Author Topic: I think I speak for all 109 flyers when I say... (Read 2817 times)

Pooface · « **Reply #15 on:** March 20, 2006, 04:50:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TexMurphy
I think I speak for alot of NON 109 flyers when I say....

If the flap speed can be historically proven please please fix it because Im sooo sick of reading about the luftwaffe planes beeing porked...

Tex

seconded.

Pyro · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2006, 05:02:21 PM »

Just because something gets repeated a lot doesn't make it correct. I'm not sure where it came to be thought otherwise, but our flap speed standard has always been based on the figures attained in the pilots manual whenever possible. It has nothing to do with where the flaps would really be damaged because that's beyond knowing for most planes. It's specifically been our intent not to turn the flaps into some top-gunesque "I'll just drop my flaps and he'll fly right by" thing.

LePaul · « **Reply #17 on:** March 20, 2006, 05:07:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
It's specifically been our intent not to turn the flaps into some top-gunesque "I'll just drop my flaps and he'll fly right by" thing.

Now that just made Goose cry!

SirLoin · « **Reply #18 on:** March 20, 2006, 05:09:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
It's specifically been our intent not to turn the flaps into some top-gunesque "I'll just drop my flaps and he'll fly right by" thing.

If only a LW plane could do that..

Not a lot hard to do that in American planes.

Morpheus · « **Reply #19 on:** March 20, 2006, 05:55:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
Just because something gets repeated a lot doesn't make it correct. I'm not sure where it came to be thought otherwise, but our flap speed standard has always been based on the figures attained in the pilots manual whenever possible. It has nothing to do with where the flaps would really be damaged because that's beyond knowing for most planes. It's specifically been our intent not to turn the flaps into some top-gunesque "I'll just drop my flaps and he'll fly right by" thing.

Maybe I'm mistaken but, I beleive it was you who said in one of the huge LW threads that you were going to address the incorrect modeling of the 109 flaps. Speed vs deployment. Its wrong, and has been proven. Time and time again.

Wmaker · « **Reply #20 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:00:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
I'm not sure where it came to be thought otherwise, but our flap speed standard has always been based on the figures attained in the pilots manual whenever possible.

Hi Pyro,

I think it is your quote from this thread that is being talked about.

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
The flaps on the 109s were supposed to be changed in the 2.06 and it was an oversight that it wasn't.

Morpheus · « **Reply #21 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:05:25 PM »

yep that's the one.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #22 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:05:41 PM »

pWnEd!

Wmaker · « **Reply #23 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:20:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
pWnEd!

Hehe...

I just would like to say that *that* wasn't my intent when I posted the quote...to get "one over" or something...just to remind Pyro about it as he might have easily forgotten it...I'm sure there's a lot of going on at HTC right now.

And just for the record the speed in AH (109G-2) when the flaps start to reract from fully down position hits the speed that the FAF flight manual lists EXACTLY (155mph ~ 250km/h). So he sure has gotten something right.

In real 109 of course there were no notches and that would be nice to see in AH aswell someday. The issue has more to do with the lower flap angles and their max speeds. I don't remember seeing any statement about the lower flap positions in any flight manuals. Obviously just a few degrees could have been lowered in fairly high speeds like the graph Crumpp posted in that another thread shows. Whether it was a graph that could be found from a flight manual which Pyro was talking about I seriously doubt it.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #24 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:25:20 PM »

I was just kidding ... I'm test flying stuff offline and I think flaps will be less of an issue now.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #25 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:29:05 PM »

Now I just read in another thread soeone saying that the flaps hads indeed been fixed.
so which is it?

Personally I never had a big problem with the way the flaps were.
the forward vis in the G-6 and G-14 by comparison is far more important

bj229r · « **Reply #26 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:49:16 PM »

most planes have a HAND crank to deploy flaps..... did ANY WW2 pilots use flaps in middle of dogfights on a regular basis?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #27 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:58:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
most planes have a HAND crank to deploy flaps..... did ANY WW2 pilots use flaps in middle of dogfights on a regular basis?

I've always wondered the same thing.

I know I see alot of people do things here you would normally see stunt planes do at an air show.
but I always wondered how many pilots managed to pull some of this stuff off IRL WWII combat.
And I mean witht he controls we have available to us.
think about it Now with your HOTAS sytems and such we can do more with less effort. Working the stick,rudder,throttle,flaps, and trim all at the same time.

Thats a cople more controls then you would have appendages for LOL

Pyro · « **Reply #28 on:** March 20, 2006, 07:34:18 PM »

It was my intent to increase the number of flap notches in the 109 to the maximum of 5 that the system supports since it had a completely variable system.

On the issue of speeds, I had assumed I was mistaken since so many people were stating that to be the case. However, I checked the German 109E manual, the Finnish G-2 manual, and the German 109K manual just to be sure and they all stated the same thing. Don't operate them at speeds greater than 250 km/hr, don't have them full down at speeds greater than 250 km/hr. Now in this version, I've stretched this out to the limit of credibility IMO unless I want to throw out the standards we've used for everything else and just crank up the numbers on everything. But I've already explained that we're not going to do that.

AWRaid · « **Reply #29 on:** March 20, 2006, 08:02:13 PM »

109s did indeed have a combat flap setting. I don't know of a single version of 109 with a single flap setting.