[NO BUG] Flaps .. again

[Kula66]

I see the flaps are super easy to break once again ... I thought they'd were correctly modelled before and were not going to be tweaked further, or are they corrrectly modelled now? Who knows!

[fat creason]

Our SME advised us to make them easier to break, which is now closer to reality.

[Sideburns]

I see the flaps are super easy to break once again ... I thought they'd were correctly modelled before and were not going to be tweaked further, or are they corrrectly modelled now? Who knows!

 

It would be interesting to know under what conditions they are breaking? You using them in dogfights?

[vadupleix]

I control my landing flaps usage under 200 knots and don't do abrupt pulls, still managed to jam the slats every time. May I know what's the programmed G limit right now?

[JupiterJoe]

Perhaps this is related: Before the patch I had come to use full flaps when launching from a carrier. Whenever I did the roll rate was a lot more sluggish than when just using manoeuvring flaps, presumably because of increased drag. This had the desired effect of making the aircraft more forgiving just after launch, rather than 'twitchy'. Now it's the same whichever flap position you use. The plane now has a curious lack of air resistance/dragless/frictionless feel to it. I'm a noob, but know something's different. It felt a lot more realistic before.

 

EDIT: My curves! When the controls were reset, so were my curves. My bad :smilewink:

[Noctrach]

I control my landing flaps usage under 200 knots and don't do abrupt pulls, still managed to jam the slats every time. May I know what's the programmed G limit right now?

 

From my own testing, above 230-240 KIAS and/or 3-ish G they tend to start breaking, so pretty much as per NATOPS

[Kula66]

NATOPS doesn't say when they break ... it says don't exceed to ensure they don't break. There could be a 100% safety factor, who knows. HB have already said, there is just no information on what happens beyond that.

[Sideburns]

I think there are quite a few pilot accounts of conditions under which they did break which HB did take into account?

[captain_dalan]

I control my landing flaps usage under 200 knots and don't do abrupt pulls, still managed to jam the slats every time. May I know what's the programmed G limit right now?

For me they disintegrate at around 220, which makes them more of a liability then an asset (just jammed them while landing at Batumi - Landing instant action). So unless landing on the boat, i just don't use them anymore. Not worth the risk. The tomcat is a tough bird and she can take a few extra knots on landing, damn the flaps and who ever decided to put them there :D The F-14 doesn't have flaps, the F-14 doesn't NEED flaps! :matrix:

 

NATOPS doesn't say when they break ... it says don't exceed to ensure they don't break. There could be a 100% safety factor, who knows. HB have already said, there is just no information on what happens beyond that.

 

Well this is what happens when a game-sim becomes so popular that public opinions start being an issue. Have enough people wine, especially influential people, and you gonna see changes being made, Not always for the better, but changes never the less. And who doesn't like changes?! :drunk:

[QuiGon]

NATOPS doesn't say when they break ... it says don't exceed to ensure they don't break. There could be a 100% safety factor, who knows. HB have already said, there is just no information on what happens beyond that.

 

SMEs do say so though it seems:

 

Our SME advised us to make them easier to break, which is now closer to reality.

[Kula66]

Probably depends on who you ask ... Not very scientific, but its the best HB can get.

[fat creason]

Probably depends on who you ask ... Not very scientific, but its the best HB can get.

 

Do you have a better proposal besides asking SMEs with a combined 6000 hours in the jet?

[Kula66]

You could always ask Snodgrass ;)

[fat creason]

So his embellished story for an audience vs multiple pilots and maintainers all saying the opposite?

[Kula66]

Yes, but this guy was Mr Tomcat ... didn't you spot the winky face FC? I wasn't being serious!

 

As I said above - 'its the best HB can get.' - I'll say it for you, my 'feeling' doesn't matter, but it does seem odd.

[fat creason]

Yes, but this guy was Mr Tomcat ... didn't you spot the winky face FC? I wasn't being serious!

 

As I said above - 'its the best HB can get.' - I'll say it for you, my 'feeling' doesn't matter, but it does seem odd.

 

Sorry, missed the winky face! There's another guy on another thread insisting that Snort is the sole arbiter of all Tomcat knowledge and that all of our SMEs are wrong. Arguing on the internet is a silly business.

[Kula66]

I may not like it ... but keep up the good work guys :)

[captain_dalan]

I understand why this was done, i really do. The problem is, your are "punishing" the wrong demographics. If this was done to "discipline" the air-quake crowd, trust me, you have achieved little. Those guys start in the air and in 95% of the cases don't live long enough land. Heck, they don't even intend to land even if they survive long enough to do. It's faster to eject and spawn in a new plane in the air. Those few that do decide to land aren't in a bad spot either. the nearest runways is laughably close. 30 miles from the "hot zone" at most. You can glide the plane that far. So what's gonna stop them from lowering the flaps again? Nothing really. They jam? So what? DCS dogfighting is done at 200 knots anyways. Asymmetric jam? Not gonna happen if you deploy the flaps when slow and then over-speed them on purpose. Who cares if they don't come up again. You don't need them in the up position. Not for air-quake.

 

Meanwhile, imagine a pilot (me in this case ;) ) in a right bank, on lineup to the runway. He's at 250 knots, air-brake extended, shallow dive as banking, air speed dropping. As the dial hits 220 i press flaps down. A shudder in the left wing and here i am, aux flaps jammed. The flap overspeed warning didn't even have the chance to light up. How could it, it's supposed to blink at 225 knots. Are you telling me the warning systems were designed to warn you long after you broke the plane? Or that whatever trivial g i was in (more then 1 apparently) in that bank was too much for the poor flaps? Who ever designed such a system, with a negative safety margin, should be held accountable. The fact the jamming is not boolean logic based, makes it even worse. Sometimes they should break at 220, other times at 230, or 240 or 250? And how about that guy up there, that broke them at 200? I mean...... WTF....... Yeah, abusing them at 300 makes little sense. But is breaking at them at 220 the solution? Why not just implement the auto-raise feature? Some planes did have it, right? This way you can prevent the people from abusing them and not make them look porcelain fragile. Right now they are really not worth having. I'm seriously thinking about practicing landings with maneuver flaps only.

 

<Angry rant ends here>:thumbup:

[fat creason]

I understand why this was done, i really do. The problem is, your are "punishing" the wrong demographics. If this was done to "discipline" the air-quake crowd, trust me, you have achieved little. Those guys start in the air and in 95% of the cases don't live long enough land. Heck, they don't even intend to land even if they survive long enough to do. It's faster to eject and spawn in a new plane in the air. Those few that do decide to land aren't in a bad spot either. the nearest runways is laughably close. 30 miles from the "hot zone" at most. You can glide the plane that far. So what's gonna stop them from lowering the flaps again? Nothing really. They jam? So what? DCS dogfighting is done at 200 knots anyways. Asymmetric jam? Not gonna happen if you deploy the flaps when slow and then over-speed them on purpose. Who cares if they don't come up again. You don't need them in the up position. Not for air-quake.

 

Meanwhile, imagine a pilot (me in this case ;) ) in a right bank, on lineup to the runway. He's at 250 knots, air-brake extended, shallow dive as banking, air speed dropping. As the dial hits 220 i press flaps down. A shudder in the left wing and here i am, aux flaps jammed. The flap overspeed warning didn't even have the chance to light up. How could it, it's supposed to blink at 225 knots. Are you telling me the warning systems were designed to warn you long after you broke the plane? Or that whatever trivial g i was in (more then 1 apparently) in that bank was too much for the poor flaps? Who ever designed such a system, with a negative safety margin, should be held accountable. The fact the jamming is not boolean logic based, makes it even worse. Sometimes they should break at 220, other times at 230, or 240 or 250? And how about that guy up there, that broke them at 200? I mean...... WTF....... Yeah, abusing them at 300 makes little sense. But is breaking at them at 220 the solution? Why not just implement the auto-raise feature? Some planes did have it, right? This way you can prevent the people from abusing them and not make them look porcelain fragile. Right now they are really not worth having. I'm seriously thinking about practicing landings with maneuver flaps only.

 

<Angry rant ends here>:thumbup:

 

The flap jamming model is not like what you described at all. It's not possible to jam flaps at 200 knots, its not even possible to jam them at 235 knots, and they don't jam right as you hit any particular speed. They will also not jam at low flap angles seen during maneuver flap deployments. That's what non-boolean logic means in this case. The possibility of jamming increases the more you overspeed the flaps, as well as increasing chance the more you over-G the flaps. They don't just immediately jam when speed > 221 KIAS or G load > 2.5. A 2G turn is equivalent to a 60 deg bank to give you some perspective. The chance also increases if you try to actuate them while overspeeding or over-Ging. As the flaps deploy further, the possibly also increases (high forces/larger incidence angle to the oncoming wind). If you realize you're going too fast, slow down first before you retract them. Fixed in a certain position they can handle higher loads.

 

Remember that the flaps on the Tomcat are very large, and at full deployment the forces they can generate grow rapidly with airspeed, even 10-20 knots more. The flaps were never intended for combat use, they should only be used in takeoff or landing type situations. It has nothing to do with air-quake.

Edited November 21, 2020 by fat creason

[BreaKKer]

It's not about disciplining the air quake crowd, or anyone that complains. This isn't War Thunder :D.

[IronMike]

Yep, we care fairly little what and how ppl do with our products in their free time. What we care about is to present them with both utmost possible realism in mind, and in consideration of playability within the frame work of DCS, which both ensure great immersion and fun. That is our main concern. What the folks choose to do beyond that, is not up to us.

 

Also, Airquake is consistently being used in the wrong way :-D Airquake does not refer to tactics originally, but to fast paced servers with close proximity air bases that would force for quick air to air action. You can still fly realistically in such an environment if you choose to do so. But, that is of course entirely off topic...

 

Thread marked as no bug.

[draconus]

Why not just implement the auto-raise feature? Some planes did have it, right? This way you can prevent the people from abusing them and not make them look porcelain fragile. Right now they are really not worth having. I'm seriously thinking about practicing landings with maneuver flaps only.

 

No such option for auxiliary flaps. Only for maneuvering flaps - but that only for certain speed/aoa. You must be joking about considering deliberate no-flaps landings.

[dehowie]

Something being lost here is the impression that an Ironworks aeroplane would have flaps "JAM" in the first place.

There is an impression aeroplanes just "break"..they dont.

On the aircraft i used to fly we had an aircraft deploy flaps at double its limit speed. This is not a small aircraft travelling slowly either.

Result..nothing.

Aircraft lands has swarms of engineers running around with torches etc, zero damage at 350 kts on an civilian airliner.

This isnt a carrier based fighter from the toughest construction manufacturer ever to build aircraft but an Airbus built to a budget not a G limit..

This jamming thing is something that yes i understand penalizes people but its also highy unrealistic given the usage and operational evidence of them being used in a much broader envelope.

Did i mention its a Grumman aircraft builder of basically the toughest war machines ever built.

This is why crews did rely on the use of flaps outside the normal envelope because they knew it was built like a truck and they knew the flaps wouldnt jam.

The use of flaps out side normal envelope is widely written about and denying that use is denying a very effective tactic use extensively by experienced crews.

"Hey chief i blew the flaps out again today a case of beers ok?"

Removing this as a valid ACM option from the F14's arsenal is a major error in my opinion.

This rolling of the dice when in reality the aircraft at speeds in the order of 350kts or less could easily take flap usage without damage disabling the system turns a valid tactic into a crap shoot based off a desire to stop very valid tactics why used the very strengths of the F14 frequently.

Further to that flaps dont break...they ripple when over G'd having suffered structural damage. The retraction/extension mechanism is easily strong enough to deal with the load the surfaces however are the weak point.

Anyway a minor point on a very good aircraft in the sim and thanks Heatblur for bring the legend alive..

 

[DD_Fenrir]

Something being lost here is the impression that an Ironworks aeroplane would have flaps "JAM" in the first place...

 

You LITERALLY have an SME who ACTUALLY FLEW THE TOMCAT AND BROKE THE FLAPS say IN THIS FORUM that they were fragile and only to be used in a low G, low airspeed environment else you'd break them. But of course you know better eh? "Muh Books!"

 

Please.

 

This desperate effort to enforce a game-ism has gotten downright undignified.

 

Time and again it has been iterated, the goal here is to as faithfully as possible reproduce the Tomcat in digital form, not only as a means of entertainment but also for education, as a historical record to pay homage to a much loved, well respected and important piece of naval aviation history, plus in some measure as tribute to the men and women who designed, built, maintained and flew it, as we in a small way will begin to understand their challenges and their determination.

 

It will not be to cosset the egos of those who so desperately need to to validate their own existence that they'll resort to any means necessary to win a computer game dogfight.

[Sideburns]

Something being lost here is the impression that an Ironworks aeroplane would have flaps "JAM" in the first place.

There is an impression aeroplanes just "break"..they dont.....

 

The Airbus is not an F14 and the F14 is not an Airbus... I previously suspected the variable geometry wings would complicate flaps and flight control surface operation, a hypothesis that was later confirmed by @Victory205 when he provided some comments about the electrical motors, torque tubes and spline system used to control the flaps and wing flex. To me at least it makes sense why the flaps are susceptible to overspeed and G jamming (having worked on cars I can appreciate the mechanics and mechanisms that Victory205 described).

 

I also put in a similar comment against the MiG21 when I noticed a lot of people were using flaps in combat to be told the MiG21 flap system the flaps are aerodynamically pushed back when going overspeed and as such there is no overspeed for their flaps. Fair enough, I accept this description from the developers of the module who have similarly used MiG21 SME's to build their module.

 

Different planes have different flaps systems with different caveats and limitations, the F14 is technically not yet released / final so we need to deal with the changes and fine tuning they are making.