What's the best way to...

[flynlion]

Originally Posted by winny

All taken from pilots after action reports. (All Mustang pilots) It seems tha 20 degrees was the "combat flap setting"

Nice find Winny!

So at least on the Mustang, there are some examples of pilots successfully employing partial flaps in combat. I did not know that. But I still think this is more the exception than the rule. The "combat flap" setting was hardly a recommended procedure, even if it could be useful once in a while on certain aircraft in certain situations. I bet a lot of pilots who tried it came home with bent aircraft, if they came home at all.

[winny]

Originally Posted by flynlion

Nice find Winny!

So at least on the Mustang, there are some examples of pilots successfully employing partial flaps in combat. I did not know that. But I still think this is more the exception than the rule. The "combat flap" setting was hardly a recommended procedure, even if it could be useful once in a while on certain aircraft in certain situations. I bet a lot of pilots who tried it came home with bent aircraft, if they came home at all.

Just go here There's a whole section on using flaps in P-51's. It's hundreds of combat reports. I've been reading them all day on and off..

[flynlion]

Originally Posted by winny

Just go here There's a whole section on using flaps in P-51's. It's hundreds of combat reports. I've been reading them all day on and off..

Wow, lotsa good reading there
I still haven't found anything concerning flap usage with aircraft other than the P-51, but I'll keep looking. Thanks for finding and posting the link!

[SgtPappy]

Originally Posted by kozzm0

the fw-190 had hydraulic or electric flaps that could be set at full landing, or at a slight 15-degree takeoff/maneuvering setting. It didn't help much, but it had an effect.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...90/eb-104.html

You're right about the spitfire though: no combat flaps on that thing. landing, or nothing. Giving it a combat setting in BOP gives it an unfair advantage. In real life the 109f had a smaller minimum turn radius.

It's both an advantage and a disadvantage for the pilot.
In other sims, one could use the landing flaps on a Spit for a sudden decrease in speed at the top of a rolling scissors for example, allwoing a pilot to quickly flip over, retract the flaps and dive on the opponent. I found this very effective in Aces High.

In the other IL-2 games, the landing flaps retracted/deployed much more slowly than in Aces High, so I'd barely use them. In IL-2 however (and Aces High), one could use the superior low speed rate of climb and acceleration the Spitfire VIII/IX had in order to keep at corner velocity or maintain an energy advantage. In BoP, I find that the Spitfire gains speed no better than any other plane, unless the two planes are flying straight and the Spit has a faster top speed. This is a huge disadvantage for me, and I'm finding it quite difficult to energy fight when I can't even gain energy faster than anyone else.

[SgtPappy]

Bump!

Sorry guys, but I'm wondering if anyone's noticed what I'm noticing:

All the piston engine fighters seem to accelerate at the same rate in a straight line. Don't know, but it feels as such when I play.

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by SgtPappy

It's both an advantage and a disadvantage for the pilot.
In other sims, one could use the landing flaps on a Spit for a sudden decrease in speed at the top of a rolling scissors for example, allwoing a pilot to quickly flip over, retract the flaps and dive on the opponent. I found this very effective in Aces High.

They made combat-settable flaps for the planes that needed them most, but they didn't really do much good... those planes should mostly stay out of the types of situations combat flaps were designed for.

The 109f got much better results from the, what the hell was it called, the extensions on the front of the wings that increased wing area (to lower loading) when necessary. Clever invention, they don't show them in BOP.

[flynlion]

Originally Posted by kozzm0

They made combat-settable flaps for the planes that needed them most, but they didn't really do much good... those planes should mostly stay out of the types of situations combat flaps were designed for.

The 109f got much better results from the, what the hell was it called, the extensions on the front of the wings that increased wing area (to lower loading) when necessary. Clever invention, they don't show them in BOP.

Hi Kozzmo
The leading edge extensions are called "slats", and were designed to allow shorter takeoffs and landings on muddy fields. They were not controlled by the pilot, but were held in the retracted position by airflow and would extend out as airspeed fell below a certain level. Some pilots found this useful in a slow speed turning fight, but many more found that it screwed up their shooting accuracy and flying precision.

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by flynlion

Hi Kozzmo
The leading edge extensions are called "slats", and were designed to allow shorter takeoffs and landings on muddy fields. They were not controlled by the pilot, but were held in the retracted position by airflow and would extend out as airspeed fell below a certain level. Some pilots found this useful in a slow speed turning fight, but many more found that it screwed up their shooting accuracy and flying precision.

Yeah, that's the things. In other sims I see them automatically drifting forward when I fly a 109f. They look funny, like part of my wings are falling off.

If the pilots didn't like them, they still gave the 109f a great minimum turn radius without having to put big fat wings on the plane. Lot of Luftwaffe aces liked the 109f

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by flynlion

Hi Kozzmo
The leading edge extensions are called "slats", and were designed to allow shorter takeoffs and landings on muddy fields. They were not controlled by the pilot, but were held in the retracted position by airflow and would extend out as airspeed fell below a certain level. Some pilots found this useful in a slow speed turning fight, but many more found that it screwed up their shooting accuracy and flying precision.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...hurri-turn.pdf

In section 4 the test pilot tried using 10 degrees flap to improve the turn in a Me109, it didn't work. Also he found the slots/slats to be a disadvantage in a tight turn as they would open unevenly at high G's and cause one wing to stall.

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...hurri-turn.pdf

In section 4 the test pilot tried using 10 degrees flap to improve the turn in a Me109, it didn't work. Also he found the slots/slats to be a disadvantage in a tight turn as they would open unevenly at high G's and cause one wing to stall.

"little if any effect" they said. Combat flaps weren't too effective at getting degrees/s at maneuvering speeds. But they are good for reducing the lower bound of maneuvering speed, which reduces minimum radius. Not usually an advantage, but it can be the deciding factor at the end of a fight. If a fight gets to low radius and low speed, it's also at low g's, if they're low enough for the slats to work, then there are situations where low radius can beat higher turn rate. Like low-level flat scissors.

In Targetware I think they help the 109f at strafing runs which is a better use for them. Not so great for combat but maybe for attack.

also that was a British pilot, the Germans probably knew a few tricks for flying them better

About the piston engine planes, I never really noticed but they do all seem to be pretty much the same, except maybe the fast 109's like K, but maybe that's cause of its top speed. I have noticed that when I try to disengage from a hurricane with a faster piston plane, like a yak-3, the hurricane has an unfair way of keeping pace. In fact I've never exceeded 700kph in level flight in a yak 3, they could do it in real life