Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Bristol Fighter: planes we hope one day to fly


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 01 June 2011 - 21:59

A Comparison of Model & Full Scale Performance of the Bristol Fighter using Flight Lieut. Capon's method of Presentation

Reports & Memoranda No 983

Attached Files


  • 0

#42 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 01 June 2011 - 22:09

The Full Scale Determination of the Lateral Resistance Derivatives of a Bristol Fighter Aeroplane

Reports & Memoranda No. 987

Attached Files


  • 0

#43 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 01 June 2011 - 22:12

The Full Scale Determination of the Lateral Resistance Derivatives of a Bristol Fighter Aeroplane

Reports & Memoranda No. 987

…continued

Attached Files


  • 0

#44 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 01 June 2011 - 22:25

Flying Positions of Control Surfaces of Bristol Fighter

Reports & Memoranda 1060

Attached Files


  • 0

#45 MarcoRossolini

MarcoRossolini
  • Posts: 2991
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 02 June 2011 - 12:52

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :D
  • 0

#46 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 02 June 2011 - 16:18

Experiments on a model of a Bristol Fighter (1/10th scale)
Section 1. Force & Moment Measurements at Various Angles of Yaw
Section 2. Lateral Derivatives by the Force Oscillation Method


Reports & Memoranda 932

Attached Files


  • 0

#47 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 02 June 2011 - 16:22

Experiments on a model of a Bristol Fighter (1/10th scale)
Section 1. Force & Moment Measurements at Various Angles of Yaw
Section 2. Lateral Derivatives by the Force Oscillation Method


Reports & Memoranda 932

…continued

Attached Files


  • 0

#48 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 02 June 2011 - 16:25

Experiments on a model of a Bristol Fighter (1/10th scale)
Section 1. Force & Moment Measurements at Various Angles of Yaw
Section 2. Lateral Derivatives by the Force Oscillation Method


Reports & Memoranda 932

…continued

Attached Files


  • 0

#49 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 02 June 2011 - 16:33

Measurements of Lift, Drag & Pitching Moment of the 1.5th scale Model of the Bristol Fighter with Airscrew Running

Reports & Memoranda 937

Attached Files


  • 0

#50 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 02 June 2011 - 16:37

Measurements of Lift, Drag & Pitching Moment of the 1.5th scale Model of the Bristol Fighter with Airscrew Running

Reports & Memoranda 937

…continued

Attached Files


  • 0

#51 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 02 June 2011 - 16:42

Full Scale Tests of Different Ailerons on Bristol Fighter Aeroplane

Reports & Memoranda 966

Attached Files


  • 0

#52 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 06 July 2011 - 17:47

Lateral Control of Various Aeroplanes

Reports & Memoranda No. 441 March 1918

Attached Files


  • 0

#53 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 11 July 2011 - 21:35

The Full Scale Determination of the Lateral Resistance Derivatives of the Bristol Fighter Aeroplane

Reports & Memoranda No. 1270

Attached Files


  • 0

#54 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 11 July 2011 - 21:39

Measurement of Lateral Derivatives on the Whirling Arm

Reports & Memoranda No. 1249

Attached Files


  • 0

#55 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 11 July 2011 - 21:47

Lateral Stability Calculations for the Bristol Fighter Aeroplane

Reports & Memoranda No. 1306

Attached Files


  • 0

#56 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 11 July 2011 - 21:50

Lateral Stability Calculations for the Bristol Fighter Aeroplane

Reports & Memoranda No. 1306

…continued

Attached Files


  • 0

#57 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 11 July 2011 - 21:55

Stability Derivatives of the Bristol Fighter

Reports & Memoranda No. 1277

Attached Files


  • 0

#58 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 11 July 2011 - 21:58

Stability Derivatives of the Bristol Fighter

Reports & Memoranda No. 1277

…continued

Attached Files


  • 0

#59 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 11 July 2011 - 22:00

Experiments on the Spinning of a Bristol Fighter

Reports & Memoranda No 1261

Attached Files


  • 0

#60 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 27 July 2011 - 00:07

An Analysis of the Component Weights of Aeroplanes

Reports & Memoranda No. 676

http://riseofflight....ly&f=49&t=11037" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">posting.php?mode=reply&f=49&t=11037

post#55, 56
  • 0

#61 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 08 June 2012 - 18:03

Bristol Fighter Rotational Inertia

Attached Files


  • 0

#62 :FI:Wolfhound

:FI:Wolfhound
  • Posts: 65

Posted 08 June 2012 - 18:26

I really hope the bias against the falcon 3 Brisfit ends soon in multiplayer,as a great fan of the aircraft, I think with the introduction of 200hp Halberstadt CL.II as a regular on the servers,hopefully this attitude will change :S!:
  • 0

#63 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:11

I am biased against the Falcon III F.2b; my bias is the evidence. We know that the Falcon 3 F.2b shouldn't climb to 10,000ft in under 10 minutes, and we're waiting for it to be fixed. As a fan of the aircraft, I recommend that you join the bandwagon that wants to see FM review.
  • 0

#64 :FI:Wolfhound

:FI:Wolfhound
  • Posts: 65

Posted 09 June 2012 - 13:25

Since i dont and wont share your recommendation on anything Gavagai your point is mute,as most of the aircraft used in multiplayer needs a FM reveiw , I just dont see why the Falcon 3 Bisfit is singled out, since the camel Dr 1,Albies ,N28 ,D7 ,D7f,PuP ,to meantion a few are all used
Sorry if this is going off topic guy's
  • 0

#65 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 09 June 2012 - 21:12

Since i dont and wont share your recommendation on anything Gavagai

Image
  • 0

#66 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 09 June 2012 - 21:21

The Sopwith Pup and to some extent the Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr.I are equally 'frowned upon' by some mission makers and server hosts, for the same reason.

I love the Bristol Fighter…….which is why I don't fly it in Rise of Flight.
  • 0

#67 :FI:Wolfhound

:FI:Wolfhound
  • Posts: 65

Posted 09 June 2012 - 21:51

Sorry gavagai,
i dont hate you, i dont hate anyone,i just think your opinion is wortless ;)
  • 0

#68 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 09 June 2012 - 23:31

When you give up being an Entente fanboi you might see things differently, things like the fact that the 200hp Cl.2 still climbs slower than its performance data. Your comparison of the F.2b to that aircraft makes no sense.
  • 0

#69 :FI:Wolfhound

:FI:Wolfhound
  • Posts: 65

Posted 10 June 2012 - 11:17

I am no side's fan boy, my squad usually does fly Entente (mainly sydicate), as it is usually the under strength side, but we do fly central aswell, so as usual you are misinformed, nothing changed there.Also my ride of choice is the Bristol, I freely admit it, I assume most player's do have a ride they prefer, so no problems there.My Point again is that the bias toward the Falcon 3 Bristol on Multiplayer servers in my opinion cannot be justified anymore.
gavagai its time for you to go under your bridge.
Image


Gavagai will no doubt have to feel compelled to answer this , at least to prove some point or other, i will not be answering him as i think this back and forth has started to hijack this tread, and as that what gavagai does best on these forums,Again i ask Mission builders to consider the case for the falcon 3 Bristol, sorry again guys and gals
  • 0

#70 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 10 June 2012 - 13:10

Go complain in the Syndicate's thread and see how far you get. You have a lot of gall to complain that I'm hijacking this thread as a cover for your whine.

————————

Falcon II Bristol:

Climb:
1000ft 00:00:50,62
2000ft 00:01:44,37
3000ft 00:02:38,62
4000ft 00:03:41,46
5000ft 00:04:42,73
6000ft 00:05:51,34
7000ft 00:07:00,39
8000ft 00:08:21,65
9000ft 00:09:53,93
10000ft 00:11:32,70

Falcon III Bristol

Climb:
1000ft 00:00:44,59
2000ft 00:01:35,29
3000ft 00:02:23,04
4000ft 00:03:14,90
5000ft 00:04:11,32
6000ft 00:05:09,76
7000ft 00:06:10,04
8000ft 00:07:20,39
9000ft 00:08:34,51
10000ft 00:09:52,21

Here, the better time to 10,000ft was 11min 15sec.
Image

(11.25-9.86)/average =

13% error
  • 0

#71 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 10 June 2012 - 14:17

My Point again is that the bias toward the Falcon 3 Bristol on Multiplayer servers in my opinion cannot be justified anymore.
Why not?

The F.II pretty much performs like the F.III should, so if servers use the F.II, you practically got your F.III already.

It's not a bias against the F.III, it's a bias against using a overperforming plane, when you have the option to use a variant which is able to take its place with a more realistic performance.

Even though i do agree that the 200 HP Cl.II might see too much use, but then, most Central planes are so underperforming (even the 200 HP Cl.II might), that it doesn't really matter…
  • 0

#72 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 23 March 2013 - 00:46

Pilot June 1999

Flying the Aircraft of the Shuttleworth Collection, Andy Sephton

"A conventional throttle exists on the Bristol F2b, for example, which is used with a conventional mixture control and an advance-and-retard level to modulate the power. In this case, the fuel system is the most complicated part of the aircraft, but its idiosyncrasies are quickly assimilated. In any event, action following failure is placarded in the cockpit. The only critical system is engine cooling, but an adequate gauge is fitted in the cockpit, and a lever controlling the radiator shutters provides a powerful control over coolant temperature.

Aerodynamically the aircraft has adequate control in all axis, although roll power is poor and adverse yaw is excessive. all the four ailerons travel further down than up, this coupled with the large span and low directional stability can make for some untidy flting if (relatively) high roll rates are attempted."
  • 0

#73 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 23 March 2013 - 06:40

Does our F.2b have asymmetrical aileron deflection?
  • 0

#74 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 23 March 2013 - 08:18

PieCost would it be possible to find out these angles?
  • 0

#75 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 23 March 2013 - 15:03

You are thinking about the correction made to the Fokker DVII ailerons aren't you? What a difference that made.

I had a look in the Air Board Technical Notes which has the rigging instructions. It mentions 3/4" aileron droop but not the maximum deflection angle. This wasn't something specified or adjusted. The designer ensured that the requisite angles were achieved and that was that. Later aircraft may have adjustable stops which required adjustment to attain the maximum angles (and specified them).

I don't know where else to look.
  • 0

#76 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 23 March 2013 - 15:21

You are thinking about the correction made to the Fokker DVII ailerons aren't you? What a difference that made.

I am, yes. You sound ironic, but I do think it actually made quite a big difference - plus it seemed to be an easy for for them. Thanks for the research, as always!

Perhaps someone with connections to TVAL could ask them about their Bristol Fighter?

I believe the ailerons on our Rise of Flight Bristol Fighter already move further down than up, though. At least they seem to, when checking the animations in the skin viewer.
  • 0

#77 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 23 March 2013 - 15:55

Jorri, no I was being sincere. Perhaps a reverse DVII mod is needed, not that we know that the deflections are wrong. But it can't hurt to find out.
  • 0

#78 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 23 March 2013 - 16:05

The thing is that our F.2b is second only to the Pfalz D.IIIa in its absence of adverse yaw, so whenever we read these accounts of flying the real thing, it is troubling.

Other WW1 sims are different than RoF, too. For example, the Aces High F.2b has a lot of adverse yaw compared to the F.2b in RoF.
  • 0

#79 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 23 March 2013 - 17:46

Yes, that is the main reason for my post

"Aerodynamically the aircraft has adequate control in all axis, although roll power is poor and adverse yaw is excessive."
  • 0

#80 BillyKid

BillyKid
  • Posts: 77

Posted 24 March 2013 - 02:41

According to the Windsock file #4 on Bristol Fighter, it was a tubular curved bridge support for the machinegun.

Attached Files


  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users