Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

how to work around the D.VII's poor roll rate


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#1 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 15 June 2010 - 03:40

I'd like to hear your thoughts about how to succeed with the D.VII. Both in flying the D.VII, and in combat with them, I find that the SE5 and S13 can roll away with ease. The asymmetry is so great, that even with a good firing opportunity in the Albatros or Pfalz D.IIIa, the D.VII cannot make the shot. Consequently, unless I'm starting at a big altitude disadvantage against the SE5 or S13, I would rather be in the Albatros D.III, D.Va or Pfalz D.IIIa than the D.VIIF.

Suggestions?
  • 0

#2 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 15 June 2010 - 03:43

Sorry, can't think of anything.
  • 0

#3 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 15 June 2010 - 03:48

there's really no way. You can't really do BNZ with the 180Hp Mercedes it's a joke. It rolls bad, climbs too, and seems to feel underpowered in a turning fight. and most sadly…a fix seems far off because of it's $7.00 Big brother the F.
  • 0

#4 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:46

there's really no way. You can't really do BNZ with the 180Hp Mercedes it's a joke. It rolls bad, climbs too, and seems to feel underpowered in a turning fight. and most sadly…a fix seems far off because of it's $7.00 Big brother the F.

You can apply my question to the DVIIF, too.
  • 0

#5 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:49

there's really no way. You can't really do BNZ with the 180Hp Mercedes it's a joke. It rolls bad, climbs too, and seems to feel underpowered in a turning fight. and most sadly…a fix seems far off because of it's $7.00 Big brother the F.

You can apply my question to the DVIIF, too.


Both D.VIIs roll ok:ish when they are fast. So dont slow down ;)
  • 0

#6 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 15 June 2010 - 06:00

Why would you want to fix it? I don't think it's broken. The SE5a's only advantage over the DVIIF is the roll rate and the dive speed. Why would you want to ake the DVIIF even more "uber"?

not to mention the fact that it can still outdive an SE in game :?
  • 0

#7 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 15 June 2010 - 06:04

Please, let's stay on topic. This isn't about flight model changes. I'm asking for tactical advice.
  • 0

#8 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 15 June 2010 - 06:19

Please, let's stay on topic. This isn't about flight model changes. I'm asking for tactical advice.

Oops, my apologies then! As an SE driver, my only chance to survive are scissors. If you try to follow me, you give me that chance. Try to attack from above, then pull up, and do a wingover instead of entering the scissors-dance.
  • 0

#9 Dietger

Dietger
  • Posts: 286

Posted 15 June 2010 - 06:58

I'd like to hear your thoughts about how to succeed with the D.VII. Both in flying the D.VII, and in combat with them, I find that the SE5 and S13 can roll away with ease. The asymmetry is so great, that even with a good firing opportunity in the Albatros or Pfalz D.IIIa, the D.VII cannot make the shot. Consequently, unless I'm starting at a big altitude disadvantage against the SE5 or S13, I would rather be in the Albatros D.III, D.Va or Pfalz D.IIIa than the D.VIIF.

Suggestions?


Hi gavagai,
only thing you may try, if you have the Energy in the DVII (not the F)is,
dont play their game, try out of plane maneuvers. Diving (B&Z) in the DVII is useless, cos it cant build up E or speed long enough. Be very agressive and shoot them down very! fast. If your attacked from above you have no options.
How ever your "attack window" in the DVII is very smal.

Dietger
  • 0

#10 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:03

Why would you want to fix it? I don't think it's broken. The SE5a's only advantage over the DVIIF is the roll rate and the dive speed. Why would you want to ake the DVIIF even more "uber"?

not to mention the fact that it can still outdive an SE in game :?

And you want realism to be the main source of the flightmodels? :?
  • 0

#11 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:06

Why would you want to fix it? I don't think it's broken. The SE5a's only advantage over the DVIIF is the roll rate and the dive speed. Why would you want to ake the DVIIF even more "uber"?

not to mention the fact that it can still outdive an SE in game :?

And you want realism to be the main source of the flightmodels? :?

I do. What do you mean? Did it have a better roll rate than the SE? :shock:
  • 0

#12 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:11

I do. What do you mean? Did it have a better roll rate than the SE? :shock:

Well according to Dan San Abbot post in aerodrome forums, it did (but he was quoting replica pilot that had flied both D.VII and SE5a).
  • 0

#13 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:13

I do. What do you mean? Did it have a better roll rate than the SE? :shock:

Well according to Dan San Abbot post in aerodrome forums, it did (but he was quoting replica pilot that had flied both D.VII and SE5a).

Fair enough. Then It might be something worth a more thorough investigation.
  • 0

#14 Dietger

Dietger
  • Posts: 286

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:17

Why would you want to fix it? I don't think it's broken. The SE5a's only advantage over the DVIIF is the roll rate and the dive speed. Why would you want to ake the DVIIF even more "uber"?

not to mention the fact that it can still outdive an SE in game :?

And you want realism to be the main source of the flightmodels? :?

I do. What do you mean? Did it have a better roll rate than the SE? :shock:


Thats not the question. Sure it didnt sport the brigwall CW coe. And sure, it wasn't rolling that slow. Pretty much useless, the AlB V is a better fighter! :?:
  • 0

#15 XTRMNTR2K

XTRMNTR2K
  • Posts: 177

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:19

Why would you want to fix it? I don't think it's broken. The SE5a's only advantage over the DVIIF is the roll rate and the dive speed. Why would you want to ake the DVIIF even more "uber"?

not to mention the fact that it can still outdive an SE in game :?

And you want realism to be the main source of the flightmodels? :?

Haha, damn it, Jorri, you beat me to it :mrgreen:

It's not about balance. Or at least, it shouldn't be. But the D.VII roll rate does really seem to be unusually slow.

I enjoy flying central planes the most, that's true, but I'd never want to go the balance-over-realism route for Rise of Flight. I'd rather have superior entente aircraft - if historically correct. Hell, even I think the N.28 isn't working the way it should (according to historical reports). I also want an ALDIS for the S.E.5a. And don't get me started on the Dolphin, it's way to slow… Well, you get the point.

What I'm saying is this: Every last one of us should stop being afraid that the other side's "uber plane" gets another boost, or that his favorite plane gets nerfed (mine being the D.IIIa, so that's quite reasonable :lol: ). I'd even like to fight an uber plane in a crappy plane - if it is historically correct. Knowing that would make it so much more enjoyable to me than flying a UFO instead. :D

EDIT: Oh, well, seems like I missed the discussion. Damn, you guys are too fast! :lol:
  • 0

#16 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:27

Guys stop suggesting that I said I wanted balance over historical accuracy. If you read my post you'll see. You're preachig to the choir. Jorri, you even know me! :roll:
  • 0

#17 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:30

There is no mystery to work around a plane with a poor roll rate.
Just don't roll it :lol:
Same as well for a plane with a poor turn rate: don't turn it!
  • 0

#18 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:35

Guys stop suggesting that I said I wanted balance over historical accuracy. If you read my post you'll see. You're preachig to the choir. Jorri, you even know me! :roll:

Yes but the rollrate of the DVII is not a function of the overall effectiveness of the SE5a as a fighter :)
  • 0

#19 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 15 June 2010 - 07:39

Guys stop suggesting that I said I wanted balance over historical accuracy. If you read my post you'll see. You're preachig to the choir. Jorri, you even know me! :roll:

Yes but the rollrate of the DVII is not a function of the overall effectiveness of the SE5a as a fighter :)

I give you that! I only meant it as a comparison ;)
  • 0

#20 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 15 June 2010 - 08:51

It does roll badly. Whether this is accurate i have no idea. Perhaps someone can explain why it does (those airelons look reasonably potent to my layman eyes).

As for tactics, and with all the german fighters, fly it with rudder. dont just try to outurn but pull the nose through the negative verticle in a sort of Split S. Again use full rudder along with any roll input. Its not the best but helps.
  • 0

#21 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 June 2010 - 09:54

At the risk of pointing out the bloomin' obvious -

The Fokker has ailerons on the upper wing only. The SE5a has ailerons on both the upper and lower wings (as did Sopwith's Camel, triplane and Dolphin). If you could get good roll performance with upper-wing ailerons alone, might not Sopwith and the Royal Aircraft Factory have noticed and saved themselves some trouble?

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#22 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 15 June 2010 - 09:58

Lol fair point, but why does it roll slower than the Albatroses?

Just curious is all?
  • 0

#23 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 June 2010 - 10:35

At the risk of pointing out the bloomin' obvious -

The Fokker has ailerons on the upper wing only. The SE5a has ailerons on both the upper and lower wings (as did Sopwith's Camel, triplane and Dolphin). If you could get good roll performance with upper-wing ailerons alone, might not Sopwith and the Royal Aircraft Factory have noticed and saved themselves some trouble?

Cheers,

Nick

I don't buy that - there was a lot of experimenting done and noone had the holy grail in those days of where to get the best performance. Why did the sopwiths have such a small rudder when it was obvious it had too little rudder authority?
  • 0

#24 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 15 June 2010 - 10:40

At the risk of pointing out the bloomin' obvious -

The Fokker has ailerons on the upper wing only. The SE5a has ailerons on both the upper and lower wings (as did Sopwith's Camel, triplane and Dolphin). If you could get good roll performance with upper-wing ailerons alone, might not Sopwith and the Royal Aircraft Factory have noticed and saved themselves some trouble?

Cheers,

Nick

I don't buy that - there was a lot of experimenting done and noone had the holy grail in those days of where to get the best performance. Why did the sopwiths have such a small rudder when it was obvious it had too little rudder authority?


Long and thin ailerons are more effective than "standard" type like in SE5a. Roll rate doesnt come directly from how many you have ailerons ;) Also D.VII had shorter lowerwing and that might contribute some of its ailerons effectiveness. Add to that SE5 ailerons moved 14deg up and 12 deg down. D.VII ailerons moved 23 deg up and 32 deg down. All these affect how fast plane can roll.
  • 0

#25 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 15 June 2010 - 11:51

Lol fair point, but why does it roll slower than the Albatroses?

Just curious is all?

Because the Albatros FM's are retarded. They never snap into a spin and can hang on their prop despite their thinner airfoil. Full elevator deflection even at high speed results in a crisp, tight turn and not a spin or structural damage. And yea, they roll as well as a modern stunt plane and are responsive to even the slightest control inputs – a direct contradiction to the consensus of pilot accounts from WWI.

The D.VII isn't necessarily undermodeled. The problem is that the Albatros and Pfalz D.IIIa are each overmodeled with respect to handling (tho perhaps undermodeled wrt speed).
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#26 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 June 2010 - 12:51

I don't buy that - there was a lot of experimenting done and noone had the holy grail in those days of where to get the best performance. Why did the sopwiths have such a small rudder when it was obvious it had too little rudder authority?

I believe it was done to maximise performance. The intention was to pare the flying surface area down as much as possible (thus reducing both weight and drag) but to stop at the point where it was still just controllable. No point in flying round with a larger, heavier and draggier fin and rudder than necessary. Sopwith were prepared to make higher demands of their pilots in this than, say, Fokker or the Royal Aircraft Factory.

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#27 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 June 2010 - 12:54

Long and thin ailerons are more effective than "standard" type like in SE5a. Roll rate doesnt come directly from how many you have ailerons ;) Also D.VII had shorter lowerwing and that might contribute some of its ailerons effectiveness. Add to that SE5 ailerons moved 14deg up and 12 deg down. D.VII ailerons moved 23 deg up and 32 deg down. All these affect how fast plane can roll.

Sure - aileron authority varies with both length and area. In general, it's better to go for long thin ailerons than short fat ones. However, it is still definitely true that you will get better response by generating a rolling couple from both wings rather than just one. Incidentally, too high an aileron deflection can become self defeating - the drag generated can become prohibitive.

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#28 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 15 June 2010 - 12:57

At the risk of pointing out the bloomin' obvious -

The Fokker has ailerons on the upper wing only. The SE5a has ailerons on both the upper and lower wings (as did Sopwith's Camel, triplane and Dolphin). If you could get good roll performance with upper-wing ailerons alone, might not Sopwith and the Royal Aircraft Factory have noticed and saved themselves some trouble?

Cheers,

Nick

The best rolling plane in the game, the N28, has ailerons on the lower wing only.

Anyway, there's nothing here that I haven't tried in trying to cope with the DVII's roll rate. When I fly the SE5 or S13, I feel little to fear from the DVIIF because I know I can always roll away.
  • 0

#29 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 June 2010 - 12:59

Lol fair point, but why does it roll slower than the Albatroses?

Just curious is all?

I don't know why - it could be because the rolling moment of inertia was higher for the Fokker because of it's relatively heavy wings (and axle wing), whereas the Albatros had lighter wings that relied on drag-producing bracing wires. Heavier but cleaner cantilever wings vs draggier but lighter wire-braced wings. Sounds plausible, but I'd like to have some data on the weights of the wings first. Alternatively, Neoqb may just have screwed up the FMs :).

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#30 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:07

The best rolling plane in the game, the N28, has ailerons on the lower wing only.

True enough - but it's also very much lighter than a Fokker D.VII (436 kg vs 700 kg empty, if we are to believe Nq's store data). If the aircraft had a similar mass distribution, the rolling moment of inertia of the N.28 would be less in proportion (i.e., only 62% that of the Fokker's) so the roll-rate for a given aileron-produced torque would be appreciably faster. I'd also expect the N.28 to have a more central mass distribution than the Fokker (wire-braced vs cantilever wings) which would help even more. So I'm not at all surprised that the N.28 out-rolls the Fokker D.VII.

But I'm not an aerodynamics expert and am just making semi-educated guesses. There will also be other factors at play.

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#31 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:11

But it's not just the roll moment of inertia in the DVII that is poor, it's also the sustained roll rate, for which mass should not matter, correct?
  • 0

#32 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:12

Anyway, there's nothing here that I haven't tried in trying to cope with the DVII's roll rate. When I fly the SE5 or S13, I feel little to fear from the DVIIF because I know I can always roll away.

Also true, but I'm not sure that it is a sign of a problem in the FM. The whirling online dogfights we have in RoF make sustained turn and roll rate quite important. But these may not be very typical of real-life WWI combat where pilots would probably have prioritised climb rate, speed and unobstructed vision more highly.

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#33 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:13

Anyway, there's nothing here that I haven't tried in trying to cope with the DVII's roll rate. When I fly the SE5 or S13, I feel little to fear from the DVIIF because I know I can always roll away.

Also true, but I'm not sure that it is a sign of a problem in the FM.

I didn't say it was. Just providing my observations on our aircraft's relative strengths and weaknesses. ;)
  • 0

#34 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:18

But it's not just the roll moment of inertia in the DVII that is poor, it's also the sustained roll rate, for which mass should not matter, correct?

Yes - once it had got rolling it should not be an issue. There are other things that can limit sustained roll rate. One that I understand is important is wing flex. If a wing is too flexible, it will twist and significantly reduce aileron effectiveness. Goodness knows how we could establish which, if any, WWI scouts suffered from this. I do know that Fokker flew a D.VII without the "N" struts and found it flew fine, but felt rather mushy in aileron response, presumably because of wing flex.

There are a buch or aeronautical engineers in the next department to mine, I will go and ask some questions and report back later!

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#35 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:23

The best rolling plane in the game, the N28, has ailerons on the lower wing only.

True enough - but it's also very much lighter than a Fokker D.VII (436 kg vs 700 kg empty, if we are to believe Nq's store data). If the aircraft had a similar mass distribution, the rolling moment of inertia of the N.28 would be less in proportion (i.e., only 62% that of the Fokker's) so the roll-rate for a given aileron-produced torque would be appreciably faster. I'd also expect the N.28 to have a more central mass distribution than the Fokker (wire-braced vs cantilever wings) which would help even more. So I'm not at all surprised that the N.28 out-rolls the Fokker D.VII.

We know the masses of their engines:

The mercedes DIII weighs 310kg.
The Gnome monosoupape weighs 150kg.

So 44% of the DVII's mass is the engine
and 34% of the N28's mass is the engine

Is it right, then, to conclude that the DVII's had more central mass distribution than the N28?

There are a buch or aeronautical engineers in the next department to mine, I will go and ask some questions and report back later!

Cheers,

Nick

Thank you for that!
  • 0

#36 winger2

winger2
  • Posts: 1056

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:39

I'd like to hear your thoughts about how to succeed with the D.VII. Both in flying the D.VII, and in combat with them, I find that the SE5 and S13 can roll away with ease. The asymmetry is so great, that even with a good firing opportunity in the Albatros or Pfalz D.IIIa, the D.VII cannot make the shot. Consequently, unless I'm starting at a big altitude disadvantage against the SE5 or S13, I would rather be in the Albatros D.III, D.Va or Pfalz D.IIIa than the D.VIIF.

Suggestions?

I have a workaround. Become developer and make your own game because it wont ever be unbiased here!

Winger
  • 0

#37 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:45

Well, I've just been to ask one of the UK's professors of aeronautical engineering. I'm afraid he wasn't able to offer much help off the top of his head and thought the problem was actually rather complex (although wing flex and wide-chord ailerons causing flow separation too early did come up). He's going to get back to me with some textbook recommendations. To be fair, he's mostly interested in micro-air vehicles that often don't even have conventional control surfaces and in low Reynolds-number flight, so biplane control authority is a bit far from home. Can't say more without making it too easy to identify him (and me, for that matter!). I'll post up here as and if I find out more.

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#38 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:56

Attached File  oscar.jpg   18.99KB   74 downloads
  • 0

#39 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 15 June 2010 - 13:58

Squid, please, just ignore him.
  • 0

#40 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 16 June 2010 - 03:22

I've done a little experimenting in single player, and believe I have a diagnosis. When you roll the DVII without any rudder input, it shears drastically in the opposite direction of the roll. So if you roll to the right, the nose shears left, and if you roll to the left, the nose shears right. Even applying moderate rudder does not ameliorate this tendency. Instead, I find that only if I stomp full rudder in the direction of the roll, then the nose will hold steady. This is in marked contrast to the SE5 which requires no rudder input at all for a steady roll, and the Spad's resistance to shearing makes it appear to roll better than it actually does. Even the Camel can roll without rudder input and not exhibit this annoying behavior. Most of the Central Powers aircraft, too, can roll straight without the requirement of huge rudder inputs…except, of course, the Dr1. Now, I wonder, is this shearing effect due to the way the ailerons extend out past the wings? It's merely a point of curiosity. What's more important is that if I do stomp full rudder in the direction of the roll, the D.VII can be brought under control, and at least gives the appearance of being responsive. Ultimately, just as much as the Dr1, the D.VII should be flown with the feet!

Please give this a try and tell me your experiences.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users