P-38 Still has Problems

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The P-38 could and did use a combat maneuvering setting on the Fowler flaps at 275MPH in real life .

It was a considerable advantage, in real life.

The P-38 did not have any sort of auto retract feature on the flaps, in real life.

That is not some sort of gamey trick, it is simply the way it was, in real life.

Pilots could and did use these settings, and also used the dive flaps, during combat, in real life.

While it would certainly be better to never get slow in a plane like the P-38, it was more common than you think. Aggressive pilots did things like that on a fairly regular basis.

All that the P-38 pilots here are asking for is the ability to have complete manual control over the flaps. NO ONE[/SIZE] has asked for the P-38 to be given the ability to deploy flaps at ANY SPEED WITH IMPUNITY. No one has asked that the flaps not be damaged if the speed exceeds their structural limit. If improper use damages the flaps because they fail to retract them, I'm certain they'd accept that. After all, we did in AW.

Oh and real combat pilots did use rolling scissors and other complex maneuvers in real life. Despite what you might like to think, it was a lot more common than you'd have people believe. Consider for example Ralph Parr using a rolling scissors at ground level in an F-86 against a Mig 15 , while he was engaged in a fight with the odds about 15:1 against him.

P-38 pilots in the Pacific, and even some in Europe, used differential throttling, which, considering how it had to be done, is pretty complex use of the throttles for a combat situation.

One thing you should know about really good P-38 pilots from World War II. They were the kind of pilots who could operate the complex controls of the P-38 without looking, by feel alone. The best P-38 pilots like Ilfrey, Lowell, Olds, and a host of others could and did fly with one hand on the yoke, and the other operating throttles and both Fowler flaps and dive flaps. With boosted ailerons and the long lever the yoke was on, the P-38 could be hustled and manhandled with ease by a talented pilot with one hand.

[Murdr]

You see, we are talking about two different things here.  Quote's from John A. Tilly suggest that even though dogfighting in the P38 was played down, and even though training and seinor officers like McGuire said never to turn with an enemy fighter, often that is what engagment turned into.  Are you saying that these 90 mph engagments by McGuire, Tilly, and others were managed without the use of combat flaps?
You keep hammering the overshoot manovers.  Meanwhile I am talking about the speed widows where flap usage gives the p38 the optimum turn rate at those speeds.  You are talking scissors, and barrel rolls, where I am talking about going round in circles.  I am not talking sim fantasy.  When push comes to shove and its down to turning circles, the p38 is riding on its flaps.  It was really employed that way.  In that type of situation where the 'book speed' is approched for a matter of seconds in a nose down portion of a revolution, it does seem rather stupid to have your plane trown into a spin to the 38 pilot.
On one hand your saying in real life pilots didnt have time to employ thing like flaps, while on the other hand your saying that in the game its the pilots fault for not watching his speed closely enough during that 1 revolution out of 10 that overspeeds the 'book value' on the flaps for a brief second.
And yet I say again, I dont offer a suggested change.  But when you discount the same concerns expressed by others, I have to disagree, because of how they were employed, and why they were employed more heavlily with the 38.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by bozon


wouldn't you prefere a P38J added intead of some elaborated flap modeling for the 250-270 speed range?

Bozon

No, I'd rather have the auto-flaps taken out then have a P-38J.



ack-ack

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No, I'd rather have the auto-flaps taken out then have a P-38J.



ack-ack

LOL

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The P-38 could and did use a combat maneuvering setting on the Fowler flaps at 275MPH in real life .

It was a considerable advantage, in real life.

The P-38 did not have any sort of auto retract feature on the flaps, in real life.

That is not some sort of gamey trick, it is simply the way it was, in real life.

Pilots could and did use these settings, and also used the dive flaps, during combat, in real life.

While it would certainly be better to never get slow in a plane like the P-38, it was more common than you think. Aggressive pilots did things like that on a fairly regular basis.


One thing you should know about really good P-38 pilots from World War II. They were the kind of pilots who could operate the complex controls of the P-38 without looking, by feel alone. The best P-38 pilots like Ilfrey, Lowell, Olds, and a host of others could and did fly with one hand on the yoke, and the other operating throttles and both Fowler flaps and dive flaps. With boosted ailerons and the long lever the yoke was on, the P-38 could be hustled and manhandled with ease by a talented pilot with one hand.

Exactly, (I had to go to my books to make sure it was Tilly lol) Tilly's description of his 2nd kill, and his reflection on how he was going aginst his training by turning with that Oscar sprang to mind right away while reading kweassa's reply.

Be careful what you ask for though.  Instead of having structural failure at a speed modeled after real life situation, it would be the recommended max speed, which is no different than the present situation.  

How can you be so unreasonable to expect to use the 38 as it was actually used anyway?  How dare you think its unreasonable that following a bogie at 100mph in a flat turn followed by a split-s into a high yo-yo shouldnt get you killed.  Just because at the bottom of the split-s you hit 154mph and exceeded the specs by 4mph for 1/2 a second.  Serves you right. [rolleyes]

[BUG_EAF322]

wouldn't you prefere a P38J added intead of some elaborated flap modeling for the 250-270 speed range?

No i would rather have them to had left some 47 models and make some more P38's

Stupid question

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No, I'd rather have the auto-flaps taken out then have a P-38J.



ack-ack

Yeah, especially since we already have a J-25-Lo that is masquerading as an L-5-Lo.

By the way, since it is supposed to be an L-5-Lo, and carries the weight, Iwann know where my tail warning radar is.

[Kweassa]

The P-38 could and did use a combat maneuvering setting on the Fowler flaps at 275MPH in real life. It was a considerable advantage, in real life.

All that the P-38 pilots here are asking for is the ability to have complete manual control over the flaps. NO ONE has asked for the P-38 to be given the ability to deploy flaps at ANY SPEED WITH IMPUNITY. No one has asked that the flaps not be damaged if the speed exceeds their structural limit. If improper use damages the flaps because they fail to retract them, I'm certain they'd accept that. After all, we did in AW.

 Have any of you actually tested the flaps out in AH2?

 The P-38L in AH2 flap usage is as follows. Open mouth, insert foot, people.


* Full flaps - upto 245mph TAS, over 245 mph TAS it retracts one notch.

* Anything under full flaps, are maintained upto 300mph TAS. When speed is higher than 300mph it retracts until the speed comes lower, or  flaps are full up.

  ..

 The P-38L of AH2 maintains flap settings higher than combat settings upto 300mph. It is a considerable advantage in AH2 as well.

 If this is still not enough for you people, then obviously, no matter how expert P-38 fliers you guys are, you guys are flying it wrong.

 This effectively eliminates the grounds for your argument Captain, does it not? Since, if the rest of the P-38 enthusiasts knew this fact, it means that they indeed, were asking to be able to use flaps ay speeds HIGHER than historical settings.

 If they did not know about this fact, then it means they were commenting on things which they haven't even tested out.

 Either way, it hurts your argument.

[detch01]

Originally posted by Kweassa
The P-38L in AH2 flap usage is as follows. Open mouth, insert foot, people.

* Full flaps - upto 245mph TAS, over 245 mph TAS it retracts one notch.

* Anything under full flaps, are maintained upto 300mph TAS. When speed is higher than 300mph it retracts until the speed comes lower, or  flaps are full up.
 

Auto retraction of flaps is based on indicated airspeed not true airspeed.
Tested results at full flaps, level flight at 10k alt beginning at 125mph:
150mph (IAS) autoretract of 1 notch of flaps (4 notches out);
200mph (IAS) autoretract of 1 notch of flaps (3 notches out);
250mph (IAS) autoretract to all flaps in (0 notches out).
Note: to achieve speeds in excess of 175mph with 4 notches of flaps out I had to dive. Same situation above 200(IAS) with 3 notches out.

I have an ointment that might be helpful with that case of athlete's tongue Kweassa, just drop me a line and I'll send it right along .

Cheers,

[Kweassa]

If that be the case then the discrepancy of IAS and TAS according to flight alititude fuels even more confusion to this issue - as the alt I've tested gave out more than 300mph TAS while the IAS indicated merely 250mph, as compared to the lower altitudes where 250mph IAS remains around 250~260mph TAS.


 For instance, the Bf109 Gustav pilots manual confirms that either a) full flaps should not be enaged over 250km/h(155mph) or b) both undercarriage and flaps should not be used over 250km/h(155mph).

 From this we can assume two possibilities:

1) that the 250km/h indicated speed limit was set at low altitudes, used in landings or take-offs. This would mean that despite the manual lists the limit of full flap deployment at 155mph, it should not be deployed upto those speeds when the altitude was high, since 155mph would not be what it seems.

2) Or, perhaps flaps could be used upto the indicated speeds no matter what the altitude is and how different the TAS is - since despite the TAS is higher than the IAS at high altitudes, it also means less drag due to lower resistance from air - thus, meaning secondary mechanisms such as flaps or gears still could be used as long as the pilot abided by the limitations set in IAS.

 
 If the answer to this riddle is 2), then we've got no problems whatsoever. The higher and faster the P-38 flies, it can also use flaps at higher air speeds(TAS) also.

 If the answer is 1), then it brings out complications - so, if the P-38 can indeed use combat settings upto 275mph(which I assume is IAS), then at what altitudes is this 275mph limit measured?

 Clearly if 1) is what really happens, then it doesn't make sense that the flaps retract at 250mph IAS/250mph TAS at lower altitudes, but does not at 250mph IAS/300mph TAS at higher altitudes. So if this is the case, the flap retraction then should be modelled upon TAS values rather than IAS - which will either enhance P-38 flap efficiency or hurt it even more, according to which TAS value HTC chooses to model it with.

 At any rate, the above is a theoretically possible agenda if the flaps should be modelled in a different manner.

 The other points still stand valid;

a) it is but a consequence of their own actions if the flaps start retracting

b) if any change is to be made, it should be to all planes

c) of the current restrictions implemented are lifted, this games gonna get more gamey than ever

[bozon]

Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
No i would rather have them to had left some 47 models and make some more P38's

Stupid question

I never said I don't want a better simulation. I'd love to have better flap modelling! and I won't tell you not to ask for it.

what I said was that I prefered to get other things from HTC before they work on the flaps thing. You may ask for the opposite. Just like those guys asking for a B29. I can think of 20 planes I'd rather see added before the 29 - but that's my opinion.

that's how stupid question it is.

Murdr:

What part of the 38 flaps being specifically designed for combat usage didnt you understand?

What does it matter what was it "designed for", if realizm is what you are after? If you want something simulated more accuratly ask for it because it worked. Don't go into the designers mind, it's irrelevant.

Bozon

[moot]

Kweassa: I dunno if I understand what you're meaning to say, but TAS shouldn't be of concern since flaps are meant to work with air the same way wings make lift and drag etc.
If at 30k you're showing a certain IAS, then that is what the flaps and wings etc are effectively dealing with, that's the physical pressure they are subject to, regardless of TAS.

i.e. you don't need wings nor would worry about them braking off from structural damage by overspeed in outerspace.



Another point, there wouldn't be the squirley changes of lift if the FM made flap lift match their angle rather than equal to their notch position, whole numbers only.

When you drive racing sims, the tire grip is continuous and gradual, not a square function where you go from full grip to total wheelspin instantly.

[detch01]

Originally posted by Kweassa
If that be the case then the discrepancy of IAS and TAS according to flight alititude fuels even more confusion to this issue - as the alt I've tested gave out more than 300mph TAS while the IAS indicated merely 250mph, as compared to the lower altitudes where 250mph IAS remains around 250~260mph TAS.

Kweassa, probably the easiest way to see the relationship between IAS and TAS is to think of IAS as the force the air excerts on the aircraft and TAS as the speed over distance in a given airmass. As you get higher in altitude, the density of the air decreases - there's less of it in any given unit measure, so the higher you fly, the faster you are actually traveling for any given indicated airspeed. TAS = how fast you're travelling over a given unit measure of air space; IAS = how much force is being exerted on your airplane.
Hope this helps.

Cheers,

[killnu]

a) it is but a consequence of their own actions if the flaps start retracting

instead of retracting, it should break.

b) if any change is to be made, it should be to all planes

dont think anyone is disagreeing with you.

c) of the current restrictions implemented are lifted, this games gonna get more gamey than ever

its "gamey" now, we want "realism"

my .02  to what this thread seems about.

~S~

[Kweassa]

Killnu

its "gamey" now, we want "realism"

 You fail to understand the whole point of this. Sometimes, gamey, simplified implementations actually enhance realism. Other times, carefully designed, realistically implemented systems just make the game more dweebier than it should be because the obvious differences in real life and game environment enable game pilots to abuse all kinds of piece of reality there is.

 Go take a look on what HT wrote down about combat trim and the standards on how he chose to model elevator deflection values - it's in the HTC home page.

 If HT modelled the stick responses "realistically", a Spitfire would stall before we pulled half-way through the stick. However, he chose not to, because the overall realistic feel is more important than "implementing the exact way it was in real life".

 How many of you have flied extended periods in IL-2/FB? I've been playing it side-by-side with AH ever since the first series came out. I played FB and AEP for a serious length of time waiting for AH2 to come out in the last 6 months.

 Any of you realize how gamey and dweebish the air-to-air combat is there? Some parts are excellent, others concerned with low-speed fights and flap management, overshoots are plain unrealistic.

 What's the first reaction a pilot would do when he senses his speeding plane might face the danger of being overshot?

 In AH, we extend our flight paths, manage a different method of approach, carefully decide on whether or not to apply full rudder to skid and blow-E. And only after then, when we successfully take steps to bring the plane down to speeds where flap use was sanctioned via pilots manuals, are we able to start use flaps and manage it carefully to retain that state.

 In FB/AEP, people mandatorily just stick out full flaps and pull out gears. Oh some planes can do that in AH too, like the F4U. But in AH, the F4U is the only plane that can do that. It is its special trait. Not in FB/AEP. Everybody does that.

 In AH, the difference in speeds where flaps can be applied, and the limitations where it chooses to auto-retract, forces us to micro-manage our plane carefully. All planes feel different in their characteristics because of that. When we choose to use flaps in a non-US plane, it means we're going into extreme low speeds and flap management must be done carefully.

 There's no such thing as difference in low-speed stability between planes in FB/AEP, and all the planes basically fly and feel the same - it's super easy to flop around and hover like a fish. Everybody can just pop full flaps out under a certain generic limit, and as a result the importance of actual ACM is largely lost than compared to AH. The only thing which makes FB/AEP still interesting in maneuvering contests, is that the gunnery was so harder than AH1. Now that AH2 is more or less simular, AH2 wins hands-down in the intensity and suspense of putting your plane through low-speed fights.

 As I said, FB/AEP models the flaps in exactly the way you guys request it. I guarantee within 6 months of such change you guys will be complaining, "gee, it's not what I thought it would be at all.."

 

moot, detch

 That's good - it confirms theory 2). In that case then all's fine. Then the problem is narrowed down to this;

 Three solutions:

Solution1

1) select an arbitrary "break zone" above the set flap speeds, which is as much as unrealistic as it is now

2) set all plane flaps to act in such manner so they may comfortably deployed above listed speeds(hey personally, I'd love to be able to pop flaps in my 109 at 300mph)

3) and sit back and watch everybody in everyplane mandatorily start pulling flaps out the moment they have to enter maneuvering


Solution2
1) make HTC research and implement a careful physics model that would calculate all sorts of drag forces and stress on a plane

2) set all plane flaps to react to such elaborate physics model

3) and sit back and watch everybody in everyplane mandatorily start pulling flaps out the moment they have to enter maneuvering


Solution3
1) leave it the way it was

2) let people be able to engage flaps in only limited situations so that the planes that were able to engage them above landing speeds retain their special advantage to do so, and largely keep the "flap" factor low in profile as a decisve factor in normal combat for the rest of the planes.