Flaps, flaps, & flaps.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Murdr
... and their German engineers didnt give them the same ability.

How so?

[dtango]

Crumpp:

Every aircraft has the area in the performance envelope I described including the P-38.

I'm saying that the advice from Lockheed applies in cases where you assume energy bleed beyond where power available is less than power required which is only one of many dynamic energy states for an aircraft.

Think about what you are saying about overcoming the drag due to the flaps.  Yes, the flaps will add parasite and induced drag.  However at 1g level flight there's ample power available to overcome the additional drag including when you deploy full flaps EVEN at reduced throttle settings for landing - otherwise your plane would fall out of the sky if you deployed flaps.

Now increase load factor as you turn assuming full throttle.  Guess what - there are load factors / turns that you could make with flaps deployed where you're actually gaining, not losing energy.  

This goes up to a maximum point where you actually can be at flaps deployed CLmax AND where energy loss = energy gain.  

Then beyond this point you begin bleeding energy in a turn.   The advice given by Lockheed applies in this part of the envelope.

This is straightforward aerodynamics and applies to all aircraft.

I'm asking you to look beyond the pilot recommendations you are seeing and trust what I'm telling you aerodynamically.  At least give me the benefit of doubt on the aerodynamics basis my past posts and try understanding what I'm trying to tell you .

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp
An attempt to justify continious flap usage.

as opposed to

You tried to point out with nothing except your desires how you want the P 38's flaps to work.

Which by the way, they work just fine in AH.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by dtango
Think about what you are saying about overcoming the drag due to the flaps.  Yes, the flaps will add parasite and induced drag.  However at 1g level flight there's ample power available to overcome the additional drag including when you deploy full flaps EVEN at reduced throttle settings for landing - otherwise your plane would fall out of the sky if you deployed flaps.

Most planes DO fall out of the sky when they deploy full flaps. It's called descending and landing. Most planes are likewise hard pressed to hold their altitude in level flight with flaps fully deployed.

[GScholz]

Murdr, in what way could the P-38 pilots use their flaps in a way the German pilots could not in their 109s and 190s?

[agent 009]

Anyone remember Fiona flaps from the 80's. Nevermind, that's naughty. Different flaps-different thread.

[dtango]

Most planes DO fall out of the sky when they deploy full flaps. It's called descending and landing. Most planes are likewise hard pressed to hold their altitude in level flight with flaps fully deployed.

Oh please.  I thought about replying to this but this is such a loaded statement it's not worth the effort to give a serious reply.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Murdr]

Originally posted by GScholz
Murdr, in what way could the P-38 pilots use their flaps in a way the German pilots could not in their 109s and 190s?

I was trying for a bit of levity with my comment, and I had this comment in mind when I did it.

Originally posted by hitech
I see the LW conspericy idea continues.

As SlapShot pointed out all planes are treated equaly when it comes to flaps, But for some resone the original desiners decided to put different operation limits into there designs.

I belive you should dig up the orignal 190 flap designers, and tell them how they there flap desings should have been different.

In addition to that I was specifically thinking of the stability offered by the Fowler flaps in conjunction with the zero net torque.  Which is irrelevent to Crumpps single plane making a sustained turn at varying speeds.  It becomes very relevent closer to stalls speed though when you add another aircraft to the equation that has torque effects to contend with.  Relative stability between two aircraft making a sustained turn is important.  The P38 had stability at slow speeds.  38 pilots knew it, and sometimes used it to their advantage.  Some seem to have a problem with that.  Regardless, as I said, it was partially in jest, and that was my thinking behind it.

[Guppy35]

Crummp.

I think you are missing something here connecting the AH38 flying to the real life 38 flying.

Yes, pilots used their flaps.  Guys like Bong, McGuire, Lynch, Lowell etc used everything they could in the 38.

Was it reccomended as a long term life insurance policy?  Nope.  Getting slow in a combat zone, doesn't project a long life.

But when I'm in my AH P38G, with the flaps hanging out, with the stall horn blaring and turning for dear life on the deck in the horde, I have no life to lose other then a virtual one.

That applies to any AH pilot in any AH plane.  If he makes a mistake and dies, nothing is lost.  So a 38 driver like myself is going to use every last bit I can to help my feeble flying abilty

Dan/CorkyJr

[Kweassa]

Yes, pilots used their flaps. Guys like Bong, McGuire, Lynch, Lowell etc used everything they could in the 38.

Was it reccomended as a long term life insurance policy? Nope. Getting slow in a combat zone, doesn't project a long life.

 And really, that's all I needed to hear.

 Oh, and perhaps a question then, Guppy.

 What of the guys that are not like Bong, McGuire, Lynch or Lowell? What would they do?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Kweassa

 P-38s were not the only planes installed with Fowlers. The Fowlers on the P-38 also weren't necessarily the most efficient use of Fowlers in fighter planes. The P-47s also had Fowlers, which could certainly help against the usually more agile Luftwaffe planes.

Incorrect. P-47s were fitted with slotted flaps, which while more efficient than the simple and split flaps, still lagged well behind the Fowlers in terms of lift vs drag.

I don't understand your constant whining about flap usage. I also don't understand why you cannot make your point in less than 500 words......

Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.

Low and slow usually means dead if any other enemy aircraft are nearby.

My regards,

Widewing

[Kweassa]

I don't understand your constant whining about flap usage. I also don't understand why you cannot make your point in less than 500 words......

 Okay. What did I actually 'whine' about?

 Did I request for a change for any of the planes? Did I say some plane had their flaps wrong in AH?

 I mentioned how flap usage during combat was not advised in most cases. Somebody said that it was not the case of P-38s, and I objected to that opinion.

 And then, Widewing, the guy starts getting personal, so I jabbed back. What exactly am I whining about again?

Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.

Low and slow usually means dead if any other enemy aircraft are nearby.

 
 Exactly.

[dtango]

Incorrect. P-47s were fitted with slotted flaps, which while more efficient than the simple and split flaps, still lagged well behind the Fowlers in terms of lift vs drag.

Widewing - I believe they were a combination - slotted fowlers.

Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.

I agree but would choose to characterize this more like an 80/20 rule here.  However a  caveat given a specific setup such as turn fight inside 1 turn radius in a nose-to-nose fight - the guy with the better turn radius will gain the advantage.  This is where sustained turns at specific excess power = 0 with maneuver flaps deployed might gain significant advantages of one plane over another by minimizing turn radius.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kweassa
And really, that's all I needed to hear.

 Oh, and perhaps a question then, Guppy.

 What of the guys that are not like Bong, McGuire, Lynch or Lowell? What would they do?

I already answered that.  Heck Crumpp even included it in quote in his last post.  Tilly never would have tried to stay with that (correction) Oscar had it not been 12 vs 2.

Widewing said:
Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.

Low and slow usually means dead if any other enemy aircraft are nearby.

That's what I was saying.  Crumpp's argument ignores the plane the 38 is engaged with.  Not following recomended flap use ignores possible enemey planes the 38 is not engaged with.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kweassa
And really, that's all I needed to hear.

 Oh, and perhaps a question then, Guppy.

 What of the guys that are not like Bong, McGuire, Lynch or Lowell? What would they do?

Glad you asked cause I went hunting and found what I was looking for

From combat reports of the 370th FG in the summer of 44.  They would have been flying P38J-10s and 15s not retrofitted with dive flaps and power assisted controls at the time. This would be what the AH P38J represents. They operated in the ground attack role and got jumped many times, and in these instances were outnumbered and the last two at least, in a furball down low.

Note in the reports, the mention of flap use.  Also note that the 370th had come to England having trained on the P47 and learned the 38 on the fly prior to D-Day so these were not high time 38 drivers.

Also be sure and note what the last report says at the end.  He sounds like he'd fit right in to the AH 38 drivers world

Dan/CorkyJr
Lt.Richard Berry  370th Combat report  June 14, 1944

“I was leading Yellow flight and we had completed our mission and were returning home at 3000 feet.  We had lost our flight leader in clouds and haze after an identification pass at friendly A/C.  We had just gone on instruments and were about to enter the overcast when we were bounced from 4 O’Clock by four Me 109s which had just broken out of the overcast.  Yellow 2 called for me to break right into the E/A.  The entire flight broke and I found myself after a half-turn of a Lufberry, turning inside the lead E/A.  I fired a four second burst from 200 yards at approximately 20 degrees deflection and observed strikes on the engine.  The E/A started to smoke and leveled off.  I fell into trail behind him and fired a 6-second burst at 0 Degrees deflection and again observed strikes, this time on the fuselage and right wing root.  Fire broke out and enveloped the entire right wing root as the E/A disappeared into cloud.  I did not follow him because I was low on fuel.  The other E/A disappeared into the clouds after the initial break.  We all used our maneuver flaps and had no difficulty in out turning the E/A.  I saw no one bail out from the plane I hit and in my opinion the pilot was hit and at least wounded on my first burst because he leveled off and flew at a very slight climb.”


Captain Paul Sabo, 370th FG  July 31, 1944

“I was leading Blue Flight circling the target area giving Red Flight Top Cover as they were dive bombing the target.  Circling above us at about 12,000 feet were 12 Me 109s.  I kept watching them; then 8 of them half rolled and got behind my flight.  I gave the order to jettison our bombs and break.  I dropped flaps and started in a tight Lufberry.  When I had completed one turn I was alone, and at that time I saw an Me 109 in a vertical turn coming in front of me so I started firing at him at a 90 degree deflection shot.  He flew right into the pattern and I saw strikes on him from nose to tail.  The plane seemed to shudder and slow down.  I was about 200 yards when I started to fire.  The Me 109 then made a 90 degree turn to the left and started to climb as if he was going to loop.  I followed him, closing to about 100 yards, fired and saw strikes all over his canopy, fuselage and tail surfaces.  As he was about at the top of his loop and almost on his back, I saw what looked like his canopy come off, as the plane seemed to hang there.  It looked like I had wounded the pilot during the first 90 degree deflection shot and he was rolling it over on his back to jettison his canopy and bail out.

About that time I looked in my rear view mirror and saw an Me 109 on my tail.  I dropped flaps and turned into him. He half rolled and went down.  As I rolled out I saw an Me 109 coming down in front of me.  I opened up again and gave him a 90-degree deflection shot.    He ran into my pattern and I saw strikes all over the plane.  I followed him and kept firing from directly behind him, seeing strikes on his tail surfaces.  Then he proceeded to go down in a wild dive from about 5000 feet.  I looked back in my mirror again, because all during this time I was still alone.  My flight had left me.  I saw another Me 109 coming in on my tail. I dropped flaps, leveled out and turned into him. He automatically went into a steep climb and I lost him in the sun.  When I looked I saw no more enemy and called my Flight to join me.”


Lt. Royal Madden  from the same Flight and same fight, July 31, 1944

“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left.  I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me.  I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.

We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet.  This boy was good and he had me plenty worried  as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection.  I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst.  There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off.  He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.

Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home.  Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped.  As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”