PDA

View Full Version : plz give spits normal flaps



Pages : [1] 2

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-03-2006, 02:52 AM
As I understand it, spits in il2 only have 2 flaps settings - none or landing.
Yet anyone with an extra trim pot/slider on their joystick can get full 0-100 control. Doesn't this disadvantage people with old joysticks like me? Why not just give the spit the same flaps controls as the other planes in the game seeing as people with good joysticks can do it anyway?

If historically spits only had 2 flaps settings, then please remove the ability for spits to assign flaps to sliders/pots.

Thanks for great game oleg and 1c,
~S~

Codex1971
03-03-2006, 03:07 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif...

Good to see you here Scull http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Philipscdrw
03-03-2006, 03:58 AM
In real life, Spits had landing flaps or no flaps only. Ideally, flaps would work like the throttle in the rocket aircraft - when it is moved past a certain position it moves the flaps to the next stage. Full 0-100% flap control is a cheat.

(The Seafires had a 'take-off' flap setting which was achieved by putting a chock in the flaps to hold them at 60', and (I think) the pilot would lower the flaps after takeoff, the chock falls out, and then the flaps are raised.)

DaimonSyrius
03-03-2006, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by DEY_Scull_AUS:
Why not just give the spit the same flaps controls as the other planes in the game seeing as people with good joysticks can do it anyway?

If historically spits only had 2 flaps settings, then please remove the ability for spits to assign flaps to sliders/pots.
I would rather vouch for your second option.

However, there's no need to remove the ability to assign flaps to a controller's axis for Spits; just make it so the Spit's flaps will extend completely past half the axis range (and stay fully up before that point, of course). This would be the most convenient way for people flying different planes to still use a similar configuration for their controls.

Cheers,
S.

P.S.: Nice 2001 pic in your sig, I love that film http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MOH_NoXiuS
03-03-2006, 05:32 AM
The slider/flaps thinghie on the Spit sounds like an allowed cheat to me..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Codex1971
03-03-2006, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by MOH_NoXiuS:
The slider/flaps thinghie on the Spit sounds like an allowed cheat to me..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Then we should get our prop pitch cheat back for the 109's... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kurfurst__
03-03-2006, 06:12 AM
Seconded. Flap option should be removed altogether from all Spitfires, it allows the players unfair and ahistorical cheat/exploit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

96th_Nightshifter
03-03-2006, 06:25 AM
I fly Spits the majority of the time and haven't ever tried that; to be honest I don't think I would even need to so if the abiltiy is removed _ I won't lose any sleep over it especially if it wasn't possible in the real thing.

DaimonSyrius
03-03-2006, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Seconded. Flap option should be removed altogether from all Spitfires, it allows the players unfair and ahistorical cheat/exploit.

As an easier, simpler option, just release a Kurfurst-ability-adapted alternate version of the IL2 series with all Spitfires removed from it altogether. It could be called, for instance, v.4.05-k

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

stathem
03-03-2006, 06:36 AM
Better work-around ; designate Spitfire flaps as an "Airbrake"(which is on/off only); and remove it as a flap, then it can't be mapped.

Yes I fly Spits a lot; yes I've used it on a slider; but I'm not a great fan of dropping flaps on anything and burning e unneccesairly so I found I was hardly using it and have removed it now (put PP on the Slider). I can see that the new 25lb Spit might have enough power to make it worthwhile(not flown it in anger since the patch arrived, being Mossie-happy), but the earlier incarnations really needed to keep their speed in the turn up to compete properly.

96th_Nightshifter
03-03-2006, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Better work-around ; designate Spitfire flaps as an "Airbrake"(which is on/off only); and remove it as a flap, then it can't be mapped.



Now that's a good idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Crop-Duster.
03-03-2006, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by 96th_Nightshifter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Better work-around ; designate Spitfire flaps as an "Airbrake"(which is on/off only); and remove it as a flap, then it can't be mapped.



Now that's a good idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DaimonSyrius
03-03-2006, 08:10 AM
K.I.S.S.

However, there's no need to remove the ability to assign flaps to a controller's axis for Spits; just make it so the Spit's flaps will extend completely past half the axis range (and stay fully up before that point, of course). This would be the most convenient way for people flying different planes to still use a similar configuration for their controls.

Why setting the flaps as an airbrake (which they aren't) when you can keep them being flaps (which they are) and still have the proper, correct functionality? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stathem
03-03-2006, 08:23 AM
I dunno, but I suspect that it's a problem deep in the code or 'global' modelling, that why I suggested it as a workaround.

btw, does anyone knbow whether this works with I-16s and Gladiators?

Viper2005_
03-03-2006, 12:50 PM
And make them deploy at a realistic rate too (should take less than a second); there's a video about somewhere of a flap test on Spitfire; they deploy with a bang!

Hawgdog
03-03-2006, 02:04 PM
I see spits aalllllllllllllllll the time in online DF servers with partial flaps flying around.
Want screenies?
Way too rampant. Yup, add this to the fix list

Codex1971
03-03-2006, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
As an easier, simpler option, just release a Kurfurst-ability-adapted alternate version of the IL2 series with all Spitfires removed from it altogether. It could be called, for instance, v.4.05-k

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

I'd buy it!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

VW-IceFire
03-03-2006, 04:18 PM
I'll admit that I have flaps on a slider now that I have my new X-52. Its so much nicer than using buttons to set it...its, I daresay, more realistic in this regard.

There is the exploit possibility....but here's another one for you. In the Spitfire, without a slider control, you can achieve roughly the same effect by taping the two keys together...or setting it up (if your keyboard supports this) to program a function where you have the two keys tapping back and forth.

Rediculous yes...but so is using the slider to manage the flaps too.

I actually resist using a slider because I'm just as likely to jam the flaps at speed. Its much easier to do with a slider as you don't know if you're at the magic combat flaps setting which are undammagable by game physics or the takeoff setting which are damageable.

AustinPowers_
03-03-2006, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Seconded. Flap option should be removed altogether from all Spitfires, it allows the players unfair and ahistorical cheat/exploit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Kurfurst, do me a favour and check how fast the 109 can extend full flap compared to real life.

Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BfHeFwMe
03-03-2006, 08:01 PM
Sounds like a flap ****** convention, lets also have trim tabs removed from 109's elevators, historically they were never movable in flight, especially on a rotary. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
03-03-2006, 08:53 PM
If they'd spend the amount of time getting the systems working properly that they spend trying to make sure a hex screw is to the exact right size, under the seat in the cockpit.... why, all the planes might be better.

Misplaced priorities.

Grey_Mouser67
03-03-2006, 09:01 PM
Seems like an odd post...not that it isn't an issue, but the Spit aught to outturn everything without flaps anyways....and, there could be a whole list of aircraft/opportunities and corrections around combat flaps in general....this rabbit hole would be deep indeed!

Codex1971
03-03-2006, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Sounds like a flap ****** convention, lets also have trim tabs removed from 109's elevators, historically they were never movable in flight, especially on a rotary. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

I think you need to re-read your history books... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_003c_7.jpg


There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence thrugh a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanically from two 12-inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.

Stigler_9_JG52
03-03-2006, 10:36 PM
*cough*....got quiet in here all'a sudden.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-03-2006, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps.
So 109's should actually have an 'auto-elevator-trim' setting aswell! LOL nice one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for the Spits, I have seen some online making very sharp turns - sharper than the majority of other spit pilots (including me) can do. I'm guessing that these sharper turns are achieved by dropping in for example 10% flaps with a pot/slider.
Admittedly they lose more energy in the manouver (like any plane that uses flaps). Nevertheless, it gives these pilots an option that the real spit pilots didn't have.
I guess it's possible they are achieving these sharper turns by cranking their elevator trim, but why leave any room for doubt?
Given that spits are one of the more popular planes in FB, this seems to me to be a significant issue.
Maybe oleg/1c could consider fixing this in a future patch?

Stigler_9_JG52
03-03-2006, 11:21 PM
It's a HUGE oversight, I'd say, for a plane that really doesn't need any extra turning capabilities...

msalama
03-04-2006, 12:01 AM
IIRC, both Spits and Hurris could use intermediate flap settings IRL by first applying flaps down and then setting the flap lever into off position when a desired flap deflection had been reached. HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-04-2006, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
IIRC, both Spits and Hurris could use intermediate flap settings IRL by first applying flaps down and then setting the flap lever into off position when a desired flap deflection had been reached. HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
That's a quite interesting bit of information, I hadn't heard/read that before. I knew about the chocks for Seafire flaps at takeoff that were mentioned earlier in this thread; but this 'partial exend' trick for Hurricanes and Spits would mean our current options in IL2 would be fine as they are, if confirmed.

Could you provide some pointer to a reference source, msalama? Or to some user that might know? Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Cheers,
S.

Codex1971
03-04-2006, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
IIRC, both Spits and Hurris could use intermediate flap settings IRL by first applying flaps down and then setting the flap lever into off position when a desired flap deflection had been reached. HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hmmm...I've always understood the mechanism for activating the flaps on the Spit was done by compressed air, with the flap lever on the top left c'pit panel being the release valve. The lever could only have two position up or down i.e. valve open or closed.

msalama
03-04-2006, 02:06 AM
The lever could only have two position up or down i.e. valve open or closed.

Yeah, could be the Spit was different. But I said IIRC, mind you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sure worked with the Hurri, though!

Jetbuff
03-04-2006, 02:29 AM
Guys, as I understand it, the Spitfire has an Up/Off/Down flaps control. These are flap movement settings not positions. i.e. you could set the switch to "Down" and the flaps start extending. (compressed air?) Then you can set the switch to "Off" and they would stop at whatever current position they were in. Then you could set it to "Up" and retract them again.

It's the little flipper on the top left with "Up" in red on it: http://www.fantasyofflight.com/Images/aircraft/Spitfire%20Mk16%20cockpit.JPG
Perhaps the small on/off switch to the left of that arms/unarms the system? That would explain how the "Off" possition is arrived at.

So actually 0-100% control is quite accurate. The right fix imo would be to reintroduce combat/take-off settings for keyboard inputs. Indeed, most planes should probably model a system similar to prop-pitch (increments of 5%) via keyboard.


That said, if you're using flaps in combat, you're doing something terribly wrong; 99% of the time there's probably a better way to achieve what you want without resorting to flaps.

msalama
03-04-2006, 02:37 AM
Yeah, just what I meant too Jetbuff...

msalama
03-04-2006, 02:45 AM
Could you provide some pointer to a reference source, msalama? Or to some user that might know? Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sorry, can't find it now as regards the Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Tried to google for it and came up with nothing. It's just something I've read at some point IIRC.

But FWIW, my Hurri II/IV pilot's notes state that approaches / landings are to be done with flaps 30 first (preliminary approach), and then 60 on finals (at the outer marker).

But maybe you guys could check this (http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/HandlingNotes/) site for some Spit handling notes, maybe there's something there?

msalama
03-04-2006, 03:00 AM
OK, checking out some Spitfire Mk.II handling notes now myself... nothing so far, except this: "The flaps must be UP at speeds over 120 M.P.H. A.S.I. If this speed is exceeded flaps DOWN, they will partially retract."

Not what we're looking for, but just FYI...

msalama
03-04-2006, 03:25 AM
Pilot's notes for Seafires 45 & 46: "The split flaps have two positions only, up and fully down, but can be set manually to 18 degrees by means of spring-loaded pins, one on each flap, or on early aircraft by means of wooden blocks. The flaps are controlled by a three-position lever on the top left-hand side of the instrument panel marked UP, AIR OFF and DOWN. The lever should be left in the DOWN position after the flaps have been lowered, but after the flaps have been raised the lever should always be returned to the AIR OFF position."

msalama
03-04-2006, 03:30 AM
Pilot's notes for the Spitfire F.XII: "The split flaps have two positions only, up and fully down. They are controlled by a finger lever on the instrument panel."

DaimonSyrius
03-04-2006, 04:01 AM
From the Pilot's Notes for Spitfire V (found at Aircraft Checklists (http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/HandlingNotes/), thanks for that link msalama)

http://www.infonegocio.com/daimon/img/Spit-V-Flaps.jpg

This official text by the Air Ministry seems quite clear about the matter. However, as we all know, pilots could be, generally (not only Spit pilots), quite creative too in their everyday complying or not with the strict instructions in official handbook; if they saw a need or an advantage. So maybe a smart guy found that he could get an intermediate flap position by holding the valve selector lever somehow? In that case, we would need to actually find a documented reference that this could (and was) done.

By the way (and I'm mentioning this as an anecdote, not that it means anything), if you fly a Spit in IL2 with the autopilot on, you'll notice that the AI operates the flaps lever sometimes during actual flight, leaving the switch lever in its middle -horizontal- position. I was surprised the first time I heard the 'swoosh' from the flaps pneumatic circuit while letting the autopilot fly the Spit.

Cheers,
S.

msalama
03-04-2006, 04:23 AM
Well, seems to me that some Spits were equipped with the UP/DOWN/OFF-lever, while others were not...

Codex1971
03-04-2006, 04:47 AM
My reference is from a "World Around Us" Australian TV documentry...it shows an instructional film for ground crew to run routine maintenance checks one of which was checking the flap operation. This was done on a MkV Spit and indicated the flaps could only be fully up or fully down and was run via a compressed air canister (I think CO2)...hehehehe...they even dubbed the sound of rushing air...LOL

I'm trying to find the tape...I've got it on VHS somewhere.

carguy_
03-04-2006, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Sounds like a flap ****** convention, lets also have trim tabs removed from 109's elevators, historically they were never movable in flight, especially on a rotary. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

To add to more realism plz implement realism changes so I153/I16 pilots don`t have radio.This means blocking Teamspeak and making chatbar unaccesable for them.No,just the wing commander.

VW-IceFire
03-04-2006, 07:08 AM
Would this be a good time to point out that the Hurricane Mark II's pilot notes indicate that there are multiple flap positions for this particular type of the Hurricane and yet in-game we have only two positions? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ugly_Kid
03-04-2006, 07:12 AM
It's funny that the split flaps should provide any turning aid at all. Split flaps are mainly effective as landing aid - allowing for steeper approach and they do provide a higher lift but with cost of pretty high drag. So I don't think this type of flaps, let it be spit or FW or whatnot should be much of assistance - in the game they, however, do not seem to be too penalized with drag that much. IRL they are just as much airbrakes as flaps in the landing setting.

The "manual" wooden blocks or springs were used as take of assistance. Small wooden blocks were inserted between the flap and wing, thus preventing them from retracting completely. After take-off flaps were shortly taken to landing position and the blocks fell off and then retracted. So the action was one-timer.
I recall they used this on Malta and probably on carriers.

Lordbutter4
03-04-2006, 07:25 AM
I dont think the slider flaps issue is one just used by spits. It would be nice to see flaps not be able to be mapped to a slider however.

On the same note why cant planes that flaps had to be rasied/lowered manually have this feature? We have raise/lower gear. Why not raise/lower flaps. It would give planes that had automated flaps thier advantage.

Nubarus
03-04-2006, 08:38 AM
Instead of just complaining about the Spitfire you guys should just suggest they should remove flaps from slider control all together.

If it's only fixed for the Spitfire because it's unrealistic then all the planes that do have 3 settings should not be able to use a slider either because it will still give these planes the ability to use flap settings outside the limitation as they can control their flaps between 1 and 100%.

Jetbuff
03-04-2006, 09:35 AM
While I prefer realistic modelling where applicable, in this case I wonder whether it seriously impacts the game? I mapped flaps to my rotary for a test and found no advantage. Then again I'm not a TnB expert so I'd be very interested to hear about specific tactics that require a specific % of flaps as opposed to combat/take-off/landing flaps.

heywooood
03-04-2006, 10:16 AM
I have always used my mouse wheel foor flaps...because flaps are not just a 3 pole deal.

'combat' 'takeoff' and 'landing' flaps are just a simmer shortcut....the actual pilot has full authority over flap settings by degree.

5-15 degrees for manoevering dependant on your airspeed

15-30 degrees for takeoff depending on plane type, loadout in both fuel and armament as well as weather conditions of temperature and humidity also whether the field is grass - more flaps vs concrete or marsden mat - less flaps
...heat rises and the lift is greater where heat at ground level is present, especially on humid days.

and 30deg to full flaps for landing...thats how it should be done -

I hope that there can be a mod to this game and that BoB will give the flaps settings as degrees instead of the way it is now. Just give noobs the current style and give others the option in 'difficulty' settings to operate the flaps by 'degrees' Please.

Buzzsaw-
03-04-2006, 01:05 PM
Salute

The real issue is the speed flaps are damaged at when they are deployed. And this applies to ALL planes, not just the Spitfire.

Spitfire flaps were very fragile things, not designed to sustain the loads that would be incurred at high speeds. They were created to be an assist in landings, at LANDING SPEEDS, or just above.

If they are modelled correctly, (and I haven't done any testing) they should be damaged when deployed, (even partially deployed) at speeds much higher than recommended by the manual.

Here are the relevant sections:

Pneumatic air deployment:

http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/3683/pneumatic8qt.jpg

Controls:

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/1049/flapcontrol4ra.jpg

Flaps were not used for takeoff:

http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/2926/spittakeoff4wm.jpg

They were used for landing:

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/46/landingspit2zu.jpg

If you look at the manual, it clearly lists the max. reccommended speeds for deployment of the flaps:

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/3360/spitspeedlimits4no.jpg

When deployed at speeds much over 160 mph, (260 kph) the flaps on the Spitfire should start to be in danger of being damaged and jammed into position.

The game mismodels a large number of aircraft in their ability to deploy flaps at very high speeds. As it stands now, "Combat flaps", (a misnomer if ever there was one) can be deployed by most aircraft. (the Hurricanes and Spitfires are the exception) at ANY speeds, without ANY fear of damage.

This is far from being accurate, most aircraft had flaps which were not deployable above 200-250 mph (320-400 kph) Very few aircraft could deploy flaps safely above those speeds. The exceptions were the P-51 and P-38. Even the P-47 had a maximum reccommended flap deployement speed of 250 mph.

The P-51 and P-38 had heavy duty, rammed air flaps, a far cry for example, from the hand cranked 109 flaps.

Instead of this being the usual blue whine focused on Spitfires, the community should look at the whole representation of the use of "Combat flaps", in the game.

As it stands, the way the Spitfires flaps are deployed is correct. Either they are completely up, completely down, or in the process of being lowered, or in the process of being retracted. It is perfectly accurate for a player to be able to hit the button and have the flaps start to deploy, and then hit the button for them to start to retract before they have completely deployed. They should not stay in the partially deployed position.

tomtheyak
03-04-2006, 01:23 PM
This is all very well, and i agree to the fact that it is an unfair exploit by the dis-honourable amongst us - I for one don't have slider applied flaps, tho I have used a quick apllication of flaps as a last ditch attempt to throw off the aim of an e/a at speeds below 200mph ASI.

However, what about 109 pilots using combat flaps at all? In reality the 109s flaps had to be cranked down by hand using a wheel on the left lower side of the cockpit, which was a very slow & labourious process - whereas in game at the push of a button bingo combat flaps - now this is an unfair advantage for 109 flyers whether on slider OR buttons.

Buzzsaw-
03-04-2006, 01:40 PM
Salute

Speed limits for flap deployment on 109's:

E Model

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/1179/e4flaps1yf.jpg

G-3

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/8553/g3flaps3de.jpg

From Finnish G2 manual

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3262/g2flaps8fc.jpg

From Finnish G6 manual

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/4771/g6flaps3uv.jpg

Same applies to many other aircraft both blue and red.

Pinker15
03-04-2006, 03:51 PM
I must agree with that spit should have only two pos of flaps. Correcting this bug will not reduce performance of spitfire because this plane turn best without flaps. Anyway when I fly in spitfire against for example 109 G2 I never use flaps. This let me keep E advantage over 109 in manouvers. That is biggest strenght of spitfire. If somebody think that spit is turning so good because some of players have flaps on slider is wrong.

Ratsack
03-04-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by heywooood:
I have always used my mouse wheel foor flaps...because flaps are not just a 3 pole deal.

'combat' 'takeoff' and 'landing' flaps are just a simmer shortcut....the actual pilot has full authority over flap settings by degree.



You are correct for most planes, but not the Spitfire, which is the issue under discussion.


cheers,
Ratsack

BfHeFwMe
03-04-2006, 03:55 PM
http://www.jfs.no/bilder/alb_markhanna_me109_signing.jpg

See the red tab portion on "THE ELEVATOR", not the stab. That is the ground adjustable elevator trim tab, it's not movable in flight. The 109 did not have elevator trim, one of the reasons it had such a heavy elevator at speeds.

Why is it 109's in game are able to roll a trim slider all the way through with no harm and get stick forces relieved to boot? This was an impossibility with "STAB ADJUSTMENT". You go rolling in full nose up on a slid'a near maximum speeds and one thing is sure, your tail is physically gone, sheared right off. What's the realism there?

You get an advantage from gameplay features, perhaps Spit pilots should also demand a little realism in return. http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/Me109-2282.jpg

Jetbuff
03-04-2006, 04:07 PM
BfHeFwMe, the 109 did have elevator trim. It used a different system though, namely a movable horizontal stab. In those pics the system is obscured by that weird fairing at the vertical/horizontal stab junction; what is that btw?

Oh, and another thing, that's a Buchon rather than an original 109 isn't it?

Ratsack
03-04-2006, 04:20 PM
Jetbuff,

BfHeFwMe seems to be on some anti-historical crusade to have elevator trim removed from the Bf109. He raised it on p.1 of this thread, and on p. 2 DEY_Codex posted a pic showing the trim indicators for the elevator on the fin of a 109. If BfHeFwMe wants to ignore that post and others on the subject, well...

I suppose I'm suggesting you save your breath. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

Codex1971
03-04-2006, 04:46 PM
BfHeFwMe is right in his reply but he didn't make this clear in his first post.

The effect in game is the same weather if its stab or the elev trim that moves. The problem is IL-2 doesn't distinguish b/n the "elevator trim" or "horz stab trim". As far as I can tell it's modelled the same for all a/c which is wrong historically but saves in coding time and makes no big difference in how the a/c fly in game.

But the main point still stands not just for the Spit, if an a/c could adjust it's flaps though an range of degrees then it should be able to, if an a/c had only two settings for flaps, like the spit, then the slider option should taken away from it.

As for the Spit not needing the flaps to turn harder...just spend a few hours online or go 1v1 with someone in a spit who uses the slider and you'll see just how hard the Spit can turn. I've only seen it used defensively as the Spit has burned almost all his E after doing a 180 turn, but pilots do use it.

Badsight.
03-04-2006, 06:00 PM
Mustangs & Hayates had hydraulic powered flaps designed to be used in combat

in one fight , HJM describes as having his hand on the flaps crank , using flaps to tighten his turn in his Bf-109

the Hayabusa had unusual shaped flaps , designed specifically for turn performance in combat

planes that didnt have stepped flap settings . . . . . shouldnt have them in-game . planes that did - should

RAF33-Shrike
03-04-2006, 06:34 PM
so what are we all flapping about in ere then ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-04-2006, 07:38 PM
Whether the spits flaps are an exploit/cheat or not, the fact remains that guys with good joysticks (with extra pots) can use this feature whereas guys with primitive joysticks can't.
If the ability to map flaps to sliders is left in the game, at least give keyboard users combat/takeoff settings to even it up a bit.

I think the best option is to remove flaps-->sliders mapping altogether for all planes. I get the impression that most WW2 aircraft only had fixed flaps settings, not a fully adjustable range from 0--->100.

NonWonderDog
03-04-2006, 09:03 PM
Naw, it seems that most planes had a crank, power assisted or not, and not a handle with indents. The Spitfire seems to be the most notable exception.

The flap slider is a decent idea, but it should be less universal. Planes without analog control over the flaps really shouldn't have it in game.

Jetbuff
03-05-2006, 01:06 AM
Makes sense Ratsack. Definitely not worth it if he has an agenda.

Codex1971
03-05-2006, 02:04 AM
BfHeFwMe...what version is the bottom 109 picture in your 2nd post? Is the engine a retro fit?

402Cdn.Valkyrie
03-05-2006, 02:58 AM
Well we can keep this up for ages... BUT the Spitfire, ANY MODEL, only had 2 flap options "UP" or "DOWN" they could not be used on slider of locked in the degree the pilot wanted by flipping the switch the other way.
The later model SEAfires could put their flaps in a, i think 18 degree to assist in take off. After that they could be raised fully again, the early models got a piece of wood in between the flap and the wing to make this happen, and they could then lower the flaps to let it fall out and then raise them again after take off.

Now i'm a spitfire pilot both off-/online and i have never used the flaps on a slider, why? Because its not right for the plane!


I dont know what kind of coding it would take from Oleg and team to make flap fixes, alot good once have been in this thread... But i only hope that for BoB if will be 100% right.

Ratsack
03-05-2006, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
BfHeFwMe...what version is the bottom 109 picture in your 2nd post? Is the engine a retro fit?

It's a Buchon, Spanish 109. Airframe basically a G-2. Never had a DB engine in it because the Germans never delivered them. Hispano and then Merlin.

cheers,
Ratsack

Codex1971
03-05-2006, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
BfHeFwMe...what version is the bottom 109 picture in your 2nd post? Is the engine a retro fit?

It's a Buchon, Spanish 109. Airframe basically a G-2. Never had a DB engine in it because the Germans never delivered them. Hispano and then Merlin.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that the version used in the BOB movie made in the 60's/70's?

Ratsack
03-05-2006, 03:35 AM
Yep, the same. They went through several different engines in Spanish hands, with varying degrees of success until they hit on the Merlins in the late 1940s.

The BoB production company bought a whole lot of them, stuck dummy cannons in the wings and painted them up to look like Emils.

heywooood
03-05-2006, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
I have always used my mouse wheel foor flaps...because flaps are not just a 3 pole deal.

'combat' 'takeoff' and 'landing' flaps are just a simmer shortcut....the actual pilot has full authority over flap settings by degree.



You are correct for most planes, but not the Spitfire, which is the issue under discussion.


cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

right you are, Ratsack.....My point was a general one about the way that flap controls are modeled in this sim.

As far as Spitfire flaps specifically and their flap control being two pole - and fairly flimsy, in r/l - that is correct...but due to the current control system it can be unrealistically overrided by mapping the mouse wheel or other 'slider' and used in an unconventional way in the sim.

IMO if the sim were to model flap actuation similar to manual landing gear operation (ie: simulated cranking action like I-16 landing gear etc) and provide a HUD display in degree of flaps deployed where the flap indicator is not easy to see in the cockpit or unreadable - the sim would be more realistic.

To me - that should be the way it is by default....and the current style of flap control should be an 'Easy' option.

Now then for Brit planes or others that have a 2 pole flap control - you just hard code the 'all up' and 'all down' flap positions so that the simmer cannot possibly override it for an exploit.

DuxCorvan
03-05-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Yep, the same. They went through several different engines in Spanish hands, with varying degrees of success until they hit on the Merlins in the late 1940s.

The BoB production company bought a whole lot of them, stuck dummy cannons in the wings and painted them up to look like Emils.

Actually, there were several types. The first ones were original imported German Gustavs. Later, they were built under license, and fitted with several engines, including Merlin. The first ones were built by Hispano, a Spanish company, and nicknamed "Buch³n" (Buzzard) because of the new -and aestetically ugly- air intakes required by the new power units. Later ones were built by CASA.

They remained in first-line active service with the Fuerza Aérea Espaola (Spanish Air Force) well into the fifties as close support strafing fighters -seeing intense action in the short Ifni war at Morocco- and were later used in second line duties. The ones in the BOB film were not bought, but kindly lent by Spanish Air Forces, since the movie was partly filmed in Spain.

Most of He 111s in the movie are also Spanish CASA-built examples. They were used as transports even in the 70s, and -unlike "Buchones", which were plagued with power issues- had a remarkable fame as reliable and fairly fast machines and were very appreciated by the crews -very similarly to US C-47s.

Stigler_9_JG52
03-05-2006, 12:41 PM
You say that Buchon is basically a G-2 airframe? Then why does the horizontal stabilizer have those support struts underneath, reminiscent of the E series? Is that just for show, so that it looks more like an Emil? It seems those struts are actually part of the trim control of that plane; workable parts.

Buzzsaw-
03-05-2006, 01:14 PM
Salute

Notice how some of these blue siders completely ignore the overall mismodelling of flaps in the game to focus in on one aircraft: The Spitfire.

Agendas??? Oh yes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The operation of the game Spitfire's flaps are completely accurate in terms of how they are deployed.

You hit the button, they start to deploy. They continue till they are completely down, unless you hit the button again to retract them, in which case they reverse direction and start to retract. At no time do they stop in the half down position.

The only issue is whether or not they are damaged when deployed at higher than the reccommended speeds noted in the manual. If they do not suffer damage when deployed at higher speeds, then there is an issue.

Now back to the 109's:

I notice no one has produced any material refuting the documents I posted showing restrictions on deployment speeds for 109 flaps.

Certainly there are historical accounts of 109 pilots deploying flaps at low speeds to assist their turns, but I have not seen a single account of flaps being deployed at higher speeds. I'd encourage anyone to post an account.

The possibility of a 109 pilot being able to apply enough arm strength to hand crank down his flaps, against the force of air pressure at 400mph/600kph is clearly remote. Even if a pilot was strong enough to do so, the 109 flaps were clearly too flimsy to endure those forces and would be damaged.

Yet in the game, a 109 pilot can instantly deploy his "Combat" flaps at speeds anywhere over 400 mph, and with no damage to the flaps.

This is as much of an anomaly as any issue with the Spitfire's flaps.

As are the use of many other game aircraft's "combat" flaps at high speeds.

Crop-Duster.
03-05-2006, 03:53 PM
Holy feck

A thread thats suppose to be about Spit flaps is hijacked by luft-whiners

typical...

Codex1971
03-05-2006, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Notice how some of these blue siders completely ignore the overall mismodelling of flaps in the game to focus in on one aircraft: The Spitfire.

Agendas??? Oh yes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The operation of the game Spitfire's flaps are completely accurate in terms of how they are deployed.

You hit the button, they start to deploy. They continue till they are completely down, unless you hit the button again to retract them, in which case they reverse direction and start to retract. At no time do they stop in the half down position.

The only issue is whether or not they are damaged when deployed at higher than the reccommended speeds noted in the manual. If they do not suffer damage when deployed at higher speeds, then there is an issue.

Now back to the 109's:

I notice no one has produced any material refuting the documents I posted showing restrictions on deployment speeds for 109 flaps.

Certainly there are historical accounts of 109 pilots deploying flaps at low speeds to assist their turns, but I have not seen a single account of flaps being deployed at higher speeds. I'd encourage anyone to post an account.

The possibility of a 109 pilot being able to apply enough arm strength to hand crank down his flaps, against the force of air pressure at 400mph/600kph is clearly remote. Even if a pilot was strong enough to do so, the 109 flaps were clearly too flimsy to endure those forces and would be damaged.

Yet in the game, a 109 pilot can instantly deploy his "Combat" flaps at speeds anywhere over 400 mph, and with no damage to the flaps.

This is as much of an anomaly as any issue with the Spitfire's flaps.

As are the use of many other game aircraft's "combat" flaps at high speeds.

You are missing the point completely Buzz.

The point is the ability to map the flaps of a Spitfire to a slider thus allowing the flaps to operate in an analogue fashion, as opposed to the way they should operate and that is either fully retracted or fully extended, not being able to have any "in betweens".

And as for having an agenda...do I need to remind everyone about the 109 "Prop Pitch Cheat"...what is the difference here?

ImpStarDuece
03-05-2006, 04:26 PM
I don't use flaps on a slider, so it doesn't effect me, but I completely agree that the Spitfire should only have two flap positions. Thats how it was in real life, and thats what we are trying to simulate.

Are we going for realism or dogfight advantage here? It is more realistic to have two position only flaps for the Spitfire, so thats the way it should be.

As for implementing it, well I don't know how easy/difficult it would be.

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-05-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Agendas??? Oh yes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The operation of the game Spitfire's flaps are completely accurate in terms of how they are deployed.

As Codex stated, you have completely missed the point. The game currently allows pilots to map their flaps to a joystick slider, allowing planes that didn't have analogue control (like the spit) to choose any flap setting they like.
Is that completely accurate?

I don't like the immature approach that some people use of saying 'it's ok for the spits to have full-range flaps control because the 109's shouldn't have elevator-trim' or whatever.

Some of us here (the majority) want to see 1C works towards making the sim as accurate as possible. If some guys have issues with other planes, go start a 109 elevator-trim thread or whatever.

What most of us are saying, is that flaps--->slider mapping should be removed from all planes altogether.

Ratsack
03-05-2006, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
You say that Buchon is basically a G-2 airframe? Then why does the horizontal stabilizer have those support struts underneath, reminiscent of the E series? Is that just for show, so that it looks more like an Emil? It seems those struts are actually part of the trim control of that plane; workable parts.

Yes, it's entirely cosmetic, like the dummy cannon.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
03-05-2006, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Yep, the same. They went through several different engines in Spanish hands, with varying degrees of success until they hit on the Merlins in the late 1940s.

The BoB production company bought a whole lot of them, stuck dummy cannons in the wings and painted them up to look like Emils.

Actually, there were several types. The first ones were original imported German Gustavs. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only in the sense that they were G-2 airframes. They never had DB605A motors. I seem to recall that the first batch sat around without engines at all for quite some time. I'll find a reference for you.

cheers,
Ratsack

RAF238thKnight
03-05-2006, 08:41 PM
`Talking with the spitfire pilot that came to the Pope airforce base here in NC. We had talked about the flaps on his 9c. He stated to me that the flaps did not even deploy if speed was to high and damage only occured when flaps were full and speed began to exceed that point. I fly the spit and hurricanes majority of the time and do not have it mapped to a slider. ALL PLANES SHOULD LOSE THISE ABILITY.

When I fly a spit I use the keys depending on my speed. In a hard TnB with a g2 I use them at 5 sec intervals and then release usually it is to stay with a g2.

I think that it is a valid point but others have made point about the 109 flaps at high speeds and insta breaks in flight LOL.

Anyway If this is removed it should be for all.

Knight

WWMaxGunz
03-05-2006, 08:58 PM
IMO, using flaps should bleed more speed than in the sim, at least if you have more than
low speed. We have that to some degree, even the juddering but I think more should be
there as so far there's too much flaps in combat use thanks to the lack of bleed combined
with the ease of regaining speed or perhaps esp because of the ease of regaining speed.

Dive brakes on fighters, the P-51, are brakes even though they are not deployed far.
Brakes, not super-lift-devices without much energy penalty. Brakes that worked in dives
with the total weight of the machine to be held back.

Have fun with the DF merry-go-round. Why get upset over one unreality when you play in
another? Full power flaps down and up repeatedly is not history.

Badsight.
03-05-2006, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Yet in the game, a 109 pilot can instantly deploy his "Combat" flaps at speeds anywhere over 400 mph, and with no damage to the flaps.
. so can Spitfires (on a slider)

as well as just about any other plane in Fb that will go that fast

its very hard to jam flaps in the "combat" setting in this game

but by all means , single out the Bf-109's

Stigler_9_JG52
03-05-2006, 11:11 PM
Well, I agree with Buzzsaw that planes that didn't have maneuver flaps shouldn't be able to use them in the game.

Blame the oversimplified "maneuver/takeoff/landing" settings in the sim. I'm sure more planes than just the 109 get some kind of unrealistic benefit from their flap setup.

Overall, it would be nice to just be able to get it right, wouldn't it?

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-05-2006, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Well, I agree with Buzzsaw that planes that didn't have maneuver flaps shouldn't be able to use them in the game.
You are not agreeing with buzzsaw. You are agreeing with the rest of us.

Blame the oversimplified "maneuver/takeoff/landing" settings in the sim. I'm sure more planes than just the 109 get some kind of unrealistic benefit from their flap setup.
This has nothing to do with FM's of the sim. It has to do with an unwanted feature - the abillity to map flaps to sliders giving users full-range flaps control on planes that shouldn't have it.

Overall, it would be nice to just be able to get it right, wouldn't it?
as right as possible on a pc, yes.

Ratsack
03-06-2006, 01:10 AM
Scull, you are soooo right.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

Bartolomeo_ita
03-06-2006, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Seconded. Flap option should be removed altogether from all Spitfires, it allows the players unfair and ahistorical cheat/exploit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

jds1978
03-06-2006, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Sounds like a flap ****** convention, lets also have trim tabs removed from 109's elevators, historically they were never movable in flight, especially on a rotary. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-06-2006, 08:44 AM
Historically the 109 tailplane moved and that was the trim. Elevator has no tabs but the
elevator was still trimmable from inside, the wheel is there and accounts are clear that
it was used. That system is still used in designs today.

WTH, it's dueling agendas again.

Helpplease2006
03-06-2006, 09:01 AM
Thanks for the "joystick throttle flap" tip, now I have my own flap system for the Spitfire,

Buzzsaw-
03-06-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
but by all means , single out the Bf-109's

I didn't single out the 109's. Go back and re-read my posts:


Originally posted by Buzzsaw:
The real issue is the speed flaps are damaged at when they are deployed. And this applies to ALL planes, not just the Spitfire.

Originally posted by Buzzsaw:
The game mismodels a large number of aircraft in their ability to deploy flaps at very high speeds.

Originally posted by Buzzsaw:
...the community should look at the whole representation of the use of "Combat flaps", in the game.

Originally posted by Buzzsaw:
This is as much of an anomaly as any issue with the Spitfire's flaps.
As are the use of many other game aircraft's "combat" flaps at high speeds.

There are more if you care to look.

My point stands: The issue of mismodelled flaps applies to many planes, not just the Spitfire as is being pushed by blue siders with an agenda.

Abbuzze
03-06-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


Now back to the 109's:

I notice no one has produced any material refuting the documents I posted showing restrictions on deployment speeds for 109 flaps.

Certainly there are historical accounts of 109 pilots deploying flaps at low speeds to assist their turns, but I have not seen a single account of flaps being deployed at higher speeds. I'd encourage anyone to post an account.

The possibility of a 109 pilot being able to apply enough arm strength to hand crank down his flaps, against the force of air pressure at 400mph/600kph is clearly remote. Even if a pilot was strong enough to do so, the 109 flaps were clearly too flimsy to endure those forces and would be damaged.

Yet in the game, a 109 pilot can instantly deploy his "Combat" flaps at speeds anywhere over 400 mph, and with no damage to the flaps.

This is as much of an anomaly as any issue with the Spitfire's flaps.

As are the use of many other game aircraft's "combat" flaps at high speeds.


For the use of 109 flaps at high speed.



Me 109 G-6:
"The story of Valte Estama's 109 G-6 getting shot down by a Yak-6 was also an interesting one. Their flight of nine planes was doing high-altitude CAP at 7,000 meters (23,000').
(snip) So it happened that the devil fired at him. One cannon round hit his engine, spilling out oil that caught fire. Estama noticed that it wasn't fuel that leaked or burned, just oil.
He pushed the nose of the plane and throttled up. His feet felt hot, but the fire was extinguished and there was no more smoke. The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. He pulled the throttle back, but the stick was stiff and couldn't pull the plane out of the dive. Letting the flaps out little by little gradually lifted the nose. The plane leveled at 1,000 meters (3,300').
Clarification of the escape dive: "It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims).
Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."
- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.



For the use of flaps in Spits... its the same like the fixed use of pitch in 109. If you don´t use it - no need to care.
If you use it now - you will have to learn to fly a spit like a real pilot. Same to all 109 pilots that used the prop pitch intensive.

Buzzsaw-
03-06-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze: The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. He pulled the throttle back, but the stick was stiff and couldn't pull the plane out of the dive. Letting the flaps out little by little gradually lifted the nose.


This is clearly an account of a desperation move in the fast of an imminent crash, not the normal use of flaps in combat. The quote does not specify if there was any damage to the flaps, and the "little by little", indicates the deployment of the flaps was a very tentative process, which resulted in a tiny amount of nose up.

I would refer you to the Finnish manual for the G6 again:

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/4771/g6flaps3uv.jpg

The above quote for the recovery from a death dive is not an account showing the flaps were used in normal high speed combat maneuvering. I would again challenge anyone to provide proof the 109's flaps were used in combat maneuvers at high speeds.

Abbuzze
03-06-2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
This is clearly an account of a desperation move in the fast of an imminent crash, not the normal use of flaps in combat. The quote does not specify if there was any damage to the flaps, and the "little by little", indicates the deployment of the flaps was a very tentative process, which resulted in a tiny amount of nose up.

I would refer you to the Finnish manual for the G6 again:

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/4771/g6flaps3uv.jpg

The above quote for the recovery from a death dive is not an account showing the flaps were used in normal high speed combat maneuvering. I would again challenge anyone to provide proof the 109's flaps were used in combat maneuvers at high speeds.

No doubt about this, but it simply shows that the flaps weren´t neighter unmoveable, nor immediately damaged.
And you are right, 109 pilots would use the trimable horizontal stabilizer to turn at high speeds, but there are even some sources that 109 aces used a few deg. flaps down in turning fights, but no mention of speed. I asume that it was at low to mid speed, because no 109 would fly a turning fight at highspeed.



Me 109 F/G:
"- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Ratsack
03-06-2006, 03:17 PM
The point, Buzz, is that the Spit is not meant to have graduated flap control. By use of this exploit, it does in the game. This is clearly not historically accurate, and is the point of this thread.

If you want to discuss the broader issue of flap deployment, take it to the other thread.

cheers,
Ratsack

p1ngu666
03-06-2006, 04:05 PM
i dont use flaps on a slider, infact i only have 1 slider, throttle. when i tried to use mousewheel, when i moved the mouse the flaps would come down abit, which was annoying, so i unmapped it. this wasy *AGES* ago when there was no spitfires at all.

i do use f and v and put them up and down, for some of us spitfires are so squirly that they need flaps when going into turns to stabilze the plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

the whole flaps thing is abit dodgy tbh, they dont jam on combat setting, and u can drop them at any speeds, in any plane without worry, the speed at which they deploy does slow down, atleast.

from what ive read, flaps where intended to produce lots of lift, AND drag, to help on landing. thats what 190s have ingame abit, low drag at low speed, so its really easy to sail past your intended touchdown point.

personaly i dont use landing flaps, i prefer takeoff and abit higher speed.

109 pilot probably used flap cos scared of using trim cos it could lead to a very sharp pullout, which could break plane, even the superstrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif 109.

Buzzsaw-
03-06-2006, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
If you want to discuss the broader issue of flap deployment, take it to the other thread.
cheers, Ratsack

Translation from Bluespeak:

"Don't interrupt when we are busy hacking on Spits and ignoring the fact that lots of other planes are just as poorly modelled."

anarchy52
03-06-2006, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Translation from Bluespeak:

"Don't interrupt when we are busy hacking on Spits and ignoring the fact that lots of other planes are just as poorly modelled."


Spit does not need flaps on a slider. It needs FM. Bleed speed in turns and stuff. Currently, it's like Crimson skies FM above 300km/h.

faustnik
03-06-2006, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


Translation from Bluespeak:



"Bluespeak"?

The partisanship is just sooooo lame. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Everybody here needs to take a step back. It's not about sides.

Buzzsaw-
03-06-2006, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by faustnik: It's not about sides.

Faustnik: I respect you as someone who is non-partisan.

However, surely you can see that this thread, focused on the Spitfire, while ignoring the equally problematic aspects of other aircraft's FM's, is clearly motivated by other than objective aims.

If people want to point out areas of the Game which are unrealistic, by all means. But they should make any examination of faults complete and thorough, not aimed at a single plane, otherwise it is clear the posters are only interested in gaining a partisan advantage.

faustnik
03-06-2006, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik: It's not about sides.

Faustnik: I respect you as someone who is non-partisan.

However, surely you can see that this thread, focused on the Spitfire, while ignoring the equally problematic aspects of other aircraft's FM's, is clearly motivated by other than objective aims.

If people want to point out areas of the Game which are unrealistic, by all means. But they should make any examination of faults complete and thorough, not aimed at a single plane, otherwise it is clear the posters are only interested in gaining a partisan advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, I certainly don't see this as a big issue, gee I might get out-turned by a Spitfire, ohhh nooo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I fail to see how eliminating an exploit is trying to gain an advantage.

The partisan fighting around here and other forums is becoming such a tired joke.

Buzzsaw-
03-06-2006, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:I fail to see how eliminating an exploit is trying to gain an advantage.


Because it is a clear case of double standards, when the posters insist the Spitfire cannot (ahistorically) use its flaps on a slider, while those same posters blithely ignoring the fact various blue (and red) aircraft can use "Combat flaps" at speeds which are again ahistorical.

If they want to make a flap about flaps, let it be about ALL flaps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
03-06-2006, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

If they want to make a flap about flaps, let it be about ALL flaps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'm sure many are happy to see a revision of the flap system. I don't think that group is divided into red and blue.

BTW, interesting 200kph quote from the Finnish manual. Is that a flap maximum deployment speed limit or just part of the standard takeoff procedure?

Brain32
03-06-2006, 06:54 PM
If they want to make a flap about flaps, let it be about ALL flaps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But this is exactly what this thread is about, removing flap on a slider feature completely as in for all planes. Spitfire is only used as an example because it benefits most out of that feature.

BTW;OT: Buzz did you maybe send 11lbs Tempest data to 1C?

OAC_Rawool
03-06-2006, 07:32 PM
i know some of you may call me a dirty cheater becuase of this, but i was wondering, if you have you flaps on a slider is it possible to have the game so the Percent at which they are at. I hate having to look at the flap switch to see were they are. (the prop-pitch has it.)

HelSqnProtos
03-06-2006, 08:26 PM
S~!

sigh.......................... another luftwhiner thread.

Amazing how you dont see any Blues calling for fixing the G2ufo. God forbid a spit or other allied aircraft can outperform a bf........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

NonWonderDog
03-06-2006, 08:35 PM
Flaps on a slider is realistic for *most* planes, though, so I really don't think it should be removed completely.

The slider thing really should be updated to work in intervals (or simply be disabled) for those planes that didn't use a wheel for flaps, though. The Spitfire is the most prominent; I don't know what the others would be.

How did this turn into partisan nonsense?

karost
03-06-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Translation from Bluespeak:

"Don't interrupt when we are busy hacking on Spits and ignoring the fact that lots of other planes are just as poorly modelled."


Spit does not need flaps on a slider. It needs FM. Bleed speed in turns and stuff. Currently, it's like Crimson skies FM above 300km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

good point
- why spits need normal flaps now ?
- now spits has batter energy retension but not know how to handle with G2 ?

I see a spit smart pilot use 190 tactic to shoot G2 down easy , but for other friends try to take 1944's spits turn with G2 over 50 meter from the ground and crash while G2 make turn and "climb" with out combat "flaps"


Oh... and I found one good spits friend take a spits clip-wing turn with me, he very smart to maintain sustain "best" turn speed while I take G2 made a fool hard turn to get inside his turn but my energy was going down same as my altitude and crash .... from then I never make lever turn but "climb turn" or vertical revest turn when meet a good spit drivers.

S!

faustnik
03-06-2006, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

sigh.......................... another luftwhiner thread.

Amazing how you dont see any Blues calling for fixing the G2ufo. God forbid a spit or other allied aircraft can outperform a bf........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So, you're calling people Luftwhiners and in the same post making a baseless whine about a LW plane. Hmmm............

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Badsight.
03-06-2006, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Because it is a clear case of double standards, when the posters insist the Spitfire cannot (ahistorically) use its flaps on a slider well duh , its a Spitfire thread

a thread where an exploit is being asked to be removed

but here we have Buzzsaw posting OT & (trying) to divert attention away from the exploit & instead saying : "but look at whats wrong with all these other planes"

sorry , but all planes in FB will suffer jammed flaps from too high a speed

& you know it

how about sticking to topic

Badsight.
03-06-2006, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

sigh.......................... another luftwhiner thread.

Amazing how you dont see any Blues calling for fixing the G2ufo. God forbid a spit or other allied aircraft can outperform a bf........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif amazing how we dont ever see HelSqnProtos post about the LaGG's , or the P-63's , or the . . . . . .

seems like he must be quite happy with the way they perform

now if only those pesky blue planes were a bit eaiser to shoot down . . . .

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-06-2006, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
My point stands: The issue of mismodelled flaps applies to many planes, not just the Spitfire as is being pushed by blue siders with an agenda.
When I started this thread (5 pages ago now), I had no idea about how flaps worked on the real spits. For all I knew, real spits actually could set their flaps to any setting 0 through to 100%.
That's why, if you re-read my very first post buzzsaw, you'll see that I ask for either -
-spit pilots using keyboard flaps to be given the option of combat/takeoff flaps with the keyboard (something that would BENEFIT spit pilots)
-flaps-->slider mapping be removed from spits if it was more historically correct.

Does this sound like someone with a hidden red vs blue agenda?
Perhaps it is you with the hidden agenda.
Please grow up and stay on topic.

Stefan-R
03-07-2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Flaps on a slider is realistic for *most* planes, though, so I really don't think it should be removed completely.

The slider thing really should be updated to work in intervals (or simply be disabled) for those planes that didn't use a wheel for flaps, though. The Spitfire is the most prominent; I don't know what the others would be.

How did this turn into partisan nonsense?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-07-2006, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Flaps on a slider is realistic for *most* planes, though, so I really don't think it should be removed completely.

Sure... so is rudder trim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


How did this turn into partisan nonsense?

Here?
You =have= to ask that here?

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-07-2006, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Flaps on a slider is realistic for *most* planes, though, so I really don't think it should be removed completely.

The slider thing really should be updated to work in intervals (or simply be disabled) for those planes that didn't use a wheel for flaps, though. The Spitfire is the most prominent; I don't know what the others would be.

Yep, I think this is the best option. Planes that didn't use a wheel for flaps should not be able to map them to a slider. The ones that did, should.

How did this turn into partisan nonsense?
That's why I don't frequent these forums more often.

HelSqnProtos
03-07-2006, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
So, you're calling people Luftwhiners and in the same post making a baseless whine about a LW plane. Hmmm............

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Right................... baseless - especially when the G series turns better than the F in this sim.

Totally baseless what could I have been thinking. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

HelSqnProtos
03-07-2006, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
amazing how we dont ever see HelSqnProtos post about the LaGG's , or the P-63's , or the . . . . . .

seems like he must be quite happy with the way they perform

now if only those pesky blue planes were a bit eaiser to shoot down . . . .

Happy to shoot you down in anything you care to fly blue in ....... I am sure plenty would be happy to host the grudge match. Maybe CI will host if we ask nice.

I'd like to see you put up for once. Other wise ................... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif notice the icon is blue.

Badsight.
03-07-2006, 04:32 AM
lol , oh please - ive seen your stats

wont find any "i cant fly , the Yaks are ruined" threads started by me Protos , on the other hand we have you . . . . .

RAF238thKnight
03-07-2006, 04:38 AM
So what planes could set there flaps in a full range 0-100%?

I go back to removing the Hotas flap control completely for all planes, because oleg trying to write code for each specific craft is hillarious. I have always aked for historically accurate planes because I want to fly the plane that they did. That means I lose a fight from a good BnZ then I was not searching constantly.

However gamers that use this simulation to pull off unbelievable junk trimming thru blackouts or using flaps at high speed with no damage to aid in there unrealistic turn.

We come back to a complete Damage Model and Flight Simulation which is not coded YET. I for one hope the BoB cover all our issues. For example Hawker Hurricanes were known for there Bomber kills but yet the 303 at convergence couldnt kill the fly riding on the engine cover.

So we move on and except that people dnt look at this as a simulation but an Arcade Game and will take every means to WIN and that is the sad fact.

Knight

p1ngu666
03-07-2006, 07:07 AM
quick test with vertical(ish) powerdives

tried a20, il2 (first one with 16rockets) mossie, tempest, k4 c3, d9 45 and spit 25lb

with "combat flaps" set during the ential start if dive then they wont jam, well, u loose wings before they jam, and/or u explode.

with the spit i cycled up and down, so hitting f and v (normal and landing) they did jam when i was going very fast, but wherent *that* much out. i suspect that if u select landing, or takeoff then the flaps will jam before they reach "combat" setting

Jaws2002
03-07-2006, 07:30 AM
Many planes should be able to use flaps on a slider, but not ALL of them. AS stated here Spitfire is one of the most representative ones that SHOULD NOT BE able to use flaps in a slider.
The problem is at what speed they jam. There is not much info in this respect but if you look for it you can find it.
I'm a FW-190 guy. I think I hate the BF-109's easy going a little. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif, but here is something for the BF-109 flaps whiners to chew on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/0c2_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg

Buzzsaw-
03-07-2006, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
...here is something for the BF-109 flaps whiners to chew on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/0c2_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg

Some context please.

Is this from an experimental test?? Is it extrapolated data???

Please post complete test and data.

We have seen many times in the past, persons such as Isegrim/Kurfurst post charts for which they made false claims, those charts later being proved to be from tests of experimental non-combat models, modified for testing. As in the test of the dive speed of the 109F with G wings which had its ailerons wired to reduce the chance of wing loss.

So posting a chart with no context, proves nothing.

Abbuzze
03-07-2006, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
So, you're calling people Luftwhiners and in the same post making a baseless whine about a LW plane. Hmmm............

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Right................... baseless - especially when the G series turns better than the F in this sim.

Totally baseless what could I have been thinking. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So this is your universal answer to any thread? Thread about Spitfire flaps, and your answer is G turns better than F? Sorry, I´m not impressed. If you don´t have anything to say with more "facts" please just read threads... don´t answer

Buzzsaw-
03-07-2006, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

but here we have Buzzsaw posting OT & (trying) to divert attention away from the exploit



False. I never endorsed the exploit. Instead I pointed out if the game was modelled correctly, it wouldn't matter if the flaps were on a slider, they would still be damaged if they were deployed at too high a speed.


Originally posted by Buzzsaw-.:

The real issue is the speed flaps are damaged at when they are deployed. And this applies to ALL planes, not just the Spitfire.

Spitfire flaps were very fragile things, not designed to sustain the loads that would be incurred at high speeds. They were created to be an assist in landings, at LANDING SPEEDS, or just above.

If they are modelled correctly, (and I haven't done any testing) they should be damaged when deployed, (even partially deployed) at speeds much higher than recommended by the manual.




Originally posted by Badsight.:

sorry , but all planes in FB will suffer jammed flaps from too high a speed

& you know it



False. No aircraft suffer jammed flaps when deploying "Combat flaps". You can deploy combat flaps at any speed, without ANY fear of jamming.

Historically, even the P-51, which had combat flaps rated to 425 mph IAS, should see them jam at speeds above that. For the remainder of the aircraft in the sim, the speed at which they jam should be much lower.

HelSqnProtos
03-07-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
lol , oh please - ive seen your stats

wont find any "i cant fly , the Yaks are ruined" threads started by me Protos , on the other hand we have you . . . . .

Then you won't have any problem hopping into the pit will you ?? But as I have stated so many times before your all forum yap ...................

Viper2005_
03-07-2006, 09:40 AM
Why does everybody always assume that the failure mode of all flap systems is to jam?

faustnik
03-07-2006, 09:55 AM
You're missing my point Buzzsaw and Protos. If we keep fostering this ridiculous red vs. blue namecalling and whining here, we will never get anything done. You guys are both exhibiting pure gamery here, and I expect better (If I didn't, I wouldn't bother).

Please don't even use the term "historic" if you are just going to foster an environment of internet gamery. Realism has nothing to do with this bickering garbage.

Ugly_Kid
03-07-2006, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Why does everybody always assume that the failure mode of all flap systems is to jam?

beats me...jamming is one of the most remote failure modes that comes into my mind.

I am just wondering why is there any need to use flaps at all above corner velocity - IRL there isn't.

In this sense you're hard pressed to provide an anecdote of somebody using flaps at high speed and getting no damage as well as providing an anecdote where they were used and damaged. Such anecdotes don't exist since it wasn't done. Andy Bush on SimHQ went nuts when benefits of flap usage at high speed were discussed.

Yeah sure, this game features a nice additional pull-up and bogus dive recovery flaps for P-38J or others with the combat flaps modeling and you ask hey why is it possible to use combat flaps at 800 km/h? On the other hand right question is why is the deployment of some use? Why do all the planes pitch up with flaps? Now those are the questions...

"Combat flaps" is a nice gamers effect introduced in WW II Fighters from Jane's and it's still around. I think jamming is Warbirds inheritance and hey it makes a nice effect too.

These are inherited gaming effects. Oh loosing landing gears, that's one of them effects too, IRC Falcon 1.0 already had it. One just doesn't stop to think that real landing gear is dimensioned for far higher ground loads than aerodynamical loads occuring at some 350 km/h. Lipfert had his landing gear downlock fail at 750 km/h and surprise - the suddenly retracted landing gear did not go by its own way...

This is how it is - one sim has one of these gimmicks and the next one has to have it too since otherwise you have to explain gamers that "my game is not arcade because the wheels aren't immediately shredded away at 301 km/h - my game is realistic since they don't". This won't please "hard is realistic" people.

I wonder how many following sims feature FW bar since the mark is now set http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
03-07-2006, 11:22 AM
Salute Ugly Kid

You are correct that use of "combat flaps" was not common for most pilots, simply because their aircraft were not designed to allow flap use at combat speeds. If flaps were used, it was in very low speed encounters, or as originally intended, as assists to takeoff or landing.

The exception is the P-51, which had flaps designed specifically to use in combat. These were considerably more robustly built than other fighter aircraft of the era, and operated by rammed air, to allow a rapid deployment of a "combat" setting of a few degrees of flaps. USAAF P-51 pilots were schooled in the use of "combat flaps", it was part of their doctrine.

The game has mismodelled things by allowing all fighters to operate their flaps in the same way as P-51's, which was clearly not the case historically.

By the way, the Dive flaps on the P-38 are an entirely different issue. They are also mismodelled in the game, and their effect, that being to give the P-38 a greatly improved turn performance at any speed, is completely incorrect. These dive flaps were intended to be deployed only at very high speeds and in situations where recovery by normal means was impossible. Deploying them at normal speeds would not assist in turn performance, but rather would increase speed bleed to the point that it would hinder overall turnrate.

Ugly_Kid
03-07-2006, 12:26 PM
Rough figures show that 3100 kg fighter can pull 5 g at 350 km/h with no need for extra flaps or something (without stalling) - after that you start blacking out. Extra lift from flaps don't bring you a d@mn thing above this point. That is very simply the very reason why they were not used. Below that point flaps were readily used. Discuss that with Andy Bush if you disagree.

Only benefit from the combat flaps in the game above this point is nose-up pitch, which is wrong. If this was right to begin with you wouldn't be complaining about secondary consequence.

So beating a bush about P-51 flaps is a really moot point. (and not at all that unique as a nicely provided chart just showed)

faustnik
03-07-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Deploying them at normal speeds would not assist in turn performance, but rather would increase speed bleed to the point that it would hinder overall turnrate.

Do planes benefit in turn rate from flap deployment in general? Are specific "combat" flaps like on the P-38 or Ki-84 required for turn rate benefit?

The Fw190 had a "flying" flaps position, but, no hydraulics, just a simple worm gear. In PF, combat flaps really bring the nose of the 190 up quick. They also really bleed E severely, so, I stay away from them except to avoid collisions. I can't find speed limits for the three settings, landing, takeoff, flying.

Viper2005_
03-07-2006, 12:44 PM
There is one obvious reason for using flap in combat. Flaps in most WWII fighters only affected the inner portion of the wing.

They therefore act to shift the centre of lift inboard and reduce the likelyhood of a tipstall; the aeroplane will most likely depart in a rather more graceful manner with flap. This was certainly the case with the Fw-190.

If you're flying much above corner then this doesn't represent much of a benefit; you'll just get extra drag.

I suppose this would be useful if you found yourself in a scissors fight, but it would seem more sensible to just use the vertical...

Of course if you're flying at high altitude then your corner TAS will be pretty high, and you'll have less available thrust, so it's more likely that you'll find yourself fighting below corner, at which point a little more instantaneous turn rate might be useful. Of course it's a double edged sword due to the extra drag.

But the more benign departure characteristics would probably make it worth while, even if it actually costs performance, since most pilots have a very hard time accurately judging the limit; it's a very fine line!

HelSqnProtos
03-07-2006, 02:52 PM
S~!

Faust perhaps you should re examine your comments before leveling those charges at others. The blatant blue bias on the boards is getting consecutively worse, wrapping yourself in the cloak of supposed impartiality does nothing to further your cause for me.

The spit flaps is a NON issue. You can and do get the same effect by just deploying flaps in sustained 2-3 sec bursts. Regardless of whether they are mapped to a slider or not. Lets not even talk about the insta trim issues and many other things which I know that you are aware of.

The blue brigade has gotten too vocal for me and I am tired of it. BFs were NOT superships, they didn't defy gravity, nor have giant blue lightsabers in front, nor could 4 of your beloved fw190s take out 8 B17s in less than 20 secs in a head on pass. Yet you can do all this and more in the sim. Why??? cause blue cries constantly for improvements to their ride and is constantly and continually trying to degenerate the combat effectiveness of red planes.

Or perhaps Olegs comments on the matter are not sufficient ?????

<begin rant>
Asking for a certain realism for blue birds seems to be fine with you, but god forbid we do anything that would make red planes fully effective. I reject your charges of 'gamery' and dismiss them as posturing. I find them personally offensive.

In my time with the sim (since original IL2) I have always been on the side of accuracy and fairness - Something that has been is very very short supply with most of the blue pilots who are making up a disproportionate share of the beta test team. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I am tired of the politics of the sim having more to do with its development than proper testing and historically accuracy. <end rant>

http://www.13th-hellenicsqn.com/Images/NaziVrilUfo.jpg

Jaws2002
03-07-2006, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Waaaa!!! Waaaaa!!!!


I can't stop laughing when I see your posts.

I would love to see Sigmund Freud analyze your posts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
LMAO

Jaws2002
03-07-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

The spit flaps is a NON issue. You can and do get the same effect by just deploying flaps in sustained 2-3 sec bursts.


This is how the combat and take off flaps worked on Spitfire (from George Beurling (http://www.constable.ca/beurling.htm))

----------------------------------------

"Getting to Malta was problematic, as the Germans and Italians were trying to cut it off and pound it to pieces. Any ship getting within range of Axis bombers flying from Sicily were in grave danger and German U-boats prowled the waters. The 16 new Spitfire Mk Vs and their pilots destined for Malta were shipped in the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle. When they were within flying range of Malta (600 miles) the pilots were given instructions on the heading and approximate distance to the island and flew off the deck of the Eagle. This was difficult to do as the Spitfire was never designed for this. The technicians onboard Eagle put wedges in the flaps to hold them at 50% (Spitfires had only 2 flap settings, full up and full down), then the pilots had to rev their engines to the max while standing on their brakes. The deck officer waited until the Eagle rose on a wave and signalled them off. Once off the deck the Spitfire would drop close to the ocean before flying. Once altitude was gained, the pilots dropped flaps all the way, the wedges fell out and then retracted their flaps. "
-----------------------------------------

Abbuzze
03-07-2006, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:

The spit flaps is a NON issue. You can and do get the same effect by just deploying flaps in sustained 2-3 sec bursts. Regardless of whether they are mapped to a slider or not.

Then it should be fixed and be used in the way you describe. This kind of extra workload is realistic.

HelSqnProtos
03-07-2006, 04:46 PM
Jaws is the wonderwoman server you normally play on empty tonight? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
03-07-2006, 05:12 PM
i remmber reading about p51 pilots doing rhubarbs or similer would put down abit of flaps, when trimed this gave a nice nosedown attitude, making it easier to spot targets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

i guess flaps could jam, and/or be forced up by the air pressure, the forcing up could break some part of the pressure system, or something else, u might have flaps that where automatic, just moved by the air pressure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jaws2002
03-07-2006, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Jaws is the wonderwoman server you normally play on empty tonight? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Care to teach me some full real flying Prontos? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I'll be in the lobby in few minutes. Show me how Aces like you do it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Viper2005_
03-07-2006, 07:12 PM
nor could 4 of your beloved fw190s take out 8 B17s in less than 20 secs in a head on pass.

Depends on how close together the B-17s are...

It only takes 2 rounds to kill both pilots.

The fact is that there is a big difference between what you can do in theory, and the performance which is attained by real people in the real world.

The difference tends to increase as the cost of failure increases, since the more expensive it gets, the less likely people are to put in the practice required.

In addition, if we exclude that small percentage of the population which is either suicidal or simply insane, the fact is that people will tend to play safe when engaged in potentially fatal activities such as warfare.

For this reason, simulations like IL2 tend to be somewhat different from the reality they intend to simulate, in much the same way that a game of poker played for match sticks is different from a game of poker played for hundred pound notes.

As such, you can't use combat records as a basis for comparison with a computer game as you can't divorce the psychology from the engineering; it's a common problem.

Most of us would play the game rather differently if we knew that the price of failure was serious injury or death...

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-07-2006, 07:15 PM
Normally I'm against all forms of censorship - but this thread is really in need of some moderation. If all the OT's, red vs blue, and 'i'm a better pilot than you are' rubbish was deleted, this thread would probably fit on one or two pages.

faustnik
03-07-2006, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

Faust perhaps you should re examine your comments before leveling those charges at others. The blatant blue bias on the boards is getting consecutively worse, wrapping yourself in the cloak of supposed impartiality does nothing to further your cause for me.

Further my cause? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Blue Brigade. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's very obvious that fairness and accuracy have absolutely nothing to do with your wants. Your blatant bias is becoming very evident in your sensless rants. Too bad.

HelSqnProtos
03-07-2006, 09:14 PM
S~!

Yes your clearly above it all Faust..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I mean now that you get copies of the betas from CI we are supposed to bow down to your superior knowledge. Especially when you pimp your rides to the max.

Your a stunning paragon of fairness and objectivity. pfffft.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I notice you don't address any of the points regarding G series turning better than the F or other posts in this thread that deal with no elevator trim tabs for the bf.

But hey that wouldn't suit you and the blue brigade at now would it?

karost
03-07-2006, 09:28 PM
last night I test spits(25lbs) to see how good she can make turn on my local DF Server.

I take off with 50% fuel and normal weather , test horizontal loop turn 360 degree at 150-200 meter ... with sustain turn speed 280-300 km/h (open booster) while make turn about 5 to 7 round , then I replay a track file to set how fast she can turn .... Wow... she can make turn about 14-15 second per round (360degree) and sure I "not" open any flaps or trims...

14-15 sec. per round.... that is not good enought ?

track file will ready if ask for.

S!

Ratsack
03-07-2006, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
If you want to discuss the broader issue of flap deployment, take it to the other thread.
cheers, Ratsack

Translation from Bluespeak:

"Don't interrupt when we are busy hacking on Spits and ignoring the fact that lots of other planes are just as poorly modelled." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's your usual approach to character assassination, Buzzsaw? Hmmm? Yes, that's right, you come back in whining that your protagonists resort to personal attacks and don't stick to the issue. Let it be noted here that it is you - as usual - stooping to the ad-hominem argument.

For your information, you ignorant ideologue, I have vigorously defended the Spitfire against people who would have it neutered: against those who claim a 109 should be able to turn with it, even with combat flaps, for example. Against those who dispute the climbing ability of the LFMkIX and come complaining about 'e-bleed'.

I have demonstrated, with tests, and graphed and posted the results, that the Spitfires in the game do not out dive the Fw190As, as is commonly claimed.

In brief, Buzzsaw, I advocate historical accuracy, and not some Red/Blue agenda. This is in stark contrast to yourself.

I have even offered - via PM on the SimHQ board - to run stall tests on the Bf109G-2 with you, and run them through Tagert's device link and graphing software to get to the bottom of the stall issue. You did not reply, because you'd rather be free to make your unsubstantiated claims in any thread you please, without fear and without research.

With your manifest record of un-remitting bias, you have no business coming into this forum and accusing me of 'bluespeak'.

Your usual style of argument is the red herring, and you've used it again in this thread. The question here was and is the way players can exploit the modelling of flaps to make the Spitfire behave as if it had flaps with multiple increments. It did not: fact. Not opinion. Not open to debate. Not open to interpretation. Just an old-fashioned fact.

To avoid the for-you unpleasant consequences of this realisation, you introduced the red herring of the 109. Not content to muddy the water, you also introduced documents that you deliberately misconstrued to stipulate top speeds for flap deployment on the 109.

Your intent is clearly to derail the discussion, and not to assist anybody to come to any conclusions. Your input in this thread has been entirely pernicious.

This is just your usual distracting tactic. You did it in the Fw190 / P47 dive performance thread with Crump. In that thread, you deceitfully accused him of claiming that German C3 fuel was the equivalent of allied 150 avgas. He made no such claim, and when you were confronted with that, you fell to your second line strategy of claiming it was a personal attack and that everybody is out to get you.


You are transparent, Buzzsaw, and your schoolboy debating tactics merely highlight the bankruptcy of your position. You have nothing to add, so I look forward to your usual response, claiming you have been personally attacked, and how you have presented documents, and nobody else has presented anything, etc, etc, etc.

Have a nice little life.

cheers,
Ratsack

faustnik
03-07-2006, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:


Yes your clearly above it all Faust.

Thank you, we should all try to be. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

S!

HelSqnProtos
03-07-2006, 09:52 PM
Is this the same guy who was talking about 'gamery' ???

I love busting you Hypocrits http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And still not a word about the facts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Badsight.
03-07-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
False. No aircraft suffer jammed flaps when deploying "Combat flaps". & neither will the Spitfire.
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
You can deploy combat flaps at any speed, without ANY fear of jamming. ahh yes , but EVERY plane will jam flaps - when they are down they will jam

no plane is excepted - all planes in FB will jam flaps

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-07-2006, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
I notice you don't address any of the points regarding G series turning better than the F or other posts in this thread that deal with no elevator trim tabs for the bf.

Maybe no-one is responding to it because it's got nothing to do with this thread topic.
By all means, go start your own threads about 109's. Although if I was moderating, I would've banned you by now for forum abuse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Badsight.
03-07-2006, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
I notice you don't address any of the points regarding G series turning better than the F or other posts in this thread that deal with no elevator trim tabs for the bf. your other laughable BS aside - Bf-109s had elevator trim - just no Rudder trim

in FB - the F Bf-109 can beat the G model (any version) in one complete turn

but as you know - the F & E model Bf-109 have too high a stall speed

they actually should be turning better due to their being able to hold alower stall speed than they currently do

yes - your correct - they are undermoddeled - otoh the G & K are bang on : )

Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
And still not a word about the facts & for petes sake - lets save this game from YOUR type of facts , its joke opinions like yours that are so detrimental - seeing as they are based on nothing but a desire for eaiser kills

of course 4 FW-190s could kill 8 B-17s in 20s - but do you really think the average 1944 LW pilot was 50% as experienced as the average HL user ? what a lame duck of an analogy

HelSqnProtos
03-07-2006, 10:42 PM
Still waiting for you to show me what a bad pilot I am and how good you are.

Its amazing how terrified you 'darksiders' get when anyone from the RED side stands up to your whining ****........

Spits out turn bf whaaaaaaaaaa. whaaaaaaaa...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I guess thats why the British won the Battle of Britain agains superior numbers of according to you superior planes and better trained and more experienced pilots.

Cause the bf was such a supership and of course the Spits and Hurries sucked so hard. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Go play in your sandbox little boy and have mommy change your nappies.

And again I am waiting for you in the pit since according to you we are all bad pilots who want to make it easier to score. Come and show me how good you are.

Badsight.
03-07-2006, 10:53 PM
nothing to say about the proper F & E model stall speeds ? . . . . nope

nothing to say about flaps in FB jamming like they should ? . . . . nope

more ego taunts ? . . . . . . oh for sure

it is Protos afterall

HelSqnProtos
03-07-2006, 11:12 PM
NO coming into a server to show me how good you are and how bad I am ??

More Badsight and his forum flappin ..........

Max.Power
03-07-2006, 11:13 PM
How in the hell did this thread turn into an argument about the bf109s/ Protos's testicular fortitude?

faustnik
03-08-2006, 12:28 AM
Protos,

What is your problem with this thread? Is the initial premise of the thread untrue?
Could the Spitfire deploy flaps real life as you do with the flaps on a slider?

The fact is that it could not. If you are interested in realism, how could you not want it changed?

I'm sure you're to cry "oh but the 109, the 109, Blue Agenda!!!" This has nothing to do with the subject. Why not start your own thread asking questions about the flaps system in the sim in general? Or are you just protecting your favorite exploit?

Jetbuff
03-08-2006, 12:30 AM
Wow! This one sure turned south pretty quick. Same ol' usual suspects I see too. Pity...


Viper, just wanted to respond to your flaps give no advantage at speeds above corner comment. That is true, in that no extra lift can be gained. However, the extra drag from flaps deployed at speeds above corner velocity could improve both turn rate and, perhaps more significantly, radius through a reduction in speed. Naturally, this is a rather doubtful advantage since if it causes you to slow down to below corner velocity sooner than your opponent and you have not sealed the deal by then, your goose may very well be cooked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
03-08-2006, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Wow! This one sure turned south pretty quick. Same ol' usual suspects I see too. Pity...


Viper, just wanted to respond to your flaps give no advantage at speeds above corner comment. That is true, in that no extra lift can be gained. However, the extra drag from flaps deployed at speeds above corner velocity could improve both turn rate and, perhaps more significantly, radius through a reduction in speed. Naturally, this is a rather doubtful advantage since if it causes you to slow down to below corner velocity sooner than your opponent and you have not sealed the deal by then, your goose may very well be cooked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

So you are saying that the only real advantage of flaps would be as a braking device, if above corner speed? How about increased lift that they generate? Wouldn't improved liftloading improve turnrate?

(This is a question Jetbuff, not an arguement. Just saying, gotta be clear around here... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HelSqnProtos
03-08-2006, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Protos,

What is your problem with this thread? Is the initial premise of the thread untrue?
Could the Spitfire deploy flaps real life as you do with the flaps on a slider?

The fact is that it could not. If you are interested in realism, how could you not want it changed?

I'm sure you're to cry "oh but the 109, the 109, Blue Agenda!!!" This has nothing to do with the subject. Why not start your own thread asking questions about the flaps system in the sim in general? Or are you just protecting your favorite exploit?

What I am saying is that the whole flaps thing is a NON ISSUE because you can get the same effect with flaps deployed in burst mode. Flaps and trim are fubared in the sim in general and not just on the spit. There are several planes that can have flaps mapped but somehow its always the spit that is the object of derision. Cause you noobaliscious blues want to tnb against it. Even Oleg has slapped you all down with that stupidity.

Its ALL about blue agenda and whining till they get a 20 page thread so Oleg can take notice. Thats bull and I am tired of it. G2fo is what need fixing and not spit flaps. To listen to you Faust you would think this was a rampant problem and the fact that you would accuse me - the cleanest and most anti cheat player in the lobby of using that just shows how desperate you are to cover up your own bias.

I don't see you working on an IL2 punkbuster but my team is. So take your pontificating holier than thou attitude and stuff it. You make it sound like you have some special relationship with the sim. Got news for you. being tight with CI and getting a beta does not an expert make you. But of course it sure helps YOU and all the blue beta team when you want to do something for your favourite ride.

Or was it just my imagination that you all missed that beauty in the Mosquito http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Clearly you spent a lot of time testing the allied birds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gifclaphttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Yeah you guys are fair and impartial alright........... pffft. Thats why anytime someone tries to open up the G2 debate the thread gets locked instantly.

And then you expect RED to lay down and take it --- I THINK NOT.

Even Oleg has gotten sick of the Blue stupidity around here. Oh and since everyone wants proof Pay close attention to the part where he says he is only telling 10% of what he could. I can find you a ton of other examples too but whats the point. Faust you know best, in fact better than Oleg it seems. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anyone who doesn't go along with the blue agenda is obviously ranting. I guess that would include the Big Chief himself eh???

Get over yourself Faust. Your NOT the only one with integrity in the sim.


Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danschnell:
You didn't expect something like that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The anti blue bias has always been what makes me fly blue. Its a great challenge that I enjoy. Remember Oleg is Russian and he'll always favour the reds. When the day comes that Oleg ever makes and German plane go as fast as it should I'd probably loose interest.

Fw190s are the worst offenders. They are all 10-20kph slower than their real world figures. Ta152 is probably the most noticably slow up high. Its maybe 1-2kph faster than those Jugs and P51s... don't expect it to be able to 'leave its opponents standing' like in all the historical accounts.

I do think that most of German planes fly faster than should. Real picture was that only earlier and later only Hungarian production planes were able to achive the manufacture specifications in a series using German quality of the fuel...
That tell Lufwaffe pilots in recals and speeches with them (30 km/h slowly is a middle digit of their recalls)

And also we don't model end-war rising the quality of Russian fuel ...

Bf-109K4 fly now by the German manufacture specifications which we have from known for community historian collection of German aviation docs.

Now you have two models with DB-605DB 1.8 ata and DB-605DC 1.98 Ata.

Climb was decreased to realistic values (as well as decreased for the La- series even more)

However late Yaks still flyes not so good as it should (from the words of pilot who fly Yak now)

So speeches about Oleg's no interest are wrong.
Youn even don't know how is hard to find NON CORRECTED by some oth other in time _real_ docs.

I also recommned to read the original German document about the problems of DB-605DC 1,98 ata..... That was the whole list of problems... And if that is serial production this would means never use of 1,98 ata really. Just take it in account.

Finally... For your sure I'm really Russian born. However my whole family (as result also me in the end of branch) is a mix of English, German and less - Russian bloods.
Do you know my favirite aircraft of the WWII in technical aspects (cost/Engineering ideas terms) - this German plane FW-190. I think many here know this. However it doesn't measn that this plane will fly better all.

In terms of Sexy looking aircraft I like very much Mustang and less Yak-9U post war production. In the last case it doesn't means that I will model Yak-9U to the trials before manufacture speciafications. We model it with all the problems of aircraft of the first series. And still there isn't present the series of 1945 winter-spring that almost hadn't them and match manufacture specifications... Just try to find them that to have an image of what I told here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Same: there is still not present Yak-3 VK-107A of both variants that met Germans in the last months of the war...

I think you should be more thinking that to post what you posted. I told here just 10% what I can tell.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Codex1971
03-08-2006, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
The blue brigade has gotten too vocal for me and I am tired of it. BFs were NOT superships, they didn't defy gravity, nor have giant blue lightsabers in front, nor could 4 of your beloved fw190s take out 8 B17s in less than 20 secs in a head on pass. Yet you can do all this and more in the sim. Why??? cause blue cries constantly for improvements to their ride and is constantly and continually trying to degenerate the combat effectiveness of red planes.
http://www.13th-hellenicsqn.com/Images/NaziVrilUfo.jpg

How quickly the RED side forgets....

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3491007933/p/1

faustnik
03-08-2006, 01:40 AM
"Cover up my own bias"? Not everybody thinks like you do Protos. There are a whole lot of us, the majority on this forum actually, that aren't just worried about our "side". Clearly you can't think past that.

Good luck saving the world from the Blue Agenda.

HelSqnProtos
03-08-2006, 02:00 AM
And there it is the last bastion of those who have nothing.

Claiming to represent the majority. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


whatever...........

Badsight.
03-08-2006, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Got news for you. being tight with CI and getting a beta does not an expert make you. But of course it sure helps YOU and all the blue beta team when you want to do something for your favourite ride. ahhh protos , how much of a dork you are is just so much more clear with every sentence you type out

that "blue" beta team sure got the P-63 DM porked - & boy are those early LA's & LaGGs so fragile now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
& get a load of that 25 Spit cruise ability - man did they do a number on that plane! not to mention the untouchable E-Retention of the FW-190s - amazing!

curse those conspiring blue bastages , yes Protos - they all have it in for you

there's a lot of joke posters at this forum over the years Protos - but you really take the cake . sucking at DFing really must bite with you huh ?

Kurfurst__
03-08-2006, 02:59 AM
Greekwhiner,

STFU.

IIJG69_Kartofe
03-08-2006, 05:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Brain32
03-08-2006, 05:50 AM
Spit does not need flaps on a slider. It needs FM. Bleed speed in turns and stuff. Currently, it's like Crimson skies FM above 300km/h.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Now hate me everybody http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG5_UnKle
03-08-2006, 07:15 AM
This is pure comedy Gold http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-08-2006, 08:00 AM
As to what Maddox Games should do about this I cannot say. It is their time, their priorities.

But I can say the issue is clear that these Spitfires and maybe some others were not able to
do as can be gamed by players.

We have 109's not able to rudder trim even with slider. Most planes can but historic exceptions
are unable to trim where they were not.

We have different prop pitch controls modelled, even different prop blades as per the real.

It is not out of line to point out flaps as another place to apply the same rule.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless your name is Protos and then it's whine about other perceived problems as if that has
any bearing on the facts, and claim that it is bias of others issue only. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif Smokescreen!

OldMan___
03-08-2006, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
And there it is the last bastion of those who have nothing.

Claiming to represent the majority. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


whatever...........

And you think YOU represent majority? I like to think that our comunity is far better than that...

Buzzsaw-
03-08-2006, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

What's your usual approach to character assassination, Buzzsaw? Hmmm? Yes, that's right, you come back in whining that your protagonists resort to personal attacks and don't stick to the issue. Let it be noted here that it is you - as usual - stooping to the ad-hominem argument.



Good excuse for then smearing me.


Originally posted by Ratsack:
I have even offered - via PM on the SimHQ board - to run stall tests on the Bf109G-2 with you, and run them through Tagert's device link and graphing software to get to the bottom of the stall issue.



By all means, lets do it. I did not see your PM, as I do not have e-mail notification of PM's on SimHQ.


Originally posted by Ratsack:

With your manifest record of un-remitting bias, you have no business coming into this forum and accusing me of 'bluespeak'.



I have spoken out many times in favour of certain blue planes, as well against many red aircraft. For example just a few posts above this one, I point out the P-38 dive brakes are modelled incorrectly, giving it an unrealistic advantage. The real reason I am tagged with this 'bias' misnomer because I refuse to fall down and beg for forgiveness for having pointed out the completely unrealistic stall FM which slat equipped aircraft continue to exhibit. My comments apply, (as I have said many times) to both blue and red slat equipped aircraft. However, because the Blue 109 lobby is so vocal, my comments re. the 109's get much more response than those re. the Lavochkins, and thus I get tagged as a being biased.


Originally posted by Ratsack:

To avoid the for-you unpleasant consequences of this realisation, you introduced the red herring of the 109.



False. As I have said previously several times IN THIS THREAD, the issue of flap deployment mismodelling applies to many aircraft, not just the 109.


Originally posted by Ratsack:

Not content to muddy the water, you also introduced documents that you deliberately misconstrued to stipulate top speeds for flap deployment on the 109.



Provide proof those documents are incorrect or that I am misconstruing them please. I have not seen anything from you to show that this is the case.


Originally posted by Ratsack:

Your intent is clearly to derail the discussion, and not to assist anybody to come to any conclusions.



False. My intent was to point out that if flap damage from deployment at higher speeds FOR ALL PLANES was modelled correctly, it wouldn't matter if a pilot had flaps on a slider or not, the result would still be failure if they were deployed at higher speeds, thus negating any benefit for use of sliders. The real issue is the failure of the Sim to model the damage which would result from flap deployment at higher speeds.


Originally posted by Ratsack:

This is just your usual distracting tactic. You did it in the Fw190 / P47 dive performance thread with Crump. In that thread, you deceitfully accused him of claiming that German C3 fuel was the equivalent of allied 150 avgas.



Wow, you really keep your grudges, don't you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

However, since you brought it up:

'deceitfully accused'???

What is Crump saying here then????


Originally posted by Crump:

As for the "octane level" of C3 fuel in mid-1943:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120875325_c3octane1943.jpg

It most certainly was the equivalent of allied 100/150 octanes by 1944.



There it is in black and white, Crump claiming C3 was the equivalent of 100/150 allied fuel.

Here is the page on the thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9991053533/p/8

>>>>

Moving back to the topic at hand, I have never claimed that the ability of a player to use a slider to operate the flaps on the Spitfire is correct. Of course it is isn't. If you looked at my first post on the thread, where I provided original documents from the Spitfire manual, those documents clearly show, (and I stated that) the Spitfire only had a two position flap switch, and the flaps were only used for landing. But I also mentioned, because it was clearly relevant to the discussion, that to focus only on the Spitfire mistaken, when nearly all the planes in the Sim are also mismodelled.

Actually Ratsack, I think you better check your own bias, it seems to have gotten the best of you in this latest post.

If you'd like to go back to dealing with facts, then by all means.

p1ngu666
03-08-2006, 08:47 AM
badsight, what plane has flaps jam when set to "combat" ?

i was losing wings and stuff and my combat flaps still didnt jam.

be nice to have a takeoff setting for the seafires tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i have just remmbered i use combat flaps with stuka when dive bombing, as it helps balance out its very heavy nose down trim

A.K.Davis
03-08-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
This is pure comedy Gold http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Truly. I thought I heard the clink-clink, rattle-rattle three pages ago.

Ivan must be getting his beauty sleep.

NonWonderDog
03-08-2006, 10:29 AM
Best comedy moment:


Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
And there it is the last bastion of those who have nothing.

Claiming to represent the majority. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

...in responce to Faustnik claiming that the majority doesn't exude bias and hate in every post!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

... I think Faust might be wrong on this point, though, at least as it applies to this board...

carguy_
03-08-2006, 10:29 AM
Aaaah so I thought a thread bout flaps couldn`t possily go so far so I had to take apeek andyes here we are - Mr.Protos revealing the blue conspiracy again heheh

I`ve seen yer stats too,flew against you.We never even met! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Start killin`em Protos,otherwise you are always taken for someone who does not have any idea how to shoot. Hence you`re the least virtual pilot we would believe.

A whiner with stats like that can be nothing else but just a frustrated guy who tries to change reality by slowly believing in what he says.

crazyivan1970
03-08-2006, 11:13 AM
I will make it short.... some of you guys are out of your mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now, that being said... i am drawing the the line...right here:


================= THE LINE =====================


Any posts off topic or any personal attacks , etc...after this line, will result immediate ban. I will clean this mess up when i have time. Right now control panel doesnt work correctly and i dont have time to delete posts individually. I understand that ya all very passionate about IL2, but even passion should have limits. High jacking of threads is becoming a real issue around here, and it will be dealt with in the brutal manner, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In other forums you can get away with outbursts, but not here in ORR. This is the place where you guys are really trying to make a difference. And any disrespect to posters who actually have something meaningful to say will not be tolerated.

Good day.

Jaws2002
03-08-2006, 11:37 AM
OK. Let's cover the subject again.

--------------------------------------

Spitfire Combat and take off flaps:
------------------------------------------

"Getting to Malta was problematic, as the Germans and Italians were trying to cut it off and pound it to pieces. Any ship getting within range of Axis bombers flying from Sicily were in grave danger and German U-boats prowled the waters. The 16 new Spitfire Mk Vs and their pilots destined for Malta were shipped in the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle. When they were within flying range of Malta (600 miles) the pilots were given instructions on the heading and approximate distance to the island and flew off the deck of the Eagle. This was difficult to do as the Spitfire was never designed for this. The technicians onboard Eagle put wedges in the flaps to hold them at 50% (Spitfires had only 2 flap settings, full up and full down), then the pilots had to rev their engines to the max while standing on their brakes. The deck officer waited until the Eagle rose on a wave and signalled them off. Once off the deck the Spitfire would drop close to the ocean before flying. Once altitude was gained, the pilots dropped flaps all the way, the wedges fell out and then retracted their flaps. " http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

So it should be fixed.


-----------------------------------------

BF-109 Flaps:
---------------------------------------

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/109EFlaps.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/0c2_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg

Bf-109 E could drop 25 degree of flaps up to 400km/h. So combat flaps should be somewhere at 5-10 degrees and could be dropped at much higher speed.

BF-109 flaps are ok in game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Ugly_Kid
03-08-2006, 11:56 AM
Ivan,

Spare the work - cleaning and sweeping all the dirt under the rug isn't going to make anybody feel less insulted.

Just read it through - look who has/have done nothing to contribute to a matter/topic at hand, only provided inflammatory taunts to p1ss off any remaining rational poster and KICK HIS/THEIR FANNY BEHIND MARS - make it a one-way ticket. No tears - I swear.

You have admirably great patience but the problem is that many people here don't and the general tone starts really ruffing ones hair. How long do you think even a sane person will stay focused and is able to ignore the whackjobs here and continue mature discussion between adults?

Only really amazing thing about ORR is that everytime you think it has reached all time rocky bottom it sinks a good bit deeper.

Ah what the h3ll, ban Oleg and close the place down.

crazyivan1970
03-08-2006, 12:05 PM
I wish it was that easy Kid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Massive repressions will not do any good for this board or community. At least i think so. Actually, i have to be 100% honest, when i went thru last pages of this thread for the first time i had a good laugh... because some of the posts just plain funny in all their seriosness hehe. But overall picture leaves pretty sour impression.

Ugly_Kid
03-08-2006, 12:07 PM
Jaws, is it from the same document - the graph and the text bit. It would appear since the curve and the 400 km/h - 25? match.

That's an interesting one - where did you get it from?

faustnik, you asked earlier why the increased lift would not be of meaning. The reason is that you have enough lift (without stalling) to black you out at corner velocity without flaps. You have all the lift you can use - there is no need for extra anymore after this point. Pilot can not exploit a higher turnrate - that's corner velocity.

Jaws2002
03-08-2006, 12:26 PM
There was a long tread about BF-109 flaps on Aces High forum. In that game all the planes except american can only drop flaps up to 180mph ( and german planes 165Mph) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif. Is funny you can safely lower gear before you can drop flaps. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I think the document comes from some testing at Reclin with BF 109E.

Buzzsaw-
03-08-2006, 03:21 PM
Salute

More about the P-38 Dive flaps:

These were nothing like normal flaps, and should not improve turnrate.

Here is a photo of the dive flaps on P-38:

http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00727.jpg

Buzzsaw-
03-08-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
There was a long tread about BF-109 flaps on Aces High forum. In that game all the planes except american can only drop flaps up to 180mph ( and german planes 165Mph) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif. Is funny you can safely lower gear before you can drop flaps. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I think the document comes from some testing at Reclin with BF 109E.

Ah ha.... Just as I expected. Jaws has no idea where this document came from, he does not have the complete test, and he has just thrown this in here without any context.

I am going to search out that AH thread and find out what the real poster had to say.

P.S. You cannot safely lower gear before you can drop flaps, the limit for 109's lowering gear is 250 kph for most models. Which is 156 mph.

faustnik
03-08-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


These were nothing like normal flaps, and should not improve turnrate.



Would they cause the nose to pitch up?

Buzzsaw-
03-08-2006, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:Would they cause the nose to pitch up?

Definitely, but at a huge cost in speed bleed. All you have to do is look at them, together two of them would add significantly to the flat plate area of the P-38. They are BRAKES, not flaps. They are fine when you are travelling at 450 mph IAS, and you need to pitch the nose up, speed bleed is actually what you want, but as soon as you get down to normal maneuvering speeds, you are suffering too high a cost in lost speed and energy for them to be of any use.

The way they work in the game, you can fly with them at almost any speed and they add to your turn capabilities without really causing a big speed loss.

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-08-2006, 05:00 PM
You must be feeling brave buzzsaw - ivan just said he was going to ban any further OT posters, and you go right on about p38 dive brakes.

Buzzsaw-
03-08-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by DEY_Scull_AUS:
You must be feeling brave buzzsaw - ivan just said he was going to ban any further OT posters, and you go right on about p38 dive brakes.

Someone else introduced this, they equated P-38 dive brakes with flaps, I was correcting them.

Buzzsaw-
03-08-2006, 05:22 PM
Salute

Back on the subject of flaps:

FW190D had only 3 preset flap positions, Landing, Takeoff and up.

(that according to Crump)

However, in the game, it can use combat flaps. Should it be able to??? (not sure)

faustnik
03-08-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Back on the subject of flaps:

FW190D had only 3 preset flap positions, Landing, Takeoff and up.

(Ask Crump if you don't believe me)

However, in the game, it can use combat flaps. Should it be able to??? (not sure)

I saw takeoff, landing and flying. Have to find it.

Buzzsaw-
03-08-2006, 05:48 PM
Salute

Another tidbit:

P-51 flaps were hydraulic, operated by system which was charged to 1050 lbs per square inch. The "Combat Flap" setting was 5 degrees, and was allowed up to 425 mph IAS. (680 kph)

109 flaps were hand cranked mechanical linkage system.

If it took a system with a pressure of 1050 lbs per square inch to deploy the P-51's flaps at 600+ kph, how strong an arm would the 109 pilot need to deploy his flaps at the same speed?

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-08-2006, 06:23 PM
Ok, one more time. This thread is about whether flaps should be able to map to sliders, specifically with regard to the spit which historically only had 2 settings.

It is NOT about -

109 trim tabs
Flap failure limits/deployment speeds
109G turn rates vs 109F turn rates
Who's a better pilot than who
P38 dive breaks
Dora combat flaps error
P51 hydraulic pressures/How strong 109 pilots arms were

These are all valid topics, definately worthy of their own threads. But not on-topic here.
Some guys just don't get it.

Kettenhunde
03-08-2006, 06:55 PM
FW190D had only 3 preset flap positions, Landing, Takeoff and up.


That is correct. All FW190's only had three positions of flap.

However the USAAF certainly thought the Take Off position doubled nicely as maneuvering flaps:

http://img17.imagevenue.com/loc294/th_69151_manuverflaps.jpg (http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc294&image=69151_manuverflaps.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
03-08-2006, 07:13 PM
If it took a system with a pressure of 1050 lbs per square inch to deploy the P-51's flaps at 600+ kph, how strong an arm would the 109 pilot need to deploy his flaps at the same speed?

Apparently it was not that difficult as the 109's flaps could be deployed at much greater speeds than the P51 flaps.

The 109 pilot could crank down 10 degrees of flap at 480mph at sea level.
http://img15.imagevenue.com/loc300/th_69475_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg (http://img15.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc300&image=69475_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Lordbutter4
03-08-2006, 08:05 PM
I think mapping anything but things that are controlled by moving (sliding) should not be allowed. Flaps or trim. Ive seen planes flap in turns, flap in dives to climb out, and ive seen just as many planes trim themselves out of blackouts, or pull impossible climbs.

Throttles are fine for sliders, prop pitches as well. But once you start getting into flaps and trims you start loosing reality. Try turning a trim wheel with resistance on it while your blacked out trying to immediatly go verticle like an f-16. Along with slider flaps its just arcadism.

Targ
03-08-2006, 08:22 PM
Mostly you will see this on sticks with rotary knobs. Yes, all of the planes flaps have full movement, some have an extra position as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
However it is not to usefull as more often than not you will jam your flaps up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It will hurt them more than it will help them.
You want to see what is happening in hotas land? Go to the CH hanger or cougar world and read the programming forums, lol. All kinds of neat stuff you can do. I just put my axis curves on a rotary knob, lol.
The power of the more expensive hotas setups is not just the stick but the software behind it.
I would say that this is a non issue as there is not any real advantage to using flaps on a slider or rotary. Trim? Thats another issue and out of respect for this thread I wont bring it up.

BfHeFwMe
03-08-2006, 08:35 PM
Yeah, lets not mention other controller based exploits without any basis in "simulation" for any other aircraft types, lets first get the primary targeted plane assassinated.

Pathetic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Kettenhunde
03-08-2006, 09:18 PM
Crump claiming C3 was the equivalent of 100/150 allied fuel.

Wow,

I see my name being brought up. Buzzsaw actually the Germans stopped hydrogenating the octane level at 143 octane. Why? Like the United States they took in the level of engine technology of the mid 1940's and felt that was the best balance between achieving good anti-knock performance and still being able to maintain some degree of engine reliability. Simply put, anything over 145 octane pushed the limits and while it delivered spectacular performance the engines simply could not maintain that level of performance for any useful amount of time. Engine life went from hundreds of hours to a handful of hours. Performance gains subsided even quicker.

The United States felt 145 octane was the limit.

Now the biggest stumbling block to the 100/150 grade use is the fact not one single copy of the required USAAF Technical Orders or Fuel Specification documentation exists. In the Technical Orders that are published, none of them list 100/150 grade as an alternate grade of fuel for USAAF planes.

Every aircraft flown had to have a copy of the Technical Order with it.

The USAF Museum at Wright Patterson AFB says it is very likely 100/150 grade was tested and the attempt was made to adopt it. To characterize it as the main fuel or seeing widespread use is simply junk history perpetuated for a silly game advantage.



http://img128.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_77270_150grade1.jpg (http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=77270_150grade1.jpg)http://img9.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_77275_150grade2.jpg (http://img9.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=77275_150grade2.jpg)http://img137.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_77279_compromise.jpg (http://img137.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=77279_compromise.jpg)http://img12.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_77283_TO.jpg (http://img12.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=77283_TO.jpg)
http://img106.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_77288_TO6.jpg (http://img106.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=77288_TO6.jpg)


Sorry to hijack the thread. This is my last post on this subject.

All the best,

Crumpp

Badsight.
03-08-2006, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
badsight, what plane has flaps jam when set to "combat" ?

i was losing wings and stuff and my combat flaps still didnt jam. the amount of times i have managed to jam flaps in the "combat" position in 4 years of flying this game could be counted on one hand

its very hard to jam combat setting flaps , & if you lower flaps on the spitfire just a little bit - like other planes when their flaps are in the combat setting - then they also will be near impossible to jam

otoh , all planes - every single one - will jam their flaps when they are down

all planes in FB jam their flaps , people who say they dont are liars

WWMaxGunz
03-08-2006, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Another tidbit:

P-51 flaps were hydraulic, operated by system which was charged to 1050 lbs per square inch. The "Combat Flap" setting was 5 degrees, and was allowed up to 425 mph IAS. (680 kph)

109 flaps were hand cranked mechanical linkage system.

If it took a system with a pressure of 1050 lbs per square inch to deploy the P-51's flaps at 600+ kph, how strong an arm would the 109 pilot need to deploy his flaps at the same speed?

That depends entirely on how many square inches the piston in the P-51 system is and what
leverage the 109 pilot has. I've used a massive pulley to lift an engine block back when
I was all of 10 years old. It didn't lift fast but it moved. I could do the same with a
car jack or a screw jack for that matter and not need a whole lot of space or a long lever.

Why play the doubt game over a big psi number and an unknown mechanical leverage?
Oh yeah... The Agenda.

WWMaxGunz
03-08-2006, 10:09 PM
Haven't we seen documents on the tons of 100/150 stored in England and the amount used?
I'm sure we did, Crump. I'm sure you were in that thread. It was shipped and used AVGAS.

The-Pizza-Man
03-08-2006, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Another tidbit:

P-51 flaps were hydraulic, operated by system which was charged to 1050 lbs per square inch. The "Combat Flap" setting was 5 degrees, and was allowed up to 425 mph IAS. (680 kph)

109 flaps were hand cranked mechanical linkage system.

If it took a system with a pressure of 1050 lbs per square inch to deploy the P-51's flaps at 600+ kph, how strong an arm would the 109 pilot need to deploy his flaps at the same speed?

That depends entirely on how many square inches the piston in the P-51 system is and what
leverage the 109 pilot has. I've used a massive pulley to lift an engine block back when
I was all of 10 years old. It didn't lift fast but it moved. I could do the same with a
car jack or a screw jack for that matter and not need a whole lot of space or a long lever.

Why play the doubt game over a big psi number and an unknown mechanical leverage?
Oh yeah... The Agenda. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's probably safe to say that a hydraulic system for lowering flaps would be considerably more powerful than a hand operated system and much easier to use at high speed.

Buzzsaw-
03-08-2006, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it took a system with a pressure of 1050 lbs per square inch to deploy the P-51's flaps at 600+ kph, how strong an arm would the 109 pilot need to deploy his flaps at the same speed?

Apparently it was not that difficult as the 109's flaps could be deployed at much greater speeds than the P51 flaps.

The 109 pilot could crank down 10 degrees of flap at 480mph at sea level.
http://img15.imagevenue.com/loc300/th_69475_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg (http://img15.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc300&image=69475_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect Crump, I have to ask: Where is the rest of this test? Do you have the other pages which obviously are missing?

I have my doubts about this chart. It does not look like a actual test result, but rather some kind of theoretical plot.

For one, the maximum listed dive speed limit for the 109E, from the manual, is 750 kph, yet, we see the test speeds shown here clearly exceeding that figure, reaching nearly to 800 kph.

It seems we are expected to believe that a pilot tested deploying flaps at speeds which were noted as being extremely dangerous for catastrophic failure. Deploying flaps would increase the load on the wings dramatically. Yet we are to understand that at these speeds, a pilot actually took this risk to deploy flaps?

There are quite a number of memos out there from Luftwaffe central command, dating from various periods during the war, warning pilots not to exceed listed dive speed limits for the aircraft, and noting that any sudden aileron use could be fatal. Ailerons would impose less of a drag penalty than flaps.

Yet we are expected to believe that this chart represents an actual test?

The very high speeds shown in this chart could only be accomplished in a dive, it would be impossible in level flight.

There is an actual dive test done by the Luftwaffe with a modified 109F, which showed very high dive speeds. But this aircraft started its pullout at over 5000 meters.

Yet we are to believe that this supposed flap deployment chart represents a real test when the speed is shown as reaching 800 kph AT SEA LEVEL. Obviously the test pilot must have nerves of steel being able to time his pullout so he is scraping the ground at nearly 800 kph.

Perhaps you could provide the complete documentation which goes with this chart, and so clarify the issue.

Kettenhunde
03-08-2006, 10:49 PM
There are quite a number of memos out there from Luftwaffe central command, dating from various periods during the war, warning pilots not to exceed listed dive speed limits for the aircraft, and noting that any sudden aileron use could be fatal.

Aileron use has absolutely nothing to do with flap deployment speeds.


It seems we are expected to believe that a pilot tested deploying flaps at speeds which were noted as being extremely dangerous for catastrophic failure.

Didn't you argue and argue for pages that it was perfectly OK for the P51 in your game to greatly exceed it's limits?



Ailerons would impose less of a drag penalty than flaps.

It's not the "drag" penalty, Buzzsaw. It's the dutch roll that the Bf-109 experienced and ability to overload the airframe using the flosse that caused problems. Those are stability and control issues that have nothing to do with flap deployment speeds.

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/equilib.html#sec-dutch-roll

That is why you see the "tall tail" added to the 109 to correct this stability issue.

Honestly, with your lack of understanding of aeronautics don't you feel kind of silly making sweeping judgements on the impossiblity of the engineering firm Mtt conclusions?


I have my doubts about this chart.

Your entitled to your doubts. Good Luck with them.

All the best,

Crumpp

lrrp22
03-08-2006, 11:14 PM
.

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-09-2006, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Targ:
I would say that this is a non issue as there is not any real advantage to using flaps on a slider or rotary.
Why are there spits doing it then? As badsight mentioned, if they only drop in a small amount of flaps, they won't get jammed.

Ratsack
03-09-2006, 12:42 AM
Buzzsaw, you are arguing at cross-purposes. This thread was originally about how the deployment of flaps is modelled. You are the one who introduced the argument about the speed at which the 109 can deploy them. This is not even vaguely the same issue.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Spitfire should have two-position flaps, and they should not be mappable to a rotary or slider. There may be other planes in this category and if you care to provide documentation identifying some, I for one will gladly vote for them to be added the list of planes to be modified. For example, I recall one of the American naval aviation enthusiasts saying the F6F should have two position flaps, too. I don€t know about that, but if there€s documents to support that proposition, the F6F should also be changed. The USN aviation experts might comment.

This issue of mapping to a slider is a simple matter because the control configuration of the Spitfire is extremely well documented. It doesn€t €" or at least it didn€t until people came with accusations of blue bias - require this level of disputation.

The speed of deployment for all planes is a completely different matter that is a valid point for discussion, but it is far more complicated. The documents you posted show the speed that must not be exceeded when the flaps of the 109G are fully extended. That does not tell us anything about the maximum speed at which flaps might be lowered partially for the purposes of manoeuvring. It tells us nothing about how hard or easy that may have been, either. These issues are not documented in the Finnish G-2 manual I have. This is all I€m going to say on this issue in this thread, because it is serving merely to confuse a very simple point about flap deployment, which is the actual topic.

Regarding the rest of your post, check your PMs

EDIT: No, on second thoughts, don't. I can't be bothered.


Ratsack

IIJG69_Kartofe
03-09-2006, 02:10 AM
Not only the spifire can do that but the hurricane and the I16 are supposed to have only 2 positions of flaps!

ImpStarDuece
03-09-2006, 02:29 AM
Hurricane II manual states that:

"Flap indicator This is mechanically operated, the pointer moving along a graduated scale marked UP and DOWN at its extremities. It is situated immediately below the hydraulic selector level"

It seems that the Hurricane did not have two position flaps but fully controllable flaps.

The take off procedures note:

"Flaps -UP (28 degree -two divs. on indicator- for shortedt take off run) "

Similarly the change of trim procedures note:

"In bad visibility near the ground, flaps should be lowered to around 40 degrees (3 divisions)...."

The landing chart for the HUrricane II notes that the flaps should be brought 30 degrees down on preliminary approach and 60 degrees down at outer marker beacon.

The Pilots Notes for the Hurricane II/IV list 30,40 and 60 degrees as possible flap positions for the Hurricane and list 3 gradients before the 40 degree flap position, and at least 1 (60 degrees) after it but before full flaps DOWN.

stathem
03-09-2006, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
Not only the spifire can do that but the hurricane and the I16 are supposed to have only 2 positions of flaps!

Exactly. And the I-16 has been like that since the year dot (ie the first patch of the original Il-2). And I'd be willing to bet that people have been mapping them to a slider since then (always supposing you had sliders then, I wouldn't know, only started in '03).

So why has this not been addressed before? I'm still guessing that it isn't as easy to do as all that, especially as the series approches it's culmination. If you have the facilty to have HOTAS flaps then that's probably going to be a global thing, hard to alter. Ivan?

Make the Spit flaps (and the I-16, and Gladiator) an airbrake, like I said ten pages ago. That's what it more or less is on the real plane anyway.

IIJG69_Kartofe
03-09-2006, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Hurricane II manual states that:

"Flap indicator This is mechanically operated, the pointer moving along a graduated scale marked UP and DOWN at its extremities. It is situated immediately below the hydraulic selector level"

It seems that the Hurricane did not have two position flaps but fully controllable flaps.

The take off procedures note:

"Flaps -UP (28 degree -two divs. on indicator- for shortedt take off run) "

Similarly the change of trim procedures note:

"In bad visibility near the ground, flaps should be lowered to around 40 degrees (3 divisions)...."

The landing chart for the HUrricane II notes that the flaps should be brought 30 degrees down on preliminary approach and 60 degrees down at outer marker beacon.

The Pilots Notes for the Hurricane II/IV list 30,40 and 60 degrees as possible flap positions for the Hurricane and list 3 gradients before the 40 degree flap position, and at least 1 (60 degrees) after it but before full flaps DOWN.

Oups ... My bad .... I think it was 2 position only ... Must be an another plane in the game,but i don't remember, anyway for the I16 i'm shure.

luftluuver
03-09-2006, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The United States felt 145 octane was the limit.

Now the biggest stumbling block to the 100/150 grade use is the fact not one single copy of the required USAAF Technical Orders or Fuel Specification documentation exists. In the Technical Orders that are published, none of them list 100/150 grade as an alternate grade of fuel for USAAF planes.

Every aircraft flown had to have a copy of the Technical Order with it.

The USAF Museum at Wright Patterson AFB says it is very likely 100/150 grade was tested and the attempt was made to adopt it. To characterize it as the main fuel or seeing widespread use is simply junk history perpetuated for a silly game advantage.

Sorry to hijack the thread. This is my last post on this subject.

All the best,

Crumpp Sure Crumpp, that is why one sees 150 in the data block stencilled on the P-51. If it did not see widespread useage, then why were 1000s of tons produced. Rather stupid to do so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Attempting to re-write history you are.

Kettenhunde
03-09-2006, 06:48 AM
Sure Crumpp, that is why one sees 150 in the data block stencilled on the P-51.


Does a picture give you any idea of the extent of use?



http://img140.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_11967_He100_D1_1.jpg (http://img140.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=11967_He100_D1_1.jpg)http://img23.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_11972_He162_5s.jpg (http://img23.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=11972_He162_5s.jpg)http://img133.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_11976_Ta152H.jpg (http://img133.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=11976_Ta152H.jpg)



If it did not see widespread useage, then why were 1000s of tons produced. Rather stupid to do so.

Certainly not stupid if your trying to adopt the fuel. Problem is the extent of use. The USAF says it is unlikely it saw extensive use in 8th USAAF due to the fact no Technical Order or Specification Order was ever published or request.

These orders are not optional and would have been done by the command. Once more a copy would have gone into every aircraft using the fuel. So the chances of hundreds of thousands of copies disappearing are pretty remote.

It is not listed in the Technical Orders governing the specified and alternate grades of fuel USAAF aircraft were authorized to consume.

http://img19.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_16382_TO.jpg (http://img19.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=16382_TO.jpg)http://img141.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_16387_TO2.jpg (http://img141.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=16387_TO2.jpg)http://img109.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_16392_TO3.jpg (http://img109.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=16392_TO3.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Buzzsaw-
03-09-2006, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

It is not listed in the Technical Orders governing the specified and alternate grades of fuel USAAF aircraft were authorized to consume.

Crumpp

With all due respect to your knowledge Crump, you seem to be a little behind the curve on the data regarding this subject. The use of 150 octane fuel has been conclusively proven, to Oleg's satisfaction.

I would suggest you have a careful look at the following page on Mike Williams' site which details extensively the introduction and use of 100/150 octane fuel in the 8th AAF. There are quite a few documents which clearly confirm the usage of the fuel by the USAAF, both in P-51's and P-47's. (there is some doubt about whether or not it was used by P-38's)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

msalama
03-09-2006, 08:43 AM
Not only the spifire can do that but the hurricane and the I16 are supposed to have only 2 positions of flaps!

Not the Hurricane. Go here (http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/HandlingNotes/) and download the Hurricane Mk.II/Mk.IV manual to check it out yourself.

FWIW, Hurris had a 3-position flap lever labeled "UP/DOWN/OFF". You could get intermediate positions if you switched the lever "OFF" while your flaps were travelling down.

And I'm not making this up, y'know. Ask around if you don't believe me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EDIT: Ach, sorry, I notice now that ImpStar has pointed out the error in your ways already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
03-09-2006, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde

Aileron use has absolutely nothing to do with flap deployment speeds.



Aileron use imposes an additional load on the wing structures. So does flap use. At nearly 800 kph, deploying flaps might seem somewhat suicidal considering the dive speed limit for the 109E was 750 kph.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Didn't you argue and argue for pages that it was perfectly OK for the P51 in your game to greatly exceed it's limits?



No, actually I did not.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

It's not the "drag" penalty, Buzzsaw. It's the dutch roll that the Bf-109 experienced and ability to overload the airframe using the flosse that caused problems.



"...overload the airframe..." is the key word here. Whichever way the airframe is overloaded, whether by the use of ailerons at high speed or flaps at speeds beyond the dive limitations, it would seeem somewhat questionable for a pilot to take an aircraft to its limits and then impose additional loads.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Your entitled to your doubts. Good Luck with them.

All the best,

Crumpp

Well Crump, you have the opportunity to clear up my doubts by posting the remainder of the test which the chart is a part of. You have mentioned quite a few times on this board and others your extensive and complete collection of material, so I had hoped you would be able to clarify the subject. Your silence on whether this chart is taken from projected data, or an actual test is mysterious to say the least.

luftluuver
03-09-2006, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Does a picture give you any idea of the extent of use?

All the best,

Crumpp Sure you post pics of a/c that were produced in only a handful or so numbers compared to the 9600 P-51D/Ks produced. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

You would not produce 1000s of tons, some 369,385 tons(114,919,000gal) in fact, but maybe a 100 tons.

Do we have to put you in the same category as W Green with bogus WW2 history?

Kettenhunde
03-09-2006, 09:35 AM
Well Crump, you have the opportunity to clear up my doubts by posting the remainder of the test which the chart is a part of.

You have the opportunity to go spend the time and effort to collect these documents, Buzzsaw. They are not cheap nor do I do it to satisfy your curiosity.

You certainly not entitled to freebies from my archives.

Let me make this very clear. I do not play IL2 Sturmovik. I have a copy, I checked it out online several years ago but that is the extent of my involvement.

Now I have friends and Foundation members who do play this game. As a favor to them I stick my head in when asked and provide documentation to clear up their issues, not yours.

This is not one of their issues. The flaps settings on the FW-190 were the question and that has been answered.

On a personal note, while I like the interest in WWII aviation history these games generate, I do not like the "historical revisions" game players do to gain advantage for a game shape.

This thread is a wonderful example. Facts are the Spitfire only had two flap settings. Neither is conducive to turn improvement.

For that matter please study up on exactly what flap designs will consistently improve turns and which will not.

In the majority of conditions flaps do not improve turn ability. In many they can hurt the turning ability!

While flaps improve CLmax they reduce the critical angle. Split flaps (Spitfire, FW-190) and plain flaps (P51, Bf-109) are not considered turn improvement flaps by design. Under certain conditions they will however.


"...overload the airframe..." is the key word here.

The flosse is on the other end of the aircraft and has nothing to do with the ailerons. It is the horizontal stabilizer trim. It became over sensative and could overload the aircraft if the pilot was not careful in his recovery procedures.

The Dutch roll is a separate issue and while irritating is generally considered harmless to the aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
03-09-2006, 09:38 AM
Sure you post pics of a/c that were produced in only a handful or so numbers compared to the 9600 P-51D/Ks produced.

Do you have pictures of 9600 P51D/K's marked for using 100/150 grade? Or do you have a few very rare pictures of only a handfull marked for 100/150 grade?

You get the point then. Pictures are nice but they do not prove the extent of use.

Kettenhunde
03-09-2006, 09:41 AM
You would not produce 1000s of tons, some 369,385 tons(114,919,000gal) in fact, but maybe a 100 tons.


You forget the RAF did adopt 100/150 grade late in the war and the AFDU used it chasing V1's.

It was a specialized fuel that only fit certain mission profiles. Flying for hours on cruise escorting bombers was not one of them.

All the best,

Crumpp

Buzzsaw-
03-09-2006, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
All FW190's only had three positions of flap.

Thankyou for confirming that. It would then seem that the current game situation whereby the 190's can use 4 preset flap positions, (or unlimited positions if mapped on a slider) is incorrect.

Currently the game 190's can use 1) retracted, 2) Combat, 3) Takeoff, 4) Landing, whereas the real aircraft could only use 1) retracted, 2) Takeoff, 3) Landing.

The 10 degrees deployment of flaps in the takeoff position, which you suggests doubles for a maneuvering position, is considerably more than seen for USAAF aircraft "combat" deployments, as for example with the P-51, which deploys 5 degrees of flaps for the "combat" position.

10 degrees would impose a considerably higher drag on the airframe, and speed bleed would be considerably more.

luftluuver
03-09-2006, 09:57 AM
Sure what ever you say, revisionist.

Sure the Brits would burn 115 million gals of 100/150 all by themselves. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Aren't you the cheap one? Others spend time and money doing research and willingly post what they find. Does it help boost your ego?

Buzzsaw-
03-09-2006, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:It was a specialized fuel that only fit certain mission profiles. Flying for hours on cruise escorting bombers was not one of them.

All the best,

Crumpp

Sorry Crump, you are obviously not reading the page I posted the link for. The 8th AAF did use 150 octane fuel in their escorts, and while they did have problems with deposits forming on the plugs at very lean cruise settings, they were able to overcome this issue by running the engines at full boost for a few minutes every hour.

Please take the time to read the link.

lrrp22
03-09-2006, 10:14 AM
Crumpp,

You really should reconsider your position on this issue.


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/339th-fuel-report-1march45.jpg



http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/Consumption...de_fuel_Barrels.html (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/Consumption_150_Grade_fuel_Barrels.html)


I'd post the original month-by-month consumption documents, but you're certainly not entitled to freebies from my archive.


LRRP

Kettenhunde
03-09-2006, 10:19 AM
More supply documents with no operational orders.

Want to see the orders for the BMW turbojet to be produced along with production figures?


I'd post the original month-by-month consumption documents, but you're certainly not entitled to freebies from my archive.

I don't recall asking for them, unlike Buzzsaw.

lrrp22
03-09-2006, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
More supply documents with no operational orders.

Want to see the orders for the BMW turbojet to be produced along with production figures?

You are just plain wrong, Crumpp. The first document shows the *previous* months *consumption* for an VIII Fighter Command fighter group. It shows that 1.0T and 1.5 T 'PEP' 150 grade was used exclusively. Not one single gallon of 100/130 grade was on-hand during the entire month. Not one.

The link to the monthly tables shows 150 grade CONSUMPTION for every month from June 1944 to VE-Day.



LRRP

crazyivan1970
03-09-2006, 11:04 AM
I dont think you people are reding what i said. This topic is about flaps, not fuel. Un-freaking-believable. I hate to suspend so many...but high jacking has to stop and trust me i wont hesitate. This is my last warning.

RAF238th_Soak
03-09-2006, 11:36 AM
All of a sudden this trim wheel flap thing is a big issue? Wasn't it mapped on the hotas all along? I didn't know it was possible until this thread. Full up and down flaps is the way it should be. Of course you can just tap your flaps key and achieve the same effect.I use full flaps when a 109 tries to put the brakes or at high alt for more lift by hitting a key not a trim wheel. Although I did try my flaps on a trim wheel offline to see what all the flap was about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I can't say that I have even noticed any spits or hurris flying with their flaps 1/2 way down online.
I'll stick to using my key for full up and down .

IIJG69_Kartofe
03-09-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not only the spifire can do that but the hurricane and the I16 are supposed to have only 2 positions of flaps!

Not the Hurricane. Go here (http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/HandlingNotes/) and download the Hurricane Mk.II/Mk.IV manual to check it out yourself.

FWIW, Hurris had a 3-position flap lever labeled "UP/DOWN/OFF". You could get intermediate positions if you switched the lever "OFF" while your flaps were travelling down.

And I'm not making this up, y'know. Ask around if you don't believe me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EDIT: Ach, sorry, I notice now that ImpStar has pointed out the error in your ways already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice link, thanks!

Viper2005_
03-09-2006, 02:06 PM
It is to be hoped that in BoB the flaps are modelled more accurately. Apart from having only two flap positions, Spitfires put their flaps down pretty rapidly IRL, AFAIK.

msalama
03-09-2006, 09:54 PM
Nice link, thanks!

Yer welcome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Yeah, that's a great site for everyone interested in vintage aviation...

Codex1971
03-16-2006, 02:54 AM
Hate to bring up this old chestnut...but...

Seems the FW-190A8 has the flaps modelled wrong as well...

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190cockpit/lgact.html

Jetbuff
03-16-2006, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Wow! This one sure turned south pretty quick. Same ol' usual suspects I see too. Pity...


Viper, just wanted to respond to your flaps give no advantage at speeds above corner comment. That is true, in that no extra lift can be gained. However, the extra drag from flaps deployed at speeds above corner velocity could improve both turn rate and, perhaps more significantly, radius through a reduction in speed. Naturally, this is a rather doubtful advantage since if it causes you to slow down to below corner velocity sooner than your opponent and you have not sealed the deal by then, your goose may very well be cooked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

So you are saying that the only real advantage of flaps would be as a braking device, if above corner speed? How about increased lift that they generate? Wouldn't improved liftloading improve turnrate?

(This is a question Jetbuff, not an arguement. Just saying, gotta be clear around here... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry I missed your post Faust, lot's of interference in this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Above corner velocity, more lift would exceed either the structural or human G-limit, therefore it is not worthwhile. i.e. above corner velocity you are already capable of generating max G, increasing lift further would only black you out or kill you. Therefore, when deploying flaps at high speed you'd probably have to ease up on the stick a tad to reduce your AoA to maintain max G. However, because you are now slower, both turn-rate and radius will improve as you slow down to corner.

Ratsack
03-16-2006, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
Hate to bring up this old chestnut...but...

Seems the FW-190A8 has the flaps modelled wrong as well...

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190cockpit/lgact.html

If it's wrong, then let's change it.

Ratsack

faustnik
03-16-2006, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Wow! This one sure turned south pretty quick. Same ol' usual suspects I see too. Pity...


Viper, just wanted to respond to your flaps give no advantage at speeds above corner comment. That is true, in that no extra lift can be gained. However, the extra drag from flaps deployed at speeds above corner velocity could improve both turn rate and, perhaps more significantly, radius through a reduction in speed. Naturally, this is a rather doubtful advantage since if it causes you to slow down to below corner velocity sooner than your opponent and you have not sealed the deal by then, your goose may very well be cooked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

So you are saying that the only real advantage of flaps would be as a braking device, if above corner speed? How about increased lift that they generate? Wouldn't improved liftloading improve turnrate?

(This is a question Jetbuff, not an arguement. Just saying, gotta be clear around here... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry I missed your post Faust, lot's of interference in this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Above corner velocity, more lift would exceed either the structural or human G-limit, therefore it is not worthwhile. i.e. above corner velocity you are already capable of generating max G, increasing lift further would only black you out or kill you. Therefore, when deploying flaps at high speed you'd probably have to ease up on the stick a tad to reduce your AoA to maintain max G. However, because you are now slower, both turn-rate and radius will improve as you slow down to corner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got it, that makes sense to me now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thanks Jetbuff!

***************

Codex,

I looked into the subject for all FW190s and as you posted, they have only 2 flap positions other than up. They would translate to the sim as "combat" 10 degrees and "landing" 60 degrees. The 10 degree setting was used as a combat tool, although sparingly because it bled speed rapidly.

WWMaxGunz
03-16-2006, 02:38 PM
If it's wrong, then let's change it.


No insult to the one who posted that but I've seen before this gratis attitude that "we" make
the changes or somehow can.

*We* don't. We don't make the decisions and we don't make the changes. Threads that start
with "Let's decide" or "Let's fix" and IMO way out of line and show lack of proper respect
for the ones who do decide and make the changes.

Users are =lucky= to get any code at all.

Ratsack
03-16-2006, 08:57 PM
There was no disrespect to the developers intended in my post. My intent was that if there's a well-documented discrepancy, let's add it to the list of requested changes.

The only complication in this case is the speed at which the 'takeoff' position should cause problems. We don't have this as yet, but we do have Crump's reference to an American report that they found the first position useful for manoeuvring. There may need to be a compromise of some sort to make this work.

None of this alters the facts about the Spitfire flaps, which is the topic in hand. I think Stathem€s suggestion is a good one. Make them an air brake.

Ratsack

Codex1971
03-17-2006, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Codex,

I looked into the subject for all FW190s and as you posted, they have only 2 flap positions other than up. They would translate to the sim as "combat" 10 degrees and "landing" 60 degrees. The 10 degree setting was used as a combat tool, although sparingly because it bled speed rapidly.

Cheers faustnik!

So I am right? As we have 4 settings for flaps on all planes in the sim...Up, Combat, Takeoff and Landing. This would appear then to save on coding in the sim.

Kettenhunde
03-17-2006, 08:59 AM
There is really only one aircraft that has actual "combat flaps" in WWII, AFAIK.

That is the P38 with its fowler flaps. Flaps do increase lift, however this is offset by the decrease in maximum AoA and reduction of the L/D ratio. In other words they act as brakes. The improvement of a level turn is temporary as the radius decrease with speed but the rate increases with loss of speed and reduction of AoA.

Most pilots use them exactly as Oscar Boesch relates, as an emergency measure during a hard fight to gain angle or prevent the overshoot. It's the "Hail Mary" play of dog fighting.
http://img16.imagevenue.com/loc138/th_10604_flaps.jpg (http://img16.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc138&image=10604_flaps.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Ratsack
03-17-2006, 03:42 PM
Sorry, Faust, I didn't see that part of your post.

cheers,
Ratsack

p1ngu666
03-18-2006, 04:50 PM
the ki43 and 84 and others had "combat flaps"

iirec the combat,takeoff,landing are avalible on all planes, if u have flaps on a slider

Ratsack
03-18-2006, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the ki43 and 84 and others had "combat flaps"

iirec the combat,takeoff,landing are avalible on all planes, if u have flaps on a slider

Geez, Pingu, read the frigg'n thread before engaging your mouth. Sometimes, you are a waste of space, mate.

Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
03-18-2006, 10:18 PM
How something that was unusual and counter to doctrines and wisdom, to get so slow in combat
as to get any use out of flaps worth the associated drag, *higher by the square of speed*,
becomes a major 'historic issue' only because it is used unhistorically so much is also here.

This should be a minor thing only, rarely used. What is the difference between a trained
fighter pilot with long training investment and set in an expensive craft and a gamer with
a zillion hours at a PC?

Codex1971
03-19-2006, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the ki43 and 84 and others had "combat flaps"

iirec the combat,takeoff,landing are avalible on all planes, if u have flaps on a slider

Geez, Pingu, read the frigg'n thread before engaging your mouth. Sometimes, you are a waste of space, mate.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on Rat there is no need for that dude... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Ratsack
03-19-2006, 05:12 AM
Maybe I'm getting old and cranky, mate, but for him to come in on the 12th page of a thread about the fact that you can map the Spit's flaps to a slider, and offer us:

'iirec the combat,takeoff,landing are avalible on all planes, if u have flaps on a slider'

is more than a little rich. You'd think a bloke who's posts are usually smaller than his sig to take a little more care before pressing 'post now'.

End rant.

Ratsack

Kettenhunde
03-19-2006, 11:47 AM
the ki43 and 84


Both have fowler type flaps. See the pattern?

All the best,

Crumpp

WWMaxGunz
03-19-2006, 12:44 PM
IOW airbrakes?

Archer_F4U
03-24-2006, 01:08 PM
My $0.02:
Making Spits (and other aircraft with fully extended or fully retracted flaps) deploy their flaps with the airbrake command would work well and I doubt it would require much work by the programmers - unless airbrakes cannot provide additional lift, which could be a problem.

As for not allowing sliders to be assigned to flaps, I would have to disagreee. On some planes (the ones that would be included above), sure it's unrealistic. In many planes however, the pilot is free to use however much flaps they desire (three-position toggles, manual cranks, or flap levers with calibrated scales [if used in any WWII planes]). Sliders allow this quite easily, and it may be possible with three-position toggles.

Edit: Changing the flaps from Combat/TO/LDG to four or five settings in degrees would also be nice, and provide people that don't have a spare slider more control over their flaps.

p1ngu666
03-25-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the ki43 and 84


Both have fowler type flaps. See the pattern?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i remmber them being called butterfly flaps, i cant remmber if there fowler flaps, but effectivly the same, as they move down and out, making increased wing area http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. that was the only way the designers could match the specification on performance, AND turning.

and airbrakes make the planes handle worse, flaps should make plane handle better, they dont ingame anyways, most landing crashes ive seen, and done myself is when i get too slow with landing flaps and tipstall into the ground.

ratsack, i havent had a huge sig for ages http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and, i wrote a nice big post for u to read too, as your sizest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and yes, sometimes im a complete waste of space, unlike u ofcourse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tbh we are *all* wastes of space at times.

Kettenhunde
03-25-2006, 06:06 PM
flaps should make plane handle better,


Not really. Not unless combined with a boundry layer control device like a handley page automatic or a fixed slot. Only then can AoA be increased over a plain airfoil.

http://img16.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc138&image=10604_flaps.jpg

Here we can see the results of plain flaps on the turn:


The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-tactical.html

All the best,

Crumpp

p1ngu666
03-25-2006, 07:32 PM
i ment in the subjective area, not defineable performance... thats atleast what ive read from pilot accounts. some planes are probably nicer than others in the flaps up or down.

WWMaxGunz
03-25-2006, 11:22 PM
They don't improve handling at much past maybe twice takeoff speed, dropping any flap at higher
speed comes with a decidedly harder ride till you slow down.

p1ngu666
03-27-2006, 07:12 AM
yeah i agree max
but twice landing speed or so is average combat speed on the dogfight servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hence all the flap about flappery

VW-IceFire
03-27-2006, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
There is really only one aircraft that has actual "combat flaps" in WWII, AFAIK.

That is the P38 with its fowler flaps. Flaps do increase lift, however this is offset by the decrease in maximum AoA and reduction of the L/D ratio. In other words they act as brakes. The improvement of a level turn is temporary as the radius decrease with speed but the rate increases with loss of speed and reduction of AoA.

Most pilots use them exactly as Oscar Boesch relates, as an emergency measure during a hard fight to gain angle or prevent the overshoot. It's the "Hail Mary" play of dog fighting.
http://img16.imagevenue.com/loc138/th_10604_flaps.jpg (http://img16.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc138&image=10604_flaps.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp
There are actually several types that had combat flaps. The P-38, the Ki-43, Ki-84, N1K-1J and N1K-2J and the P-51 are the ones that stand out in my mind. F4F Wildcat pilots also thought they had a fairly decent combat flap setting as they would pop their flap switch during a turning battle to gain a slight lead...the automatic setting would retract the flap quickly. With the N1K series the flaps were automatic in deployment and retraction...if you fly the N1K series in the game (AI only) and go into a solid bank the flaps do go into combat mode and then back in when the turn is completed.

Kettenhunde
03-27-2006, 07:18 PM
There are actually several types that had combat flaps. The P-38, the Ki-43, Ki-84, N1K-1J and N1K-2J and the P-51 are the ones that stand out in my mind.

Thanks for your input but you should probably read the whole thread. The USAAF and USN was in the habit of calling any small increment of flap a "combat flap". If you need some NACA reports on the effects of flaps I can provide that as well.

As the RAE found out:


The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-tactical.html

If you look and understand the data from Perkins & Hage I posted you will see this is very plain.

The only "combat flaps" that benefit sustained turn performance are the fowler type or when combined with a boundry layer device. The rest are limited by AoA and L/D.


if you fly the N1K series in the game

I don't fly IL2 very much offline and none online. The version I do have does not have any Japanese aircraft except the A6M. It's like 2.02 and it barely runs on my P4 1.2Mhz.

All the best,

Crumpp

VW-IceFire
03-27-2006, 08:01 PM
Please someone get a Mustang expert in here...Mustangs had combat flaps from what I understood. They were specially designed, capable of being operated at high speeds without damaging the flap, I believe there was some special features to ensure that it presented the lowest drag possible with the design while offering the greatest lift...not a fowler flap but it was something special. Where's Maple Tiger or another Mustang expert when you need them?

Well all know that AFDU reports are somewhat vague when it comes to their information. I do read them and I have read the tactical trials for as many types as I can. But I have to say that I've read numerous occasions of flaps being used to tighten the Mustangs turn. Ostensibly this was done at high speeds...enabling them to draw lead on the 109. So I have to say that this report is probably not the most accurate in this...or at least it wasn't well followed. Remember that AFDU reports also indicate that the Tempest can out turn a 109...but thats vague and doesn't provide enough information.

So I do have to disagree that combat flaps are strictly limited to aircraft with the fowler/butterfly setup...although that would comprise the majority. There are too many aircraft in FB with combat flaps...there I think we can agree.

WWMaxGunz
03-28-2006, 01:06 AM
Were P-51 combat flaps really for slowing the plane down? Cut some speed and you cut the G's
or radius or keep from passing VNE in dives?

Where is a NACA table showing improved turn on the same turn as without?

Kettenhunde
03-28-2006, 07:03 AM
But I have to say that I've read numerous occasions of flaps being used to tighten the Mustangs turn. Ostensibly this was done at high speeds...enabling them to draw lead on the 109.


There lies your confusion. The topic is on sustained turns. Your confusing instantaneous turning ability with sustained turn ability. Totally different conditions of flight.

Yes flaps will provide some temporary benefits to instantaneous turn. You can line up critical AoA and L/D ratio on the chart I posted to determine which flap construction will provide the most benefits.

All the best,

Crumpp