ORIGINAL: m10bob
ORIGINAL: el cid again
The Ki-43 was not popular with JAAF test pilots. Their experience with the Ki-10 - and the Ki-27 (and its Ki-33/Claude competator) - led them to demand more maneuverability. They "believed that future air combats would look like WWI dog fights." To answer this call, the Ki-43 - still in development - introduced butterfly flaps - which "could increase lift" and "greatly reduce the turning circle" - leading to extreme maneuverability. In response to a flap system adding maneuverability to P-38 - we need to consider it for this case - where it seems to have been effective. The Ki-43 lacked the punch of the Zero - but it was "almost as great a technial surprise" - and "no Allied fighter (at the time this statement was made) could stay with it in a turn." For this reason we will add a boost to this fighters maneuverability rating.
10-43(Info Only)..The flaps were originally put on the P 38 to counter compressability problems due to the planes inability to recover from sustained dives, (suffered on the earlier models, sometimes fatally).
The pilots killed were usually the newer ones who did not realize if they stopped pulling back on the stick, and actually pushed forward, it would allow the plane to recover itself and make the compressability factor on the wing decrease sufficient to allow the stick to then be brought back, (at a lower altitude.)
Any flap would assist in maneuverability in some way, and none as effective as the Ki 43 "butterfly flap" which was shaped like 2 pancakes under the pilot and extending to both wings approx 6-7 feet out on each wing.
The thing was supposedly the inspiration for the floating tailplane on the F86......
I read a technical test pilot paper on this - a P-38 pilot. He said that F8F and Corsair had a similar problem. In a dive some parts of the wing had air exceeding the speed of sound - and this caused a loss of lift - which led to a stall. The flaps were indeed installed to permit a solution to this problem - but turned out to have other beneficial effects. P-38 was NOT designed to be what it became. It was NOT intended to be a long range fighter, it was NOT intended to be a fighter bomber, it was NOT intended to be mass produced - it was instead designed to be a short range air superiority fighter vs high altitude enemy aircraft. The two engine configuration was NOT specified - but was required due to lack of powerplants of sufficient power at the time (pre war) it was concieved. The plane evolved very differently from what was originally planned - and the flaps are no exception - rather are typical of how this aircraft ended up different from what was originally planned. All in all, a remarkable story - a story of long technical development continually leading to better and more versitile combat aircraft. Although NOT intended for long over water flights, it became more suitable for than than any other US fighter was.
