Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Current ROF Airplanes Flight Model Discussion Topic.


  • Please log in to reply
324 replies to this topic

#41 Jaws2002

Jaws2002
  • Posts: 419

Posted 03 July 2010 - 01:30

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

#42 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 03 July 2010 - 02:24

Turn radius Chart is based on wing loading calculation as clearly stated by the note. Therefore not a reliable definite source … so carefull with this one. It is NOT an original source.

it says the source is 'original plot from computations in note 11'

I'm not arguing the source because I don't know where/how they got their numbers.

I'm saying the DH2 may actually have a smaller turn radius, but it would make its circle much slower than other planes.
  • 0

#43 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 03 July 2010 - 03:40

Reflected, I dont know what your "real pilot" friend means by landing speed being superior to stall speed…but where real pilots are flying tail wheel aircraft landing in a 3 point attitude, touch down speed is always lower than stall speed…I'm guess he doesnt do those?

For a little perspective as well… a Piper J-3 cub has a wingloading of about 6.5 lbs per square foot. The SE5 has a wing loading of about 6.5 lbs per square foot. The piper cub with a fokker-esque wing stalls between 35-40 mph power off. An SE5 does not have a high lift wing…

I'll meet you half way and say 49 mph for the SE5. Why? we have 2 conflicting sources of original aircraft data, so I say they are both valid and should be averaged.
  • 0

#44 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 03 July 2010 - 06:47

Turn radius Chart is based on wing loading calculation as clearly stated by the note. Therefore not a reliable definite source … so carefull with this one. It is NOT an original source.

it says the source is 'original plot from computations in note 11'

I read this, too. But what does original mean here? Did they copy a plot based on which computations? Since we don't have note 11 we never know! It may be computations done by some historians that are cited in note 11 or it may be computations by the authors of this book explained in note 11 … and even IF it were computations done by the engineers back then (I strongly doubt they did it. And how should they have got the data for all the other aircraft since they only had good data for their own planes) the plot itself mentions "theoretical minimum turn radius": note the word "theoretical". And it is still based on wing loading. Honestly this plot prooves nothing. I don't say that the tendencies could not have been this way. But we need other sources than this one.
  • 0

#45 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 03 July 2010 - 07:35

Reflected, I dont know what your "real pilot" friend means by landing speed being superior to stall speed…but where real pilots are flying tail wheel aircraft landing in a 3 point attitude, touch down speed is always lower than stall speed…I'm guess he doesnt do those?

For a little perspective as well… a Piper J-3 cub has a wingloading of about 6.5 lbs per square foot. The SE5 has a wing loading of about 6.5 lbs per square foot. The piper cub with a fokker-esque wing stalls between 35-40 mph power off. An SE5 does not have a high lift wing…

I'll meet you half way and say 49 mph for the SE5. Why? we have 2 conflicting sources of original aircraft data, so I say they are both valid and should be averaged.

Sorry, I stil lcan't believe that the touchdown speed is inferior to the stall speed. I know what you mean, but he SE5a is no Extra 300. The SE5a "drops its wings" at 56 - in game, very unwelcome on landing - I don't know why anyone would risk that - especially if it's an original SE5a that you certainly don't want to break.

Yes, we have 2 conflicting sources, but one source is 100% the original thing, while the other isn't (it has different engine). Even without considering this 49 is not halfway between 52 and 43. 46-47 would be a lot closer to reality, and I'd be a lot happier than now :)

What I don't understand is why do you favor a not-so accurate report over a report made flying the 100% real thing? OK, mine says "about 45" so that can very well be 46-47. Would you consider that acceptable given the 2 sources we have?

Out of curiosity, in RoF, can you touch down at lower speeds than stall speed?
  • 0

#46 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 03 July 2010 - 08:21

Be carefull when you talk about stall because there are two stalls. One high speed stall that occurs at high speed even at full throttle and low speed stall.

The second one appears when the velocity relative to the air becomes too slow to develop enough lift to sustain the aircraft.

The second one happens when you pull an angle of attack that is so high that the airstream above the wing detaches from the surface with a devastating effect on lift. So it is indeed possible to stall at higher speed than take-off speed. Indeed you can have stall at any velocity above landing speed.
  • 0

#47 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 03 July 2010 - 09:50

Be carefull when you talk about stall because there are two stalls. One high speed stall that occurs at high speed even at full throttle and low speed stall.

The second one appears when the velocity relative to the air becomes too slow to develop enough lift to sustain the aircraft.

The second one happens when you pull an angle of attack that is so high that the airstream above the wing detaches from the surface with a devastating effect on lift. So it is indeed possible to stall at higher speed than take-off speed. Indeed you can have stall at any velocity above landing speed.

Of course, but if you read through the reports it's obvious what stall he's talking about ;)
  • 0

#48 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 03 July 2010 - 23:42

What about the curiously high TAS of some rotaries like th DR1 or the D.VIII?

Wiki says the D.VIII is 204 Kmh. it's about 10 Kmh too slow according to that graph

the other rotaries, however, are way over modeled IMO.
  • 0

#49 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 04 July 2010 - 00:42

Reflected, My appologies, I used the 56 that you were talking about instead of the 52 that I quoted :)

I think 46-47 is a good number to use given our sources…

The different engine will not make a difference for a power off stall…If you are implying that there could be other differences, then thats another story. In our situation, we have to take their word at face value otherwise we could second guess what people say, regardless of how official they are, all day long.
  • 0

#50 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 04 July 2010 - 08:15

Reflected, My appologies, I used the 56 that you were talking about instead of the 52 that I quoted :)

I think 46-47 is a good number to use given our sources…

The different engine will not make a difference for a power off stall…If you are implying that there could be other differences, then thats another story. In our situation, we have to take their word at face value otherwise we could second guess what people say, regardless of how official they are, all day long.

I'm talking about power-on stalls, but hey, looks like we came to an agreement! :D
  • 0

#51 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 04 July 2010 - 09:28

Turn radius Chart is based on wing loading calculation as clearly stated by the note. Therefore not a reliable definite source … so carefull with this one. It is NOT an original source.

it says the source is 'original plot from computations in note 11'

I read this, too. But what does original mean here? Did they copy a plot based on which computations? Since we don't have note 11 we never know! It may be computations done by some historians that are cited in note 11 or it may be computations by the authors of this book explained in note 11 … and even IF it were computations done by the engineers back then (I strongly doubt they did it. And how should they have got the data for all the other aircraft since they only had good data for their own planes) the plot itself mentions "theoretical minimum turn radius": note the word "theoretical". And it is still based on wing loading. Honestly this plot prooves nothing. I don't say that the tendencies could not have been this way. But we need other sources than this one.
I have that book and original means it's author's own making. Such graphs are useless when comparing aircraft performance.
  • 0

#52 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 05 July 2010 - 02:01

Heck im still waiting for the long awaited Dr.I and Camel Nerf. Im tired of these two aircraft ruling the skies.
  • 0

#53 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 05 July 2010 - 04:11

Reflected and anyone else who has followed our convo,

I flight tested the whole stall speed thing today in a 1931 stearman…power off stall about 53 mph. Touch down in a 3 point landing attitude at 46 mph…

but yes, agreed that current SE5 stall is too high.
  • 0

#54 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 05 July 2010 - 06:39

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. (!)

Stats seem close in game.

Sopwith Camel
Powerplant: Clerget 9 cyl rotary 130hp
Top Speed: 185kph
Source:Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975

The D.III in game is using the stats of a different engine which was between 5-10hp lower than the DVa 1918 engine. It isn't a completely different engine, but it was improved to perform better

Albatros D.III
Max speed- 175 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.III 170 hp Engine

Grosz, Peter M. Albatros D.III (Windsock Datafile Special). Berkhamsted, Herts, UK: Albatros Publications, 2003.


Albatros D.III
Max speed 175 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.III 175 hp Engine

Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975

The Alb DV matches the stats in game in "World Aircraft Origins-WW1"

Albatros D.Va
Max speed- 185 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.IIIa180hp Engine
Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975
  • 0

#55 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 05 July 2010 - 06:42

On Nieuport 17 Speed

http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/les_nieuports_de_la_guerre.pdf

http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/moteursdelegende_lerhone.pdf

sorry it's in french, but Nieuport, Le Rhone, Clerget "made in France" :mrgreen:

Yes. This source seems to follow the one listed in "Those Classic Nieuports" 165 at sea level

So at the moment we had 162 at sea level, pretty close isnt it? :)
No, the N17 barely breaks 150kph at sea level. In game it is slower than the N11.

Image

The Nieuport 17 still has the over-cooling bug that was fixed a few months ago in the Dr.1 and Sopwith Camel. The Nieuport 17 begins to over-cool at 2100m and easily dies at 3000m+ because the engine gets too cold. (All other rotary engine planes, including the N11, are fine at altitude. The N17 is the only one that has not been fixed)
  • 0

#56 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 05 July 2010 - 07:17

Turn radius Chart is based on wing loading calculation as clearly stated by the note. Therefore not a reliable definite source … so carefull with this one. It is NOT an original source.

it says the source is 'original plot from computations in note 11'

I read this, too. But what does original mean here? Did they copy a plot based on which computations? Since we don't have note 11 we never know! It may be computations done by some historians that are cited in note 11 or it may be computations by the authors of this book explained in note 11 … and even IF it were computations done by the engineers back then (I strongly doubt they did it. And how should they have got the data for all the other aircraft since they only had good data for their own planes) the plot itself mentions "theoretical minimum turn radius": note the word "theoretical". And it is still based on wing loading. Honestly this plot prooves nothing. I don't say that the tendencies could not have been this way. But we need other sources than this one.

I'm just saying that it could possibly have some substance to it. You can use formulas to get the general idea of an aircraft's performance (Rather than risk a pilot pushing a wood and canvas plane to its limit. But this source can't tell us everything we need to know about these aircraft anyway. Turning "Radius" doesn't tell the whole story. We need to know how fast it makes the turn (m/s). I am sure by the time a DH2 has made one of its 'tighter' turns, a Dr.1 has made 3 of its own. Anyhow, yeah you'll have to do more digging in that book to piece together the whole story. Hopefully the sources are listed and calculations explained.




D.II Maneuverability

Reposting this info on the D.II

Drag

A biplane is a fixed-wing aircraft with two main wings. The Wright brothers' Wright Flyer used a biplane design, as did most aircraft in the early years of aviation. While a biplane wing structure has a structural advantage, it produces more drag than a similar monoplane wing. Improved structural techniques and materials and the need for greater speed made the biplane configuration obsolete for most purposes by the late 1930s.

Variations on the biplane include the sesquiplane, where one wing (usually the lower) is significantly smaller than the other, either in span, chord, or both. Sometimes the lower wing is only large enough to support the bracing struts for the upper wing. The name means "one-and-a-half wings." This significantly reduces interference drag while retaining the structural advantages of a biplane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biplane

This is to explain why a sesquiplane has a better performance envelope than a standard biplane. Sesquiplanes produce less drag


Albatros D.I

Known to Allied aviators as the German “Spad,” the Albatros D.I, Appearing in 1916, is a high-speed type of machine, technically termed a destroyer and armed with two machine guns. The one shown in Fig. 48 was shot down in the British lines. It is a conglomerate copy of the French Nieuport and Moräne and the British Sopwith types, though equipped with a much heavier motor and lacking in the speed range of these machines. (History of Airplanes)http://acepilots.com/airplanes/country/german/albatros-di/

The D.I had a relatively high wing loading for its time, and was not particularly manoeuvrable. This was compensated by its superior speed and firepower,[2] and it quickly proved the best all-round fighter available.

A total of 50 pre-series and series D.I aircraft were in service by November 1916, replacing the early Fokker and Halberstadt D types, giving real "teeth" to the Luftstreitkräfte's new Jagdstaffeln (fighter squadrons). Further production of D.Is was not undertaken, however; instead, a reduction in the gap between the top and bottom planes in order to improve the pilot's forward and upward vision resulted in the otherwise identical Albatros D.II,[1] which became Albatros' first major production fighter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatros_D.I

Albatros D.II

Albatros designers Thelen, Schubert and Gnädig produced the D.II in response to pilot complaints about poor upward vision in the Albatros D.I. The solution was to reposition the upper wing 36 cm (14 in) closer to the fuselage and stagger it forward slightly. Rearrangement of the cabane struts also improved forward view. The D.II otherwise retained the same fuselage, engine installation, and armament as the D.I.[1] Basic performance was unchanged. Idflieg ordered an initial batch of 100 D.II aircraft in August 1916.

D.IIs formed part of the initial equipment of Jagdstaffel 2, the first specialized fighter
squadron in the German air service. Famous pilots included Oswald Boelcke and Manfred von Richthofen. With its high speed and heavy armament, the D.II won back air superiority from Allied fighter types such as the Airco DH.2 and Nieuport 11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatros_D.II
This is to explain the progression of the albatross from the D.I to the D.II. There were some small adjustments but it maintained very similar handling characteristics. The albatross had a “high wing loading for its time, and was not particularly maneuverable.”
The Albatros was more maneuverable than the Halberstadt and Eindecker, but when compared to planes like the Nieuport, it is not very maneuverable. It’s two advantages were speed and firepower


Albatros DIII


Work on the prototype D.III started in late July or early August 1916.[1] The date of the maiden flight is unknown, but is believed to have occurred in late August or early September.[1] Following on the successful Albatros D.I and D.II series, the D.III utilized the same semi-monocoque, plywood-skinned fuselage. At the request of the Idflieg (Inspectorate of Flying Troops), however, the D.III adopted a sesquiplane wing arrangement broadly similar to the French Nieuport 11.

The D.III entered squadron service in December 1916, and was immediately acclaimed by German aircrews for its maneuverability and rate of climb.[3] Two faults with the new aircraft were soon identified. Like the D.II, early D.IIIs featured a Teves und Braun airfoil shaped radiator in the center of the upper wing, where it tended to scald the pilot if punctured. From the 290th D.III onward, the radiator was offset to the right.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatros_D.III

As a sesquiplane biplane (the lower wings shorter than the upper (a practical design feature pulled from the French-made Nieuport 11 fighters), the D.III was a slight departure from the previous Albatros offerings. This also provided some new challenges in the Albatros design as it was soon found that failures of the leading edge and lower wing ribs were becoming all too common - leading to cracks and outright failures.

Nevertheless, the D.III proved some worth and remained an aircraft of choice for a time. In subtle ways noticed mostly by her pilots, the D.III was an improvement over the preceding D-series designs. Her maneuverability and rate-of-climb (vital to any dogfighter worth her weight) were noted assets as were the changes to improve pilot protection and visibility http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=201

This explains that the D.III is a sesquiplane and German pilots liked it for it’s “Maneuverability and rate of climb.” However, like the Nieuport planes, it should have a weak lower wing.

The D.II is a biplane, its lower wing will produce more drag and turbulence than the lower wing of the D.III because of the added surface area. The D.II should bleed more airspeed in its turn. The D.II has both less lift and has more drag than the D.III. It also has a weaker engine 20hp. It should not handle as elegantly as it does.

Reasons Alb D.II should perform worse in a turn than the Albatros D.III

-Not a Sesquiplane (More Drag)
-Less Powerful Engine -20hp (Less Thrust)
-Slower Rate of Climb (Less Lift)
-13gk heavier (More Weight)
  • 0

#57 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 05 July 2010 - 07:33

Don't forget the airfoil. You have to take into account the airfoil before making any statement. I bet you can construct an airplane that is a sesquiplane that produces more drag than the same one but with both wings equal in length.

I for my part don't believe in deducing flying characteristics just by looking at the main features. I want to see flight test results …

Guess why till the very first day of motorized flight planes are flight tested. The engineers have ALL data to calculate the plane behaviour. Yet they still insist on flight testing. Up to today. Now guess why …
  • 0

#58 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 05 July 2010 - 08:47

Albatros D.III
Max speed 175 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.III 175 hp Engine

Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975

The Alb DV matches the stats in game in "World Aircraft Origins-WW1"

Albatros D.Va
Max speed- 185 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.IIIa180hp Engine
Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975

We don't have a D.V (~40kg lighter than the D.Va) and our D.Va does not do 185kph at any altitude.
The D.III listed above is using the late version of the D.III engine that would be suited for early D.V and many D.IIIs, including both versions, but it is not the D.IIIa that is advertised in the store and not suited for the D.Va as an engine.
  • 0

#59 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 05 July 2010 - 14:15

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. (!)

Stats seem close in game.

Sopwith Camel
Powerplant: Clerget 9 cyl rotary 130hp
Top Speed: 185kph
Source:Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975

The D.III in game is using the stats of a different engine which was between 5-10hp lower than the DVa 1918 engine. It isn't a completely different engine, but it was improved to perform better

Albatros D.III
Max speed- 175 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.III 170 hp Engine

Grosz, Peter M. Albatros D.III (Windsock Datafile Special). Berkhamsted, Herts, UK: Albatros Publications, 2003.


Albatros D.III
Max speed 175 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.III 175 hp Engine

Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975

The Alb DV matches the stats in game in "World Aircraft Origins-WW1"

Albatros D.Va
Max speed- 185 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.IIIa180hp Engine
Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975


The D.V is actually not reaching 170 kph in horizontal flight in-game, wich is 15 kph too slow!

The 175 kph for the D.III with the 175 hp engine is credible as well, however we have the D.III equiped with the 180 hp-powerplant in game. Same topspeed for D.Va and D.III is the way to go. (Most people tend to forget that there were just as many, if not more D.IIIs in service until the end of the war as there were D.Vas and Vs.)

The main issue we have in game, that makes the horizontal speed of the D.III and D.Va so probelmatic is the topspeed of the Sopwith Camel . While the Camel was supperior in both climb and manouverability, its main shortcomming was the fact that it just could not get away from anything except the Dr.1. Right now, the Camel has no trouble running down a D.VII on the deck.
  • 0

#60 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 05 July 2010 - 15:50

The main issue we have in game, that makes the horizontal speed of the D.III and D.Va so probelmatic is the topspeed of the Sopwith Camel . While the Camel was supperior in both climb and manouverability, its main shortcomming was the fact that it just could not get away from anything except the Dr.1. Right now, the Camel has no trouble running down a D.VII on the deck.

on the other hand DRI can hold nice speeds up high which is not right…..

then again we can talk about how Alb DII is more maneuverable (turn rates etc) than DIII….we can talk about strange stall behaviour of pfalz DIIIa and all albatroses….especially DII which had weaker engine, more drag and was heavier than DIII…
tbh Im sure I would win 8 out of 10 fights in DII vs equally skilled pilot in DIII….
  • 0

#61 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 05 July 2010 - 18:14

Albatros D.III
Max speed 175 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.III 175 hp Engine

Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975

The Alb DV matches the stats in game in "World Aircraft Origins-WW1"

Albatros D.Va
Max speed- 185 kph
Powerplant- Mercedes D.IIIa180hp Engine
Angelucci, Enzo. World Aircraft Origins-WW1, New York, NY, Rand Mcnally & Co, 1975

We don't have a D.V (~40kg lighter than the D.Va) and our D.Va does not do 185kph at any altitude.
The D.III listed above is using the late version of the D.III engine that would be suited for early D.V and many D.IIIs, including both versions, but it is not the D.IIIa that is advertised in the store and not suited for the D.Va as an engine.

I took the store's stats for granted. It should go at least 185 at sea level.

I have seen the Mercedes D.III engine listed at both 170 and 175 hp, but the stats (climb rate, top speed) always remain the same. To get stats on the D.IIIa or D.IIIau, you would have to find the appropriate stats per the 180 hp engine. I don't imagine the top speed would be far different than the D.Va. The D.Va is heavier and they didn't make any wild changes to reduce drag. You can look at a plane with reduced drag flying with the Mercedes 180hp engine, then Fokker D.VII (No external bracing wires), and you notice there isn't a big difference (190kph in D.VII vs 185 in Alb DV)

D.Va top speed does not match the store's stats when flown in game. Pictures of D.III and D.Va auto leveled at sea level.

Image
  • 0

#62 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 05 July 2010 - 18:21

Have a look at this post Squirrel: Re: Flight Model Verification and Data Analysis 101 this might explain some of the confusions: german PS rating differed from british HP rating for various reasons, most importantly the assumed altitude (british is sea level, german varies, iirc).

"175" should be the british rating for the late D.III engine (they added some improvements during the production, can't say what though) and 170 should be the german rating for the D.IIIa (in PS, Pferdestärke), while the british rating is 180HP.
  • 0

#63 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 05 July 2010 - 18:28

Have a look at this post Squirrel: Re: Flight Model Verification and Data Analysis 101 this might explain some of the confusions: german PS rating differed from british HP rating for various reasons, most importantly the assumed altitude (british is sea level, german varies, iirc).

"175" should be the british rating for the late D.III engine (they added some improvements during the production, can't say what though) and 170 should be the german rating for the D.IIIa (in PS, Pferdestärke), while the british rating is 180HP.


Yeah, sorry I didn't know the different name designations for all of the German engines, but the stats (climb rate and speed) for the D.III are for the 6-cyl. inline Mercedes D. III, not the D.IIIa or au. I can't find stats for that variant.
  • 0

#64 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 05 July 2010 - 18:38

well we have the increase top speed for the D.IIIa from your book, maybe that is enough? :?


Btw, for an early D.III (OAW) and for the Albatros D.V the 175HP D.III (late) engine is perfectly alright, but for the D.Va it is a bit of a stretch. And if we assume both planes are supposed to be 1918 planes they should have the D.IIIa engine and behave like they do, especially since the store says so.

Alternatively they could leave the D.III as is (or made add 5km/h) to represent a late 1917 Albatros and only "up-engine" the D.Va to represent a Spring 1918 Albatros. And in 12 months or so they could add a D.Va with D.IIIaü for late 1918 and an original D.III for bloody april.
  • 0

#65 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 05 July 2010 - 18:40

British actually rated as follows (this is how Neoqb also id them):
D.III - 160hp
D.IIIa - 180hp
D.IIIau - 200hp
  • 0

#66 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 05 July 2010 - 18:46

yes but there was a later D.III "subversion" that was not official but which definitely had higher performance, which was rated 175HP by the british. Afaik not even the D.IIIaü was an official version.

Here is hoping Matt or MiG-77 will come along to say something about it :)

Maybe the later D.III was some sort of hybrid D.III/D.IIIa engine, somebody will know.
  • 0

#67 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 06 July 2010 - 04:29

yes but there was a later D.III "subversion" that was not official but which definitely had higher performance, which was rated 175HP by the british. Afaik not even the D.IIIaü was an official version.

Here is hoping Matt or MiG-77 will come along to say something about it :)

Maybe the later D.III was some sort of hybrid D.III/D.IIIa engine, somebody will know.

Confusion comes in DIIIau from that british tested DIIIau with wrong carburettor (standard DIIIa carburettor) to get that rated 200hp. Whith its normal highaltitude carburettor its max power were no more than DIIIa (except at high altitude).

DIIIau farnborought test data:

with highaltitude carburettor -> 174 bhp @ 1400RPM (184bhp@1600RPM)

with DIIIa carburettor -> 180bhp @ 1400RPM (204bhp@1600RPM)

maximum power recorded 219 bhp @ 1750 RPM (with DIIIa carburettor)

For comparison DIIIa:

174 bhp @ 1400RPM (180 bhp @ 1500RPM)

maximum power recorded 197bhp@1700RPM


Problem with those test were that, at the time, british didnt knew about added benzol in german fuel and thats why they could not get to run engine proberly with highaltitude carburettor.

Oh and also "officially" (=in mercedes factory), all engines were called just 160hp mercedes ;) Letter a or au just told what modifications have been made to original engine. Now there probably were "field kits" where they could upgrade older engine to newer standart and that is why you actually could have IE DIII engine with same modifications than DIIIa in late 1917. This could be the reason for "170-175hp DIII" engines.
  • 0

#68 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 06 July 2010 - 06:35

Don't forget the airfoil. You have to take into account the airfoil before making any statement. I bet you can construct an airplane that is a sesquiplane that produces more drag than the same one but with both wings equal in length.

I for my part don't believe in deducing flying characteristics just by looking at the main features. I want to see flight test results …

Guess why till the very first day of motorized flight planes are flight tested. The engineers have ALL data to calculate the plane behaviour. Yet they still insist on flight testing. Up to today. Now guess why …

They are almost exactly the same model except for the mentioned improvements. Pilots even noted improvements in performance. There should be an obvious difference in maneuverability between these two planes. I get there is a big difference in airfoil between the Fokker DVII and the Albatros D.V, but between the D.II and the D.III? Similar perhaps, but there's nothing magical the D.II brings to the table that would give it such an incredible turn rate, especially considering it has a weak, early war engine in comparison.
  • 0

#69 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 11 July 2010 - 21:57

I've posted this elsewhere as well but feel it's an important point. these planes will only ever be best guess interpretations… So enjoy them for what they are.

All of these conversations about "realism" in the plane models are just academic. I've been flying Tiger Moths since I was 15 and no two fly the same (different roll rates, top speeds, stall speeds etc). I found this article which illustrates it:


The State of Testing and Quality Control


The testing figures for all the World War I aircraft can be doubted as to their accuracy, they were at best an honest attempt to obtain quantitative data from an industry that, while high tech for its era, was still a craftsman's industry that produced one off products. Quality Control was by visual inspection with jigs and templates which, while rigorous, still allowed lemons out of the factories and gave high variance to the machines which reached operations.


As an example one squadron received an aircraft whose wings flexed. Naturally none of the pilots liked flying it. They stripped the aircraft down to discover that the aircraft's wing timbers were oil soaked. The squadron struck the aircraft off strength.


As the machines were simple construction of timber, wire and dope painted linen, it allowed for pilots to hot rod their aircraft as well. One naval pilot borrowed the aircraft of Robert Little and was shocked to see his landing speed to be 10 mph higher than normal, it turned out Little had lowered his seat to lower the center of gravity so that he could go into a dive faster. An aircraft that is 1000 lb, moving a 200 lb pilots location in the aircraft can change its flight characteristics significantly.


Of all the World War I qualitative tests it is my opinion that the speed figures for both the Sopwith Camel and Fokker Triplane are the most at odds with observations and writings of both pilots from World War I and modern replica pilots. The Sopwith Camel in particular was known for it's lack of speed. Comparing the Sopwith Snipe and Sopwith Camel purely on the basis of climb and speed data from the period paints an incomplete picture as the test data is in contradiction to the observations of the pilots who flew those aircraft in World War I.


There is one area of performance figure where the Sopwith Snipe did show its 1919 performance and that is in the area of Weight to Power ratio's. This is a figure which shows an aircraft's ability to accelerate which can be especially useful at the end of an energy draining maneuver as acceleration is what gets the aircraft it's speed back. The Sopwith Snipe had a weight to power ratio of 8.98 from 2020 lbs over 230 hp. In other words every horsepower was pulling 8.98 pounds of weight through the air. The Sopwith Camel had ratio of 10.77 for the 140 hp Clerget. Some other comparisons, the Spad had a ratio of 9.44,the SE5a had a ratio of 9.7, the Bristol Fighter a ratio of 10.18, the Fokker DVII a ratio of 10.48 and the Albatros D.Va a ratio of 11.47.

Taken from: http://www.southsear...lic.org/article" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.southsear...lic.org/article … ing_corps/

I agree completely with this from my experiences
  • 0

#70 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 12 July 2010 - 14:16

Power/weight ratio is misleading unless you know exact power at different alitudes. IE BMW engine could develope ~230hp at sealevel, but was rated to 185hp (by germans. By brits/americans it was 230hp engine). DIIIa engine could develope 197hp but was rated to 180hp. Viper engine could develope 220hp but was rated to 200hp, etc.

Of those listed engines, only BMW could reach its rated power at 4km. So power/weight ratios would look totally different at that altitude ;)

Also you need to look total drag of aircraft and propeller type. IE Snipe was either draggier or had worse propeller (for level speed) than SE5a or it would have been faster than it. But historically, it was slower than SE5a and had similar climb (Snipe being slightly faster).
  • 0

#71 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 13 July 2010 - 06:52

Also you need to look total drag of aircraft and propeller type. IE Snipe was either draggier or had worse propeller (for level speed) than SE5a or it would have been faster than it. But historically, it was slower than SE5a and had similar climb (Snipe being slightly faster).

totally right…. coarser propeller on the snipe?
  • 0

#72 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 15 July 2010 - 23:00

Interestingly - the propellers varied quite a bit in WWI in density and the skill of the carpentry so again impossible to do anything but talk in general terms.

Also any pilots of prop aircraft will tell you props take quite a battering in a very short time - so it would have got a lot coarser over time SE5 had something like a 10% drop off in top speed after 10 or so hours from engine wear and prop damage.

Dolphins prop rotated the opposite way to the camel… (No point in this last statement just saying)
  • 0

#73 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 19 July 2010 - 19:07

Flight International 2 May 1968

By RONALD SYKES, DFC

Inspired by the RAF fiftieth anniversary celebrations, the author has based this article on extracts from his notebooks. In March 1918 he was a flight sub-lieutenant in No 3 Naval Squadron; on April 1 he was a lieutenant in No 203 Sqn, RAF. Later, transferred to 201 Sqn, he was promoted to flight commander and captain

Authoritative and Excellent articles describing Sopwith Camels and giving histories of the squadrons which flew them have been published over the years. This article is different: it is based on notes written in 1918 by a pilot-instructor who found sheer delight in flying the Camel. The machine is the Sopwith F1 Camel powered by a 150 h.p. Bentley B.R.1 nine cylinder rotary engine; this was the version issued to the fighter squadrons of the Royal Naval Air Service in France.

Climb up and sit on the "hump" over the petrol tank just behind the cockpit, and slide forward into the seat (under the top plane) slipping your toes under the straps -on the rudder bar. Take a look at all control surfaces while moving the stick and rudder bar. See that both magneto switches are off and that the petrol fine-adjustment lever is closed. Turn the petrol tap ON to "main tank.". Turn on the cock behind the hand air-pump, and pump-up to 1Ib/sq in; at this pressure the relief valve should blow off. Turn the cook OFF. Open the petrol fine-adjustment by pushing the short lever forward for about one half of its travel. Answer the air mechanic's call of "Switches off; petrol on; suck in" While the Propeller is then being pulled round, move the long lever on the quadrant (controlling the barrel throttle-valve) a little way forward until a sucking, gurgling noise is heard as the petrol and air are drawn through the barrel throttle in the hollow crankshaft into the rotating crankcase. (The mixture passes through the crankcase and up the induction pipes to the overhead inlet valves.) While the propeller is being turned round, the oil pump will be drawing pure castor oil from the oil tank and forcing it to the crankshaft bearings, timing gears, master and slave big-ends and the cylinder walls, all of which are scoured by the petrol, the castor oil is insoluble in petrol. Meanwhile waist belt, winds his muffler over his nose mouth, and secures it by his helmet chin­strap. After several turns of the engine the propeller is turned back to a position of about 10 o'clock: then the mechanic shouts "Contact!" The pilot puts both switches ON, the petrol fine adjustment lever nearly right back, the throttle half open '1lnd shouts "Contact." The mechanic pulls the prop' down smartly; and in turn has his arm or belt pulled hard by the rigger to get him clear of the propeller as the engine fires.

Taxying: One of the pleasing features of the B.R.l engine in comparison with earlier makes is that it responds normally to the throttle and does not require "blipping" although a blip-switch is provided in the spade-handle of the joy0stick. So the initial engine run-up to give 1,050 revs can be done by opening the throttle and petrol fine adjustment lever together. The stick is, of course, held right back and the rigger lies over the fuselage to help keep the tail down. Then, "chocks-away" Push the stick forward, and put on some rudder; give a burst of engine to take the weight off the tailskid and blow the tail round. Visibility forward is nil (owing to the twin Vickers guns and Aldis sight between them), so look out sideways and, if all is clear, turn into the Hne of vision. Once the Camel is moving freely there seems to be a tendency for the tail to bounce up, so keep the stick back while running on the 'grass. Check the windsock direction and turn into wind.

Take-off Check for 1tlb/sq in air pressure in the pipe to the air space in the main petrol tank: this can be corrected by adjusting the relief valve in 'the pipe near to the pressure gauge or by pumping air with the hand pump near to the right hand. Look to see that no other machine is coming in to land: pull down your mask goggles; open the throttle wide and simu1taneously move the fine-adjustment lever just past the half-way position on the quadrant, when your ear will tell you that the mixture is correct and the engine firing evenly. While the engine revs are rising, kick on plenty of left rudder to prevent a swing to ,the right. As speed increases, push the stick forward and get the tail-skid off the ground, high enough to give some visibility over the engine cowling. As the pressure against the stick rises let it come back until the wheels leave the surface and the Camel flies off. Against a wind of about Force 3 or 4 this will be at about 45kit in approximately 150 yards with full tanks {24gal in main, 4gal in emergency gravity tank) and two 500-round belts of 0.303 ammo. The Camel will not fly itself hands-off, and when the wheels leave the ground it will be tail-heavy with the full load of petrol in the tank behind you; you will also find it sluggish on the ailerons and too near the stall, so gently push the stick forward an inch or two and fly parallel to the ground with the wheels two or three feet clear of it.

The speed quickly rises to 100kt and the controls become very sensitive. Let the stick come back an inch or two and you will put the Camel into a steady climb of 1,000ft a minute at 60kt. Throttle and the fine adjustment lever must now be pulled back slightly; you will hear will note the improvement in, the tone of the engine as the r.p.m. come back to the figure marked 1,250 normal maximum. During the climb it is necessary to pull back the fine-adjustment lever at every 1,000fit at least, otherwise the mixture becomes too rich and advertises the fact by leaving a trail of dark smoke behind, clearly visible for one's critics to observe!

Characteristics; our operational Camels are adjusted by our riggers to be slightly tail-heavy at take-off with full tanks; thus at the end of a two-and-a-half-hour flight, with most of the petrol gone, they will be slightly nose-heavy when coming in to land. During the middle period of a two-and-a-'half-hour flight no force is required on the stick to keep in level flight and the Camel will fly momentarily hands-off; but the weight of the stick usually cal1ries it slowly to one side: without dihedral on its, top plane the machine has little inherent stability about its rolling axis. At all speeds between 70kt and 150kt the control response is precise and delightful, although the elevator becomes much more sensitive at 150kt. Stalling speed in level flight without war Load is about 42kt. Prior to an engine-off stall the aileron response becomes very poor, the machine begins to sink, then kicks up its tail; but if the controls are kept central the machine will fall nose first, accelerating fairly slowly until at 60kt it will again respond normally to all controls. Pull up into a stall and apply the usual encouragement from the rudder; the Camel will then cartwheel over and then flick into a spin (which, with the stick held right back, will be a fast one). Centralize the controls and after about four more turns the machine will come out of the spin: it can be forced out more quickly, by applying opposite rudder and pushing the stick forward briskly, though this does not always have the desired result.

Turning; In medium turns at normal speeds the controls are nice and light, and only small movements of aileron and rudder are required; inexperience can easily cause side-slipping, but the resultant air blast on your cheek will give immediate warning of the error. Steep turns (after plenty of practice!) are a real joy. Don't let your air-speed fall below 70kt. Move the stick over" to the left two or three inches, then bring it back quickly to your stomach, and at the same time apply full left rudder: you will find yourself in a vertical bank with the Camel's nose racing round the horizon. A 360º turn will be completed in a matter of seconds; moreover, the Camel will come out of it without losing any of its speed. The full left rudder is needed to counteract the gyroscopic effect of the heavy rotary engine, which 'has a strong tendency to push the nose up into the sky on a left turn. A right-hand vertical turn can be done in a similar manner, except that full left rudder is again needed, but this time to stop the nose from sliding down towards the earth. Climbing turns to the right can be done by applying left rudder before you get right over on to your right Wing-tip. For climbing turns, push the throttle and the petrol control forward to give maximum revs. In fact, in all manoeuvres keep your left hand on the throttle levers, and fly the Camel with your right hand on the stick.

Stunting and Low Flying Stunting was banned during flights over England after questions in the House of Commons about the connection between stunting and the frequency of crashes. So it is mainly self-taught over France! Your first attempt to loop may be the same as mine: nose down; speed up to 150; pull up and then over the top … and now trouble starts! The Camel gives a sudden flick turn to the right, and as you throttle back it does something like an inverted stall; you feel that you are slipping through your belt, 'although it is very tightly fastened; you draw your feet out from under the rudder-bar straps and bring your knees to your chin; this stops you from slipping out, but the antics of the Camel seem even more confusing. however, the use of full aileron will get it right side up and then into level flight again. Needless to say, you need plenty of height when you try this trick; and do remember to put on rplen1ty of left rudder when you are inverted ait the top of the loop.
To execute a roll, use the stick as if you were stirring a pudding and kick on some appropriate rudder. The results, in my own view, are not pleasant; you will proba1bly be thrown against the cockpit side and subjected to a violent air blast on one side of your head. By the time you get the Camel under control again you will probably have done two gyrations about a horizontal axis.
One attraction of the Camel is its speed and relative strength in a vertical dive with the engine full on.

The ASI is calibrated up to 180, but whole formations of Camels quite frequently dive 6,000ft and more, and the ASI needle wm go past the 180 mark and start a second lap! Pulling out requires great care, to prevent the wooden structure from bending too much; the elevator will have become over-sensitive, and fuel best trick is to steady the wrists and forearms on your thighs and, with both hands on the stick, bring it back very slowly in 1/8th steps. When, the ASI has fallen to 170, aileron turns can be done; and at 150 the Camel can be pulled up quite normally into level flight and turned [n vertical banks or half-rolled into a final dive. After diving 5,000ft like this, especially if the petrol tank is more than half empty, you must pump like mad with the hand air pump, otherwise the engine will be starved of pettrol when you pull out into level flight. It seems as if the barometric pressure on the petrol jet rises more quickly than the mechanical fuel pump can increase the pressure in the tank. It is a great thrill to dive like this down the dazzling, white, cliff like side of a huge cumulus cloud; half-way down, pull out of the dive and turn towards a lofty dark ravine which has opened in the cliff; sweep up into its top corner, find that it is a cul-de-sac, and cartwheel over into a shallow dive. Then, just as you slip back into the full strong light of !the sun you see a bottomless chasm on your left; half-roll over, pull back into it, and go streaking down with the walls flashing past until it leads you out into the dull, lower layers of earthbound air.

Look around and pinpoint your position. Remember that low flying practice is encouraged (in France); let her go nose down again into a steep dive; throttle lever half-way back; pun out at 2,000ft, then S-turns with vertical banks ait each end. Look at that cloud of white dust blowing away from a road; open your throttle and dive for it; your luck is in, it's a staff car open to the sky, so dive to the road in front of it and move your stick very gently back to round-out about eight feet up with l50kt on the ASI. Allow a bit for the speed of the car and then pull up, and with a bit more luck you will see four red cap-bands moving in agitation as you flash over. Dive gently left into the dust cloud, then sharply left through the gap in the grove of trees; keep law while still turning left, 68la
hop a couple of hedges and go round !the end. of the wood. There in front is the road again, wilJh the car broadside on to you and gathering speed; the noise of their own engine and transmission will prevent the four staff officers from hearing the deep, smooth chatter of your Bentley rotary, so have another Pass at them. Your speed is lower now-down to normal cruising of 95kt, so you can judge distance with precision-and as you lift the Camel over the low hedge and go into a climbing turn you can look down and see four white faces peering up at you.

Now for home, hedgehopping and contour-chasing and down low, very low over the occasional parade ground near a military camp. There is your aerodrome windsock straight ahead, so climb up to 1,50ft with speed at 55kt you will be there in one minute, and then you can dive straight to the roof level of the other pilots' cabins just to let them know you are back. You have already looked all round and seen that have the sky to yourself, so continue the airfield, pulling up vertically over with engine full on, starting upwards at about 130kt. gaining 800ft the speed will be down to 70, so apply left rudder and slowly throttle back; the Camel will quickly cartwheel over in a non-slipping 180º turn. Speed will be just dropping past 60kt as the nose passes the horizontal, so the machine is under full control and you can let it drop straight down towards the earth with the engine just ticking over.

Remember that the BRl in the nose is heavy and with the petrol tank nearly empty behind the tail will be. Start rounding out she the grass becomes a green blur hold thumb on the stick, right wrist on right knee for steadiness, stick slowly back at a gentle rate, half-inch per second; and as the stick reaches your tummy you will feel the wheels and tail-skid rumbling as they run along the soft grass.
In France most pilots have their own special routines for approach and landing, so undo your safety belt, sit up on the back of the seat and have a good look all round before sliding back into your seat, setting the throttle about half-way and taxiing-in.
  • 0

#74 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 22 July 2010 - 16:36

Sopwith Camel FM

In-Game

I was flying along in a DVIIf at about 1200m. My throttle was at approximately 85% and I spotted a bogey at my 11 and slightly low (estimated 900-1,000m alt). I pushed my throttle forward and vectored a more direct intercept course and the bogey did the same towards me entering into a shallow climb to attempt to achieve co alt as much as possible at closure. I passed him at 100% throttle after at least 10 seconds of a very shallow dive (i.e. enough time to gather some decent airspeed) and he was still barely climbing…it was a Camel. Immediately after passing each other he raked it around in a hard right turn, kept his nose slightly above the horizon and actually effin closed on me in less than 20-30 seconds! I was like…are you kidding?

(Taken from TX-Thunderbolt on another thread)

Question for the developers: Do you see that there is something wrong?

Camel we have in game now: Camel F1 with 130 hp Clerget Rotary.

Topspeed: In game: 190 kph
(Assuming its from the NASM report)

Topspeed other Sources Online:

Post 4 on this Topic: NASA "Quest for Performance"
Figure 2.19
Topspeed for 130 hp Clerget Rotary: 115 mph


Transportation History: 115 mph = 185 kph (no engine specified, Bentley Mentioned as most powerful one)
http://transportatio...e_sopwith_camel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://transportatio...tory.suite101.c … with_camel


The Aerodrome: 118 mph = 190 kph with Bently 150 hp engine, NOT with Clerget 130 hp
http://www.theaerodr...pwith_camel.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/aircraft/gb … _camel.php


Flugzeuginfo.com: 185 kph
http://www.flugzeugi...ithcamel_en.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.flugzeugi...net/acdata_php/ … mel_en.php

(List shortened, tons of others giving it a topspeed not above 185 kph with the Clerget 130 hp rotary engine)

Sources in Books:

Michael Sharpe - Biplanes, Triplanes, Seaplanes (Godrom Publishing)
Pages 285-287:
Topspeed for 130 hp Clerget Enigene: 185 kph


Aerospace Publishing - Encyclopedia of Aviation (Enzyklopädie der Flugzeuge)

Chapter 2: Fighters
(1st Page)

Camel F1, 130 HP Clerget Rotary - 185 kph

(Pilot Reports to follow)
  • 0

#75 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 22 July 2010 - 16:55

Camel left turn:

Windsock datafile 26:
Attached File  Camel_rudder.jpg   59.09KB   1080 downloads

Camel King of Combat:
Attached File  fullrudder.jpg   49.57KB   1076 downloads


Camel King of Combat:
Attached File  leftturn.jpg   17.71KB   1080 downloads

Camel King of Combat:
Attached File  leftturn2.jpg   36.77KB   959 downloads

Sopwith Camel vs Fokker Dr.I:

Attached File  Camel_turn_to_right.jpg   79.76KB   974 downloads

Sopwith Camel vs Fokker Dr.I:

Attached File  Need_of_left_rudder.jpg   65.07KB   974 downloads
  • 0

#76 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 23 July 2010 - 00:42

Great posts MiG, VonHuetz, and piecost…good citations. I hope we see some changes for the Camel
  • 0

#77 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 24 July 2010 - 16:46

I noticed that there was extensive quotes regarding Camel's with BR1 engines. Both piecost and Mig quoted passages regarding BR1 Camels. Is it my impression that the community is pressing for a BR1 F1 Camel? Because I do not see any info regarding a Clerget 130 F1 Camel's turn characteristics. I would also note that the King of Camel passage in full demonstrates that a BR 1 Camel could initiate a right turn with only two to three inches of stick movement to the right (This would translate to a very slight stick movement on a modern gamer HOTAS), then the addition of left rudder, with full left to stop the roll. Our Camel certainly does not have an aggressive roll rate like that at all. I would also point out that the passage also indicates that for the right turn you would pull the stick all the way back. Currently if you did that the Camel would spin out to the right and down, at full fuel, full ammo, and no modification to the curve. I would also point out that the Camel seems to be slow in a turn, turning only three to two to the right and one to one to the left against the Albatros Dva, when it should likely turn three to two to the right and one to one to the left against the better turning Albatros DIIIa. There is no evidence to suggest that any Albatros could outturn a Camel in any direction.

When the turn characteristics are fixed, I would ask the ROF team to make the most historical accurate representation, given the available info. I believe they will do this, because they are out and out professionals, with a passion for detail. The Camel we now have is fairly tame, compared to what I am reading about. For instance, the "three to two Albators right hand turn" anecdotal evidence would suggest that a Camel should be able to execute a 270 degree turn to the right faster than the Albatros DIII could turn ninety degrees to the left and the ROF game does not do this at all.
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#78 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 24 July 2010 - 21:46

When considering gyroscopic effects of the Clerget vs Bently BR1, the most important factor will be the mass of the engine and the RPM. They both (according to Wiki, so better research required)weigh the same (within 20 lbs) and are rated at 1250 rpm…The flight characteristics of both versions of the plane should be very close with some differences is performance (due to increased horsepower). I would consider pilot discussion on flight characteristics valid for the RoF Camel regardless of which engine the airplane has.
  • 0

#79 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 03:35

When considering gyroscopic effects of the Clerget vs Bently BR1, the most important factor will be the mass of the engine and the RPM. They both (according to Wiki, so better research required)weigh the same (within 20 lbs) and are rated at 1250 rpm…The flight characteristics of both versions of the plane should be very close with some differences is performance (due to increased horsepower). I would consider pilot discussion on flight characteristics valid for the RoF Camel regardless of which engine the airplane has.

Good point Chill. Now what about the 270 degree right turn of the Camel issue? Our Camel is certainly not able to turn 270 degrees before the Albatros DIII makes ninety degrees to the right. Seroiusly too tame for the historical anecdotal evidence.
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#80 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 05:04

Is it true what Reflected posted about the TAS of the DR 1 compared to the Camel? I did not think that the DR 1 was so much faster than the Camel? What are their true air speeds, at the various altitudes supposed to be? BTW, the DR 1 is a real joy in game. I am very impressed. I racked up ten kills in it the other day on multiplayer. It is very awesome indeed. I could never get ten kills in my poor Camel. I do love the Camel more though. So is the ROF team really going to take a look a the Camel FM; if so, anyone know when?
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users