P-38 Still has Problems

[Murdr]

Originally posted by bozon
Murdr:
 
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.
 

Spent 2 post talking about how it was used, and I was not the only one.  Too bad you missed it.



The problem that causes the complaint in the first place (and I will explain it in red so it is loud and clear) are the auto-retractions at 150 and less so at 200.  Going 100 in a flat turn into a split-s to a high yo-yo with max controlable elevator can easily bring the airspeed at or above 150 at the low point of the split-s VERY BREIFLY.  This is not an uncommon manover series when on someones 6.

You can pull a series of constantly tight turning manovers and brush these thresholds.  Note I said constantly tight turning.  I dont think any experienced 38 enthusiast here is expecting to be able to dive and manover any amount of time with full flaps and not have adverse concequences.  That isnt what Im describing, all it takes is an attempted 180 degree turn too far below the horizon to turn a winning 38 into a spinning 38.  The fact that the peak speed while doing that is near the recomended max deployment speed and under an overspeed stressing condition is exactly why these guys want them to break at a realistic speed rather than retract at a recommended speed.

But no, the same people who cry give me realism, are insulted that one plane would be able to use its real life advantages to the extent of its envelope, as it would be unfair to their non-twin engine, non-counter-rotating prop plane that either does its best above flap speed, or is too nimble to be overly concerned with flap usage.  And its too much trouble to apply to every plane, so there you have it.  Mumbling and complaining about it isnt going to change anything, but if your contention is that there isnt a valid complaint, then IMO you dont know what your talking about.

[Kweassa]

all it takes is an attempted 180 degree turn too far below the horizon to turn a winning 38 into a spinning 38.

 It's no different from other planes stalling out as soon as surpass their physical limits  in the form of peak AoA.

 In the case of the P-38, the only thing that held the P-38 together was the flaps. If you cross the speed and the flaps retract you've failed in managing your plane at that speed.

 So why pull so hard? You could always ease the stick a bit, stable the plane, and then pull again and deploy flaps again.

 Ah, but the P-38 pilots will say "then I'm gonna be outmaneuvered!".

 Exactly, mate. They've made the mistake of trying to turn too hard too slow against a plane which they thought they'd be able to out-maneuver. This has less to do with their concerns in 'realism'  and more to do with blaming the system for their own failures. The P-38 is a massive plane, larger and heavier than the P-47D. Evaluations from America's Hundred Thousand claims its turning ability to be on par with the P-47.

 Despite that fact, more often than not we see the expert pilots claiming they could stall fight much more nimbler planes in it. They are famed memebers of the community renowned in their expertise of handling the P-38 against much more nimbler fors. Does the fact that such a massive plane can still compete with much more agile planes in their own game, not prove that the P-38 is already incredibly efficient in maneuvering as it is?

 Don't play the martyr and describe as if the P-38 is deprived of its potency. It is already a potent and energetic plane benefiting from the current system more than any other plane.

 It was a 'winning P-38' turned to a 'spinning P-38'? Big deal. Same thing happens to every fighter everyday.

The fact that the peak speed while doing that is near the recomended max deployment speed and under an overspeed stressing condition is exactly why these guys want them to break at a realistic speed rather than retract at a recommended speed.

 Except nobody knows for a fact at just exactly which speeds are 'overspeed' and which not. Nevertheless they still want the flaps to hold together above listed speeds.

 So, just how exactly is anyone gonna be able to model that? Model an arbitrary '100mph higher' limit as suggested by Tac? That's more 'realistic'? Sounds more like an arbitrary enhancement for their own benefit to me.

 Some people like Mguire might actually have freely used flaps at all kinds of speeds(although I've never seen any evidence of such so far).

 But do you really think a typical WW2 pilot would go, "hmm, the speed is 300mph indicated. My pilots manuals says it should be deployed only under 250.... heck, no big deal. My plane can take that... " and merrily start deploying flaps?

 Remember its real life we're talking about here. Having a gear, flap, aileron shot off in AH means not much. Belly landings are a piece of cake. However in real life a 'simple' malfunction in such flight devices can mean life or death.

 No pilot in their right minds would just simply walk over the line and go deaf ears over what the makers of the plane have recommended.

 Let's say the flaps of the P-38 are indeed modelled, to withstand something like 50mph IAS higher than it should.

 Then, in this game we play, effectively that renders the pilot manual and its suggested characteristics of the plane completely useless. In every practical way the limits are not 250mph. The limits become 300mph by all means, and that becomes the new commanding rule.

 Now, in our game, we have all pilots of all planes pulling out flaps at much higher speeds than suggested everyday. So is that more 'realistic'?

 In the technical perspective perhaps. In the 'feel' as HT has once described, it  becomes a dweeb game.

but no, the same people who cry give me realism, are insulted that one plane would be able to use its real life advantages to the extent of its envelope, as it would be unfair to their non-twin engine, non-counter-rotating prop plane that either does its best above flap speed, or is too nimble to be overly concerned with flap usage.

 "Insulted" my hairy prettythang.

 If the real life advantages of the P-38 wasn't implemented in the AH in a reasonable manner, a fat ol' large target with unimpressive deck speed and average turn like the P-38 won't have a snowball's chance in hell  against even the most clumsiest of 109s.

 So what the heck is the 'extent of the envelope', huh?

 The truth is that you don't know just where that extent lies, do you?

 Just how much is this extent? How do we model that? Do we model random failures based on increased chance according to the magnitude of how much the flaps have surpassed its limit? Do we model an arbitrary number upto which it can stand?

 You want it realistic, then I suggest we model it the random way. That'd be the most realistic way, won't it?

 Real life flap deployment over listed speeds is basically 'run-at-your-own-risk'. Real life pilots may choose to take their chance and push it over the listed speed, but typically they'd rather not choose to do so, because the uncertainty of just exactly what would happen, and at which speed it will happen, is a frightening risk they have to face.

 After all, so many variables are in work when it comes to mechanical failures vs force of nature. So the realistic way to make it would be to model the flaps to fail randomly.

 If the flaps push over only 1~10 mph above listed speed, then it has a very high chance of holding together. As the speed grows, at some point it will randomly jam. Now that's fair and realistic - it relies completely on shaped chance, and the uncertainty of just when the doom will come will influence people to try to abide by the limit at all times. If your lucky, your flap may even hold upto 400mph IAS. If your really unlucky, it may jam the moment that it crosses over the line.

 If its modelled that way, then I'd have no reason to oppose it.

 

And its too much trouble to apply to every plane, so there you have it. Mumbling and complaining about it isnt going to change anything, but if your contention is that there isnt a valid complaint, then IMO you dont know what your talking about.

 And laying grounds for mechanical limitations on some fantasy limit number conjured up is 'knowing what you're talking about'?

 I think not.

[J_A_B]

"No pilot in their right minds would just simply walk over the line and go deaf ears over what the makers of the plane have recommended. "

Actually P-38 pilots did exactly that with regards to engine cruise settings in order to extract maximum range.  The figures in the manual were too conservative and the plane could take the abuse with no adverse effects.  


"If the flaps push over only 1~10 mph above listed speed, then it has a very high chance of holding together. As the speed grows, at some point it will randomly jam. Now that's fair and realistic - it relies completely on shaped chance, and the uncertainty of just when the doom will come will influence people to try to abide by the limit at all times. If your lucky, your flap may even hold upto 400mph IAS. If your really unlucky, it may jam the moment that it crosses over the line. "

I am willing to bet that most other people would prefer this system too, as it would solve the problem of autoretracting if you brush the set speed, with--in that situation--minimal chance of failure.  Add in some "flap stressing sound" when you exceed safe speed and you have a recipie for perfection.  

I, for one, would view it as an improvement.  Leave autoretract as an option and everyone would be happy.


J_A_B

[Ecliptik]

As far as I know:

Three notches flaps up to 250 IAS, four up to 200 IAS, five up to 150 IAS.

Now, I don't mind autoretraction, but those numbers seem too cute and arbitrary to be really valid. I'd at least like to see the autoretract point be a little faster than the allowable extension point at lower speeds.

What I mean is, if you're allowed to extend to the fifth notch of flaps at 150 IAS, make the autoretract occur at 175 IAS.  225 IAS for the fourth notch, and the other three can still autoretract at 250.

Or perhaps a delay of a few seconds after crossing into the autoretract zone before the flaps actually retract?  These things had tolerances beyond specification, and breakage is not instantaneous.  For the flaps to break, they would have to be over a certain level of stress for a certain continous period of time, enough for some critical plastic deformation of the metal to occur.  They would be able to withstand high stress for very short durations.

I would request something like this simply because it's annoying to have the flaps autoretract (or break, as it is in FB/AEP) instantaneously once you cross a certain threshold, without any prior indications, even if you're only over that speed threshold very slightly and only for a second or two, as you might be when coming through the bottom end of a loop before zooming back up again.

[moot]

another I/O modeling example:   wait till you're a foot or two from touching down, and pop out the gears... the plane pops up from gears instantly moving to full-out position.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kweassa
It's no different from other planes stalling out as soon as surpass their physical limits  in the form of peak AoA.

 In the case of the P-38, the only thing that held the P-38 together was the flaps....

 If the flaps push over only 1~10 mph above listed speed, then it has a very high chance of holding together. As the speed grows, at some point it will randomly jam. Now that's fair and realistic - it relies completely on shaped chance, and the uncertainty of just when the doom will come will influence people to try to abide by the limit at all times.

Ok, we are on the same page now.  I just wanted to make sure you understood that the issue is more about a brief few mph during common acm, than it was about intentional gamey overshoot manovers.
Your example, I think is the kind of rules that would be prefered by some in this thread.  While riding the edge of stall lagging 10 degrees from a firing solution on an enemy, which knowlege would I prefer?  When he starts an underloop, I will lose him in my fwd+up at the bottom due to autoflap managment?  Or I will have a firing solution on the other vertical end, as long as the flaps arnt overstressed by that 5-10MPH at the bottom apex?  When put that way, Id prefer the latter since you presented the frame work of the scenerio.  
That puts it at the discression of the pilot to consider a slight brief risk balanced with the external risks.  The pilot is able to consider his alt, entery speed, estimate the probable top speed and make a judgment, as opposed to an artifical barrier removing the choice.
In the absence of a NACA study, having that choice sounds better than the current mandatory system.

[Kweassa]

Summed up


 The reason for all this confusions is that there are multiple issues at work here.


1) Whether or not the flaps should automatically retract when it crosses over the restrictions set in the pilots manuals

2) If it is to become full manual controlled, where should the 'restriction' point lie at

3) What kind of 'punishment' should be dealt out when that restriction is broken

4) How will we be able to keep people from abusing the newfound leniency in comabt? If people make full use of such leniency all the time, is it more 'realistic'?


 ....


 Now in case of 1), I don't object to that by itself. Actually, I'd also prefer the flaps be fully manual controlled.

 However, 1) is not an isolated issue in this matter, as it effects all sorts of other things which may in turn, make the game worse, which I've again and again tried to explain with examples. It is definately not "if its historic, we should have it the way it was, it's simple as that".

 The largest of problems are as described in 2), 3), and 4).

 Where do we set the restriction line?

 At the speeds suggested by the pilots manual? Grant an arbitrary margin of safe-zone? Or, randomize it and don't specify the restriction line in numbers?

 The reason 2) is so important is, points 3) and 4) are so very closely dependant on the outcome of 2) - especially 4).

 Point 3) is a relatively simple choice considering the other decisions which have to be made. It's either auto-retract or be damaged. But since people hate auto-retraction, and want manual control over their flaps, the natural choice we're compelled to make is to make let it be damaged.

 But if the flaps are damaged the moment they overspeed(overspeed is defined in this instance, as any speed over the speed restriction set by official manulas), then the current restriction set on official numbers make the P-38, and a whole load of other planes even worse then they are. The moment it reaches the IAS limit, it will get jammed, instead of retracting.

 So, that defines our choice of 2) to either; a) grant an arbitrary margin of safe-zone or, b) randomize it.

 However, granting an artificial, arbitrary margin has serious effects in the style of combat for all planes, and that's what I was so desperately trying to explain with all the comparisons and examples.

 JAB has pointed out that the pilots regularly crossed over the line with engines, but engines are a different issue. The restrictions in engine settings were mostly set in regards to overhaul times. Many engines were put through extended lengths of run time at high RPMs to be tested, and both the pilots and mechanics knew that fact.

 Not to mention the fact, that the information on the status of the engine was constantly updated to the pilot via various guages, and the consequences of misuse resulted in overheating, which the pilot can simply compensate by lowering the throttle and RPM, which from that point the engine will cool down again.

 Flaps are a different issue. There is no warning sign. You have no idea on what's gonna happen when.

The equivalent of such thing happening to the engine would be a spontaenous explosion or seizure, in a plane that has no temperature guages.  If the engine has a chance of suddenly exploding if it was pushed over the factory limits, then I'll bet nobody would be so eager to try their luck out, especially during combat.

 Because there is no guage or a tell-tale warning sign, like I said, pushing flight controls over suggested limits is a 'run-at-your-own-risk' game. Surely the pilots manuals would have listed a modest, conservative value, but nobody knew for sure how and where it was gonna break.

 The problem with 4) is that if people start using flaps over the limitations set by the book, then virtually the game loses its grip on the representation of reality.

 A simulation depicts and recreates reality in a virtual world, but that does not mean everything is depicted in every way.

A simulation, should concentrate on depicting the most represantative, typical, and normal instances of reality.

If some piece of abnormal 'reality'( such as rare cases, freak accidents, possible but unlikely outcomes, things only experts can do and etc etc..) is allowed into a simulation without any of its real-life factors which worked to keep those things constrained, then in a game, people start abusing them.

 Ironically, what started out as modelling in a relatively much more realistic system, brings out the result of people doing all of the unlikely and unthinkable things on a regular basis, which makes the game unrealistic as a whole. That's what I was trying to explain by comparing IL2/FB and AH!

 That's why I was defending the current system. It's unrealistic. I personally don't like it very much. But even when points 1), 2), and 3) are resolved, there is always 4) which we must never forget.

 The system of flap management you guys are asking, is already in use in many other sims and tested thoroughly. Was a flap combat device? For only some planes. What do we see in those other sims? We see everybody using flaps as a SOP in maneuvering.

 Here's an example in what typically happens:

 A Bf109G meets a P-38L. Both planes aren't too fast when they meet. They approach each other face to face, and soon enter the merge phase, and then go into a one-circle fight initially starting out at about 300mph IAS.

 Now, what happens in reality? The 109 pilot will chop some throttle, try to turn into the P-38L. The P-38L will try the same. At some point, when the speed reaches lower than 250~260mph IAS, the P-38 pilots will engage his Fowlers into combat settings, tightening his turn radius. The 109 pilot tries to chop his throttle also, but sees the enemy slowly advancing to his six. After a few more turns the P-38 gets behind the 109's six, and in desperation, the Bf109 pilot will then try everything he thinks is possible, including full flaps.

Why didn't he just use flaps out earlier at the first turn? Because, he wasn't supposed to do that at those speeds.

 Now, what happens in AH? The basically the same thing as in the real instance. In reality, not using flaps at those speeds was of choice(and a likely one, too). In AH, it is enforced artificially - only when the speed gets really low, the 109 can start to pop flaps in desperation, attempting on overshoot.

 Gamey? Unrealistic? Limiting pilot choices? Yes, it is. But look at the end result, compare it to what you might see in IL2/FB, or any kind of game that sets flaps in the way requested. The 109 pilot will immediately engage flaps at the first merge. Any Spit or Niki a P-38L pilot would want to overshoot, would just pop full flaps out and pull angles the P-38 can never escape from.

 The P-38 can use flaps, so can the other planes. No way a lumbering behemoth like the P-38L ever gonna win against Spitfire now.

 Try the same scenario with the P-47, or practically any of the US planes. In real life, or in AH, a US plane might have a good chance in a high-speed scissoring/turn fight against a more nimbler one, and ultmately even out maneuver it.

 What happens in a game with flaps like IL2/FB? The US plane gets saddled up at the first turn. So the P-47 or the P-51 can turn faster at high speeds? They can use combat flaps upto 400mph?

 Big deal. Sooner or later the speed will have to drop down to 300s, and then all the opponents will also push 1~2 notches out and turn inside the US plane.

 ..........

 The key issue here, is actually not about retraction. It's about how we're supposed to deal with the consequences that are to come when auto-retraction is gone and a higher safety 'margin' than real numbers, is set.

 Thus, I'd agree in such a request only if no margin or safezone is ever specified, and a random chance for the flaps to be damaged over listed speeds, is implemented. IMO that's the only way to stop the auto-retraction problem concerned with maneuvering, but still set a regulating 'terror factor' high enough, to convince pilots to voluntarily stay under the limits.

 If you guys can successfully come up with some fair, but reasonable means to stop such unrealistic exploiting when the suggested manual control over flaps are implemented, then I'm all ears mates.

[Murdr]

I dont think that anyone has a problem with the deployment speeds and being unable to deploy them above that speed should not change.  Your example of a damage probability curve sounds reasonable to me.  For instance.

Percent over...........Speed for..........Damage
deployment............150mph. ............Probability
speed...................deplo yment
1%..............................151.5...............  .25%
2%..............................153..................  .5%
3%..............................154.5................ 1%
4%..............................156................... 2%
5%..............................157.5................ 3%
6%..............................159................... 5%
8%..............................162.................. 10%
10%............................165.................. 33%
15%............................172.5............... 75%

I would think that a higher the rate of deployment speed would be more likely to be over that deployment speed for a longer time span.  So if the die rolled twice per second for random damage, there would be more die rolls at a +200mph situation than there would at a +150mph, and so on.  How would something like that suit you?

[Kweassa]

Sounds reasonable, Murdr.

 The 'terror factor' seems adequately high enough to stop people from attempting to pop flap-stuff at 300mph, but the margin of reasonable chance of safety, seems also good enough, so that people don't have to fear the flaps retracting the moment it hits a certain number.

 If something like that is indeed what P-38 pilots want, then, I support it.

[OIO]

kweassa, you keep blaming the pilot for an error caused by a feature that was not in the real P-38. Why?

The P-51 flaps DID retract on their own at high speeds. So did the P-47's as far as im aware. Why? They blew up from the wind force. The P-38's did NOT. And as far as I know so did the LW planes, so did every other plane that did not use Fowler flaps.

The 38 is the only plane that has those special flaps...and its the only one that RELIES on them in combat. You keep reffering to pilot mistakes... then why do you keep comparing a P-51 or a P-47 or a 109G+ to the P-38 in TURNFIGHTING? A pilot in those other planes entering a turnfight have already done a HUGE mistake. Because those planes are B&Z planes. A 38 is NOT a B&Z aircraft, its both B&Z and T&B ...thanks to its unique characteristics. And the autoretract feature hurts the T&B ability of the 38 a LOT.

I proposed the 100mph above current retract setting because it DOES bring the 38 closer to real life performance. Read again: RETRACT SETTINGS. The P-38L series DID have a LOCK to prevent DEPLOYMENT of flaps above X speeds, so if HTC models it right, you wont see 38 jockeys pulling out full flaps at 200mph to abuse it.. they wont be able to. BUT if they have them all deployed at 100mph and split-S, the flaps will stay deployed up to 200mph,  but the screen shaking REAL bad past 100mph and finally retracting at 200mph.

So you claiming a 'feature' that was NOT in the real P-38 be left in place because you think it would give the AH P-38 an 'unfair' advantage over planes that DID have a 'retract' 'feature' in real life?

Man, i cant wait to see what you will say about the 38's dive flaps if they ever fix them too! (FYI the should pull the 38's nose up at a steady 3G's when deployed past 350mph, and prevent the 'tuck under' effect when deployed before 250mph...so far the AH dive flaps only prevent the tuck under effect).

[Kweassa]

Because you're dumping the blame on the system for the failures you've met when trying to turnfight better turnfighters in a P-38, which is in no way suited for such a fight.

 The beneficial traits of neutralized torque, nice wing/power loading, and Fowler type flaps gives the P-38L the OPTION to combat more nimble enemy fighters in their own game, more or less for a limited duration, which often may prove enough to take them down before the limits are met.

 However, once it is met, there's nothing about the P-38 which can be seen as beneficial for turnfighting better turning planes - it's a lumbering behemoth, practically the heaviest and largest fighter of WW2, with limited turn radius and rate, and unimpressive rolls at low speed.

 The flaps retracting simply means it met the limit before it could shoot the enemy down, and it is in no way different from other fighters doing the same in their own instances. The regime effects all planes in the same manner, and implying that the P-38 is the only special plane which solely depends on the flaps, which should make it able to combat equally against any nimbler plane clearly superior to the P-38 in low speed maneuverability, and it should be the only one receiving a change, is sheer folly.

 All pilots of all planes who know how to push their plane up to their limits, at least, as suggested by the rules set in AH, use flaps during low-speed maneuvering. None of them complain when they've failed to do so and it retracts.

 So on grounds set by the above discussion, especially with Murdr,  setting the flaps to withstand a certain amount of excess speed should be reasonable, and I'd support that if that's the way it is implemented, for all planes.

 But the grounds your argument is on, and the method you suggest, is neither logical nor acceptable. Your argument is simply based on a fact that you've failed to kill a certain plane in certain instances, because the flap system unjustly persecutes the P-38.

 Wrong.

 The system limits and persecutes all pilots of all planes who would be willing to use the flaps to their advantage during combat, whether or not the "name" of the setting is "combat" is totally irrelevant of this matter, and much less any basis of an argument which implies the P-38 is the only plane that relies so heavily on flaps.

 All pilots who would use the flaps ultimately wish to achieve the same thing the P-38 pilot wants. All pilots of all planes face the same consequences when they have failed.

 If a 109 which first notch of flaps are limited to about 150~160mph IAS, can maintain it upto 200mph in AH, while the P-38 is historically limited, then that would be "unfair and disadvantaged".

 But both planes are limited by the "book" in AH, and ultimately face the same dangerous results when the pilot makes a mistake. That's not "unfair and disadvantaged".

 Don't try to confuse the facts of historicity and preference. As far as limitations go and how it is set up by AH, all planes are fair.

 Nobody forced you to fly the P-38 in that manner only, and certainly nobody forced you to try a potentially dangerous nose-down overshoot attempt with flaps out while fighting planes that can fly slower and still maneuver better.

 The P-38 doesn't "rely" on anything. It's just a plane with bunch of characteristics beneficial with for one thing, and harmful for the other, like ALL planes. It is the pilot, you, and your style of fighting which '"relies" on the flaps. And ultimately all consequences following it, is the responsibility of the pilot and his fighting style, not the system. If you've failed to do something in AH, no matter what the history suggests, or what you think your own favorite plane should be capable of doing, then its your fault.

 I can always quote simular usage of flaps from the Luftwaffe pilots fighting Spitfires and Hurricanes and LaGGs. Like I said before Nowotny habitually made use of flaps during combat in the same purpose as you would, and Marseilles was also famous for all kinds of innovative methods of maneuvering.

 So these 190s and 109s didn't have 'combat' settings? Don't be deluded by the word 'combat setting' - there's nothing special about combat setting. It's just a name made up for a certain level of flap deployment. The P-38s have fowlers? P-51s and P-47s had spit flaps, and still had "combat" settings.

 Whether or not a flap can be used in combat, or can be utilized with efficiency, is upto the situation and the pilot, and having a different type of flap named in different type of setting is utterly irrelvant in determining whether a certain plane is 'flap dependant'. Fowler flaps, in full deployment or combat settings, is just simply another type of flap. It's not a magic gadget which the P-38 has to use, or else it would always be shot down.

 If AH has set it in a certain way, then you adapt to that. All pilots using all planes adapt to that. All of them are limited by the book. If you have to push your plane to a situation which might overspeed above the set limit, then perhaps next time, you should not do so. I know I don't with my 109, why should you?

 Oh, I've also had those moments in a dilly-dally combat against a P-51 in a Bf109G-10. I've been outturned by them because the moment it hits a certain number the flap retracted. Who cares if its not "named" combat flap? Being a split-flap doesn't mean it should retract the moment it hits over a certain number, does it? I mean, the P-51 and the G-10 is so close a contest in low-speed duel, that I would really love to "rely" on my flaps to hold for just a second longer so I don't lose the edge.

 But If I fail in it, I fail in it. It's my fault. How's that the system's fault when everybody has their own moments in an equal manner? If I had known that the P-51 pilot would so skillfully make use of his advantage with flaps, I shouldn't have fought in him in that manner, should I?

 So it's my fault. My own fault, and no one else's. I'd love to see the flaps hold, but that's irrelvant as the fight goes. I ain't gonna think "lucky you, P-51 pilot, because my flaps were unhistorically retracted the moment it hits the line.. and that's the only reason you won". No, the reason I died was not because of the flaps.

 Perhaps its time to stop thinking the P-38 is such as 'special' plane. As it is, the only thing its special is that its pilots are the only ones blaming the system for their own failures.

 Don't confuse the two. If we're asking for flap retractment to be removed for a historic reason, then thats that.

 It's not the same thing as asking it to be removed, thinking that its the only reason you've failed to achieve a certain result you thought you easily would. And especially, a special 'waiver' requested is out of the question.

[Zanth]

I have preferred that flaps get stuck or damaged.   The auto retraction concept never has "felt right", but it isn't a deal breaker.

[Virage]

Originally posted by MoRphEuS
...  1 notch away from being full flaps.

and doesn't retain energy.. go figure

[Murdr]

Oh, almost forgot with the thread hijacking and all.  Day 2 of AH2, landed 8, day 3 landed 10...what were those problems again

[OIO]

" Oh, I've also had those moments in a dilly-dally combat against a P-51 in a Bf109G-10. I've been outturned by them because the moment it hits a certain number the flap retracted. Who cares if its not "named" combat flap? Being a split-flap doesn't mean it should retract the moment it hits over a certain number, does it? I mean, the P-51 and the G-10 is so close a contest in low-speed duel, that I would really love to "rely" on my flaps to hold for just a second longer so I don't lose the edge.

But If I fail in it, I fail in it. It's my fault. How's that the system's fault when everybody has their own moments in an equal manner? If I had known that the P-51 pilot would so skillfully make use of his advantage with flaps, I shouldn't have fought in him in that manner, should I? "

Wrong. And this is what im trying to get through to you. In your case the P51 and the 109g10,  historically DID have their flaps blown up by the windforce if they got faster than what those flaps could take. So in this case, YES those planes DID have a problem in low speeds because of that. In this case,  YES if your P-51/109g10 sped up beyond what its flaps could take and they retract and make you lose control then YES , YOU fuked up and losing the fight because lost angles/loss of control because your virtual p51/109g10 did what the real one would do.

A P-38L oth,  did NOT have that problem. Its flaps would STAY deployed until the pilot retracted them. Lockheed put in locks to prevent the deployment of flaps at certain speeds for safety reasons (and many experienced 38 jocks had their mechanics remove the locks in the field..but this game goes by factory settings anyway)... but the P-38 did NOT retract its flaps because they were blown up by windforce.

So if my 38 was going against your P-51 and MY flaps autorectract just because they hit the speed mark to retract for a split second while im doing a 7g manouver nose below horizon (aka speed wouldve bled back to under 100mph half a second after tickmark hits the retract speed).. and make me spin and give you the fight... tell me, did you win because you 'flew' your plane better? Or because I flew my plane 'badly' ?

Or maybe you won because my plane did something the real one would never do?  

And yes, the 38 IS special because in the entire planeset (as far as im aware..fighters at least) its the ONLY one that has fowler flaps. Its also the ONLY fighter that relies in flaps for combat. Please do NOT compare the P-51 or 109 or any other plane with the 38, which HAS to deploy flaps when under 250mph to be able to turn with the worst turner in the game.  

"implying that the P-38 is the only special plane which solely depends on the flaps, which should make it able to combat equally against any nimbler plane clearly superior to the P-38 in low speed maneuverability, and it should be the only one receiving a change, is sheer folly"

dont put words in my mouth. I never said or claimed that "should make it able to combat equally against any nimbler plane clearly superior to the P-38 in low speed maneuverability".

the 100mph retract speed mark increase for the 38 will never make it turn with or turn better than the planes that right now out-turn it. You wont see a 38 with 3/4ths of its flaps down turning at 250mph with a spit or a zero..simply because the spit/zero/planes that already out-turn the 38 have a dramatically better turn rate at slower speeds.

What it WILL do is stop the 38 from losing turning fights against planes that it DID out-turn at slow speed because the flaps will NOT retract and make them lose the fight. A 109g10 is dead meat against a 38 in turning fights under 250mph.. but in this game the g10 can and does win by making the 38 ride the retract speeds by doing below-horizon evasives, see the 38 behind him spin all the sudden and voila! Wins by a huge mistake in the 38's coding. And believe me, I know how to and can and have done this when flying other planes vs the 38..and practically every time it works to let me get away or get on the 38's 6 as its pilot is too busy regaining control of a plane that did what it should not have done.

Gaming the game or realistic gameplay..which is what you want kweassa?

" If a 109 which first notch of flaps are limited to about 150~160mph IAS, can maintain it upto 200mph in AH, while the P-38 is historically limited, then that would be "unfair and disadvantaged".

But both planes are limited by the "book" in AH, and ultimately face the same dangerous results when the pilot makes a mistake. That's not "unfair and disadvantaged".

Don't try to confuse the facts of historicity and preference. As far as limitations go and how it is set up by AH, all planes are fair. "

Another great example. the 109's flaps DID HISTORICALLY blow up from windforce. The 38's did NOT. The BOOK in this case is thrown at the 38 making it do something it did NOT in real life. It penalizes the P-38 in AH.

Yet both planes are subject to 'the book' as you call it and autoretract. Please, tell me THAT is not 'unfair and disadvantaged'. I would LOVE to hear your rationalization of this.

I will not accept one plane's limits to be imposed on another plane which did NOT have such limitations.