[NO BUG] Flaps out in close in BFM

Hi everyone...

I got myself into some close and personal dogfights with the Tomcat and realized that people are dropping their flaps to augment maneuver stability. I also hear it’s become a common thing to do in SATAL and other competitions, but was that a normal thing in real life?

Though it seems the right thing to do because handling characteristics improve exponentially, the use of Flaps and Slats while maneuvering aggressively brings a lot of limitations with it.

Published in the F-14 NATOPS, Flap limits are published as the following:

4.2.1.2 - 225 KIAS Flap Limit Speed (Structual limitation)

- After T/O retract Flaps/Slats before passing 180 KIAS

4.5.2 - Manuvering Flaps Extended maximum load factor 6.5G’s

- Referencing Figure 4.5, with Flaps Extended maximum G Limit is 2.0 up to 50.000 lbs and reducing to 1.5G’s reaching 68.000 lbs.

4.5.5 - 4.) AIM-9 launch landing flaps and slats extended - PROHIBITED (I imagine the rocket motor will burn a hole in both as it leaves the rail which it doesn’t here!)

- Abrupt manuvering with Flaps and Slats extended is also mentioned in various limitations as prohibited.

So I went ahead and experimented with those limits and of course reaching 300-something the flap system fails and won’t retract anymore, but is that all? No secondary structual failure! You over-speed or/and over-G and the plane doesn’t break apart. Is this how to win SATAL?

It breaks the torque tubes and the flaps/slats stay extended.

What did you want to happen? The aircraft to tear itself in half?

If you get unlucky you get an asymetric flap split and well, go have fun with that. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

gonna make sure i namedrop satal when i ask former fighterpilots brb

What did you want to happen? The aircraft to tear itself in half?

Well, besides damaging a simple torque tube and its mechanism, flying way above maximum slats and/or flaps speeds will eventually lead to flutter and essentially break the attachment points and detach them, that is unless unless that flutter actually takes the aircraft into a harmonic resonance... then, yes, it should break in half... :huh:

gonna make sure i namedrop satal when i ask former fighterpilots brb

Not sure what you mean, but I'd be happy to know if your contact is aware if this was a real thing in the Tomcat. I know it was a technique taught in the Navy Weapon Fighter School to F-4 Phantom crews...

Hi everyone...

I got myself into some close and personal dogfights with the Tomcat and realized that people are dropping their flaps to augment maneuver stability. I also hear it’s become a common thing to do in SATAL and other competitions, but was that a normal thing in real life?

Did it happen in real life? Yes.

Was it against the rules in NATOPS? Yes.

Could it damage or break the system if you abused it? Yes.

Was it "normal?": It depends on who was flying and what was happening in the fight. Different pilots have spoken about it and many contradict each other. Based on what I've read and asked the Vietnam-era guard, use of full flaps seems to have been second nature when the fight got slow. Others have said they never used them, even in a slow-speed fight. A more recent (late-1990s) perspective was shared on the Fighter Pilot Podcast episode on the F-14 where the pilot being interviewed said his squadron (VF-102) was a "big flaps" squadron and he clearly describes using full flaps for slow-speed fighting (~47 minutes in). So, your best answer is: it depends who you ask, but it was evidently common enough.

Here's the thing, in DCS, you never have to have the plane fixed by a maintenance crew, and every fight is "in earnest," i.e., to the death. That's why DCS Hornet drivers hit the flappy paddle to get more "g" out of the jet, when actual Hornet drivers didn't even consider it unless they were about to become one with the earth. DCS Tomcat drivers deploy full flaps, but do so much more recklessly than a real pilot would have. Anything to get the better of the other guy, airframe be damned.

But, you also don't actually die in DCS, so players can be far more reckless with their aircraft and it doesn't matter. "I lost the round! Oh no! Well, let's get back up and fly the next one, put 12g on the jet, overstress the flaps, YES! Killed that guy! One point for me! Flaps are jammed? Meh, eject, respawn, next round." For as realistic as DCS tries to be, it is still a game, is still full of "game-isms" and beating the ever-loving sh*t out of the airframe just for a shred of an advantage is one of the many.

Did it happen in real life? Yes.

Was it against the rules in NATOPS? Yes.

Could it damage or break the system if you abused it? Yes.

Was it "normal?": It depends on who was flying and what was happening in the fight. Different pilots have spoken about it and many contradict each other. Based on what I've read and asked the Vietnam-era guard, use of full flaps seems to have been second nature when the fight got slow. Others have said they never used them, even in a slow-speed fight. A more recent (late-1990s) perspective was shared on the Fighter Pilot Podcast episode on the F-14 where the pilot being interviewed said his squadron (VF-102) was a "big flaps" squadron and he clearly describes using full flaps for slow-speed fighting (~47 minutes in). So, your best answer is: it depends who you ask, but it was evidently common enough.

 

Here's the thing, in DCS, you never have to have the plane fixed by a maintenance crew, and every fight is "in earnest," i.e., to the death. That's why DCS Hornet drivers hit the flappy paddle to get more "g" out of the jet, when actual Hornet drivers didn't even consider it unless they were about to become one with the earth. DCS Tomcat drivers deploy full flaps, but do so much more recklessly than a real pilot would have. Anything to get the better of the other guy, airframe be damned.

 

But, you also don't actually die in DCS, so players can be far more reckless with their aircraft and it doesn't matter. "I lost the round! Oh no! Well, let's get back up and fly the next one, put 12g on the jet, overstress the flaps, YES! Killed that guy! One point for me! Flaps are jammed? Meh, eject, respawn, next round." For as realistic as DCS tries to be, it is still a game, is still full of "game-isms" and beating the ever-loving sh*t out of the airframe just for a shred of an advantage is one of the many.

You see, Quid, here is why I like you... I ask long, almost irrelevant, but straight questions, and you take the time to give me a longer, but very straight answer with great explanation... :thumbup:

Thanks for the hint on TFP Podcast. I'll listen to that one today!

Lets see if Heatblur could tweak the damage model a little bit for us :helpsmilie:

Jamming the flaps is probably as far as we'll go in terms of damage, and that jamming model is more or less complete at this point.

Jamming the flaps is probably as far as we'll go in terms of damage, and that jamming model is more or less complete at this point.

It would be nice if you guys would at least consider lowering the speed and/or g-threshold where the damage occurs. I have had it up to 300 knots and 6 g's with no damage at all. And while the jet was apparently incredibly strong, NATOPS prohibited this sort of maneuvering for a reason.

For such a detailed module in every other way this performance seems a little out of place.

The flaps, per a couple of Grumman engineers in various tomes throughout the years were rated to 280 knots, but the original NATOPS limits were left in place to in an attempt to alleviate wear, much like the 7.0G airframe "limit".

Thus, the current limitations prior to failure are in line with reality.

The flaps, per a couple of Grumman engineers in various tomes throughout the years were rated to 280 knots, but the original NATOPS limits were left in place to in an attempt to alleviate wear, much like the 7.0G airframe "limit".

 

Thus, the current limitations prior to failure are in line with reality.

That all may be true (honestly, I don't know myself) but using "a couple of Grumman engineers" as credible sources seems a little anecdotal.

But even taking that number at face value, what does it mean? Did they break at 280 knots, or were they guaranteed safe up to 280 knots. Does that number decrease with use over time?

I would be curious to know if there are any real world examples of the flaps jamming at lower airspeeds.

And we haven't even touched on g loads yet.

Dismissing anecdotes while asking for them.

It's a position, I guess.

And yes- G has been discussed here, at length.

Dismissing anecdotes while asking for them.

 

It's a position, I guess.

 

And yes- G has been discussed here, at length.

I'm not dismissing anecdotes. You can learn a lot from what people say. But somehow I think Heatblur has more than that as sources and if they say it's accurate as-is, then fine with me. Like I said, I never flew that jet and don't know the correct answers.

But there's nothing wrong with asking the question. 300 knots and 6 g's seems high to me and I would just like verification from Heatblur that they believe that to be accurate.

You and I can waste time arguing about something that neither one of us seems to have first hand knowledge of, or we can wait for Heatblur to answer.

I've heard of ex Tomcat pilots pulling the flaps down to **** with F/A-18C guys since their plane was almost twice the gross weight of a Hornet and yet it could pull horizontally inside them.

TOPGUN guys seemed to underestimate the tomcat during BFM and ACM training (odd given its shown how well it is against an A4 in the movie that takes the schools name sake) and it was always a laugh apparently to use the manual wing sweep lever to fool the younger kids into believing it was going much faster then it was, pull the wings out and drop the flaps and the Hornets would just fly right by and get "shot down".

Quoting knots and g's should not be enough. Wouldn't gross weight also play a role?

Quoting knots and g's should not be enough. Wouldn't gross weight also play a role?

I would expect so with regard to the wing structure, but I don’t know if gross weight affects the stress on the flap torque tubes. But I defer to others with more knowledge on that subject.

...it was always a laugh apparently to use the manual wing sweep lever to fool the younger kids into believing it was going much faster then it was...

no lever is needed when you have a dedicated thumb button

It would be nice if you guys would at least consider lowering the speed and/or g-threshold where the damage occurs. I have had it up to 300 knots and 6 g's with no damage at all. And while the jet was apparently incredibly strong, NATOPS prohibited this sort of maneuvering for a reason.

 

For such a detailed module in every other way this performance seems a little out of place.

Second this.

Found that with the present modelling you can still often severly over-g and and massively overspeed the Flaps with absolutely zero damage/jamming/asymmetry.

Regards,

Snappy

:huh: But why change it if it already is the way it's supposed to be?

I mean yeah, the manual may warn you at much lower air speeds, but that's what manuals are for. To give early warning and prevent mishaps, right?

EDIT: what i'm trying to say (i have no idea how the real thing handled obviously), if the plane was constructed as a 9 g air-frame, thus tested up to 13 or so g of load, but was operationally restricted to 6.5 g for various (and already discussed to death) reasons, then should it disintegrate every time you pull above 6.5?

Maybe a 30 year old plane, with a 10000 flight hours and who knows how many arrested landings (even though i doubt even those were that fragile) would. But until ED implements a dynamic campaign world, which among other things implements flight and fatigue hours that are being continuously tracked and upgraded, shouldn't we treat most jets as if they were relatively new? Unless the RoE of the specific mission demand otherwise, of course.

:huh: But why change it if it already is the way it's supposed to be?

That's the question. Is the current performance the way it's supposed to be? I have said I don't know the correct answer but I suspect 6 g's at 300 knots is likely to damage the landing flaps.

...then should it disintegrate every time you pull above 6.5?

Nobody is saying this. You are talking about the jet's max allowable g's and I am talking about speed and g's that are likely to damage the landing flaps.

From my in game experience, flaps jam if you put G load on them while they transition from open to close or vice versa. When open, you can certainly go a little over. So unload the jet when you flick the switch. The current implementation seems sensible (add usual disclaimer) - when the motors are running they are susceptible to jamming.

The NATOPs limits are a safe level at or below which, they will not jam, they probably have a significant safety built-in. As has been stated, in some squadrons it was done (and the world didn't end), in other it was banned.

I don’t think the 6g,7.5g or 9g whatever limit you want to use applies to configuration with the full flaps down.

The flap fully extended limit is much lower I’d say and for a reason.

The airplane itself stress damage modelling is good, but I think the full flaps and / or their tubing is still too much titanium like in their current implementation, in my opinion, as you can still massively overspeed and over g (6-7 g with full flaps seemingly no problem) them , often with any blocking,asymmetry or damage.

Regards

Snappy

Let me add my 2 cents here.

Regardless of what the actual g/speed/gw limits should component X break at (in this case flaps), I think pretty much everyone can agree that different airframes would have failures at different moments, depending on age, maintenance, stress etc.

How about adding some randomness, to simulate the above?

When you spawn, mayeb your F-14 is brand new and you can pull 15g without bending a thing, but maybe it's 25 years old and is an ex top-gun bird that pulled high g most of its life, so guess what, you'll lose a flap at 260 kts rather than at 300 (or whatever are the correct numbers).

I think something like this would go a long way in making people a bit more careful with their virtual plane. If it's true that they can simply respawn at the end of each dogfight, it won't be true that they get brand new jet every time.

ooooh, that's devious! I like it. From "Factory Fresh" to "Yeah.... this was Hoser's jet, gook luck"

 

How about adding some randomness, to simulate the above?

I think this kind of randomness is already implemented. That's why systems don't always start breaking down at the same load.

Nobody is saying this. You are talking about the jet's max allowable g's and I am talking about speed and g's that are likely to damage the landing flaps.

I know, i was just pointing out the differences between the values used in the flight manual (in this case for the g rating) and the actual capabilities at different stages. If the g load can range from ultimate 13, design 9, manual 6.5, then maybe the flaps go from manual 225, design 290, maximum 300....something?

When you spawn, mayeb your F-14 is brand new and you can pull 15g without bending a thing, but maybe it's 25 years old and is an ex top-gun bird that pulled high g most of its life, so guess what, you'll lose a flap at 260 kts rather than at 300 (or whatever are the correct numbers).

This would work well if we had some kind of continuity in missions-campaigns. Like in the old Jane's games, when you had certain amount of maintenance hours per flight deck, and you had to use them wisely on which birds you were going to spend them and how much of each. DCS doesn't provide this kind of functionality though. Not yet.