Flaps, flaps, & flaps.

[humble]

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.

How about posting the documentation. I've read an awful lot of pilot accounts and never recall a single mention from a 109 or 190 pilot about dropping flaps at combat speeds...a couple of accounts similiar to what guppy posted would be interesting reading....

[Guppy35]

I'll take your word for it Crummp on the 109s and 190s using flaps.  Obviously I'm more RAF, USAAF oriented so that's where I pay the most attention


I'm still trying to figure out what we're arguing about however.

I think we can agree that whether it be P38s or 190s, pilots would use combat flaps if the situation warranted it.

I think it's fair to say this would be generally a defensive move, unless it was to get inside a turn to make a killing shot.

Neither Allied or Axis pilots wanted to try and survive slow for long in a combat zone.

If we're applying this to AH, I don't see any difference.

Are there times where I've got the flaps hanging out on my 38G?  You bet. Generally in a desperate effort to keep the guy behind me from getting deflection, and generally in a furball on the deck when I'm gonna die more often then not

I've had the pleasure of flying with some of the best 38 sticks in AH on occasion and none of them are abusing flaps to get their kills.  These guys use their speed, climb and that centralized firepower to clobber the baduns.  Funny part is I live longest when I fly the 38 the right way, which is how the best AH38 drivers do it.

They wouldn't be great sticks if they flew the 38 like I do, pretending it's a Spit at times  So if anyone is overusing the Flaps it's me, but then again I just end up dying doing it so I'm hardly a problem for anyone

Do guys flying AH have favorite airplanes that they'll defend til the end of time?  You bet.  Spits and 38s for me.  190s for Crummp, as examples.  I know there are some Ki-84 guys who are never gonna be satisfied with that bird.  109 drivers who want more from the 109.  It goes on and on.

The best part of it is that people keep learning about the planes and pilots, so despite the arguments that get stupid on occasion, I think it's a win-win for everyone.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp


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."

Show me where in this thread any P-38 pilot in here has said that.  All I did was correct Kweassa's error when he said that fighter pilots rarely used flaps in combat.  

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.[/b]

Show me where I even talk about Luftwhiner flaps in this thread.  I think you have me confused with someone else.

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

All the best,

Crumpp [/B]

Again, where did anyone say that the Fowler flaps on the P-38 could be deployed above that speed?  


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp


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.



All the best,

Crumpp

Again, it's Show Time.  Show me one thread where myself, Murdr, pellik, Crims or Savage have asked for the raising of the speed limit that flaps can be deployed at.  The only thing we've asked is that the auto-flap retracting system be replaced with a system that will model damage to flaps as a result of stress from over speeding.

 For some reason, you and Kweassa keep harping on things we've never asked for nor want.  

Besides, +Tiff\CorkyJr was pretty much on target on how we P-38 drivers fly the Lightning in AH.  

Take a hop with us and you might get struck by the clue stick and see that we don't fly with our flaps continuously extended but rather we use them when the situation warrants and only using them to get the job done and retract them afterwards.


ack-ack

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Facts are the P 38 fans have continuously argued for their aircraft to be special when it was not.  

So in other words you're saying that a single seat twin engine counter rotating prop fighter is the norm for fighters of its period?

They want the flaps to have the ability to be used at higher speeds than they were capable of

Where has that come in to discussion in this thread?

and to be able to leave them down continuously without penalty.

 That is false.  Giving anecdotal evidence of real life 38 flap usage in no way supports your claim either.  Why?  BECAUSE WE CAN ALREADY DUPLICATE THE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IN AH.  There is no want involved with it.

[Crumpp]

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

Nobody made that claim.  Certainly depends on the design.  Lockheeds clearly points out that the P 38 was not an aircraft that benefits from flaps being left down for long periods of time.

BECAUSE WE CAN ALREADY DUPLICATE THE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IN AH. There is no want involved with it.

This is very true!  I easily outturned a 109F4 in a P47D 25 the other day in the CT.  I was flying around at flap setting three just owning him in manuverability.  Very cartoony.

Yes Murdr, both you and Ack-Ack have argued for the flaps to be set outside of there POH limits.  Or are you going to deny it?

So in other words you're saying that a single seat twin engine counter rotating prop fighter is the norm for fighters of its period?

You are correct it did have high form / induced drag, average power to weight ratio, and high wingloading for a WWII fighter.
As for your claim of never asking for the flaps to be deployed outside of the listed POF limits, Remember this thread?

Originally posted by 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?

The one Hitech called you out on?

All the best,

Crumpp

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp


Yes Murdr, both you and Ack-Ack have argued for the flaps to be set outside of there POH limits.  Or are you going to deny it?

 
All the best,

Crumpp

Again, show me the post where I state that I want to be able to deploy the flaps above what they're rated to be deployed at.

I will restate what I've said all along in the attempt that maybe this time it will actually get through and sink in (but alas, I have my doubts).  I have always said that the auto-retracting flap system should be replaced by a system that will model the damage the flaps receive from stress due to over speeding.  Now, where in that statement does it say that I want to deploy the flaps at higher than what is rated?  You're starting to clutch at straws to make an argument where there is none.  So, please Crummb do your homework and show me these posts where I state the contrary.  You may be confusing us with OIO/TAC that has argued for such a thing but the rest of us AH 38 drivers do not agree with OIO/TAC on this.


ack-ack

[Guppy35]

Crummp,

Do you see any qualities in LW planes that are "cartoony" since that seems to be the phrase I'm hearing a lot lately when listening to fans of LW AH birds talking about Allied iron.

I'm just trying to guage bias in this as I just fly em and remind myself it's not a real plane

Yes the modeling should be as accurate as possible, but the talks smacks of LW conspiracy which seems silly to me.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Crumpp]

Guppy,

I seriously doubt there is a Luftwaffe conspiracy.  More like a lack of data and decades of historical assumptions/prejudice in that data vacuum.

In the past few years several factors have combined to bring much more data to light.  One of those being the NASM beginning to catalog on a searchable database tens of thousands of documents that have been lingering in storage since the end of the war.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Ack-0Ack says:
Ummm...that's why we're asking for a more realistic modeling approach to this problem. In RL, if the flaps were deployed at 250mph, they didn't break or get damaged at 251mph.

 

Ack-Ack says:

Then they pay the price by having their flaps damaged for exceeding the limits. What's wrong with that?

All arguments to extend the limits.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=2

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=3

All the best,

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
All arguments to extend the limits.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=2

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=3

All the best,

Crumpp

Hate to say it Crumpp, but I don't see that.  What I see Savage and AKAK advocating is removing the autoretract and implementing a damage model to the flaps should the pilot exceed the limit of their use.

I don't see them saying raise the limit.  I do see a reasonable request to in essence make it random to a degree in the damage model should a pilot forget to pull them up when they pass the 250 mph threshold.  That would be realistic in that no plane is going to automatically break at 251 if it's reccomended to raise the flaps at 250.  Could it break?  Sure, but it wouldn't everytime.

I don't see anything where they are advocating being able to extend flaps over 250.

So if a poor sap like me in my 38G makes the mistake of having combat flaps out and I pass the 250 mark, I might get lucky and survive but it also might wreck me so I better be careful.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Crumpp]

Could it break? Sure, but it wouldn't everytime.  

They are asking to raise the limits.  I'm not the only one who sees it.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Crumpp
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.

Calling BS

Which way do you want it crumpp???  You make the above statement and then on the same page turn around and start your BS misrepresetation of what akak or I may or may not have said in another dead thread regarding an alternative to AFR.  You cant have it both ways.

The only reason I piped into this thread is because of your long illustrious history of blatent repeated misrepresentation of facts.

Twice you presented this statment "Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance."  immediately following citing Lockheed giving the appearence that YOUR statment carried the weight of the manufacturer.  I never said that statment was somehow incorrect.  Only that it is not part of the citation you made.

And now you are going to turn this into putting your own spin on what my intended meaning was from posts I made in a completely different thread?  IMHO you are not competent to do such a thing since IN THIS THREAD I straigh out told you I was not attacking the validity of your "Prolonged usage had a detrimental effect on turn performance." statment.  Yet how many post did you spend talking to yourself supporting the statment anyways?

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp
All arguments to extend the limits.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=2

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135297&perpage=50&highlight=P38%20Flaps&pagenumber=3

All the best,

Crumpp

So how is asking for a system that models flap damage from stress as a result from over speeding extending the limits?  Like I said in one of those threads, if you keep your flaps deployed for too long and they get damaged from over speeding then that's the price you pay for doing that.  So, really it doesn't prove your point because you claim that we want be able to ride our flaps without penalty and you can clearly see by my position that it isn't so.  

Guys like Murdr, Crims, +Tiff/Dan. Savage and myself have been playing these games for many years, in come cases 10+ years.  And in some cases all those years spent flying the P-38 and flying them in games that modeled such a damage system to their flaps.  In those games you learn very quickly flying the P-38 not to keep your flaps deployed for an extended period of time or face the possibility of too much E loss or damage from over speeding.  Soon it becomes second nature and stays with you, kind of like riding a bike, you just never forget.  

These lessons we've learned during our time have carried over to AH and you'll see by watching any of our films that we fly the same way we did back in those games that modeled the flap damage.  Hard learned lessons are hard to forget.  Like +Tiff pointed out after he posted the story on the 370th combat sorties, our flying the P-38 in AH is very similiar to how those guys did it.  So please, stop trying to insist we crying for something that we aren't.  I hope I typed this slow enough for you to understand.


ack-ack

[dtango]

Nobody made that claim. Certainly depends on the design. Lockheeds clearly points out that the P 38 was not an aircraft that benefits from flaps being left down for long periods of time.

You're making the claim here (as well as other places).  This whole statement is aerodynamically incorrect even for the P-38 because there are certain parts of the flight envelope that you can have your flaps deployed for as long as you want and benefit from them.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs