reason to punish them because of the P-40s issues./quote]
what type of flaps were on the a6m, 109, 110, yak, f4f, b-239, c-202, c-205, ki-61, la5, la7...you get the idea right? it's not just about u.s. aircraft.

[321BAR]

Announced on the home page...


Version 2.26 Patch 2 Changes
======================

Fixed a bug in flak targeting that would allow flak to simultaneously target different long range targets if no target was close to it.

nobody notice this?

[bj229r]

nobody notice this?

wonder if that's how it hits friendlies. Moot point for me, after monitor and then USB issues, now my mobo seems to have assumed room temperature, prolly won't be back till next year, can't build new PC with Wifey unemployed

[SmokinLoon]

Knew there was something wrong with that thing.

Now the question begs... just how many other gv's have a section of "super armor" where they would otherwise be rather fragile?  Or, as in what the T34 used to have, an area of armor that was not represented correctly for years (front of turret) and was much easier to knock out that it should have been.  

  

[Tigger29]

AND patch 3 just came out too