Dropping Flaps??

[boomerlu]

I'm not an expert on aero... but here's an interesting idea that could be a nice compromise between "Pilot's Manual" and "Structural Limit".

Say I am in a FW190 A5 - the corner velocity is around 260 mph IAS. Where I would most want to have combat flaps ability is any speed under 260 mph IAS - any higher than that and I am bleeding more airspeed to do the same maneuver.

If we can come up with a consistent model and it passes a "smell test" for flap speeds well in excess of corner velocities for our aircraft (say the smell test says flaps could easily be deployed at 350 mph which is a differential of 100 mph above most corner velocities), we could easily just implement "corner velocity and below" combat flaps.

These "corner velocity flaps" would have their deployment speeds low enough not to violate any realism limits but high enough to be useful in gameplay. The in between settings could simply split the difference.

Admittedly I used a LW aircraft example because that is what I fly. However, this line of reasoning could EASILY be extended to any other aircraft. Simply increase the combat flap setting up to corner velocity. Again, if everything passes a "smell test", then these flap speeds would easily be within realism limits and high enough to be useful.

[Stoney]

I'm not an expert on aero... but here's an interesting idea that could be a nice compromise between "Pilot's Manual" and "Structural Limit".

Say I am in a FW190 A5 - the corner velocity is around 260 mph IAS. Where I would most want to have combat flaps ability is any speed under 260 mph IAS - any higher than that and I am bleeding more airspeed to do the same maneuver.

If we can come up with a consistent model and it passes a "smell test" for flap speeds well in excess of corner velocities for our aircraft (say the smell test says flaps could easily be deployed at 350 mph which is a differential of 100 mph above most corner velocities), we could easily just implement "corner velocity and below" combat flaps.

These "corner velocity flaps" would have their deployment speeds low enough not to violate any realism limits but high enough to be useful in gameplay. The in between settings could simply split the difference.

Admittedly I used a LW aircraft example because that is what I fly. However, this line of reasoning could EASILY be extended to any other aircraft. Simply increase the combat flap setting up to corner velocity. Again, if everything passes a "smell test", then these flap speeds would easily be within realism limits and high enough to be useful.

So again, all we're talking about is normalizing flap deployment speeds on all aircraft.  I'll exagerate to make the point, but why not normalize turning radius?  Why not normalize armament?  Why not normalize speeds?  The fact that the individual aircraft in-game are representative of their real-life selves is the only thing that makes this game what it is, and not something you buy for X-Box.  Currently, HTC uses a standard criteria for all planes with respect to flap deployment speeds.  No need to start making arbitrary limits that may or may not have existed in real-life.  Other games do that, and we criticize them for it.

[Bronk]

Funny, this whole "by the book" vs "structural" debate.

I'll bet most of the ones arguing for the structural here, would be against say... allied ac going past max recommended duration of wep.

As we all know allied engines simply ceased to work after 5 min of wep.


Going "by the book" is the best way to go. Be it flap deployment or duration of wep. This leaves no wiggle room. On any given day, were the people assembling parts on the axis wings more diligent than people assembling allied engines or vise versa?

[thorsim]

not to open another whole can of worms here, but stoney deployment speeds should be pretty far down the list of "arbitrary limits that may or may not have existed in real-life" in regards to the flaps in AH.  

i see little real reason AH players should be criticizing any other games about much.  i don't see one as much better than the other in general at this point.  some are better than others at some things and visa versa.  feeling good about something that is incorrect because the criteria for causing them to be incorrect is consistent, vs. other games that are also in their own way trying to find correctness in their offerings seems slim consolation to me.  they may have abandoned that criteria as limiting already and moved on to better ways of approaching these issues.

this "flight manual says it so it must be" is a mind set that will leave this game behind others in these regards,  clearly AH has not used the flight manuals as irrefutable in other regards,  it is just time that they look at it in this case and think about what their criteria may be doing to hurt the accuracy and credibility of AH relative to the other games in the market.  

not bashing anyone or anything but closing your mind after considering one source when other better sources may and do exist is just limiting the possibilities of the game and it's ability to be correct.

i am glad that hitech is not completely committed to any one type of data and that there is a possibility for a change where their previous methodology may be proven to be flawed.  i really see no reason not to consider that similar structures will react in a similar way to the exact same forces, of course there may be exceptions, but that would require that there be a norm from which to deviate.  that being the case why would you not seek the norm and then find the exceptions.  

? ? ?  

So again, all we're talking about is normalizing flap deployment speeds on all aircraft.  I'll exagerate to make the point, but why not normalize turning radius?  Why not normalize armament?  Why not normalize speeds?  The fact that the individual aircraft in-game are representative of their real-life selves is the only thing that makes this game what it is, and not something you buy for X-Box.  Currently, HTC uses a standard criteria for all planes with respect to flap deployment speeds.  No need to start making arbitrary limits that may or may not have existed in real-life.  Other games do that, and we criticize them for it.

[moot]

this "flight manual says it so it must be" is a mind set that will leave this game behind others in these regards,  clearly AH has not used the flight manuals as irrefutable in other regards,  it is just time that they look at it in this case and think about what their criteria may be doing to hurt the accuracy and credibility of AH relative to the other games in the market. 

The aim is to make the planes as representative of the most characteristic/common form of planes, historically.  If you have a better methodology, you're welcome to suggest it to HTC.  But don't do it by snubbing them over not having adopted it earlier, or ridiculizing the current method, that's just not gonna help.

[Bronk]

Snip

So you wouldn't be opposed to allied ac going past 5 min of wep?

If you are opposed... hypocrite.
If not where do you set the arbitrary limit?

[gyrene81]

So you wouldn't be opposed to allied ac going past 5 min of wep?

If you are opposed... hypocrite.
If not where do you set the arbitrary limit?

I kinda see Bronks point in a way..."normalizing" the flaps across the board could compromise the current "realistic" flap settings for many ac. The question then becomes, should it be like IL2 and give all planes "combat flap" settings regardless of whether it existed or not? IMO that would degrade AH.

With mechanical flap mechanisms I personally don't think it was common practice for a pilot to put his plane into a high g maneuver then let go of the stick with one hand and move the flap mechanism to any degree...but it doesn't mean it never happened. Was there an actual "combat flap" setting in WWII German fighters? None documented...the wing flaps are referred to in all available documentation as "landing flaps".

The only thing brought to this discussion to contradict the pilot manuals so far is test data...and that should only be a reference point for seeking out more pertinent data, i.e. training manuals, pilot testimony, video, etc...

[Stoney]

i see little real reason AH players should be criticizing any other games about much.  i don't see one as much better than the other in general at this point.

It's not a "neener-neener" type of criticism Thorsim, its a definitive criticism, as in critique, of the game.  IL-2's engine cooling model being the most conspicuous example I can think of.

My post you quoted was in response to Boomerlu's post, and that only.  I know what the issues are here.  All we need to do now is find some data to support what you're arguing for.

[thorsim]

not sure why there would be much of a difference in the combat flap being used or the el trim gyrene they are two wheels connected to the same axle ...

no bronk i am not a hypocrite would you like for me to start listing examples of where AH deviates from the pilot manuals or documented norms of flight.  what does the pilot manual say about combat with fuel in the p51s center tank for example?

i question your perception of the aim moot and i did not slight anyone, i fly most of these games currently, i offered my opinion.  it is a fact that the criteria is different for different games.  the smell test on the flap deployment speeds is not so great in AH, other games who also claim "accuracy" have widely different conclusions on these matters often 100% different than AH.  

and stoney i have already posted some data, what i am told to do now is to find more data which i am doing.

no offense anyone

++S++

t

why all the static anyway, flap speed changes will not put the set out of whack, all the historic advantages would be the same.  it is the curious anomalies that get constant unfavorable comments that will disappear.

no offense.  
 

[hitech]

Thorism wrote:

why all the static anyway, flap speed changes will not put the set out of whack, all the historic advantages would be the same.  it is the curious anomalies that get constant unfavorable comments that will disappear.

Why the static is simply the way  you started the this topic. You did not start with data nor a valid argement. But simply and attitude of 

"I know this is wrong so change it because I know it is wrong."

You have changed your discussion method as of late.

Thor to be clear, your argument is now that you believe flaps should be modeled to what they could structurally stand and not to what how manufacture suggested they should be used?

If this is not your view then please explain more.

HiTech

[gyrene81]

not sure why there would be much of a difference in the combat flap being used or the el trim gyrene they are two wheels connected to the same axle ...

Just throwing it out there Thor. Like I said, I've seen a lot of stuff including purported pilot interviews (mostly Finnish 109 pilots) where only a couple talked about using the flaps and those were at high alt (13,000 meters)...all of the rest of the references to using the controls talked about the el trim and landing flaps.

[boomerlu]

So again, all we're talking about is normalizing flap deployment speeds on all aircraft.  I'll exagerate to make the point, but why not normalize turning radius?  Why not normalize armament?  Why not normalize speeds?  The fact that the individual aircraft in-game are representative of their real-life selves is the only thing that makes this game what it is, and not something you buy for X-Box.  Currently, HTC uses a standard criteria for all planes with respect to flap deployment speeds.  No need to start making arbitrary limits that may or may not have existed in real-life.  Other games do that, and we criticize them for it.

Why not normalize turning radius? Turning radius is a direct consequence of the physical model of the aircraft, not of some arbitrary limit we set as is the case with flaps deployment. E.g., this airplane had X horsepower at Y altitude, turning it Z AoA causes Q amount of drag which after we plug into the physics engine spits out P turning radius.

Why not normalize armament? We have standard loadouts that were historically representative (yes, this would be the argument to use AGAINST my suggestion). In some respect, it is also a consequence of the "physical model" ie that we're modeling WWII conditions. But then again, our model does make some compromises for gameplay albeit reasonable ones. It is in this spirit of "reasonable compromise" that I made my suggestion.

Why not normalize speeds? Again, top speeds are direct consequences of the physical model, not an arbitrary limit. X horsepower, Y drag factor, plug it all in and it gives Q top speed.

So you see, there is a difference between my idea and "X-box flightsims". Didn't you see my emphasis on the fact that this would not violate the realism limit?

In essence, I'm taking the "physicist's order of magnitude approach" - if we can show the flaps structural integrity to be maintainable at conditions approximately an order of magnitude greater than the maximum "practical conditions", then we can ignore the extreme conditions without violating realism because you would never want to use flaps in those cases. Then, with flaps being shown to be "safe" under say 400 mph IAS, you could painlessly implement corner velocity combat flaps.

Just so you guys don't mistake my meaning, I mean "arbitrary limit" as in how the flap speeds were set in the pilot's manuals, not how HTC chose them.

Again I don't have the data, but going off the general direction of what thorsim has posted thus far, the structural limits by far pass any necessary smell test for the flaps to be deployable under corner velocity which is where they would be most useful anyways. If this can be shown convincingly, we do not need to go through the trouble of a full structural model for flaps because such a model would include flaps speed far in excess of what is useful.

Anyways, just an idea, but I think it's the best compromise between full blown structural failure and strict pilot's manual adherence. It's kind of a piggyback off of what Thorsim has shown us that would save HTC time and money in implementation/research yet still give useful gameplay results. On the other hand, if HTC would like to actually go and do the full blown structural model... more power to them.

[boomerlu]

So you wouldn't be opposed to allied ac going past 5 min of wep?

If you are opposed... hypocrite.
If not where do you set the arbitrary limit?

Now that's actually an interesting question. I wouldn't be opposed.

As for where to set the arbitrary limit? The reason I mentioned flaps was because there is an EASY place to put that limit where it would get the most use yet almost surely dodge any un-realism. That place is corner velocity. Such a convenient limit would be much more difficult to find for WEP time.

[BnZs]

Now that's actually an interesting question. I wouldn't be opposed.

As for where to set the arbitrary limit? The reason I mentioned flaps was because there is an EASY place to put that limit where it would get the most use yet almost surely dodge any un-realism. That place is corner velocity. Such a convenient limit would be much more difficult to find for WEP time.

Down that path lies just giving players unlimited WEP...because truth be told, many of the engines we're talking about stand a good chance of flying around for an hour or so at their "WEP" settings without coming apart.

[boomerlu]

Down that path lies just giving players unlimited WEP...because truth be told, many of the engines we're talking about stand a good chance of flying around for an hour or so at their "WEP" settings without coming apart.

Haha you like "Down that path" don't you BnZ?

Yeah, I hadn't considered that aspect. But to answer the "hypocrite" criticism which is meant to point out favoritism towards LW aircraft, I said "no" on a realism basis. On a gameplay basis... well... you brought up a very valid point.