Dropping Flaps??

[HPriller]

I seem to recall a specific quote from a pilot stating that basically in combat you'll want to risk damage to your plane if it means getting the kill shot.   Wasn't it Richard Bong or some P-38 pilot who always brought his plane back with warped wings or whatever from pulling to much G to get a kill?  Basically if you win, it was worth damaging your plane to do so.  If flaps became damaged and failed realistically under their real world failure conditions I don't see how this would be bad for Aces High.  Consider that landing gear already works in this fashion.   In their case it's probably a best guess estimate while not 100% real world accurate I think their best guess is more than sufficient for any gameplay consideration.   Are we going to really argue whether a nose gear breaks at 210mph or 215mph?  However, I do agree that finding and establishing the validity of this data would be a mountain of work and would potentially be more trouble than it's worth.  But I welcome any attempts. 

[dtango]

I've been debating about posting in this thread fearing the frustration of only contributing to what's really just the usual endless whining about how someone's favorite plane is "wrong".

Enough is enough.  Search is your friend.  It's not HTC's job to answer silly questions especially when the answer has already been given before. 

Pyro and Hitech have explained ad nauseum in the past their approach for modeling flap deployment and where they get their data for doing so.  Plenty of posts on the topic.

For example - addressing the brouhaha regarding 109 flaps just a few years back here's Pyro's answer regarding it all...

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.

Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[hitech]

like i said i do not have the data sheets just the uncontested posted conclusions from those data sheets.

i have an idea where i can find them but it is not online and it may take a while.  in the meantime i asked why  HTC had come to it's conclusions, i don't even really need the data, just an answer.

"those were the best numbers we could find from XXXX documentation" or
"we drew our conclusions based on XXXX. NACA report" ...

would have sufficed without giving away any real "trade secrets".

however without any better data something that resulted in a combat flap that deployed before the landing gear could be deployed would have made sense IMO.

i suspect a reasonable estimation could be derived at by looking at the posted 60 degree deflection speed and translating the forces to other lower degree settings.

I already answered one of your questions, other people have already responded that when it comes to flap speeds we use pilot manuals if we can.

On your more general question, do you really think we have the time or inkling to go back and research how we chose some number in 1 model just because you or someone else wishes to know, and that same person is unwilling to do any real research on his own, but just wishes to keep stating he thinks we are wrong with out even 1 line, number,drawing, even exact model and plane type, specific reason ,web address, real flight time (shows because you do not understand why flaps on planes are used and why different settings) why and your only reason is "American planes are different the German planes"?

Hmm ok Ill go take an a hundred hours to answer a question that I can not even answer because you never even said what plane you think is incorrect.

thorsim: Get off your duff an do the work for yourself.


HiTech

[Yeager]

is there some sort of contractual agreement with targeware that prevents him from showing his data so that ht can compare it to what ah uses?

also, I do not care if the flight data is not perfect.  as long as it fundamentally mimics basic flight behavior I am satisfied.  I do not lie in bed at night fantasizing that I am some great luftwaffe fighter ace death ridden by a possibility that the flap data might be inaccurate.

It is anal and borders on bloody anal.

[thorsim]

Hitech, here is the pertinent data sheet from the technical trials of the Me 109E ...



here is the translation ...

"Zulässige Geschwindigkeit in Abhängigkeit vom Klappenausschlag" für die Me 109E:*
(Permissible speed as a function of flap deflection for the Me 109E)
10° bis 780 km/h
20° bis 470 km/h
30° bis 350 km/h
40° bis 290 km/h"

this is what can be done with a little more effort, which is required when some decisions just jump out at you as not being correct, and not making sense.

like for example ...

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.

a little more work would have provided more complete data and he would have realized that a 10 degree deployment limit speed being the same as a 40+ degree deployment limit made no sense and must be incorrect relative to the approved limits of the plane.

now, i am sure you will be getting off your duff, and adjusting things accordingly immediately, oh and since we know the flap deployment mechanism did not change throughout the evolution of the 109 you will of course in good conscience be extending this feature throughout the entire line, correct?

on another point since the chart is very linear and clearly shows that what we are discussing here is a force relationship of the maneuver flap and it's deployment degrees relative to the airflow resistance and speed of the aircraft.  
i know this will make you very curious about related issues in other FMs and divert your attention to other similar decisions which also make no sense.  i suggest you start with the 190s combat flaps, since your numbers make no sense there either.  

i hope you find my efforts useful and that it will lead to a more productive relationship in the future.

FYI i do not spend to much time on my duff, and i do not speak out of it either.  i hope that information helps you when i may bring up things about your product in the future.

off to find more classified and probably destroyed data sheets ...
(i should not need to make a point on basic physics)

i hope i helped.

Thor

p.s. after all this particular issue is significant in relative playability, probably more than it should.

I already answered one of your questions, other people have already responded that when it comes to flap speeds we use pilot manuals if we can.

On your more general question, do you really think we have the time or inkling to go back and research how we chose some number in 1 model just because you or someone else wishes to know, and that same person is unwilling to do any real research on his own, but just wishes to keep stating he thinks we are wrong with out even 1 line, number,drawing, even exact model and plane type, specific reason ,web address, real flight time (shows because you do not understand why flaps on planes are used and why different settings) why and your only reason is "American planes are different the German planes"?

Hmm ok Ill go take an a hundred hours to answer a question that I can not even answer because you never even said what plane you think is incorrect.

thorsim: Get off your duff an do the work for yourself.


HiTech

[moot]

So this is technical trial data, not operational regulation?

[thorsim]

it is the approved limits just like it says it is.

no it is not an operational order like say the one prohibiting p51s from entering combat with any fuel in it's center tank. 

understand?

[dtango]

How about the full report?  Given your stance I have doubts about your objectivity.

Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[thorsim]

oh no ...

data is too valuable to just share like that, get off your duff and do it yourself ...

EDIT: and since all i have been doing here is asking questions about some obviously odd limits,
imo it is your objectivity you should be concerned with.  after all this is not a difficult concept and can be easily investigated by sticking you hand out the window of your moving car. 

How about the full report?  Given your stance I have doubts about your objectivity.

Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[moot]

This is going nowhere.  Isn't that the opposite of the objective here?

[thorsim]

yes it is, my apologies for my part.  

the duff thing annoyed me, as does having my objectivity questioned.
 
i am confused where i deserved either of those responses?

++S++

T

like i said i hope my efforts helped in this matter

This is going nowhere.  Isn't that the opposite of the objective here?

[HPriller]

I'm impressed thorsim, can you find a similar chart for the 190 (A5 or A8)?  I did some searching on it to discover the 190 did indeed have a 15 degree maneuvering flap setting that increased turn rates.  Unfortunately I can't find any data to show the maximum allowable speeds for this setting

[thorsim]

i am hoping to visit "white 1" soon and will do what i can there to find out some things about the FW.

although IMO since so much of this type of information was destroyed or otherwise lost and or unavailable,
some common sense should override the need for numbers on an old pice of paper ...

at least in relatively simple situations like this one.

no offense to anyone

<S>

t

P.S. priller the maneuvering flaps are a fact, they are mentioned in enemy performance trials.
however the amount of deflection is unclear as i have seen different numbers on different reports and articles.  also the condition of the planes tested are also in question on those reports so the effects may also be unclear.

however what is perfectly clear is that the 190s were designed with low flap deflection capabilities and should operate very similarly to other similar features on other planes since the physics operating on the flaps are very much the same, the same should hold true across the plane set where low deflection flap settings are a feature of an aircraft historically. 

i will see if i can find out exactly how the flaps worked in the 190s, however there is no reason to think that they did not work.       

I'm impressed thorsim, can you find a similar chart for the 190 (A5 or A8)?  I did some searching on it to discover the 190 did indeed have a 15 degree maneuvering flap setting that increased turn rates.  Unfortunately I can't find any data to show the maximum allowable speeds for this setting

[hitech]

Hitech Wrote, 2. You are looking for data to support you position rather than looking for data to find out what your position should be.

So now you have shown us one piece of paper that supports your position just as I said, We have no idea what the contexts is. The rest of the write up on the technical trials you speak of is very pertinent to gain our interest.

Throsim: I am not trying to jump on you, but you so far have not been looking to better the model of AH only to prove you view that flaps should be different. I have no bias of how planes perform. But just from reading your early posts in this thread it could very easily be that you are cherry picking data.


Per you quote we have 3 different sources that contradict yours. With out knowing the "Rest of the story" We really know nothing.

HiTech

[thorsim]

that is fine hitech i understand your frustrations, and i know as well as anyone how this data is often elusive. especially for the axis aircraft.  you have asked for sources and i have provided some along with my reasons for being uncomfortable with your limits in the game.

i have hopefully shown that i am more than willing to make efforts in my investigations.

now as of yet beyond general titles i have seen none of your sources so i can not tell what they are either, or where there may be errors that might be leading to the odd limits in AH.

i am looking for what you want, and i have shown that i am willing and able to do far more than
"sit on my duff and pontificate some arbitrary desires for the sake of my ego" which some have suggested.

the flap limits should be now by what i have shown very much in question in the game, i am hoping you will use some common sense in your review of your criteria for the decisions about the those limits on whichever aircraft they have been imposed.

certainly there is enough here for you to reexamine your conclusions and possibly commit to using your far greater resources than mine to find out what the truth is here in regards to this issue.

i will continue to find out what i can and share that information.  i hope you see fit to do the same.

however i expect that you will show more respect for my observations in the future as they are not biased or arbitrary, and i am clearly not unwilling to go the extra mile to make things better.

i apologize for any angst i may have shown earlier in this thread but i feel that common sense and an apparent lack basic physics in an aspect of the FM is enough of a reason to ask a question. 

i hope i can find all the data you think you need to have from me, i however hope that you will likewise put more thought into the things that strike me and apparently many others as obviously incorrect. 

no offense sir i have been enjoying your game.

<S>

T
 

So now you have shown us one piece of paper that supports your position just as I said, We have no idea what the contexts is. The rest of the write up on the technical trials you speak of is very pertinent to gain our interest.

Throsim: I am not trying to jump on you, but you so far have not been looking to better the model of AH only to prove you view that flaps should be different. I have no bias of how planes perform. But just from reading your early posts in this thread it could very easily be that you are cherry picking data.


Per you quote we have 3 different sources that contradict yours. With out knowing the "Rest of the story" We really know nothing.

HiTech