Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
You must be trolling in this reply.
LE flaps are completely different in the aerodynamics from slots or automatic slats.
LE flaps change the camber of the wing and slots/automatic slats energize the boundary layer.
Do you know what a camber change means and how it looks on the polar? A camber changes shifts the entire polar to the left. This has the effect of producing the same coefficient of lift at a lower angle of attack. TE flaps are also camber changers and this is the primary reason we use them on landing. It allows the nose to be lowered so the pilot can see the runway without sacrificing coefficient of lift. Depending on the design, the flap can also raise the maximum coefficient of lift but this too will shift to the left on the polar.
While they are both high lift devices, you are comparing apples and oranges so your post makes no sense at all. |
Salute Crrump
You clearly haven't read the post which I was responding to.
I do not say the 109 era slats were equivalent to modern era LE flaps, that claim was put forward by Tomcat. In fact I was pointing out the big differences between these devices.
On the issue of 109's entering spins: It's clear your insistence, against all the evidence presented, that the 109's slats made the aircraft "spin proof", is simply not factual. Do they lessen the chance of a spin? Yes, I doubt anyone here would disagree.
However, this does not seem to be enough for you.
We are now in the usual counterproductive and meaningless back and forth which always seems to occur when you enter a thread.
Whether or not other posters agree partially with your arguments seems to make no difference, you seem incapable of accepting the central concept of healthy debate, that being differing viewpoints allow an arrival at a conclusion which may not agree with
either side's starting position.
Without any apparent willingness on your part to consider other viewpoints, there is point to further discussion.