Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Current ROF Airplanes Flight Model Data Topic.


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#1 =FB=VikS

=FB=VikS
  • Developer
  • Posts: 1246

Posted 18 June 2010 - 18:13

TOPIC IS HEAVILY MODERATED! READ HERE FIRST!

Here is the main subjects, which are discussed on the forums, is you have current data - post it here.

1) Sopwith Dolphin horizontal speed

2) Albatros D.Va horizontal speed

3) Pfalz D.IIIa - maneuvers too good, horizontal speed too low

4) Nieuport 28 maneuvreability

5) Nieuport 11 maneuvreability

6) Nieuport 17 maneuvreability and speed

7) Se5a engine overrev (already taken as confirmed, will be fixed)

8) Fokker D.VII roll speed.
  • 0

#2 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 18 June 2010 - 20:53

Ad 2.) D.Va topspeed

The problem with the current data is the non existing sources on what engine and model was used during testing. Alone the the D.Va series aircraft vary in weight from 912 (unsure:915) - 970 kg! This leads to different data from NASM, Windsocks, Ospery and EADS (!).

The best hard data source I could find in the short amount o time is from the Helmut-Schmidt-Library, belonging to the University of the German Armed Forces located in Hamburg:

The book is called "Die deutschen Militärflugzeuge 1914-1918" by H.Stützer and G.Kroschel :

It gives reference for the D.V series, putting the D.Va (915 kg) with the D.IIIa engine on 187 km/h at sealevel.

(Just an example on how diverse the sources are: while Ospery Books doesnt make any notice on the weight issue, Windsocks claim that there never was a D.Va with 915 kg, but it was the D.V and put the D.Va up from 937 kg and do not state wich of the Mercedes engines was used but only 160/180 hp with no distinguish in i.e. compression rate.)

Also I have found a topic on the aerodrome forums where D S Abott backs up this source and puts in another factor: the propeller. I assume we have the Axial in-game, giving the D.Va its top performance.

He also cites from the original Idflieg form that give the D.Va a top speed of 165 km/h at sea level with the 160 hp engine. I messaged him, maybe we can get our hands on those.

I will get a few books/sources from the university library on monday, so I will get to you back shortly. Also, I will put up some pilots reports from different sources, enemy and friends of course.

Sources:

"Die deutschen Militärflugzeuge 1914-1918" by H.Stützer and G.Kroschel
D S Abott, The Aerodrome on the D.V series performance (link to post: http://www.theaerodr...n-aircraft.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/forum/aircr … craft.html)
  • 0

#3 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 19 June 2010 - 02:08

7) Se5a engine overrev (already taken as confirmed, will be fixed)

At last …. VICTORY :P

Thanks VikS :)
  • 0

#4 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 19 June 2010 - 11:01

8) Fokker D.VII Roll speed:

Profile publications no 25, page 7:

"Ailerons, with ovehung balances, were steel tube framing. Their seeminlgy small area was in fact more than adequate and imparted a lively lateral control to the D VII"

Windsock special: Fokker D.VII anthology 1, page 24:

"This may have conferred some aerodynamic adventage as well; The D.VII's ailerons are certanly very efficient for their size."

NACA report No 120:
Attached File  NACA_120.jpg   369.32KB   5885 downloads


http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1927/naca-report-254.pdf (DISTRIBUTION OF PRESSURE OVER MODEL OF THE UPPER WING AND AILERON OF A FOKKER D.VII AIRPLANE)
  • 0

#5 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 23 June 2010 - 04:39

2.) D.Va horizontal speed

Still gathering sources, also we have tons of them on this forum already:

From the NASA: "Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft"

Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft

Figure 2.19 (image below)

Image

Shows that even D.III is faster (109 mph), 4 mph faster than the Camel F1. This also matches tons of reports from frontline pilots that regularly had no problem catching up with them and/or getting away.

Also: Appendix to the paper:

NASA Performance Charts

Just another note: According to most sources, the D.IIIs and D.Vas didnt perform too differently with the variety of engines used, generally it seems to be more power but slightly more weight for the later models, resulting in low gains in overall performance for the later aircraft. Performance data in the NASA Tests is for 160 hp Mercedes D.II engine. (!)
  • 0

#6 Jaws2002

Jaws2002
  • Posts: 419

Posted 03 July 2010 - 01:01

Nieuport 28 flying characteristics based on the opinions of the pilots from the Historical Aircraft Colection. Take off, acceleration, Stall speed, climb, maneuverability, etc.

From "The Nieuport 28, America's first fighter.

Image

Image

Image
  • 0

#7 halsfury

halsfury
  • Posts: 75

Posted 05 July 2010 - 20:44

I got some data on the N17 form the aerodrome forum pertaining to the speed

find it here
http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/france/nieuport_17.php

This clearly demonstrates that the N17 top speed was 177Km/h (110mph)(with the leRhone 9J 110hp engine)

The service ceiling was 5300m (17,388ft)(with the leRhone9J)

I think that you could also go there and get the source or sources for that

Other than that the N11 has a maximum speed of 156Km/h and a ceiling at 4,600m

So according to this both aircraft are incorrect in speed and the engine freze at 4000m so often mentioned for the N17 needs fixing because of the information on the service ceiling

This is responsible for the N17 being too slow and the N11 being too good

Thanks
~Halsfury
  • 0

#8 halsfury

halsfury
  • Posts: 75

Posted 05 July 2010 - 20:54

Hi so to find data on the Nieuport types I went to the aerodrome forum where they have a comprehensive list of well documented WW1 aircraft

so I found that the top speed for the N17 was 177km/h and the ceiling at 5,300m with the 110hp leRhone 9J

the N11 is also there in the aircraft section of thier forum and It has the top speed rof says the N17 has as well as the ceiling at 4,600m with the regular 80hp engine (leRhine 9C 80hp)

find it herehttp://www.theaerodrome.com/
  • 0

#9 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 07 July 2010 - 10:31

2) Albatros D.Va horizontal speed


German Aircraft of the First World War:
Attached File  Albatros DVa.jpg   73.32KB   5459 downloads
  • 0

#10 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 22 July 2010 - 17:16

2.) D.Va Horizontal Speed

Michael Sharpe - Biplanes, Triplanes, Seaplanes (Gondrom Publishing)

D.Va, 937 kg, 186 kph topspeed
  • 0

#11 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 23 July 2010 - 13:24

2) D.Va Topspeed

Interesting article (hard to find because of the D.XI mistake in title) on Albatros Fighter Series:

http://de.academic.r...sf/dewiki/45824" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://de.academic.r...sf/dewiki/45824

DV: Topspeed with 170 hp D.III, 915kg: 180 kph
DVa: Topspeed with 185 (sic!) hp D.IIIa, 937 kg, 187 (sic!) kph
  • 0

#12 halsfury

halsfury
  • Posts: 75

Posted 13 August 2010 - 22:01

New info

Top speed for Nieuport 11 and 17 is 167 kph apperently there is no difference in speed

as according to neoQB's own resources

you can find it in the book "Nieuport Fighters in Action, Aircraft Number 167" By Peter Cooksley

Also thank you 777 for fixing the engine stop problem on the N17 it got really cold but was fine at 5300m the test situations were;
-full real with subtitles
-engine preheated and simple gauges
-start alt was 5300m on auto level and with an AI "control" to make sure anything that happended was not the result of my bad engine management and was reflected in both aircraft

observations were that the temp gauge came down into the blue and within a hairs width of engine stopping but this eased off after my 5 minute test at *8 speed 5*8 = 40min was over and I came down a few hundred meters to 5000m I then increased the mix to about half from 1/8th and she was roaring along at 140 kph

Thanks
~Halsfury :D
  • 0

#13 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15540

Posted 14 October 2010 - 14:59

VonHuetz,

1 PS is a little bit less than 1 HP.

1 PS = ~735 watts
1 HP = ~745 watts

So the 185PS engine they list in the article is about 180hp.
  • 0

#14 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 14 October 2010 - 18:21

Ah yeah, missed that. Thx for correcting it!
  • 0

#15 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 14 October 2010 - 18:29

Which makes it even more fun is that all mercedes D.III types were officially 160ps mercedes, regardless of their actual power output :D
  • 0

#16 PikAs53

PikAs53
  • Posts: 169

Posted 16 October 2010 - 00:29

As I started already several threads or participated in others concerning this topic I won't bother you with looking up the posts so here I made cut to show the main issues. Just to say, relevant data for me is data were speed AND height is mentioned. Other sources like pilot descriptions of planes behaviour is helpful to get an idea but not as single source.
So here with data concerning the Albatross DIII and DVa. written January 2010:
"Windsock and Profile give data that is not helpful.
Profile: "DVa 103m.p.h approx." no statement at what height 1000m, 4000m?? Same with Winsock: DIII with 160/170HP engine 106-112m.p.h. Again no height and we know that the height has an extreme influence. Osprey also has figures (109 and 116mph)but again without height.
Signal is a little bit more precise stating that the D.V has a top speed of 117mph at 1000m (with 96 at 4000m) and the D.II had a top speed of 109 mph at 1000m. Saying that the D.III was not much faster it would be about the same. Calculate that in KmH with a mile 1,624 you will be about 190kmh for the DV and 177 for the D.II/D.III (with 160HP engine).
The "Enzyklopädie der Flugzeuge" states 187km/h at 1000m for the DV (180HP) and 177km/h at 1000m for the D.III (170HP)
Of course I checked all sources I could find in the net, with speed/height. That's why I said 186+ How fast they were, nobody will ever know today. But 170 is way tooo slow.
But one thing is sure, all pilots said that the Albatros were much faster than the DR.1! (this statement could be read on several occasions in the book "Pour-le-Merite Flieger, Berlin, 1940)
For the HP of the engines, this is another problem.
Check this link, it leads you to the Mercedes Museum, with a view of the 1915 DIII engine, the one that is stated here everywhere as 160HP.
http://www.museum-me...load.php/de/215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.museum-me...load.php/de/215
They say it has from the beginning 170HP, so are the 170HP you mention not only the the original 160HP?
For production figures, this is new to me. I found Windsock even not mention the September orders for the DIII. So if you say so, ok. I don't know the source.
We could go on like this, specifing at least 2 dozens of planes, BUT as I said in my mail we have here specified D.III, D.Va and Pfalz DIIIa, all with 180HP DIIIa engines, so I don't care for Albatros with 160HP or 170HP. Those planes with 180HP engines were faster than they are now in the game! And this is a fact!!!
"

The other topic is not directly related to the flight model performance but has to do with Targeting devices and instruments on german planes. Putting all together took me some time and I will not waste your space concerning this by adding all the pictures again so here only the links:
forgotten German Gunsights Did some research and pics
Breaking another lance for the Pfalz DXII, see the cockpit!!
If You need more data I could try to contact the Deutsches Museum in Schleißheim to get some data concerning the Fokker DVII and Fokker DVIIF. At least there is a Fokker DVII and in Pour le Merite Flieger it is stated that the performance of the "new" Fokker (BMW powered) was only better in higher altitudes, while the Mercedes performed better or equal in lower altitudes. As I didn't find real figures for this (as I said speed/heigth and probably PS) I didn't mentioned it so far.

P.S.: The HP should read as german PS, which is a little big higher than the english HP.
  • 0

#17 PikAs53

PikAs53
  • Posts: 169

Posted 16 October 2010 - 00:56

Just a short statement to the speed of the N17 taken from the Profile Publications N49 about the N17.
Here are the stats according to them:

Attached Files


  • 0

#18 PikAs53

PikAs53
  • Posts: 169

Posted 16 October 2010 - 08:41

A general question concerning the maneverabillity of airplanes. There are no figures concerning this data, exept the opinions of pilots flying these planes. And they divert greatly on some types. How will you evaluate this with data?
  • 0

#19 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 16 October 2010 - 08:50

A general question concerning the maneverabillity of airplanes. There are no figures concerning this data, exept the opinions of pilots flying these planes. And they divert greatly on some types. How will you evaluate this with data?

It is calculated from data (weight, wingprofile, power, etc) they have from plane. Outcome can be only just as accurate as data they have from first place. This is ofcourse then compared to know pilot opinions, but opinions can be tricky as there are contradicting opinions aswell. IOW they dont change plane perfomance if physics calculations point differently than pilot opinion. They need some data that make physics to point same direction aswell. Or atleast this I think how they evaluate planes. I dont know for sure ;)
  • 0

#20 PikAs53

PikAs53
  • Posts: 169

Posted 17 October 2010 - 16:57

Some Data from the National Museum of the United States Airforce which sounds quite plausible. Only thing here is that no height is given. It reflects all planes:

Fokker D. VII (F)
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: Two 7.92 Spandau machine guns
Engine: Mercedes 160 hp or BMW 185 hp
Maximum speed: 120 mph (Mercedes engine); 124 mph (BMW engine)
Ceiling: 18,000 ft. (Mercedes engine); 21,000 ft. (BMW engine)
Span: 29 ft. 3.5 in.
Length: 22 ft. 11.5 in.
Height: 9 ft. 2.5 in.
Weight: 1,540 lbs. empty; 1,939 lbs. loaded
The normal DVII at the momnet is one of the worst planes in ROF, beeing more in the 1916/1917 class of planes than in 1918.

Same sources about the other 1918 planes:
SE-5E
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: None
Engine: Wright-Hispano "E" of 180 hp
Maximum speed: 122 mph
Range: 225 miles

Sopwith F-1 Camel
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: Two Vickers .303-cal. machine guns
Engine: Clerget rotary of 130 hp
Maximum speed: 112 mph
Range: 300 miles
Ceiling: 19,000 ft.

Fokker Dr. I
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: Two 7.92mm Spandau LMG 08/15 machine guns
Engine: Oberursel Ur II of 110 hp or LeRhone of 110 hp
Maximum speed: 103 mph
Range: 185 miles
Ceiling: 19,685 ft.
For the speed of the Dr.1 in RoF the only sources matching it was the data from an Dr.1 with an 145Ps Oberrusel. These figures here seem much more correct.

SPAD XIII C.1
With its 220-hp engine, the SPAD XIII reached a top speed of 135 mph – about 10 mph faster than the new German fighters.

So I think the DVII need an intense work over
  • 0

#21 polybazze

polybazze
  • Posts: 72

Posted 21 April 2011 - 07:22

Deleted the message (posted in the wrong thread)
  • 0

#22 WWBrian

WWBrian
  • Posts: 2418

Posted 22 May 2011 - 02:23

DH2 is currently too slow / too low endurance even with 26gal main tank.

source: Windsock datafile

Max speed is currently:

4000m = 97km/h - listed at 103 at 3657 ~OK
3000m = 110km/h - listed at 112.8 at 3048 - too low
2000m = 118km/h - listed at 122 for 2438 (128 for 1829m) - too low
1000m = 125km/h - listed at 128 for 1829 - too low

Endurance = 3.25 hours - listed as a little over 3.5 hours.

Attached Files


  • 0

#23 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15540

Posted 22 May 2011 - 02:32

Can you clarify that Brian? By this chart the 26gal DH2 is slightly faster than your data, especially at altitude.

Attached File  TASmphft.PNG   86.85KB   799 downloads
  • 0

#24 WWBrian

WWBrian
  • Posts: 2418

Posted 22 May 2011 - 02:45

Yeah, you had a tail wind to get your TAS and 15% fuel!?

lol…just kiddin' of course. ;)

…what do you want me to say? It was a hotter day when the publisher of the my reference tested compared to when you flew in game? What?
  • 0

#25 JimmyBlonde

JimmyBlonde
  • Posts: 2346

Posted 22 May 2011 - 05:13

I notice that much of the data on speed or top speed here is provided without any reference to height or other conditions.

The specific altitude or conditions under which these readings are applicable can often be found at the beginning of the book somewhere (or the end).

Hope this helps.
  • 0

#26 Nooney

Nooney
  • Posts: 1894
  • LocationOn your 6 Boooooom

Posted 22 May 2011 - 11:27

N28 should be the turn fighter of Entente
http://www.airminded...28/n28test.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.airminded...28/n28test.html
Combat experience showed the N.28 to have outstanding manoeverability, an excellent rate of climb and a respectable top speed. Major Hartney, the comander of the 27th Aero (and later the 1st Pursuit Group) summed up the aircraft when he described the Nieuport 28 as "a fast moving, fast acting gem"
  • 0

#27 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 22 May 2011 - 13:53

N28 should be the turn fighter of Entente
http://www.airminded...28/n28test.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.airminded...28/n28test.html
Combat experience showed the N.28 to have outstanding manoeverability, an excellent rate of climb and a respectable top speed. Major Hartney, the comander of the 27th Aero (and later the 1st Pursuit Group) summed up the aircraft when he described the Nieuport 28 as "a fast moving, fast acting gem"

Which is exactly why the French didn't want it at all and the US Pursuit pilots were desperate for the SPAD.
  • 0

#28 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15540

Posted 22 May 2011 - 14:26

Well, spontaneously catching on fire and fabric that easily rips off the top wing are not desirable traits. ;)

But I've seen that source before and I think it has good information. It's interesting to see how pilots felt the N28 stacked up against other scouts. Don't forget that Rickenbacker's N28 was out-turned by a two-seater, though.
  • 0

#29 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 22 May 2011 - 21:04

Well, spontaneously catching on fire and fabric that easily rips off the top wing are not desirable traits. ;)

But I've seen that source before and I think it has good information. It's interesting to see how pilots felt the N28 stacked up against other scouts. Don't forget that Rickenbacker's N28 was out-turned by a two-seater, though.

But as i remember correctly it was at maximum service celling for Rickenbacker's N28 where german 2-seater could fly with easy and had higher maximum celling then it.
  • 0

#30 WWBrian

WWBrian
  • Posts: 2418

Posted 22 May 2011 - 21:19

Well, spontaneously catching on fire and fabric that easily rips off the top wing are not desirable traits. ;)

But I've seen that source before and I think it has good information. It's interesting to see how pilots felt the N28 stacked up against other scouts. Don't forget that Rickenbacker's N28 was out-turned by a two-seater, though.

Gav',

You sure are good at posting just enough info to pull things out of context to make your point. You seem to typically follow those with a wink….so I assume that means you know what you're doing…

so for other readers….

The fires were only when shutting off the ignition for extended periods of time WHEN THE PILOT FORGET TO SHUT OFF FUEL…like on landing.

From Widsock Datafile:

Attached Files


  • 0

#31 Nooney

Nooney
  • Posts: 1894
  • LocationOn your 6 Boooooom

Posted 22 May 2011 - 23:30

Well, spontaneously catching on fire and fabric that easily rips off the top wing are not desirable traits. ;)

But I've seen that source before and I think it has good information. It's interesting to see how pilots felt the N28 stacked up against other scouts. Don't forget that Rickenbacker's N28 was out-turned by a two-seater, though.

Gav',

You sure are good at posting just enough info to pull things out of context to make your point. You seem to typically follow those with a wink….so I assume that means you know what you're doing…

so for other readers….

The fires were only when shutting off the ignition for extended periods of time WHEN THE PILOT FORGET TO SHUT OFF FUEL…like on landing.

From Widsock Datafile:
This gives a good account of the fire problems:-

Other service failures include a blown engine cylinder (Lufbery), broken valves (Heinrichs) and many recorded occurances of magneto failure. There were also a number of landing accidents and at least one notable in flight fire (Lufbery) which was commonly attributed to a bullet passing through the fuel tank.

The Gnome Monosoupape was a reliable engine for it's day, however it had it's quirks. The Monosoupape like other rotaries of it's day did not have a throttle in the traditional sense. In it's place it had the ability to control ignition. This was accomplished through a blip switch; pressing the blip switch grounded the magneto and prevented ignition. However this did not stop the flow of fuel, as a result the unburnt fuel flowed out through the exhaust port. If the pilot was aggressive in his use of the blip switch and neglected to shut off the flow of fuel a combustible mixture accumulated within the cowling and inevitably a fire resulted. Another known problem with the wartime production Gnome Monosoupaupe was that its copper fuel lines were often improperly annealed. These fuel lines then cracked and often led to a fire as fuel poured onto the hot motor. It was also noted that the engine had a tendancy to catch fire upon starting.(4) The gnome was virtually free from carburator ice due to the fact that the air entered in the center, and passed into the warm crank case before mixing with fuel. (22)
  • 0

#32 Nooney

Nooney
  • Posts: 1894
  • LocationOn your 6 Boooooom

Posted 23 May 2011 - 00:01

The fabric ripping off the top wing was only in recovering from a steep dive, the N28 had no probs keeping the fabric on in a nose dive, it was aggressive recovery from the dive that made wing and fabric part company, and Jimmy Hall, said that this was the cause of his crash, and not a Bosche shooting him down, in his eagerness to evade a pursuing fighter spitting lead all over him he dived, and tried to pull a stunt off he had done in the past and got away with, that was a dive followed by a loop, turning the tables on the pursuer and getting on his 6, Green seen him lose the fabric from his wing and spiral in, Hall crashed in some woods and was captured by the pursuing German pilot, who told him they had lost 2 machines that day, one being the one Rickenbacker thought was bluffing to get away, when he seen him dive for the ground, Rickenbacker was never awarded that kill, it only came to light when Hall who had broke his ankle in the crash, told Rickenbacker when reunited on being liberated, Hall also confessed his aggressive pull up from the dive caused the fabric departure, and not any bullets from the enemy pilot.
  • 0

#33 Nooney

Nooney
  • Posts: 1894
  • LocationOn your 6 Boooooom

Posted 23 May 2011 - 00:20

Well, spontaneously catching on fire and fabric that easily rips off the top wing are not desirable traits. ;)

But I've seen that source before and I think it has good information. It's interesting to see how pilots felt the N28 stacked up against other scouts. Don't forget that Rickenbacker's N28 was out-turned by a two-seater, though.

But as i remember correctly it was at maximum service celling for Rickenbacker's N28 where german 2-seater could fly with easy and had higher maximum celling then it.
Not so on may 7th 1917, Rickenbacker and hall came across a 2 seater at 12000ft they got above it to dive on there unsuspecting victim, but German archy spotted them and gave the 2 seater pilot the signal, which was a shell burst at the height the bandit was and the amount of shell burst the number of bandits, the German pilots for miles around would see this signal and head for the area the burst where, easy distinguished from allied shell burst, german burst were black smoke, allies white, within a short time Rickenbacker, Green and hall were fighting off 4 fighters, one of which caused Halls crash, through his aggresive dive recovery.
  • 0

#34 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 24 May 2011 - 14:24

Well, spontaneously catching on fire and fabric that easily rips off the top wing are not desirable traits. ;)

But I've seen that source before and I think it has good information. It's interesting to see how pilots felt the N28 stacked up against other scouts. Don't forget that Rickenbacker's N28 was out-turned by a two-seater, though.

But as i remember correctly it was at maximum service celling for Rickenbacker's N28 where german 2-seater could fly with easy and had higher maximum celling then it.
Not so on may 7th 1917, Rickenbacker and hall came across a 2 seater at 12000ft they got above it to dive on there unsuspecting victim, but German archy spotted them and gave the 2 seater pilot the signal, which was a shell burst at the height the bandit was and the amount of shell burst the number of bandits, the German pilots for miles around would see this signal and head for the area the burst where, easy distinguished from allied shell burst, german burst were black smoke, allies white, within a short time Rickenbacker, Green and hall were fighting off 4 fighters, one of which caused Halls crash, through his aggresive dive recovery.


Also Kwiatek remembers incorrectly. Rickenbacker N28 was outmanouvered by Albatros two seatter (In Rickenbacker words). All Albatros two seatters have lower service ceiling than N28 scout (Rickenbacker reported that his could fly up to 20 000ft). Rickenbacker was patrolling at 17 000ft and Albatros two seatter was "…several thousand feet below us, and about two miles ahead.". After first diving attack (Rickebacker missed / Albatros evaded) he wrote "Moreover, I found that at this high altitude the Albatros could manouver as well or just little better than could my lighter Nieuport."
  • 0

#35 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 24 May 2011 - 18:15

Well, spontaneously catching on fire and fabric that easily rips off the top wing are not desirable traits. ;)

That's a bit of an over-simplification.

There was a fire danger if the blip switch was held down longer than six seconds, which would cause the fuel accumulated in the cylinders to drip through the valves into the cowl where it sometimes ignited rather spectacularly – but rarely causing serious harm – when the blip button was released. Simple fix: Count to six while holding down the button.

There also was a problem of the copper fuel line between the tank and the engine breaking in flight due to vibration wear. This was quickly remedied by American mechanics.

The real danger was the reserve fuel tank located inside the cockpit (you can see it in the RoF model; it's on the right). It is believed it was a hit on that fuel tank that caused Lufbery's plane to catch fire. After that, the fuel tank simply wasn't used.

The fabric ripping off the wings often is mentioned (including in pilot combat reports) but it was discovered to be an effect rather than a cause. There was nothing wrong with the fabric.

The problem was the wood leading edge structure – the part forward of the main spar – was too weak and broke when pulling too sharply out of steep dives.

The leading edge was reinforced in later Nieuports used as trainers. The service life of the Nieuport as a fighter was so short that a fix came along too late.

Theodore Hamady, in his excellent Nieuport 28: America's First Fighter devotes an entire appendix entitled "Designed For Failure" – 11 pages – to the leading edge flaw and how it was discovered and remedied.
  • 0

#36 halsfury

halsfury
  • Posts: 75

Posted 14 June 2011 - 00:51

Whats been fixed?

Could 777 supply us with a list of the things that have been fixed since this thread began plz?

Also if there are new issues that need to be addressed
  • 0

#37 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 06 July 2011 - 18:25

The Maximum Angular Velocity of Aeroplanes

Reports & Memoranda No. 670 March 1920

[turn time for: Camel, DH4m FB27 & HP 0/400, Loop time for: Pup]

Attached Files


  • 0

#38 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 07 July 2011 - 21:01

Experiments on the Rotation in the Slipstream of a Tractor Aeroplane

Reports & Memoranda No. 643 August 1919

[Sopwith Dolphin]
  • 0

#39 Rutzen

Rutzen
  • Posts: 41

Posted 07 July 2011 - 22:28

I have purchased and have made two or three missions with all the planes. I really don't have much objection to the FMs of any the planes except perhaps the Nieuport 17.

I agree with halsfury that the Nieuport 11 is a better flying plane than the Nieuport 17. At least I have shot down opposing planes with the 11 model (such as the Albatros D. II) and never have shot down any opponent with the 17 model in numerous attempts.

My trouble with it is not its speed or maneuverably but is with how fragile and flimsy it is. Even when trying to be gentle with it in combat, all missions with it end up the same way - the wings break off and it falls in a heap.

I really recommend if nothing else is done with this plane to consider toughing it up a bit. If the Nieuport 17 was that frail, I wouldn't have wanted to have been in the Lafayette Escadrille. If the wings would stay on a little better, it just might be a decent fighter as is.
  • 0

#40 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 08 July 2011 - 00:39

Rutzen,

This isn't really the right thread to discuss FM, but:

But look at post#7 in the thread "Ingame Statistics: Diving and Engines" I attached a table giving useful data for each plane; corner speed, max dive speed, max dive speed before damaging the engine etc.

If your airspeed is below corner speed (180kph for the N17) you can pull the stick back as hard as you like without loosing the wings. Above that speed you have to be more gentle on the stick.

Don't dive the N17 more than 220kph or the airframe will break.

If you have damage then the wings can fail well below corner speed, so be very gentle on the stick or land
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users