A question about the P-39 Airacobra

[quang]

Hello everybody,

 

The great majority of P-39 models show the plane with the flaps down. Yet nearly every photo of full size P-39's on the ground shows them with the flaps up. Am I missing something? 

 

Thank you for your help

 

Quang

[Cees Broere]

Quang,

Presumably having flaps down increases the risk of damaging them. On models flaps down looks more interesting. For instance, when you see pics of Spitfire models

with flaps down you know that it was because the modeller wanted it that way. Spitfire pilots were fined 5 pounds when they left the flaps down.

Cees

[David Hansen]

FWIW, speaking as a pilot the flaps on the P-39 and Spitfire are simple split-type flaps. They mainly work best as a source of drag on final approach. There's a little bit of value added on takeoff, but not very much. Certainly nothing like the benefits you get from extended flaps on a Hellcat or Corsair.

 

After landing its normal practice to retract flaps. If you leave them full down after engine shutdown, you look like an idiot.

 

Just my operational experience.

 

-d-

[Dpgsbody55]

As far as land based WW2 fighters were concerned, it was general practice to raise the flaps on landing.  There were 2 reasons for this.  Firstly, many planes had a tendency to float, but even if they didn;t, it was considered advisable to kill lift as soon as possible after touchdown, so pilots generally raised flaps immediately after touchdown.  Secondly, these planes were often operated on unsealed airstrips, so it was good practice to raise flaps ASAP to keep mud and dirt out of the flaps mechanism.  At worst, something might get in the flaps to hinder their operation.  Also, you didn't want to get off side with your ground crew by causing them unnecessary work such as having to clean out the flaps area and mechanisms.

 

 

Cheers,

Mike

[Shawn M]

As mentioned it is SOP to retract the flaps after landing.

Unless undergoing maintenance or "posed" they should be up on the ground.

Exceptions exist like the Mustang whose flaps and gear doors droop as hydraulic pressure bleeds off.

[LSP_Ron]

Some planes are seen regularly with flaps down. Corsair being one, it made it easier to get in and out of the plane with the flaps down.  Later model Me-109 etc has 100's of pics of the flaps down or at least the split flap because the lower controlled airflow through the radiators and would overheat if closed while taxiing.  P-47 is regularly seen in pics with flaps down and parked for easier access to load the guns with the flaps down.

[quang]

For some reasons, a Cobra on the ground with the flaps down always looks wrong to me. Now I know why. 

So I think I'll just close the flaps on my Kitty Hawk P-39 and leave it at that.

 

Thank you all gents, for your insight,

 

All the best,

Quang

[D.B. Andrus]

Hello everybody,

 

The great majority of P-39 models show the plane with the flaps down. Yet nearly every photo of full size P-39's on the ground shows them with the flaps up. Am I missing something? 

 

Thank you for your help

 

Quang

 

Very good question, thanks for asking.

 

BTW, hope all is well in your area of Brussels.

 

Cheers,

 

D.B.

[quang]

Thank you D.B. for your concern.

 

Cheers,

Q

[Chek]

But you also have to factor in that as makers of models, some subjects look more interesting with deployed surfaces.

 

For instance I have next to zero interest in airliner models, but if I were ever to build a Boeing 747 (or whatever) model, it would be with slats and flaps all out.

[quang]

But you also have to factor in that as makers of models, some subjects look more interesting with deployed surfaces.

 

 

As a 'vintage' modeller  , I'd stick to the old-school rule: represent aircraft in their environment as realistically as one can.

 

Thank you for your input,

Cheers,

Quang

[MikeC]

FWIW, speaking as a pilot the flaps on the P-39 and Spitfire are simple split-type flaps. They mainly work best as a source of drag on final approach. There's a little bit of value added on takeoff, but not very much. Certainly nothing like the benefits you get from extended flaps on a Hellcat or Corsair.

 

After landing its normal practice to retract flaps. If you leave them full down after engine shutdown, you look like an idiot.

 

Just my operational experience.

 

-d-

 

 

As far as land based WW2 fighters were concerned, it was general practice to raise the flaps on landing.  There were 2 reasons for this.  Firstly, many planes had a tendency to float, but even if they didn;t, it was considered advisable to kill lift as soon as possible after touchdown, so pilots generally raised flaps immediately after touchdown.  Secondly, these planes were often operated on unsealed airstrips, so it was good practice to raise flaps ASAP to keep mud and dirt out of the flaps mechanism.  At worst, something might get in the flaps to hinder their operation.  Also, you didn't want to get off side with your ground crew by causing them unnecessary work such as having to clean out the flaps area and mechanisms.

 

 

Cheers,

Mike

 

 

As mentioned it is SOP to retract the flaps after landing.

Unless undergoing maintenance or "posed" they should be up on the ground.

Exceptions exist like the Mustang whose flaps and gear doors droop as hydraulic pressure bleeds off.

 

 

Some planes are seen regularly with flaps down. Corsair being one, it made it easier to get in and out of the plane with the flaps down.  Later model Me-109 etc has 100's of pics of the flaps down or at least the split flap because the lower controlled airflow through the radiators and would overheat if closed while taxiing.  P-47 is regularly seen in pics with flaps down and parked for easier access to load the guns with the flaps down.

 

 

And the moral of the story is that if you're aiming for realism, there is no one rule covering every type, look at reference photos.  If you're aiming for interest rather than realism that's fine, that's your call, but I reserve the right to wince when I see a model of a parked Spit with flaps down. 

 

 

...

BTW, hope all is well in your area of Brussels.

...

 

Yes, second that.

 

As a 'vintage' modeller  , I'd stick to the old-school rule: represent aircraft in their environment as realistically as one can.

 

Thank you for your input,

Cheers,

Quang

 

I'm with you on this!  Others' mileage may vary of course.

Edited March 24, 2016 by MikeC

[quang]

And the moral of the story is that if you're aiming for realism, there is no one rule covering every type, look at reference photos.  If you're aiming for interest rather than realism that's fine, that's your call, but I reserve the right to wince when I see a model of a parked Spit with flaps down.  

 

 

Sooo at the end of the day, it sums up to 'interest' versus 'realism'.

 

'Interest' is clearly the current trends. Then I'd rather stay 'vintage'. 

[MikeC]

Sooo at the end of the day, it sums up to 'interest' versus 'realism'.

 

'Interest' is clearly the current trends. Then I'd rather stay 'vintage'. 

I use the word "interest" loosely: to me realistic is interesting. That's just my opinion of course, others may differ, but I'm glad there is at least one who shares that opinion.

[quang]

I use the word "interest" loosely: to me realistic is interesting. That's just my opinion of course, others may differ, but I'm glad there is at least one who shares that opinion.

 

Rest assured. We're not the only ones.

 

It's just that the 'interest' guys get all the exposure