P38

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Kweassa

But they will want to deploy the flaps and let them work as dive brakes, over the recommended speeds?

By that statement, you just show that have completely have no clue and no absolutely nothing about the P-38.  Only those with very little experience in flying the Lightning in AH would be dumb enough to use their flaps as dive brakes.  

We have also never asked for the flaps to be able to be deployed at a higher speed than rated, yet you keep harping on that for some reason.  Probably because you have no real argument in the first place and just pull stuff out of thin air to try and prove your point.  And when that fails you scream "gaming the game" or other such nonsense.

What are you afraid of Kweassa or are you just used to having your hand held and coddled?


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Naudet
Was that damage model an absolute one, where the flaps were wrecked once you got beyond a certain speed or a relative one, where the chance to damage the flaps increased with time and speed you exceeded the limits?

In AW, the chance of damage to the flaps would increase with time and speed if you've exceeded the speed limits.  Never had the problem in WB so I don't know how it was modeled in there and HT never answered when I asked.


ack-ack

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kweassa
A keen reader might remember that in the older dicsussion about this issue, I've reached a certain compromise point with Murdr in the form of random failures with increased chance of damage the higher the speed goes over the limit. Critical risk high enough   to want the pilot to not want to engage his flaps over the limit.

Yea, tac.  That comprimise point was outlined in my first post to this thread.  

Originally posted by Murdr
As the whole request alternative to auto-retract (and be resonable about it) stands:

Make it optional like auto take-off.
Flap deployment is still locked out over spec speed.
Add a damage probability model.  Example:
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%
Damage type is consistent with flap type.  (eg. break off, jamb, forced up and inoperable)

While that addressed multiple player concerns from the opposing view, its a moot point when HT has a different opinion.  
Nobody was going to stand for special rules for just one plane.  So I thought Id bring you up to speed.  Hehe, the discussion went in the same circle anyways.

[hitech]

We have also never asked for the flaps to be able to be deployed at a higher speed than rated

To clairfy, you never asked for them to move from the up to a lower position at a different speed, but you have asked to have them remain deployed (i.e "be able to be deployed") at higher speeds.


I.E. Like I have said since the very first time you requested this. You wish to use your flaps at higher speeds than the manual states.

HiTech

[Murdr]

Well that makes a little more sense now HT.  Being that we meant we didnt advocate people actually changing flaps to a higher angle when they where already over the limit.

(same word being able to define "the act of" and "the state of")

[Crumpp]

Crumpp in the FW190A8 manual i have there is no speed limit given for the take off position. Only the landing position of the flaps is limited to 300km/h max.

Hi Naudet!

Most likely you have the same version Flugzeug-handbuch as I do.  The very next line after it instructs to raise the take off flaps is too trim for level flight at 500kph.  I think that is a conservative limit for the FW-190.  It puts it in the same catagory as combat flaps.

If the 109's handcranked flaps can be deployed to 20 degrees at that speed, the electric ones of the FW-190's most certainly could reach 13 degrees.

All the best!

Crumpp

[OIO]

"Why do you think it only affects one plane? That is a silly, nonsensical thought."

The P-38 is the only one affected because its the only plane in the set that has counter-rotating props. Go fly a 190d9 or a 109g10 or any energy fighter at 150mph or less and try to turn hard with it. In a few turns with speed bleeding off you will experience serious control problems as your single engine plane tends to try to spin out of control.

The 38 does not have that. Yet its at those very speeds and going up/down horizon in such fights that ONE flap retract will make the entire plane spin out of control because it went 1mph above the retract limit for a split second.

The 38 is a stallfighter when in a turning fight... and the flaps retract&spin literally remove the counter-rotating prop benefit... all because of a gameplay feature.  

"As to the "real" plane, well, a "real" pilot wouldn't try to follow a Zero though a Split S using his flaps."

Interesting how you keep believing im posting this because i want to turn with zeros. I already told you any 38 pilot turning with spits or zeros is an idiot.

Real 38s did keep their flaps deployed even in the L models which had the locks to prevent flaps from deploying past X speeds.

But apparently it is HTC's policy to keep a gameplay feature that models behaviour not found in the real P-38.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by hitech
I.E. Like I have said since the very first time you requested this. You wish to use your flaps at higher speeds than the manual states.

As for my part, I dont see a benifit in using flaps at higher speeds than the manual states.  The extra lift can produce more Gs than the pilot can take, so the drag and the lift are undesirable to me.  I wish to be able to make a judgment call on whether I will or will not stay inside the rated speed, and not have the specter of absoulte certianty of a departure if my judgment is off by 1mph.

By the way I would have no problem accepting that even if I was only wrong by 1mph that something bad still might possibly happen.  The absolute certianty of it sets the bar well below the specs instead of at the specs.  Thats just my opinion.

[Karnak]

OIO,

I can 100% guarantee you that the P-51s, P-47s and Ki-84 also suffer from flaps auto-retracting.  No matter how much you wish to make this a persecuted P-38 thing, that is not the fact of the matter.  I'd bet other fighters such as the F4U, N1K2-J and F6F-5 also suffer from it.


As to the other bits about reality, you can just keep on claiming that most P-38 pilots routinely used their manuvering flaps in combat and oversped them regularly.  It won't make it true.

[Urchin]

I know the Ki-84 does, or at least it did when I was flying it.  However, I very rarely sped up to the point where the flaps would autoretract, and I can't remember ever actually stalling and spinning because of it.  But I've never done that in the P-38 either.  I imagine the Niki does, because you really get on the flaps in that plane, unlike a Spit, where flaps are very rarely needed.

With all that said.. I really actually DO like (I think Virgils) way, where instead of the flap auto-retracting, it just jams.  Won't go up, won't go down.  

That would keep the pilot from getting screwed in *that* fight, but basically screw him in any fight after that.  That seems like a good compromise to me.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Urchin
That would keep the pilot from getting screwed in *that* fight, but basically screw him in any fight after that.  That seems like a good compromise to me.

I don't like it for that very reason.  In reality if you did that repeatedly you would get a royal chewing out, taken off the flight roster or killed.  In AH, you get a kill.

No thanks.  I vote for no reward for abusive behavior towards your aircraft.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Karnak
I don't like it for that very reason.  In reality if you did that repeatedly you would get a royal chewing out, taken off the flight roster or killed.  In AH, you get a kill.

No thanks.  I vote for no reward for abusive behavior towards your aircraft.

Have you ever tried to get from point A to point B in the MA with your flap jamed down?  I have, there is nothing rewarding about it.  If you change the setting of the good flap, its hard to even keep in the air.  Your ability to gain and exchange E is so hampered that you're pretty much a sitting duck.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by hitech
To clairfy, you never asked for them to move from the up to a lower position at a different speed, but you have asked to have them remain deployed (i.e "be able to be deployed") at higher speeds.


I.E. Like I have said since the very first time you requested this. You wish to use your flaps at higher speeds than the manual states.

HiTech

There have been some good arguments on both sides here. I lean towards HiTech's reasoning of using the manufacturer's limits.

However, I think there is something that could be done to help pilots avoid the demon of auto-retract.

Play the sound associated with over-stressing the airframe at speeds five mph below where the the flaps would retract and have it increase in volume until they do retract. This would provide a sensory clue to the pilot, helping to avoid the sudden destablization of loss of lift. Do it for all aircraft.

I think this would be beneficial for everyone and not offer any advantage that some might think to be unfair.

My regards,

Widewing

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Murdr
Have you ever tried to get from point A to point B in the MA with your flap jamed down?  I have, there is nothing rewarding about it.  If you change the setting of the good flap, its hard to even keep in the air.  Your ability to gain and exchange E is so hampered that you're pretty much a sitting duck.

I don't think that matters to the majority of the AH players.  They got their kill, then auger and get a new '38.

Where's the penalty?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Karnak



As to the "real" plane, well, a "real" pilot wouldn't try to follow a Zero though a Split S using his flaps.

 

Tell that to Richard Bong. Or any number of Japanese pilots he killed.