Flaps, flaps, & flaps.

[Guppy35]

A couple other interesting observations from the 370th stuff.

The theme when they were bounced was to drop flaps and break into the attack.  It's consistant in the reports.

And funny, I've been doing that when I get bounced too.  Pull hard into the attacker and kick in a notch of flaps to get the turn in faster and sharper to avoid the attack.  Throw em back up when the badun passes and keep the speed up.

And another pilot report mentioning flaps that has an AH feel to it, at least for me as I've done the same thing in my 38G many times.

Quoting Lt. Robert Blandin

"The 109 was in front of me now and still in a pretty steep climb.   I had him in range and was firing.  I could see my tracers looping behind his tail but I didn't have enough speed to pull the lead I needed to  hit him.  To get it, I cracked some combat flaps which gave me added lift and let me bring the nose up without stalling.  The next time I fired I hit him aft of the cockpit...."

I love this stuff

Dan/CorkyJr

[GScholz]

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

You didn't answer the question. What could a P-38 pilot do with his flaps that a 109 or 190 pilot couldn't?

I don't know how old that HiTech quote is, but it is irrelevant since he is wrong. Crumpp has repeatedly presented evidence that shows the true speed limitations on 190 flaps.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by GScholz
You didn't answer the question. What could a P-38 pilot do with his flaps that a 109 or 190 pilot couldn't?

I don't know how old that HiTech quote is, but it is irrelevant since he is wrong. Crumpp has repeatedly presented evidence that shows the true speed limitations on 190 flaps.

Asking cause I don't know the answer, but did 109 and 190 pilots drop flaps in combat as common practice? Did they have 'combat flaps'?

I know the Spit drivers sure didn't.

Mustang drivers used combat flaps.  You can find mention of that often enough in the 51 combat reports.

Dan/CorkyJr

[GScholz]

There is no such thing as "combat flaps", it's just a setting. Just because is says "combat" on the cockpit label doesn't make the flaps special. The 190 could drop 15 degrees of flaps well above the 180 mph limit we have now. The 109 could drop flaps above 300 mph if I understood Crumpp right. And yes, both LW and Finnish pilots did use flaps to momentarily turn tighter.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by GScholz
There is no such thing as "combat flaps", it's just a setting. Just because is says "combat" on the cockpit label doesn't make the flaps special. The 190 could drop 15 degrees of flaps well above the 180 mph limit we have now. The 109 could drop flaps above 300 mph if I understood Crumpp right. And yes, both LW and Finnish pilots did use flaps to momentarily turn tighter.

LOL easy, Not arguing with ya.  Never claimed the flaps were special.  Just using the term the pilots used.  Clearly they saw them as combat flaps or maneuvering flaps.  Both terms appear in the combat reports.

I just haven't come across accounts of 109 or 190 pilots cracking their flaps as common practice.  

I also wonder what speed the 370th P38 drivers were at when they were kicking out the combat flaps.  Seeing the 109s above them, you'd have to think they had throttled up to give them as much help as possible when the 109s came down.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Kurfürst]

IIRC I saw some flap reference for 109s on the finnish website, but it`s no wonder it was rarely mentioned. German tactics revolved around diving attacks and giving no chance for the enemy. Only a few of their pilots preferred manouvering combat over strict energy tactics. Especially as they were usually outnumbered, and turning would slow them down and loosing the initiative. The technical documentation however is quite clear that the 109s had any intermediate flap settings of your choosing, 'combat flaps' if you like, and could be extended at fairly high airspeed if wished to be used.

[Kweassa]

Thanks for the answers Guppy.

 In that case I'd gladly make an exception in my thinking concerning the frequency of flap use for the P-38 pilots.
 
 But there are still more questions I've brought up during the discussion, and one I'd like to hear your opinion about is perhaps the conditions of the P-38 pilots, and especially influential P-38 aces, were quite different from other fighter pilots or groups. Rookies tend to follow whatever practices their superiors are doing, and quickly catch on to certain methods of flying and fighting that are advocated by their officers.

 Again, P-38s were not the only planes with Fowlers, nor were they the only planes that could find a use for combat positions. There are reports and tales of P-51 or P-47 pilots, upon some occasions using flaps for fighting, and even some LW aces were especially famous for their flying skills, including a tendency to drop into a low-speed battle and frequently using flaps for combat. And yet, I find it hard to believe any of the other pilots of other countries/planes made a regular use of such flap positions, or even advocate or promote them to their underlings.

 Like others have mentioned P-38 combat flap positions were sanctioned at 250mph IAS which is a relatively very slow speed, considering the speeds the other USAAF fighters were fighting against the Luftwaffe in high-alt escort missions.

 I am guessing it has a lot to do with typical conditions (probably low altitude engagements and mix-ups) the P-38s were operating under, as compared to the other fighters the USAAF were using between '43 and '45, because clearly, such combat practices would not be fit for high-alt engagements where fighters developed speeds quickly.

 What is your opinion on this?

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Guppy35


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.”

Great stories!  It's amazing that these guys were still new to the P-38 and were able to fly it like they did in those engagements.  The above part is my favorite part, that's sweet, out turning a bf109 while still carrying 2 eggs on the deck.  He definitely would fit right in with us


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Guppy35
A couple other interesting observations from the 370th stuff.

The theme when they were bounced was to drop flaps and break into the attack.  It's consistant in the reports.

And funny, I've been doing that when I get bounced too.  Pull hard into the attacker and kick in a notch of flaps to get the turn in faster and sharper to avoid the attack.  Throw em back up when the badun passes and keep the speed up.

And another pilot report mentioning flaps that has an AH feel to it, at least for me as I've done the same thing in my 38G many times.

[/b]


I do the same thing, break into the attacker and take the initiative from him.  It must be a Lightning driver instinct

Quoting Lt. Robert Blandin

"The 109 was in front of me now and still in a pretty steep climb.   I had him in range and was firing.  I could see my tracers looping behind his tail but I didn't have enough speed to pull the lead I needed to  hit him.  To get it, I cracked some combat flaps which gave me added lift and let me bring the nose up without stalling.  The next time I fired I hit him aft of the cockpit...."

I love this stuff

Dan/CorkyJr [/B]

Sounds like another LW driver underestimated the vertical abilities of the P-38 and paid for it with his life.  You only make those types of mistakes once.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Guppy35


I also wonder what speed the 370th P38 drivers were at when they were kicking out the combat flaps.  Seeing the 109s above them, you'd have to think they had throttled up to give them as much help as possible when the 109s came down.

Dan/CorkyJr

I would have said dive flaps since P-38 drivers would also use it to help in high speed turns.  But those were early production Js the 370th flew, so at least to engage the flaps they were going 250mph.  


ack-ack

[Crumpp]

Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct.

You are correct Widewing in that flaps usage is all relative.  Given the P 38's aerodynamic characteristics I don't see where it would have any advantage.

There seems to be this tendency among the P 38 fans to say, "Yes that is true, but the P 38 is exempt from those laws of physics."

All fighter pilots used flaps in a hard dogfight.  

Ack-Ack, you accuse me of using a straw man argument yet use a "bait and switch" trying to turn this into a Luftwaffe flap debate.  Completely different subject that has been covered ad nauseaum.  Not relevant to this thread.  Start another one about Luftwaffe flaps deployment speeds and I will repost the documentation.

Lockheed says maneuver flaps cannot be deployed above 250mph IAS.

All the best,

Crumpp

[dtango]

You are correct Widewing in that flaps usage is all relative. Given the P 38's aerodynamic characteristics I don't see where it would have any advantage.

There seems to be this tendency among the P 38 fans to say, "Yes that is true, but the P 38 is exempt from those laws of physics."

No the use of flaps for better turn performance is perfectly described by the laws of physics.  It applies not only to the P-38 but other aircraft as well.

I'll try a different way to explain.



Take this EM plot (from warbirds) for illustrative purposes.  The blue line represents clean configuration.  The green line represents the envelope with maneuver/combat flap settings.

Now note the Ps=0 plots (sustained turns with no energy gain or loss), purple being clean configuration mil power settings, red being clean WEP power settings.  

Now note the flap 1 Ps=0 plots, solid for mil power, dotted for WEP power.  Remember that Ps=0 equals the condition where your power-available balances out the power-required due to drag (including additional drag as a result of flaps).  Notice the sustained turn performance difference between flaps 1 vs. clean - both a clear turn rate and turn radius advantage.  This is the point in the envelope even with the additional drag having flaps deployed still gives you a turn peformance advantage vs. not using them.

You can also see that at flaps settings that at some point their Ps=0 curves dip below the clean Ps=0 curves representing the increased effect of the additional flap drag degrading turn peformance, most notably the flaps 2 setting.

Hope that helps in the explanation.

For reference the chart comes from this article:
http://www.combatsim.com/htm/nov98/energy-man1.htm#cont

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Thanks for the answers Guppy.

 In that case I'd gladly make an exception in my thinking concerning the frequency of flap use for the P-38 pilots.
 
 But there are still more questions I've brought up during the discussion, and one I'd like to hear your opinion about is perhaps the conditions of the P-38 pilots, and especially influential P-38 aces, were quite different from other fighter pilots or groups. Rookies tend to follow whatever practices their superiors are doing, and quickly catch on to certain methods of flying and fighting that are advocated by their officers.

 Again, P-38s were not the only planes with Fowlers, nor were they the only planes that could find a use for combat positions. There are reports and tales of P-51 or P-47 pilots, upon some occasions using flaps for fighting, and even some LW aces were especially famous for their flying skills, including a tendency to drop into a low-speed battle and frequently using flaps for combat. And yet, I find it hard to believe any of the other pilots of other countries/planes made a regular use of such flap positions, or even advocate or promote them to their underlings.

 Like others have mentioned P-38 combat flap positions were sanctioned at 250mph IAS which is a relatively very slow speed, considering the speeds the other USAAF fighters were fighting against the Luftwaffe in high-alt escort missions.

 I am guessing it has a lot to do with typical conditions (probably low altitude engagements and mix-ups) the P-38s were operating under, as compared to the other fighters the USAAF were using between '43 and '45, because clearly, such combat practices would not be fit for high-alt engagements where fighters developed speeds quickly.

 What is your opinion on this?

Just my opinion, but I think it's safe to say the the AH 38 world is best represented by those 370th FG 38 drivers.  The fights are lower, often on the deck and often where the 38 is lugging bombs to some airfield etc.

I don't think it was a reccomended tactic in the Pacific.  General George Kenny, head of 5th AF wasn't happy with his new 38 pilots tactics early on, including Bong and Lynch as they were too often trying to dogfight Zeros.  The tactics in the Pac were to keep the speed up and B & Z the Zekes etc to death.

I think it's safe to say the 38 drivers were versed in how to use those flaps though, and if you look at those 370th accounts, their use was in a defensive, save their skins posture, not an attack mode.  In all those cases they did not have alt and E on their side.

And in that regard I think it applies to the AH 38 drivers too.  Listening to the guys I fly 38s with, they're always harping on me to keep my speed up, as the Spit driver in me can't help but start turnfighting some times

But if you watch the good AH 38 drivers  they're using the speed and climb of the 38 to do their work, not the flaps.  Those are only once in a position like those real life 38 drivers down low.

Where I've seen mention of flaps in P51 combats is under the same circumstances.  4th FG stuff mentions it fairly often where the 51 drivers drop combat flaps to turn with the 109s they  are mixed in with.

Does that answer your question?

[Crumpp]

No the use of flaps for better turn performance is perfectly described by the laws of physics. It applies not only to the P-38 but other aircraft as well.

dtango you have proved my point.  With all flap usage there is a point of diminishing returns.
 
Nobody is disputing flaps did not temporarily decrease turn radius for any plane. The P 38 is not special regarding flap usage.  

It is when we see anecdotal evidence such as:

Pilots like McGuire often got into slow speed dogfights despite the fact that he preached otherwise to his subortanants. While most fighters have to contend more and more with tourque as speeds decline, the 38 with its counter-rotating props does not. Appearently that is "nothing special". While it wasnt the reccomeded, or even the smartest tactic, the 38 could do it when called upon.

Being presented to countermand the Manufacturer's INSTRUCTIONS for their own design and misrepresented as normal usage that clarification is needed.  Lockheed says to use the P38's flaps as such:

 

"MANEUVERING FLAPS SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLE PARTICULAR MANEUVER AND THEN BE RETRACED IMMEDIATELY "

If we are going to use anecdotal evidence then lets allow Spitfires to run at WEP for hours at a time.  We have a full test report of one doing it and most WWII aircraft engines could do it.  Why have WEP settings in the first place?  Let's have FW-190A's that exceed 1000kph in a dive just like SKG 10 did routinely.  There are plenty of cases of anecdotal evidence of 190's and 109's outturning Spitfires!  Can we see that?  

Facts are the P 38 fans have continuously argued for their aircraft to be special when it was not.  They want the flaps to have the ability to be used at higher speeds than they were capable of and to be able to leave them down continuously without penalty.

I just haven't come across accounts of 109 or 190 pilots cracking their flaps as common practice.

Guppy!!  My friend you must not be looking very hard because their is a ton of anecdotal evidence.  Try reading Mike Spicks book:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/spick.html

Every 109 pilot I have interviewed has said they used flaps.  Same with the FW-190 pilots.

All the best,

Crumpp

[dtango]

dtango you have proved my point. With all flap usage there is a point of diminishing returns.

Nobody is disputing flaps did not temporarily decrease turn radius for any plane. The P 38 is not special regarding flap usage.

My aim is not to prove anything, least of all espouse the "greatness" of the P-38 or how special it was.  Far from it.  

My point is to try and educate regarding the aerodynamics so that people who read this thread don't leave with misconceptions about the aerodynamics of flaps usage.

The idea that flap deployment will ALWAYS result in energy bleed that leads to degraded turn performance is patently incorrect.

Is this true for part of the flight envelope?  Yes.  But it is also not true for a good part of the flight envelope as well.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs