Flaps on/off are now binary - [NO BUG]

[Golo]

So, here is my write up regarding the latest change in flap operation.

 

Current in game operation:

If flap handle is all the way up flap are retracted. When lowering the flap handle nothing happens until flap handle in all the way down position, at that moment both main and aux flaps will start to extend to full down position.

From there if flap handle is raised all to the way up position at that moment both main and aux flaps will start to retract to full up position.

 

That is incorrect operation, because of the following:

 

 

 

From NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL,

NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1, 1 AUGUST 2001, for F-14B

NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1, 15 MAY 1995, (Change 1, 1 February 1997), for F-14A

 

 

2.20.5.1 Normal Operation. (2.19.2.1 Normal Operation, For F-14A)

The main flap and slat portion of the high-lift system is positioned with a dual redundant hydromechanical servo loop in response
to the FLAP handle command. The auxiliary flap is a two-position control surface powered by the combined hydraulic system. With the FLAP handle exceeding 5° deflection, the auxiliary flaps fully extend. Conversely, they retract for a FLAP handle position equal to or less
than 5°. The torque of the flap and slat drive hydraulic motor is transmitted by flexible driveshafts to each wing.

 

My note: NATOPS here refers only to aux flaps as a two position control surface, and extension of said aux flaps should happen when flap handle is deflected more than 5° from its up position, not then flap handle is all the way down. And for retraction it should happen when flap handle is at 5° or less from up position.

Also there is nothing anywhere in NATOPS manual that I can find about main flaps being two position control surface, in fact to the contrary as shown further  

 

 

15.7.2.1 Asymmetric Wing Sweep Acceptable for Landing. (15.5.2.1 Asymmetric Wing Sweep Acceptable for Landing, for F-14A)

...

b. Flaps — Lower incrementally to 20° to 25°.

...

                                                                  Note

The 25° flap position can established by first noting when the spoiler position indicators
switch to the dropped position during flap extension. An uncommanded, but controllable,

roll transient caused by spoiler gearing change will also occur. Upon observing
either event, retract the flaps to just less than 25°. The roll transient will occur in the
opposite direction as the flaps pass through 25°. Main flap extension without auxiliary
flaps will require greater than normal aft stick trim.

 

My note: keyword here is incrementally, and it can not be reference to maneuver flaps because they only go to 10°,  with flap handle they to up to 35°. So that would indicate to me that the flap handle is indeed 2 positional switch, but only for aux flaps, and is in fact incremental for main flaps.

 

Now in the name of the transparency I would like you to present your sources of binary operation of the F-14 flaps because to me its sound totally illogical, and I dont see any indication of that being the case in any of my material from F-14.

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by IronMike

[Naquaii]

Well, first off, this is not a bug as it's clearly an intentional change from our side.

 

Secondly we've had a great deal of discussion internally regarding this and the natops is at best vague in parts regarding the flaps.

While I agree that the passages you list seem to indicate that they should be contrallable incrementally all SME input we've received says the opposite.

 

Unfortunately this is not the first time SME input has proven the natops is in error and when confronted with the fact that our SMEs who have actually flown and worked with the aircraft (including mechanics) tell another story we kinda have to go with them on it.

 

To be fair we can discuss it with them again but that's our current decision.

 

Edit: Your last reference being an emergency procedure with breakers pulled might actually mean that the function of the lever change which might be something to look into eventually.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Naquaii

[Golo]

It may be intentional, but it does not behave like its written in NATOPS. There is specifically stated in NATOPS that only aux flaps are two positional, not the main flaps. Are you sure you were talking about main flaps too and not just aux ones? 

 

Well, with that aside there is still a bug however you look at it. Because right now all flaps will begin to lower only after flap handle is all the way down position, which is clearly incorrect, because aux flaps (specifically noted in NATOPS) should extend down with just over 5° deflection of the flap handle from up position. And same up with deflection 5° or less from up, as I actually wrote above if you didnt catch that.

 

Let me get on without explicit evidence a little. Lets assume that aux flaps are controlled by some kind of end switch in UP position of flap handle. In that case with flap handle up switch would be UP state, and aux flaps would be commanded up. With lowering the flap handle more than 5° from up position that switch would activate to DN state sending hydraulic power to the hydr. motor to lower the flaps. When raising the flap handle to position 5° or less from up the switch would get commanded to UP state sending hydr. power to hydr. motor to raise the aux flaps. It basically work as a two state piston, because we know that it cannot be in any intermediary position (not counting failures).

 

We also know that main flap hydraulic motor can operate such that it can set main flaps to various positions with use of maneuver flap switch (and automatically by CADC). I see no logical reason why it would work differently with flap handle.

Further more, I ask you on data as in witch position will main flaps start to lower when moving flap handle down, there in no data I know of that specifically states it. Did you just arbitrary chose down most position of flap handle, should it not move with aux flaps? Its moving with aux flaps now but its clearly bugged as it does not move with 5° down deflection of flap handle, or did your SMEs tell you its wrong in NATOPS too?

 

Let me just say for the record that in this case I belive in what is in NATOPS more that your SMEs, because its function is more logical for me that way. So far Ive been nothing but impressed with your work on F-14, but this time I would like to challenge you present any kind of hard evidence not just what your SMEs remember. There has to be technical documentation that you or your SMEs have that explains the flap system.

 

Let me also say that I will be more than happy to accept the change if you present that evidence, Im not buying this function otherwise. Well nothing I can really do about it, but hope you will.       

 

[Naquaii]

1 minute ago, Golo said:

It may be intentional, but it does not behave like its written in NATOPS. There is specifically stated in NATOPS that only aux flaps are two positional, not the main flaps. Are you sure you were talking about main flaps too and not just aux ones? 

 

Well, with that aside there is still a bug however you look at it. Because right now all flaps will begin to lower only after flap handle is all the way down position, which is clearly incorrect, because aux flaps (specifically noted in NATOPS) should extend down with just over 5° deflection of the flap handle from up position. And same up with deflection 5° or less from up, as I actually wrote above if you didnt catch that.

 

Let me get on without explicit evidence a little. Lets assume that aux flaps are controlled by some kind of end switch in UP position of flap handle. In that case with flap handle up switch would be UP state, and aux flaps would be commanded up. With lowering the flap handle more than 5° from up position that switch would activate to DN state sending hydraulic power to the hydr. motor to lower the flaps. When raising the flap handle to position 5° or less from up the switch would get commanded to UP state sending hydr. power to hydr. motor to raise the aux flaps. It basically work as a two state piston, because we know that it cannot be in any intermediary position (not counting failures).

 

We also know that main flap hydraulic motor can operate such that it can set main flaps to various positions with use of maneuver flap switch (and automatically by CADC). I see no logical reason why it would work differently with flap handle.

Further more, I ask you on data as in witch position will main flaps start to lower when moving flap handle down, there in no data I know of that specifically states it. Did you just arbitrary chose down most position of flap handle, should it not move with aux flaps? Its moving with aux flaps now but its clearly bugged as it does not move with 5° down deflection of flap handle, or did your SMEs tell you its wrong in NATOPS too?

 

Let me just say for the record that in this case I belive in what is in NATOPS more that your SMEs, because its function is more logical for me that way. So far Ive been nothing but impressed with your work on F-14, but this time I would like to challenge you present any kind of hard evidence not just what your SMEs remember. There has to be technical documentation that you or your SMEs have that explains the flap system.

 

Let me also say that I will be more than happy to accept the change if you present that evidence, Im not buying this function otherwise. Well nothing I can really do about it, but hope you will.       

 

 

Yeah, I do agree that the aux flaps don't extend at the right position of the flap lever currently but it also a minor issue (not saying we wont fix it) as the current functionality leaves you no reason to do anything than just move the flap handle all the way directly.

 

As for why it would work this way I'd say you kinda need to think of it as it is with the throttles. Normal operation use microswitches to tell the flaps to move electronically but they also have a mechanical backup using a cable which is only used in case of electrical failure. A reason for this could be that you have no reason for incremental flap control in normal flight but when operating with degraded functionality you might. Note that the emergency procedure you referred to explicitly tells the crew to pull electrical breakers for the flaps. I'm not saying this is the reason but is a reason.

 

Aside from that we've had former enlisted airmen explicitly tell us they remember the microswitches triggering the deployment in the throttle quadrant and that this is how it actually worked. It's hard for us to argue with that. All that aside, using the normal flaps outside of the maneuverflaps region other than just strictly retracted or deployed wasn't done either way, not that that would stop us from modelling it incrementally if that were the case.

 

 

[Golo]

4 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

All that aside, using the normal flaps outside of the maneuverflaps region other than just strictly retracted or deployed wasn't done either way, not that that would stop us from modelling it incrementally if that were the case.

Im not saying it was used like that only that it is its functionality and is consistent with what is in NATOPS. Btw that is exactly how it worked up until now, consistently exactly how it is in NATOPS.

[Naquaii]

3 minutes ago, Golo said:

Im not saying it was used like that only that it is its functionality and is consistent with what is in NATOPS. Btw that is exactly how it worked up until now, consistently exactly how it is in NATOPS.

 

Yes, and like I said, that's not a reason for us changing how we model it now. And the NATOPS does not explicitly say that you could control the flaps incrementally in the normal mode of operation.

[Victory205]

Golo and NATOPS are correct. The main flaps can be lowered incrementally.

 

For an example, look in the PCL under Assymetric Wingsweep.  After pulling the AUX flap Circuit breaker to keep the AUX flaps from impacting the fuselage, incremental main flap extension was used as part of an emergency procedure if the wings were stuck in an asymmetric position.

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Victory205

[QuiGon]

I'm also using an axis for the flap handle, but I'm rarely flying the Tomcat from the front seat as I spent most of my time in the DCS Tomcat on the backseat. The few times I flew the Cat from the front seat I always used half flaps for takeoff though, as I somehow just assumed that this is how it's supposed to be done (similar to the Hornet). Now that this isn't possible anymore I wonder: What flap setting should be used for takeoff (land/ship based)?

The HB Tomcat manual doesn't really say anything about this as far as I can see.

Edited August 12, 2021 by QuiGon

[Alphabet_Ghost]

4小时前,QuiGon说:

I'm also using an axis for the flap handle, but I'm rarely flying the Tomcat from the front seat as I spent most of my time in the DCS Tomcat on the backseat. The few times I flew the Cat from the front seat I always used half flaps for takeoff though, as I somehow just assumed that this is how it's supposed to be done (similar to the Hornet). Now that this isn't possible anymore I wonder: What flap setting should be used for takeoff (land/ship based)?

The HB Tomcat manual doesn't really say anything about this as far as I can see.

 

full flaps or maneuver flap/slat at light weight.

[QuiGon]

4 minutes ago, Alphabet_Ghost said:

full flaps or maneuver flap/slat at light weight.

 

That's for both, land and carrier starts? So full flaps for both, unless it's light weigt where I can also use maneuver flaps instead?

 

Btw:

2 hours ago, Cobra847 said:

Re the flaps lever; we will actually be reverting this change.

This was a case of SME feedback causing us to change it, but based on further SME feedback, it was indeed correct as it was.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by QuiGon

[Alphabet_Ghost]

3分钟前,QuiGon说:

 

That's for both, land and carrier starts? So full flaps for both, unless it's light weigt where I can also use maneuver flaps instead?

 

Btw:

 

 

 

Best use full flaps during landing as you need spoiler brake, LoL.

[QuiGon]

2 minutes ago, Alphabet_Ghost said:

Best use full flaps during landing as you need spoiler brake, LoL.

 

Haha, I was a bit ambigious in my choice of words there. I was only talking about take-offs (starts) and wonderd if it is the same on land based starts and on carrier based starts. I'm aware that full flaps should be used for landing

[Alphabet_Ghost]

5分钟前,QuiGon说:

 

Haha, I was a bit ambigious in my choice of words there. I was only talking about take-offs (starts) and wonderd if it is the same on land based starts and on carrier based starts. I'm aware that full flaps should be used for landing

Oh ok, yes you can use both full/maneuver flaps/slat take off from land or carrier.

[sLYFa]

Catapult shots are full flaps only, shore take-off can be anything based on runway length/TOW

Edited August 12, 2021 by sLYFa

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

8 minutes ago, sLYFa said:

shore take-off can be anything based on runway length/TOW

Hmm I always heard the procedure was full-flaps and mil thrust only.

[QuiGon]

Good to know, that I'm not the only one who is unclear about this

[sLYFa]

I was talking about the flap setting but yes its always MIL thrust for controlability reasons in case of an engine failure in the B. In the A, a potential AB lighting failure at high AoA/sideslip outweighs the risk of loosing control with a single engine in AB. Therefore, use zone5 for high TOW. This way, you will have enough thrust for a positive climb in the event of an engine failure during the cat shot. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by sLYFa

[Alphabet_Ghost]

23分钟前,QuiGon说:

Good to know, that I'm not the only one who is unclear about this

sLYFa was correct, on carrier is full flaps only according to real pilot said, Sry.

[Naquaii]

2 hours ago, Golo said:

You mean if Victroy didnt back me up on this, you would just dismissed me (like you actually did, even tho there was a bug with it anyway) based on what? Because someone said/remembered it was like that? Did whoever told you that gave you some technical evidence backing up his case? If you get one sided/conflicting information you need to evaluate the evidence, and scientific studies strongly suggests that "eyewitness" evidence has tremendous fault rate. If your SMEs give you some clarifications, pointers, some corrections that somewhat logically correlates to hard evidence its one thing, this one was another from my point of view.

 

Also dont forget that we users are your last line of defense against any kind of f-up you might put in, especially if the report against it has some kind of evidence and is logically sound. It should not be just dismissed because "this is not a bug as it's clearly an intentional change from our side" like @Naquaii stated. I would hope it would get looked at even without backing up from any SMEs. I hope Im wrong but Im starting to see change in your development attitude of becoming more like ED, less like the ones who developed this masterpiece and art of the software.  

 

If I make a bug report I very unusually take it lightly, and try to do my part of a research about the issue first so I dont present you with BS so  I would like you to take them seriously.

In the end if Im right about it - excellent, we get correctly functional airplane, if Im wrong about it - excellent, we get correctly functional airplane. I hope this is your attitude as well.

     

 

@Golo

I'm gonna answer you here as to move it out of the patch feedback thread:

 

Yes, this is still not a bug as a bug is an unintended error in the code not added intentionally. This was intentional even if eventually proven wrong. And no, we wouldn't have ignored you but we also didn't agree with you. The issue here is that during the years developing the F-14 the NATOPS has continually proven to have ambiguous statements and sometimes even outright erroneous statements. That coupled with the fact that our SME's stating it should work a certain way means that we take them on their word. And by SME I do not mean a random dude on some forums claiming to be an F-14 tech but people we've worked with for along time that we know have proven experience and knowledge of the aircraft.

 

That aside you have to excuse us but we do not need the lecture about research and fact checking, the simple fact is that the evidence you gave is far from new to us and known when we made this decision and thus didn't really add anything new to the discussion for us. That said this discussion did bring it to the attention of Victory205 who is one of our main SMEs in regards to the pilot side of the F-14 and we usually listen closely to his feedback! Unfortunately this had been overlooked for some reason earlier when we made this decision.

 

So no, we did not ignore you or your evidence but at that time it did not add any new information to us or change our mind and no we did not base it on a whim from some unverified SME. But Victory fortunately changed our minds and we will revert it.

 

Apart from that I will also add a tracker to make sure fixing the AUX-flaps deployment points get looked at.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Naquaii

[FWind]

[FWind]