Using Flaps in a Dogfight with the F4U Corsair and others
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 авг 2018
- Is it possible to improve turn performance in a WW2 fighter by deploying the flaps? It depends. let's look at this issue and see what NACA and official sources say on the subject.
If you haven't already watched it, please watch this video first:
• P51 Mustang Turn Radiu...
The concepts in that video are required knowledge to understand this video.
Note: the P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other USAAF fighter, not more than any other fighter period. I misspoke there.
Sources:
NACA, Study of turning performance of a fighter-type airplane particularly as affected by flaps and increased engine supercharging
NACA, Measurements in flight of the flying qualities of the Chance Vought F4U-4 airplane
NACA, Measurements of the flying qualities of a Supermarine Spitfire VA airplane.
Army Air Forces Training Command, Advanced single engine flying
US Navy, Pilot's handbook F4U-4 aircraft.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
Please consider supporting this channel on Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom... 
Авто/Мото
I spent 5 years flying a T6 for a ride company. Some of the flights were simulated dog fights set up on a converging flight path with pre determined offset and the turn in. As we flew with very conservative engine power settings our max g loading in a turn was limited to about 3g (plenty for the guy up front and nice to the airframe). Some fights were over in few turns but once in a while we would get two good "pilots" (most were non pilots but they flew the fights after 20 min flight lesson) and the energy management game was on. With the better ones we would start doing bit of vertical high and low yo-yos, all to decrease the turn radius and to retain enough energy to track the lead plane long enough for a "kill". This is where bit of flaps helped, but it was only the finishing touch as the energy loss was very noticeable. It was all done for fun, but the good "fights" took a lot of energy out of me.....once the "Fight's On" came across the radio the flying got intense. The most memorable fight was my last check out before being sign off for commercial flights. I went against a very experienced guy, we started at 10k and hard deck was at 2k.....To this day (15 years later) he will not admit that I drove him below 2k but he never said that he got me. I had the front seat guy fly the airplane back to the airport, I was spent. This was a high energy fight, power was up and flaps would not make any difference as we were going well past the vertical. I saw your video where you talked about the Cub, Stearman (yes it is a truck, still love it, look up John Mohr Stearman acro to see what a great pilot can do in that bird). I think you should find a T6 with the right instructor and go up for an hour to see what these WW2 birds are about. It is an amazing airplane, it handles like a fighter with less power. I was able to fly P51 with the instructor only working the radios after few thousand hours in the T6, it was so easy. Amazing power that you have to respect, but the landings in P51 were a non event. That wide gear, long fuselage and higher wing loading made it simple. Ok rambling on, great channel, thank you.
It’s remarkable to think how advanced these aircraft were given only 35 years earlier...airplanes essentially didn’t exist.
Also...your work and dedication is remarkable and greatly appreciated as well !
Unfortunately war brings developments that we use everyday
pro tip : watch movies on flixzone. I've been using them for watching all kinds of movies lately.
@Kristopher Andres definitely, I've been using Flixzone} for months myself :)
I have personally experienced this effect. About 30 years ago when I was managing the family farm in Hawke's Bay New Zealand, the local topdressing pilot (crop duster to the Americans), who new we had some fertilizer in the bin to put on, buzzed me at the shed. I raced up to the strip, He asked if we wanted the job done --'Yep'. 'OK jump in, we need to find the loader'. After flying around the district we located the Loader truck. As he had no radio contact, he had to buzz the truck to get its attention, in doing so he was pulling some quite tight turns and at one stage he pulled the flap lever which tightened the turn heaps. It was much like I used to do in my rally car on a acute turn. Incidentally the aeroplane was a New Zealand built (from an American design) Fletcher top dresser with a 450 hp flat 8 Lycoming and could carry about a tonne of fert.
One thing is that if you are flying on the limit with the highest AoA if you deploy flaps it could actually stall the plane because the critical AoA decreases! Lovely video Greg Thanks for the lessons!
^This is correct, if the pilot attempts to maintain the exact angle of attack of the fuselage/nose, and in relation to the initial flap retracted zero-lift angle of attack.
But everything changes as flaps are deployed. Zero lift angle goes way up, pitching moment goes extremely negative, fuselage pitches down, almost automatically, and there is a surge in lift that acts to accelerate the aircraft "vertically" which reduces the AoA in proportion the flap deflection.
The issue of flaps reducing the stall angle in relation to the fuselage angle, is most pronounced in ground-effect when flaring for a landing. The wing will often stall almost exactly at flare attitude, which is usually ~11 degrees, plus or minus one. For straight wing, prop or GA type aircraft. The wing incidence is usually less than 2deg. Giving a flaps down stall angle of attack around 13+/-.
A flaps retracted airfoil/wing of average thickness typically stalls around 15 degrees.
When the U.S. first started using Corsairs to "High Speed Dive" to attack caves in Korea, they ran into a Problem. If they were using the "Newer F4U-5 Corsairs", the plane could attack at 400 mph. and "Pull Out With No Problem". If they were attacking with an earlier WW-2 version Corsair, when they did a "High Speed Pull Out", the Corsair might roll hard to the left, while the Corsair behind him might roll hard to the right during the same maneuver. Not being able to figure out and solve the problem locally, they finally go a hold of an "Old School Chance Vought Engineer", who told the to change out the Ailerons with "New Ailerons". The Mechanics protested, saying that there was "Nothing Wrong With The Ailerons On The Planes". The Engineer's response was "Just Do It And Go Try The Dives Again". Sure enough, the problem was solved. It turns out that the Corsairs have Wooden Ailerons and the glue was "Old and Dried Out" to the Point that at those "High Speed Pull Out Stresses" would cause the Old Wooden Ailerons to Warp, thus causing the Plane to turn toward the Worse Aileron during the Pull Out. Who knew? Regards, Tom
That's a great story Tom, thank you.
Never heard of that before.
Well that's scary as hell. Lucky they didn't come apart and crash the plane.
Cool info, but what's with all the "Quotation Marks"?
@@touristguy87 Wood and fabric planes don't pull out of dives at 400 mph, at least not successfully.
Did you know that Ed McMahon, from "The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson" fame, was a United States Marine flight instructor of Corsair pilots? He was about to be sent to the Pacific Theater when the Allies won, so didn't see WWII combat. However, he staid in the Marines Reserves and flew 85 combat missions in Korea, earning SIX air medals. I just found out last week, myself.
You are correct, sir!
Ah, millimeter paper, one of the most important tools in military for any sort of charts, from cartography to ballistics.
"I'm probably gonna mispronounce his name"
*pronounces name very well*
That makes me happy. I didn't have an actual German to consult so I sort of guessed.
Also, the dreaded "ch", existing in slavic languages (in cyrilic written as "x"), germanic languages, Spanish (as either "j" or "x") and more. Of course, it doesn't sound the same in all of the cases, but it's similar. It is relatively easy to pronounce - I'd say like "sh" (without using vocal chords), but instead of using the middle of your tongue to make the narrowest gap in the mouth, use the rear of your tongue. Russians often struggle to say "h" and end up saying "ch" instead.
@AE Devereux Close... V can be both the voiceless labiodental fricative (F) *and* the voiced labiodental fricative (V); pronunciation depends quite a bit on where the speaker hails from, but mostly it's something you have to learn by heart. But W is always the voiced labiodental fricative.
Example: Viktor - voiced (V). Volkswagen - voiceless (F).
Uhm, not really. Let's stay real.
Seriously? You that think that guys pulled 9G in combat? BS. G suits were not common until later and even then 7G was about as much as most points could stand. The seating position in a Corsair is quite upright and 9G would black out most pilots. This is is fantasy.
Japanese study titled "Study about aerial-combat flap" of N1K1 "Kyofu" (a flotplane, that later was redsigned to land-based fighter aircraft N1K1-J and ultimately led to development of famous N1K2-J) conducted by Yokosuka Ku (special detachement called Naval Air Research and Development Center) in March 1942 indicated that by use of flaps a turn radius could be decreased by as much as 20-30 % of the initial radius, however turn time did not show a substantial decrease. Similar results were achieved in vertical manouvers, namely loop, as loop radius was decreased and ending altitude was higher than without flap use.
I have specific data and graphs accompanying them if you are interested.
N1K1 was equipped with fowler flaps that for combat could be lowered by 19 deg. Overall I think Japanese put most effort in use of flaps for combat purposes as nearly all Army single fighters had them, starting with Ki-43 and Ki-44 as well as many Navy fighters (J2M, N1K and successor of A6M, the A7M Reppu). Some had automated flaps that were actuated by G loads I believe (though cant be sure about that, would have to get back to my notes on that one).
Ps. Japanese pilots were actually able to take advantage of those flaps. Even called here Oscar pilots:
"The leader's aircraft suddenly started going into a loop. I'll be in trouble if I don't stick together, so I bull back on the stick with all my might, but I could not follow the leader.
"Oh! The combat flaps!"
I noticed that the combat flaps were sticking out of the leader's trailing edge. I clicked the button on top of my stick and my plane started a loop with a very small radius. I had this convenient tool all along and yet forgot about using it altogether.
I looked down at the top of the loop and there they were! Four dark green Spitfires right beneath us. This was the formation that was chasing us all. They were now 400 meters below us, and were about to come into our range. The sudden reduction of the turning radius must have surprised more than one Spitfire pilot, but now it was too late.
May 5th, 1944 over Imphal, Sgt. Masahiro Ikeda, 64th Sentai"
Source: www.j-aircraft.com/research/quotes/ki43.html
I know that the D4Y2 got fowler flaps as well.
こんにちわ I haven't read any Japanese studies on this, but everything you say makes perfect sense. The NACA report also makes it clear that the fastest turn rate isn't always the smallest radius. I suspect the Japanese put the most effort into this, since they had the most fighters with fowler flaps, and generally put emphasis on agility.
Well, yes, agility was important and later designs which were heavier lost some turn performance, so to compensate that they were provided with flaps. It was especially important for aircraft like J2M which was not a pure dogfighter but more a high speed interceptor or N1K1-J which utilized laminar-flow airfoil and had very poor flying characteristics which only further hampered the manouverability. So again, flaps (and automated ones) were there to help that.
ki 84 hayate have automatic G load Fowler flaps
Another great post. This was not something widely known about the F4U. I just wonder how many pilots actually used flaps in turning fights? It should be remembered that the Corsair had some interesting stall characteristics which helped to keep it off US carriers until late in the war.
The Japanese N1K "George" also had automatic combat flaps as standard. It would be interesting to have a program on that.
In regards to the P-38, I have seen in print that Tommy McGuire regularly turned with Japanese aircraft at low speed. He also was said to have "bent" some P-38's permanently while doing so. And on his last flight, he attempted to turn with his adversary without dropping his external tanks. The resulting stall at low altitude killed him. It would be interesting to see a program on the P-38 in this regard. I do not recall Bodie mentioning this aspect of the P-38 in his book.
In Robert Johnson's book he recalls seeing a dogfight between a P-47 and a Spitfire. The P-47 won easily by fighting in the vertical, carefully using and controlling his energy in the fight.
Don’t trust anything from Robert Johnson... He claimed 72” high octane petrol use five months before it was available... The P-38 could be used in turn fighting, which is why it remained relevant as a fighter, barely.
What Mark of Spitfire, what Model P-47, Who were the pilots, at what altitude did the fight commence. And what were the starting perimeters? Who had the advantage? A Mk.VIII is going to decimate a P-47 in the range of 10kft. A P-47 is going to eat a Griffon Mk.22/24 and every other mark except the LF variants at 35,000'.
It's pretty much unanimous that Fighter Pilots, Brit and American, would take the Spitfire in a 1v1 dogfight to the death. And a P-47 into a war-zone. And this makes sense.
I wouldn't say don't trust anything from Robert S. Johnson. Especially because of a slight discrepancy of a few months. You weren't there, neither were historians, but he was. The American Petroleum Institute employed many thousands of engineers, chemists, and scientists. They almost certainly developed these fuels before mass producing and delivering them. Because the reverse cant possibly make sense in reality. A lead test pilot working for an aircraft company that was always at the forefront of capitalizing on improved octane would certainly be the first to test a new blend and probably to obtain the initial production batch for testing and use.
Also, the P-38 remained relevant because it was a fantastic design that did many roles well, and it had certain advantages for certain missions that no other aircraft could match. One was range. Another was very high cruise speed. Also a 4,000ft/min climb rate at sea level up to critical altitude. And a little known advantage was its extremely high cruise-climb speed, where it could fly beyond the maximum level speed of the A6M Zero, while also climbing. Another was unusually good low speed turn performance. In spite of its unusually high wing loading. This due to fowler action flaps, high aspect ratio wing, and large surface area located in high energy air behind the propeller slipstream. And the fact there was no roll-off due to torque and p-factor due to the counter-rotating twin design. It also had tricycle gear. And it had the heaviest concentration of accurate long range firepower in a US interceptor/fighter package.
@@wrathofatlantis23165 months before it was officially accepted, doesn't mean an astute crew chief didn't do it as it wasn't difficult to adjust.....what's your credentials?....
@@kenneth9874 He claimed in a 1990 interview 470 mph at 32000 ft, with an early P-47D-5 in March '44, at an altitude (32k) where tweaking the Manifold pressure to 72" would not yield any significant speed increase (as can be seen in the flight test chart he flew himself)... He also painted two Me-209 kills on his P-47, and claimed a FW-190D-9 in APRIL 1944, about 6 months before the D-9 appeared. He also did not know the P-47D Razorback could turn tightly (it did mush a lot, but with careful stick use it could sustain tight left low speed turns), and was in reality used mostly in left turning dogfights (about 90% of the time by 90% of the pilots), with next to NO dive and Zoom, in 800 P-47 Encounter Reports that I have read twice, including about 15 ERs he filed himself, covering 22 of his 27 kills, where none of the "vertical zoom fighting" he claimed to have "invented" is evident. Let's just say his relationship to the truth was elastic, to put it mildly. He is in pretty much the same league as Chuck Yeager, although being less famous, he escaped being openly debunked and disrespected by fellow pilots, at least as far as I know.
Of course ... The author is always the winner and the final authority on anything. If you're gullible enough to believe all was stories you hear...
Aspects of design like this are often overlooked, but they are just as interesting! I've wondered about the pros and cons of different flap designs. Hearing about the theoretical turn fight between the Corsair and Frank really reminds you that even the small details can make a significant difference in a plane. Thanks for sharing!
I keep learning new things about airplanes, wonderful.
I am *not* a maths man! So much of these explanations escape my grasp. Still, it is immensely intriguing to learn.
This also is why I am not an aviator. The main one is that I cannot see well enough to drive.
How I came to find aircraft of such keen fascination is beyond me.
C
Hans Jochiim
What a phenomenal video & thoroughly enjoyable & understandable with your F4 v. Frank example. Well done!
Always informative, you make it easy to listen to Greg !
Your videos are excellent sources of detailed data on aircraft performance! You make dogfighting into a rich, math-intensive experience, suddenly I feel overwhelmed. Did WW2 pilots really study all this detail to learn how to fight their aircraft? I'm really impressed!
WW2 pilots did know a lot. I am certain that any combat Corsair pilot would have known that he couldn't put deploy combat flaps until 200mph, and would have understood the energy cost. That doesn't mean they had to know the math, I don't. Pilots usually use charts and graphs to figure this stuff out, and commit the more critical numbers to memory.
Ok, that's still impressive, given my experience of flight sims, just boot up and off you go, flying pretend planes by the seat of my pants... So I'm more in awe of real combat pilots now... and even more of modern jet fighter pilots, going to school to learn to dogfight! Thanks again, Greg!
Tom Hannah Yes. Pilots had (and still) have to to be well grounded in math, physics and aeronautical engineering in order to understand how aircraft operate.
I doubt it. It was war time after all. They'd probably cover it quickly during training and the rest would be OJT.
Tom Hannah In a dogfight it's best to know everything there is to know about your airplane. I flew hang gliders for many years one of the gliders I flew was a vinyl is tV it had truncated tips which gave it very nasty stall characteristics. After flying it for some time I learned to turn those tasty stalls into an advantage. I could turn virtually on a dime, by simply stalling the inside tip. It was kind of like grabbing a pole with one hand & spinning around the inside movement was only circular. It's to bad it didn't become very popular because turning became easy to do once you learned how. I could turn inside every other glider in the air. It's a great feeling on a day when the thermals are real small & I could stay in them & everyone else could only fly thru them on their way to the landing area. I would loose altitude to get down to the others would be trying to show them where the lift was. I had almost an hour of flight but could only stay in one spot that I found where the lift was. Not much gum except being champ for that day & having to cover the same exact to root maximum area over & over. Of course with all the years of flying I had many ad bcc adventurous times. Thrills & really good times. Sure wish I could return to those days now all I can do is look at old photos & remember all the good people I met & the fun we had together. That's what I call the "good old day's" because to me they were. Old age sucks. LOL
Thank you,a very interesting insight to air combat,never seen previously.
Thank you!! My new favorite channel 🚀 I use your channel to decompress from auto racing. I live 45 minutes away from Reno . I hope to see you at the air races.
The Youngman flaps on the Firefly were reputed to seriously improve turn performance.
informative and entertaining as always. Keep them coming. Not enough of this sort of thing on Ute-tube. 😁👍
That's what I read constantly in P-47 pilot bio's, not full flaps, but what some referred to as bleeding flap,or turning flap. If I remember correctly, 5 to 10 degree of flap either at low level or altitude. Col. Eagleston, Boss of the 353 Fs/ 354 Fg. preferred a opposite stick to rudder maneuver to out turn 190's and 109's, break up their firing solution or for a snap shot of his own. F4U's though, they almost had barn doors for flaps, should've been able to do a "Button Hook". I know that'll over stress the airframe, among other issues. Great info, always a pleasure to lister and learn.
The P47 with its split flaps could tighten the turn up with some lower setting, 5 or 10 degrees makes sense to me, but I haven't seen any official number on this for the P47. The opposite stick and rudder move is high risk. If you get the shot and finish off your enemy, great, but if you miss, you just lost energy and your opponent if in a coordinated turn and an equal plane will come around on you.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles I thought the P47 had slotted flaps?
Correct, he would use the weight of the 47 to dive away from his enemy, regain speed and energy, then return to the fight.
Wow. amazing content.I really appreciate your effort to get down to my level.
Nice work on this and your previous turning video.
Another great video lots of info to learn too Thank you for your posts !
In sim games I usually perform a manewver I call the "super loop" its done after a headon or oblique crossing in the fighters path like a more extreme yoyo manewver where the enemy turns in a horizontal plane and you in the vertical fully deploying flaps at the peak resulting in a really tight turn that can rival more manewverable planes, it eats lots of potential energy so its a one shot moove.
Very interesting video! Ive always wondered how flaps really effected the planes in a fight.
Wow Greg, so interesting! I didn't know all this. You must research constantly.
Thanks so much!
You’re videos are so good! Love it man ✈️
"your"
Dick Bong and Tommy MacGuire were both quoted on multiple occasions of using their P-38 flaps to turn-fight Zeros on the Pacific. They clanked when they walked!
Your technological analysis of four types of flaps is quite interesting and persuasive.
Thanks, for the most part, it's straight out of the "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge". A free download from the govt.
Thanks for making clear the main source of this upload. I really appreciate your fair attitude to all the relevant information.
The general categories are not as clear cut as the pilots handbook would lead you believe. The designs are all part of a continuum and all sorts of hybrids and blends are common, not to mention combined controls like flaperons and spoilerons.
Greg, very interesting video, especially the overview of different flap types and their advantages. Well, with the number of views and comments, I think it's safe to say you have reached an enthusiastic audience! Keep 'em coming please!
Thanks Skip. A lot more is coming.
Very good informative video with good data. In combat flight aims I often use the flaps to force an overshoot or get the little extra turn performance I need to get a shot on an enemy but it is always costly to airspeed. This is especially important in the P-40. If you fail to shoot him down you typically have so little airspeed you might as well bail out.
great video as always, keep up the good work
Again a good video, i hope for more stuff, thx Greg
Thank you for making these.
Thank you very much for making this..glad to have seen it, thank you for following up my? and i am very happy it spawned such a wealth of data
Thanks for watching. It seems a lot of people are interested in this specific question. I needed to make this video as it's important to understand the concepts presented here in order to understand some of the comparisons that are coming soon to this channel.
I was just watching a baseball vlog(sp). I think your comments/views stat is off the charts.
Thanks for posting.
This was very interesting and an informative presentation.
And I learned about the difference in flap designs.
Thanks.
love these videos! I'm learning so much. Keep it up!
What are you going to do with this education?
I dunno, play war thunder better? Have knowledge? Eliminate ignorance? Were you genuinely curious or do you just like shitting on people's interests?
Cool! Thank you Greg.
In 1944 the British ran a series of maneuver tests comparing their Lend Lease Hellcat and Corsair to a captured FW-190D. The Hellcat and Corsair could easily turn inside the FW-190D but the FW-190D had a better roll rate.
Interesting. I only know of US Navy tests vs FW-190As, which are pretty absurd in their conclusions, to the Point the British contested them as erroneous. The A turned better than the D. That being said, a captured D tested as early as 1944 seems odd: It only entered service in September...
Marseille had his 109 set up in a way so that he could lower or raise the left or right landing gear to get tighter turns on Spitfires.
the source is a friend of him who survived the war. The friend wanted to become a pilot too but got taken by SS to become a tanker. They later met in Africa and Marseille told him the mod of his plane.
I don't doubt that your story is true, but I think Marseille was pulling your friend's leg. Either that or your friend misunderstood him. The rudder on the 109 is easily effective enough to get all the yaw you could use. It's more likely he would have modded something else, but then again, maybe...
@@paulbantick8266 Well let's remember that he didn't fly alone, and every single one of his claims demanded confirmation from either 2 fellow wingmen or ground crew to be accepted. So he wouldn't have come very far with lying, esp. since it was strictly punished in the LW, and you can be sure no'one would be giving away their kills for someone else to claim. Also his fighting method was documented by his wingmen, not himself, so that should be case closed really. Finally we have modern pilots with experience in both planes saying the difference between a 109 & Spitfire in turning performance was very small, with perhaps a slight advantage to Spitfire. So it seems it all matches up. It's just a sad thing he was fighting for the wrong side.
Paul i want to see evidence that no fighter pilot can have his total kills verified
A most informative video Greg. Was fascinating to see how a F4U-4 could maneuver with a Ki-84 like that.
Learned new things today.
Would no doubt make the F4U's deadly. Although I have not the patience to grind through the F4U line yet, F4U-1 is simply pitifully underpowered for the Meta.
Stop trying to force it into a turn fight and use energy tactics instead...
Oh I try, the main problem is that it climbs like a brick. By the time I get any decent altitude to start Boom and Zooming/Running, the enemy is 1 or 2 thousand meters above me and diving on me. No running from them regardless of side climbing.
The_Kiwi Thank you for correcting me, I'll make sure to keep that in mind in the future.
Superbly educational. A welcome breath of insightful air on these topics. Duly moved. Love your channel. 🏆
I really enjoy these vids. Keep up the good work please.
Thank you.
Oh great this is a very interesting one. Thanks a lot buddy.
Thanks. I am curious to hear what people think of this video. I am not sure if turn performance is of interest to my viewers.
It was very interesting.
I have 100 hrs in the F4U-4 from advanced training for the attack role. I only flew AD-3s and 4s in combat.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles It's very interesting for this viewer-thank you for an excellent video and clear explanations.
Hey Greg, your a pilot and a mechanic right? Maybe even an engineer?? Im just asking because ypur understanding of me hanics is pretty awesome.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles it is when you play war thunder haha
A fascinating analysis. P.S. My uncle flew Corsairs in combat in Korea (although ground attacks, as far as I know he was never engaged in air-to-air combat).
Air to Air combat with a Corsair was rare in the Korean war, but it did happen.
A nice video on engineering strengths and weaknesses by opposing forces.
Thanks Rascal.
Awesome vid. One thing to add is that this sort of simplifies dogfighting to hit-and-run or turn fighting, when in fact the widest amount of potential exists in vertical maneuvering for most planes, even "turn fighters" using displacement rolls, yo-yo's etc, which is what the pilots would have taken away from "don't turn fight". The example you provided, though, really pushes in the fact that a plane like the Corsair was the most maneuverable fighter in a turn above 300 mph against pretty much everything. A seasoned pilot would not have continued the turn behind the Frank, he would have displacement rolled into a firing solution once speed reached 300 mph to maintain energy (had a snap shot not hit prior).
Thanks. That's absolutely correct. My example of a Corsair vs. Frank turn fight was only intended to demonstrate the effect of selecting the flaps to 20 degrees. In reality, I think the Corsair pilot would have reduced bank angle and climbed before the speed dropped below 264 knots. The topic of this is about the effects of flaps in turns, so I had to use an example that would fit the subject matter.
Yup :). I would bet that is where those maneuvering crashes happened, when a newbie pilot took it to those ranges below 300 mph and kept a high AOA, especially near the deck where you don't have the recovery time. Personally in combat flight sims I use flaps more often than not in defensive situations to cause overshoot, or if a target is aggressively s-turning and I don't have a high roll rate (P38). There are plenty of real world examples of P38 pilots using flaps to help in combat, as much like the Corsair, it made a big difference in the short term for those ships. All 'Murican stuff really helps at low speed with 10-20 degree flaps. Hell the P51 you can use 10 degrees up to 400 mph.
another great video sir.
Greg, well done!
This is awesome. Thanks!
Very interesting. Thank you.
Really interesting video, as always!
Combat flaps will always improve your instantaneous turn but in the long run, the added drag will just slow you down too much. Maximum sustained turn time (as opposed to instantaneous turn) is always achieved with raised flaps. But flaps certainly do have a place in combat. A good pilot knows when to deploy and when to retract his flaps.
Combat flaps are a tool to be used, but as you point out, not always the best solution to a problem.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles What I gathered from Robert Shaw's book "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" suggests that the use of combat flaps, or flaps in general, should be used only for a short increase in turn rate to get a gun angle when you know you aren't going to be able to keep turning with your target, or right at the top of a vertical maneuver like a high yo-yo, where your descent in the second half of the maneuver will restore some of the airspeed you traded for altitude to tighten your turn.
It does not surprise me Shaw was so completely wrong about flaps in propeller combat... He applied jet physics to props, and even cherry picked combat reports of P-47s to make it look like an “energy” vertical fighter... Despite its crummy climb rate... Yes the P-47 could zoom, but read reports and all it does is turn.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I wonder if Greg "Pappy" Boyington really deployed the flaps in combat with his nemesis Tommy and made the Japanese pilot fly right past pappy and got shot down too.
I met the real Greg Boyington at the Reno Air Races but didn't ask because I was only about 12 years old then. Cool videos!
I remember when playing WW2 combat simulators, I did extend flaps slightly (for those with variable angles) to avoid stalling :)
Really great video Greg, and great relevant information. I'm surprised though that no mention was made of the IJN's Kawanishi N1K2-J, which was equipped with a mercury switch that automatically deployed flaps for combat maneuvering. Not sure about which flavor of flaps were utilized but the fact they would automatically deploy for maneuvering is fascinating.
Edit: so I did some research and found a couple of period documents. Total of about 230 drawings and blueprints including the flaps and actuating mechanisms. Unfortunately, I don't read Japanese. More than happy to forward those documents along to you, but I don't seem to be able to message you through RUclips except through comments.
I can't read Japanese either. I can count to 10 in Japanese, and I know a few words, but not many. I didn't mention the N1K2 simply because that plane needs its own video. In this video I just wanted to knock out the basic concepts involving use of flaps in turns. I'll set up my "about" page for this channel so that contacting me will be easy. I miss a lot of things in the comment section.
I wish I knew how realistic some sims are. I use flaps to enhance turns in wings of duty, but I have no idea if it does anything.
Thanks for a fascinating video once again.
I'd love to see you do a video on the Frank, it looks like an interesting plane.
The Fowler flaps on the Ki-84 make it SO easy to kill extremely-overconfident F4U-4Bs in War Thunder. They dive straight down on me, and all I have to do is set flaps to combat, bank into a declining spiral and pull up right behind them as they try desoarately to climb back up.
Dude this guy is awesome.
Greg, I really enjoy your videos and I hope you keep it up! I wanted to ask about the NACA reports you're always referring to. I'd there a central repository of these that you look through our do you do general searches of the web for them?
Hi Michael. There is a central repository on the NASA site, although the search engine there is somewhat poor, but it does work, especially if you know the title of the report you are looking for.
Good one, thanks!
I was flying an F4-D in IL-2 Pacific fighters on full real settings about a decade ago, when I encountered a Ki-84 coming the other way, Co-E and Co-Alt
We did a level merge at high speed, somewhere between angels 10 and 15, passing eachother on the port side with moderate to wide separation, each turning into the other to form a big flat circle. Our position was neutral, but I knew that he would rapidly gain advantage if I continued to play his simple turning game, and that he'd be on my tail after 4 revolutions at the most. So, I asked meself what dto do, and my training immediately answered: When caught in an angles fight with a more nimble opponent, take the fight out of plane. I quickly rolled right to pull and kicked the Hog into a high YoYo, extending flaps as I got the Crest of the manuver, to came slicing down on him from over the pole and inside the circle. As my first burst brushed him, he reversed in a desperate attempt at guns defense, but I'd throttled back and thrown full flaps by then, and all he managed to do was weave back and and fourth in front of me, into and out of my repeated and steady bursts. Three of those and his starboard wing root was in flames, and a few seconds after that he was spiraling down in one direction, and his wing in another.
I forgot to retract my flaps, and they jammed shortly thereafter, forcing me to rtb.
If you use flaps for combat turning, remember to retract them when you're done.
HEHE, nothing worse than knocking flaps wrong way and jamming them in the middle of a df! Ive been shot down a fair bit doing just that, just as well its only sim nor irl ;) il2 is the best! sad that its still (imho)yet to be beaten and i even go so far as to say the vanilla not just modded which changes it more so.
awesome sauce
Fascinating
This is by far one of your best videos yet. I just have to say I'm a P47 fan, I think the P51 is an overglorified weed eater with a seat, and i'm curious about the P47 vs its contemporary opponents. Everyone talks about the 47 in a dive, but I've seen interviews with famous 47 aces, like Gabreski, and read excerpts from Robert S Johnson, who took on a Spitfire in a friendly sparring match, who while they don't exactly claim it, certainly imply that a Thunderbolt could take any comer and best 'em. Actually the Thunderbolt vs Spitfire sparring match is one I'm eager to see you dissect.
Such a video would displease our British friends. The P47 was our best high altitude fighter, however the P51 simply cost much less, about 50k vs 80k. Add in the extra cost of operation and the shorter range, and the P51 becomes the easy choice for the people who decided what planes to order. However, if I had to fly a fighter in WW2, the P47 would easily be my first choice.
The Me 109 from the F onwards had split flaps with the radiator air exiting between the flap and wing thereby acting as a nozzle similar to P-51. Lockheed Electra & Hudson had Fowler flaps, had to get into small airports. Wing efficiency ie Lift to Drag ratio under heavy load is key to a sustained tight turning circle. Neither flaps or slats increase wing efficiency, they decrease though at least a smaller wing can be used which has lower drag. Slats don’t increase lift at any particular angle of attack but allow a higher angle of attack before stall and the higher angle is where the lift comes from.
Ive always wondered about this. I didnt realize these types of aircraft were like the equivalent of a motorcycle to a car on land. As if the controls literally being at ur finger and toe tips. It always seemed it would take to long to set up for a manuever like that without already being attacked. It always seemed that its not as evasive as it sounds. So wasnt right nor wrong. As you were saying in particular models it was possible and in some cases undoubtedly used by a pilot with some no how. Pretty neat video. Thanks.
Hi Greg Excellent video as always. May I adding something ? It's regarding the losses of F4-Us while maneuvering. At high angles of bank the phenomenon of wing stall reverses itself. What I mean is in a straight ahead stall the wing stalls at the root first which then propagates toward the tip. Stalling at the root sends turbulent air over the tail section which is then transmitted through the flight controls as shaking and vibration. This is the warning signal that even the most minimally trained pilot will recognize. This takes place by design. Nearly all aircraft are manufactured with Wing Washout. That is wing spars are manufactured with 5 degrees or less of twist root to tip and mounted to the fuselage with a higher angle of incidence this assures that any straight ahead stall will send the pilot a warning. In a high angle of bank the wing stalls from the tip. The only warning the pilot will receive in this case is the loss of back pressure on the stick, usually to late.
Hi Bob, I agree, I have talked about that in another video, I think the Me 163 video but I'm not sure. Thanks for making this point, it's important.
Excelent!! I don't know what's your background on aviation but I'm a bush pilot in Brazil and I fly Citabrias and often play dogfights and sometimes I use flaps for tighter turns, but I didn't know there was so much science behind it
Science is the interface between the machinery & the squidgy meatball trying to stay alive. Have fun out there : )
Hi Giuherme, I am also a bush pilot, well, an ex bush pilot. I did that type of flying in Alaska a long long time ago. I am currently an international 767 Captain.
Outstanding video sir I'm curious about the Super Corsair but with so few made doubt the information exists.
The Super Corsair could kick some butt, however it was too late to see combat in WW2. For that reason, along with the P51H, Bearcat, and Tigercat, it's not a priority for this channel.
SUPER INTERESTING
Excellent explanation! I actually met Joe Foss. (cactus af guad canal 26 vics). He really did not care for the early Corsair and your scenario explains why. Most of his best fights were at the edge of stall. Reference his book "a proud American". More nice work Greg.
Thanks Mike. I haven't read Joe Foss' book, but I do of course know who he is.
Thanks for the great video. It would be interesting if you did a piece on John Boyd.
Thanks Paladin. I have been asked to do that before, and I just might. It does blur into a grey area for this channel, it's not exactly a technical subject, but it sort of is. I am considering it.
Could you do a video on the automatic slats on the Bf-109 and the Lavochkin fighters?
Yes, but it's down the road a bit.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles way down the road
Hey I love your videos, they are very informative. I’m not sure if you take requests, but I was wondering if you could make a video covering the P-47. You’ve mentioned it in a previous video and I’d like to know more say in comparison to the P-51. Not sure exactly what information, but it seems fairly unique at least to the army air corps since it’s the only single radial engine fighter (that I can think of) that they used. Thanks for the videos.
Hi Joseph. The P-47 is one of my favorites, and I plan to cover it extensively. I will be comparing it to other fighters including the P-51. The reason I haven't done it yet it because it's such a complex airplane that some other factors need to be covered first. I have been chipping away at those in other videos, like the one on manifold pressure, turn radius and so on.
Can you do a video explaining the difference's betweeen the variant's of the Corsair? Thanks for the great video's!! Keep up the great work.
I'll do that eventually. Right now there are other things I need to cover.
I'm looking forward for you to dissect F-14 maneuvering capability!
Great stuff, Greg. When do we get to the booze and strippers on R&R in Australia? And how did the Foster lager ale improve climbing performance?
Well, I could add in stuff about strippers in Taiwan. I think you would find it fascinating. Just google "funeral strippers" for a good time.
There's a video on RUclips about an air battle called Y29 or something like that where Mustangs and Thunderbolts mixed it up with a large formation of German fighters on New Years Day of 1945, one of the maneuvers used by a Mustang pilot (pretty sure it was a Mustang and not a Thunderbolt) to turn inside of a German fighter at low speed and altitude was this one, it's a very interesting battle wherein most of it was at extremely low altitude, it is origionally from the History Channel and was made a few years ago so some of the men who were in it are interviewed, if I knew how to put a link up I'd do it but I'll bet if you enter Battle of Y29 it'll come up.
Thanks, I have seen that.
Thx never heard of it
Yes, I saw that program. It was a P-51 in a turning fight with a Bf-109 around a slag heap.
Magnar Nordal
Are you Dutch?
No, I'm Norwegian.
Did you add the second Mossie episode Vs the P-38 yet? If not, any idea how soon we might see it? Or if it's already out, what is it's title? Not bitching, it just that your channel is my favorite and I wait on tender hooks for each new issue! PS. Great show!!!
Not yet, I had to knock out some basic P-38 stuff first, but I'll get to it.
Hey Greg, you didn't go into detail on stall warning systems so out of curiosity I'll ask because I've never read anything about them before... What did they use as stall warning systems back then? I have a bunch of time in Cessnas and the only stall warning I've encountered (apart from control feel) are something like whistles that make a horrific sound when the airflow over wherever they are positioned, on the airframe is interrupted... Is that what they used then too? Or were there different and more advanced systems in use for fighters?
BTW saying your videos are awesome is a massive understatement. Not really enough moving footage or pictures to keep younger people entertained but that never worried me and the content is so well compiled they don't really need it.
I was wondering about that too, there's a paper by NACA: "Stalling Characteristics of the Supermarine Spitfire 5A Airplane" - it seems like it had an unmistakable buffet near the stall and that's it, no stall horns or blinking lights. Just some "dirty" airflow shaking it around.
I think they're talking about the fact that the plane doesn't buffet before stalling, it just goes - and when it does, one wing stalls before the other. "Stall warning" isn't necessarily a system, in many planes you'll feel and hear it coming naturally.
Jared, thanks for your kind words. The Corsair's stall warning system is much like that in a general aviation airplane except that uses a light at the top of the instrument panel rather than the noise you near in a Cessna. The light is not in all Corsairs, in fact some of the very F4U-1s don't have it! When installed, it comes on 4-8 knots above the stall with full flaps and gear down, and 18 knots above stall in the clean configuration. That's way too early to be useful when trying to get maximum performance out of the plane. In addition to this, as with all airplanes there are other "warnings" of stall, including buffeting, noises, and the feel in the controls. Those signs are all weak in the Corsair, so the lack of a decent stall warning system is a bigger problem than it would be otherwise. In short, it takes a very skilled and experience pilot to get everything out of the Corsair in turning performance. Thankfully for Corsair pilots, it had so much speed, climb and diving capabilities, that it really didn't need to turn fight anyway.
Stall horn... nailed it! I should have remembered the correct name for them!
Thanks!
I'm late to this vid, but I wanted to thank you for your analysis. Re the Spitfire and its two position flap, I understand it was a landing flap only. The angle of the split flap was 90 degrees. They used wooden wedges to achieve a takeoff flap position when they flew Spit Vs from carriers to ferry them to Malta. Otherwise they were up, or down for landing only.
Bladder Funny how the Spits could roll faster Go higher dive further turn tighter with those old Flaps
You know your stuff on airplane👍
War Thunder players: *deploys landing flaps at 700kph to make a 20G turn*
Is that possible at least in arcade?
@@user-wu2dk7ye1d probably, planes in arcade are UFOs. I know I saw around 15Gs once in a Beaufighter without even trying back when the game was in beta.
I feel targeted xD
You good man
Movie - God is my Copilot - P40 used flaps to force zero to pass him to get Tokyo Joe.
Good video, but there are a good things to refer : F4U Corsair was an aircraft with sufficient stall warning for basically. All production inspection trials reports for Corsairs of Vought, Goodyear and Brewster show it. Even the earliest F4U-1(BuNo 2296, birdcage canopy, no stall strip) was rated 'warning is good' by USAAF pilots. The stall characteristic problem of F4U mostly occurs with landing condition(gears, flaps and dive brake fairings fully extended). There was little or no stall warning under landing condition. They showed a tendency to reduce warnings as the drag increases under the wing.
The NACA report states that there was unsatisfactory or virtually no stall warning in all conditions, It seems because in all conditions there were already a huge drag items under the wing like landing condition. When you look at the pictures in the NACA document, you can see that NACA's F4U-4 had eight rocket racks, two stub pylons, and two HVAR-like measuring devices fixed in a rocket racks. It's difficult to say that it had no impact.
According to modern evaluation of SETP, the stall characteristic of Corsair was as follows.
'Aerodynamic warning of the normal stalls in both configurations ranged from scant to nonexistent. The P-47 was the best with some light airframe buffet occurring about five kts. above the stall. The P-51 had virtually no warning, the Corsair and Hellcat a couple of knots apiece. Secondary cues such as decreasing aileron effectiveness and increasing longitudinal stick forces were noticeable in all except the FG-1D in which the stick forces tended to lighten before the stall. Normal stalls for all aircraft in all configurations, power on or power off, were defined by an uncommanded nose down pitch accompanied in most cases by a wing drop, the direction and severity of which were strongly influenced by any departure from balanced flight conditions. In all normal stalls except those in the Corsair with power on, it was possible to control the wing drop by coarse use of the rudder.'
'The Corsair generated considerable airframe buffet five knots prior to stall in a constant 3g turn but at the stall there was a pronounced g-break and a rapid right wing drop regardless of the direction of the turn. With care, the wing drop could be prevented with some anticipatory left rudder but the aircraft then became very unpredictable at the stall with moderate to severe bucking and porpoising motions and the ever present likelihood of departure.'
And they rated Corsair as follows.
'Light and comfortable stick forces, good performance, adequate stall warning and docile behavior at the stall made it the "weapon of choice" among those tested.'
Of course they were experienced pilots. So share the conclusion with this video. In their words, 'perhaps more suited to experienced pilots.'
The NACA test was done with "no external tanks or armament installed". It was tested as the plane was operated in real life as a fighter. Furthermore they did the test with the wing in various conditions, so I think they were quite through. I'll take NACA test results over the SETP any day, and I think the Corsair's actual war record reflects what was found in the NACA report.
Last year Americans brought a Corsair to the airshow nearby. They were flying extremely impressive aerobatics reeeaaly low. With poor stall warning? I was impressed back then, now I'm floored.
The F4U’s flaps are amazing! It really tightens the turn and maintains altitude, if War Emergency Power is used. Another interesting aircraft that flap setting can benefit is the KI - 43 where the first notch really benefits tight turns. Interestingly enough, using flaps to tighten turns in an A6M seems to add a lot of drag and very little increased lift. Another interesting aircraft that benefitted from flap use to tighten turns was the Hurricane, even though it had but two positions. Dropping the flaps on the Hurricane really aided in it’s ability to turn. FWIW
Saburo Sakai was caught out in a Lufberry with several Hellcats caging him in. This was, I believe, when the Hellcat first entered the Pacific Theatre and zero pilots suddenly found themselves with a more equal adversary. They each took turns to peel off into the interior and attempted to take him out. Each time this happened, Sakai desperately pulled back on the stick to avoid their fire. He could see their tracers zip by awfully close, but he knew how to fly the zero as we will never know. He avoided being hit every time and eventually escaped the trap to tell the tale. Now, it doesn't matter so much which mark of zero he was flying because he would have flown whatever he was sitting in to maximum effect. Wouldn't it be interesting to actually experience that extra sense of wisdom someone like he possessed so the plane can be pushed without going over toppling limits? Not exactly about combat flap settings w.r.t. the Corsair, I know, but relevant when it comes to going head to head with turn radius by instinctive feel.
Yes, pilot skill has an effect on how well a plane can maneuver, and on turn radius.
reminds me of Pappy Boyington and Baa Baa Blacksheep from the 70s
Flaps ARE useful and WERE used in one condition: If you are jumped by a diving bogey that gets on your tail, you can suddenly pull full flaps in the hope that the bogey will fail to decelerate before he zooms past and you get a shot at his tail. I've read about this in pilot autobiographies, sorry can't remember who or when.
Great video!
Question: in a maximum SUSTAINED turn would it be wiser to just keep a clean config in order to minimise the power required from the engine to keep that turn going?
Rephrasing the question, do manoeuvre flaps only help to give you a temporary tighter turn while hoping to get a good shot and would they just create too much drag for a sustained turn?
Apologies if the question is silly.
It would also be great to have a similar video about the slats system (Bf109, Lysander etc)
Thanks and greetings from Italy!
It depends of the plane. In some cases maneuver flaps will help the sustained turn rate. More on this in the next video, coming very soon.
Another bloody brilliant video, even if im still struggling to understand it properly! Im one to often not run flaps when dogfighting in il2, my personal perception was i found that they would wash of too much speed for little gain, many times getting me killed because speed drop allowing pilot chasing me to close within firing range. I tend to "run" vs engage unless i have height advantage and with height speed advantage i have no need to out turn other pilot, come in fast, hit them and GTFO! Im not professing to be very good, just this is the way ive found best to work for me. Mostly just use flap to take off/land. I also mostly use bf109 because its my favourite and maybe its flap design leads itself to this style of flying, i dunno!
Thanks for the accuracy on your videos ( or your tendence to be as much accurate as possible). As far as I know technicaly about this point, almost nothing because I'm not a techman, so my question is about how many types of flaps deployment were in those days (hydraulic, compressed air,...) and which A/C type ( you mentioned in the video) used it. I know that Spitfires system was an electrical in-cockpit gauge that actuates 2 air compressed pistons to deploy/release them. I want to now it just to figure out how fast they could deploy them and, in fact, the deployed flap became actually effective, in a phycologically & physically high stress situation. I can't imagine no pilot entering in a 6-7 G's turn and pulling the stick with one hand and at the same time with the other hand actuating the in-cockpit flap wheel. I'll be glad if you can answer this "quite simple" question, but no so simple answer: Thanks for advance. Maybe I've just given you an idea to develop a new video talking "in depht" about this. Regards
There are many different types of systems to deploy flaps in various WW2 fighters. We have hydraulic systems, electrical, mechanical, air pressure, or vacuum. Sometimes you have combinations, for example electrically controlled, but hydraulically actuated.
The Corsair's hydraulic flaps are easy for the pilot to operate, even during combat. The Corsair pilot doesn't have to worry about overspeeding them either, which is really nice because it has a load relief function typical of US Navy fighters. I explained this function in my F4F Wildcat video. The Bf109's mechanical flaps would have been difficult to use in combat, however it was done.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks very much for your answer and for the Warbirds series. Great videos: remarkable huge researching effort and remarkable effort for resuming all that tough information and converting all into great didactical videos.
Howdy Greg !
Could you make a video as to Why the P-51D is considered by you the best WWII Fighter compared by the Spitfire and Yak-3?
I'll make a video a lot like that in the future.
Very useful when you just need a biiiiit more to get the guns on target. The general need to keep energy up precludes use the majority of the time.
Well said!
Very well done.
Would be interesting to look at the advantages of some of the other flaps as well. The split flap for instance. It is very good for dumping speed quickly much like an air break. I have used it as such quite often in the 190 during a scissors to force my opponent to overshoot. Also to change deck angle for low speed deflection shots. I suspect plain flap have a similar effect if they can be deployed quickly.
Hi Central. I always look forward to your comments. Your assessment of the split flap is dead on. While it won't help the sustained turn rate much, or even at all, it does slow the plane faster than other types, which can be a huge advantage, especially when the plane is pointed downhill. The Plain flaps are sort of in between the split and slotted in terms of effect.
Very nice video and Chanel Greg!
Also, you can use the yak magic flaps to do basically everything!
Outclimb a co-energy 109, avoid a stall on a slow tight turn, even to steady a steep climb when running out of speed,so you can try a firing solution
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles True. My analysis of the plain flaps relies heavily on my Father's experience. At one time he owned a Grumman Traveler; which used plain flaps, and he said it was like putting on the breaks when you dropped the flaps in that plane. I got the opportunity to experience this once myself in someone else's Traveler. No doubt the specific design parameters of the flaps on any given airplane also determine the type of performance they provide. Wing cord proportions, deployment time, length, ect.
I flew a Grumman Cheetah, much like the Traveler. Those Grumman light planes were fantastic.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles Yep. Very slick birds. One of my Father's greatest regrets was selling his.
Kawanishi N1K had mercury switches that deployed flaps automatically during tight turns