Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Current ROF Airplanes Flight Model Discussion Topic.


  • Please log in to reply
324 replies to this topic

#81 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 25 July 2010 - 08:41

I noticed that there was extensive quotes regarding Camel's with BR1 engines.

To add to what Chill31 wrote, only one of my posted quotes is specifically from BR.I engined Camel.
  • 0

#82 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 15:49

@Mig-77- Then we need a Camel that call turn 270 degrees to the right faster than an Albatros DIII can turn ninety degrees to the left. Mind you, the anecdotal evidence also suggests that the DR 1 could turn about three to two to the Camel to the right, according to reseach done by Norman Franks. This brings up a big point. We cannot discuss the Camel in isolation. The RoF team will have to revise all or at least many of the flight models to bring the plane sets to the most historically accurate quantitative and qualitative performance, relative to each other. Believe me, I do look forward to this process because, if anything, my Camel should perform a heck of a lot better at the end of it. =)
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#83 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 25 July 2010 - 15:54

@Mig-77- Then we need a Camel that call turn 270 degrees to the right faster than an Albatros DIII can turn ninety degrees to the left. Mind you, the anecdotal evidence also suggests that the DR 1 could turn about three to two to the Camel to the right, according to reseach done by Norman Franks. This brings up a big point. We cannot discuss the Camel in isolation. The RoF team will have to revise all or at least many of the flight models to bring the plane sets to the most historically accurate quantitative and qualitative performance, relative to each other. Believe me, I do look forward this process, cause if anything my Camel should perform a heck of a lot better at the end of it. =)

Im still totally lost how you keep mixing things. As I have said before, you cannot rank different planes according to anecdotes. They are aproximations at best (and total lies at worst). IE anecdote "Camel turning same with Albatros D.V" can still mean it is faster, or exaclty same, or slower. But against Albatros that is irrelevant as Camel can change left turn to climbing turn that no Albatros can follow.
  • 0

#84 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 15:59

@Mig-77 With all due respect, you are using the anecdotal evidence to rank relative performance, for any change to the ROF Camel will cause a relative change with regard to all other planes in game. My anecdotal evidence is every bit as strong as yours. I am not mixing up issues at all Mig. You have to take the good with the bad. If the ROF team models the anecdotal evidence on the use of the rudder, then it is only fair to model the anecdotal consequence of making the turn (ie, the Camel will turn 270 degree to the right faster than an Albatros DIII or DVa could turn ninty degrees to the left. This same anecdotal evidence also suggests that a DR1 should turn three to two to the right against the Camel. I am not mixing anything up Mig. I am following your anecdotes to their logical conclusion.
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#85 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 25 July 2010 - 16:09

@Mig-77- Then we need a Camel that call turn 270 degrees to the right faster than an Albatros DIII can turn ninety degrees to the left. Mind you, the anecdotal evidence also suggests that the DR 1 could turn about three to two to the Camel to the right, according to reseach done by Norman Franks. This brings up a big point. We cannot discuss the Camel in isolation. The RoF team will have to revise all or at least many of the flight models to bring the plane sets to the most historically accurate quantitative and qualitative performance, relative to each other. Believe me, I do look forward this process, cause if anything my Camel should perform a heck of a lot better at the end of it. =)

Im still totally lost how you keep mixing things. As I have said before, you cannot rank different planes according to anecdotes. They are aproximations at best (and total lies at worst). IE anecdote "Camel turning same with Albatros D.V" can still mean it is faster, or exaclty same, or slower. But against Albatros that is irrelevant as Camel can change left turn to climbing turn that no Albatros can follow.

The point is that there is abundant anecdotal evidence that the Camel could turn significantly faster to the right than to the left…at present it turns equally in both directions.

The evidence is good enough to point to a problem with the flight model even if it doesn't easily translate into a solution…something is wrong.

Someone (sorry i forget who) has already posted a possible reason (backed up by tests) that the rudder authority of 'our' camel is too good (it was know to have poor rudder authority).

reducing rudder efficiency (according to this poster) produced significant gyroscopic forces that prevented high-banking sustained turns (in accordance with anecdotal evidence from the time)

To keep on insisting on hard date when it may not exist and ignoring the data we do have access to (the pathologically exaggerated accounts of those idiot pilots that obviously couldn't assess the machine they were flying any more than a chimpanzee could) is to ignore possibly the only resource available.

all available hard date should, of course, be taken into account over anecdotal evidence but unfortunately there has to be a degree of guesswork involved (informed guesswork may be all we have).
  • 0

#86 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 25 July 2010 - 16:12

@Mig-77 With all due respect, you are using the anecdotal evidence to rank relative performance, for any change to the ROF Camel will cause a relative change with regard to all other planes in game. My anecdotal evidence is every bit as strong as yours. I am not mixing up issues at all Mig. You have to take the good with the bad.

Im not ranking them. Im presenting anecdotal evidence that Camel did turn slower to left. That there is one evidence where whole 45th squadron estimates it to equal in turn to Albatros D.V dont mean that it is exactly same, or faster or slower.

If the ROF team models the anecdotal evidence on the use of the rudder, then it is only fair to model the anecdotal consequence of making the turn (ie, the Camel will turn 270 degree to the right faster than an Albatros DIII or DVa could turn ninty degrees to the left. This same anecdotal evidence also suggests that a DR1 should turn three to two to the right against the Camel. I am not mixing anything up Mig. I am following your anecdotes to their logical conclusion.

Now where did you get that Camel 270deg is faster than 90deg albatros left? Not single anecdote says that. Infact not single anecdote says anything how fast any aircraft turned to any direction. You are just using difference anecdotes out of their context and mixing them. Again you cannot say anything about Dr.I turn by using camel as evidence.
  • 0

#87 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 25 July 2010 - 16:13

The point is that there is abundant anecdotal evidence that the Camel could turn significantly faster to the right than to the left…at present it turns equally in both directions.

The evidence is good enough to point to a problem with the flight model even if it doesn't easily translate into a solution…something is wrong.

Exactly.

Oh, and it was me Parazaine (but it is only theory why Camel did turn worse to left than right) ;)
  • 0

#88 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 16:18

I agree with you Parazaine- According to the anecdotal evidence, the Camel should turn three to two better to the right than the Albatros DIII can; perhaps better against the Albatros Dva, and it should be able to make 270 degree right hand turn faster than the Albatros dIII turn to the left. The DR1 should be able to turn three to two better than the Camel to the right and I do not know about the left. Both the Camel and the DR1 should have better turn performance, relative to their competition, according to the anecdotal evidence. Speed is another matter entirely and I suspect that the Camel and Dr1 are both too fast relative to the planes they hunt.
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#89 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 16:32

@mIG- 77- Norman McMillian (Camel pilot from No 45 Squadron) suggested in an interview with Norman Franks that "…for the heavier stationary engined German scouts could not turn as quickly and, when they were engaged in close quarters, the Camel could make three turns to their two in a right hand circle, in spite of her relative inferiority in climb and speed at even moderate altitudes. So actually this figure applies to German "heavier" Central scouts generally and not just the Albatros DIII. I take it that this pilot knew the Camel alot better then we do Mig. =) Now, it is most likely that he was talking about the most common enemy scout, the Albatros, but I would be happy to apply this anecdote to all central heavier stationary engined scouts! lol So sorry, this is documented and in other places too, but I do not have the time to hunt. Don't forget all of the quotes from Camel pilots about how no one could out turn or out maneuver the Camel! lol

(Source- Dogfight- Ariel Tactics of the Aces of World War 1
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#90 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 25 July 2010 - 16:38

@mIG- 77- Norman McMillian (Camel pilot from No 45 Squadron) suggested in an interview with Norman Franks that "…for the heavier stationary engined German scouts could not turn as quickly and, when they were engaged in close quarters, the Camel could make three turns to their two in a right hand circle, in spite of her relative inferiority in climb and speed at even moderate altitudes. So actually this figure applies to German "heavier" Central scouts generally and not just the Albatros DIII. I take it that this pilot knew the Camel alot better then we do Mig. =)

(Source- Dogfight- Ariel Tactics of the Aces of World War 1

Good, now we have yet another evidence (altought it is same original source as I presented earlier) that right turn is correct (As in game Camel already roughly outturns that 3 to 2 against Pfalz DIIIa, Fokker D.VII, Fokker D.VIIF and Alatbrosses). ;) But we are talking about left turn.
  • 0

#91 Acasto

Acasto
  • Posts: 197

Posted 25 July 2010 - 16:42

Chilli, I don't know what explanation do you have for this, but I'm all ears. The Shuttleworth SE is a real one, real engine, real guns (no ammo) real fuel tanks, same weight. It touches down at 45 mph, and we, in RoF stall at 56. That's 125% ! A huge difference…

Please describe your process to determine the stall speed; I applied for what is described by the regulations for ULM vehicles and my results do not coincide with your.
  • 0

#92 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 16:47

@Mig- 77- If the Camel could turn three to two to the right and on a par to the left and the Camel could make 270 degrees to the right faster than ninety degrees to the left, you still don't see my point? The Camel would have to turn 270 degrees to the right faster than heavier engined Central Scouts, like the Albatros, could turn to the left. This might explain why Camel pilots repeatedly suggested that no one could out turn or out maneuver the Camel. (Most likely most of these piilots did not generally encounter the DR 1 though or they might think otherwise)
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#93 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 25 July 2010 - 16:54

The following quote about the Sopwith camel is taken from Wikipedia (that well known unimpeachable data source)

The Camel proved to be a superlative fighter, and offered heavier armament and better performance than the Pup and Triplane. In the hands of an experienced pilot, its manoeuvrability was unmatched by any contemporary type. Its controls were light and sensitive. The Camel turned rather slowly to the left, which resulted in a nose up attitude due to the torque of the rotary engine. But the engine torque also resulted in the ability to turn to the right in half the time of other fighters,[3] although that resulted in more of a tendency towards a nose down attitude from the turn. Because of the faster turning capability to the right, to change heading 90° to the left, many pilots preferred to do it by turning 270° to the right.

Another lengthy quote about the Camel and others

The War in the Air - From Triplane to Camel, the War's Best Fighters

Manfred von Richthofen, "The Red Baron" Towards the end of "Bloody April" in 1917 the RNAS began to equip their squadrons with a new and astonishing aircraft - the Sopwith Triplane. This was a development of the Sopwith Pup, but the triplane configuration gave the plane unprecedented manoeuvrability and rate of climb.

The undisputed masters of the Sopwith Triplane were the pilots of the all Canadian "Black Flight," commanded by Raymond Collishaw. In June and July of 1917 the Black Flight shot down no less than 86 aircraft for the loss of three, of which two were lost to anti-aircraft fire. This was all the more impressive as they were flying against JG I. (Collishaw was Canada's second highest scoring ace, and survived the war with 68 confirmed victories to his credit. He served as a commander of a Fleet Air Arm Fighter Group in the Second World War.)

The nimble triplane must have held incredible appeal for a virtuoso pilot such as Richthofen, and with his forces suddenly facing a superior aircraft it is not surprising that he pressed the Idflieg to provide a similar aircraft.

The response of the German and Austrian manufacturers was astonishing. They produced more than a dozen different triplanes, usually adaptations of existing designs. But of all these planes the most successful was the Fokker Dr I, designed by Fokker's chief engineer Reinhold Platz. Richthofen was delighted, saying the planes "are manoeuvrable as the devil and climb like monkeys".

Ironically by this stage the Allies had abandoned production of the Sopwith Triplane, after a production run of a mere 150 planes. The British had two new, more potent aircraft - the SE5a and the Sopwith Camel.

At about the same time the French were also re-equipping with the Spad XIII, an excellent development of the Spad VII. Like the Spad the SE5a was powered by an inline engine. H.P. Folland, the designer of the SE5a, chose this type of engine as it avoided the problems of torque inherent in the rotary engine, making the plane easier to fly.

Powered by a 130 horse-power rotary engine, the Sopwith Camel was slower and much more difficult to fly - almost as many Camel pilots were killed by crashes as by German fighters. A further development of the Sopwith Pup, the designers had concentrated all the weight in the front half of the fuselage, on or around the centre of gravity.

This gave the Camel tremendous manoeuvrability. Coupled with the engine's torque the Camel had a lightening fast turn to the right. In fact it could turn a three quarter turn to the right in the same time as it could make a quarter turn to the left. In the hands of an experienced pilot the Camel was probably the most potent fighter in the allied arsenal.

All three of these aircraft were armed by twin machine guns. The Spad and the Camel had twin synchronized guns, while the SE5a had one synchronized gun and one gun firing over the upper wing in similar style to the Nieuport Bebe.

The first prototype of the Dr I triplane was delivered to Werner Voss, commander of Jasta 10, a part of the Flying Circus. Richthofen had two quick victories in his triplane, but on September 15th he lent it to Kurt Wolff, the commander of Jasta 11, who was shot down by a Sopwith Camel of the Black Flight.

Voss, for his part, enjoyed tremendous success in his plane, but by late September he was also brought down in an epic single-handed dogfight against seven SE5a's.

The Germans were delighted in the plane, until in October 1917 they began to disintegrate in mid-air under the stress of air-combat. The planes were grounded, only to return to the air, modified and strengthened, in early 1918.

By this stage, however, the Camels, SE5a's and Spads had appeared in large numbers, and unless in the hands of an expert flyer the Dr I was no real match. Only 320 of these planes were produced. Their fame far outstrips their true importance, probably due to the fact that the Dr. I remained Richthofen's personal favourite. It was in this plane that he was brought down in April 1918. Whether he was shot down by ground fire or by another aircraft remains unclear, but he fell behind Allied lines and was buried by the British with full military honours.

Anton Fokker was to produce one more aircraft during the war, and this was to be, in the eyes of many, the best fighter plane built during the conflict. This was the Fokker D VII, the winner of a German fighter competition held in January of 1918.

Powered by a 160 horsepower inline engine it was slower than the SE5a and Spad XIII but faster than the Camel. Another plane designed by Reinhold Platz, it had the perfect combination of strength, speed, high ceiling and manoeuvrability, and might have upset the balance back in the German's favour, had it been produced in numbers comparable to the production of the Allies.

But by this stage in the war German industry was suffering severe shortages, and less than a thousand of these planes reached the front, in comparison to the more than 8,000 Spads, 5,000 SE5as and 5,000 Camels.

So impressive was this plane that the Armistice settlement specifically mentioned that all examples of the D VII, and all its manufacturing facilities, be handed over to the Allies. Fokker had other ideas. He quickly disassembled his factory and hid it on farms in the vicinity until he could bribe enough people to smuggle his entire factory by train back to his native Holland. Fokker was still producing and selling this aircraft well into the 1920s.

The table below shows the important fighter types, their top speeds and the number of machine guns carried. The table is ordered by top speed.
Airplane Country Speed km/h Speed mph Armament

FB5 Gunbus Britain 113 70 1
Eindecker III Germany 140 87 1
Moraine-Saulnier Type N France 144 89 1
FE2b Britain 147 91 1
DH2 Britain 150 93 1
Nieuport Bebe France 156 97 1
Albatros III Germany 175 109 2
Sopwith Pup Britain 179 111 1
Sopwith Camel Britain 185 115 2
Fokker DR I Germany 185 115 2
Sopwith Triplane Britain 187 116 1
Fokker D VII Germany 188 117 2
Spad VII France 212 132 1
SE5a Britain 222 138 2
Spad XIII France 222 138 2

sorry the table looks ok until i hit enter then its all squashed up…it's still readable with care

I particularly like the quote about the DR1 being outclassed by the Camel, SE5 and Spad….maybe that will stop the 'clown wagon' jibes?
  • 0

#94 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 17:00

btw Central pilots were taught not to turn fight the Camel, they weren't taught to turn to the left against the Camel. This would lend credence to the argument that there was no in plane Albatros turn that a Camel could not put the snack down on by using the Camel's right hand turn. (Source Norman Franks)

P.S. Not that it applies to this thread, but to others- I am tired of this nonsense about how an Albatros flown correctly could out dogfight a Camel. An Albatros flown correctly would run away like an Olympic sprinter from a Camel, if the Albatros had the misfortune to accidentally get close enough for a dogfight. lol
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#95 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 25 July 2010 - 17:21

@Mig- 77- If the Camel could turn three to two to the right and on a par to the left and the Camel could make 270 degrees to the right faster than ninety degrees to the left, you still don't see my point?

No, as those are aproximations not exact measurements.

The Camel would have to turn 270 degrees to the right faster than heavier engined Central Scouts, like the Albatros, could turn to the left. This might explain why Camel pilots repeatedly suggested that no one could out turn or out maneuver the Camel. (Most likely most of these piilots did not generally encounter the DR 1 though or they might think otherwise)

Again you fall to that you think those anecdotes are excat measurements. They are not.
  • 0

#96 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 25 July 2010 - 17:32

btw Central pilots were taught not to turn fight the Camel, they weren't taught to turn to the left against the Camel. This would lend credence to the argument that there was no in plane Albatros turn that a Camel could not put the snack down on by using the Camel's right hand turn. (Source Norman Franks)

But there is evidence that contradicts that: IE Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr.I book mentions that Dr.I pilots were taught to turn fight with Camel to right. And that was Camels faster turn ;) Anyway in this game both aircrafts can outturn each other depending on sitatuation. And that is pretty much how I see it was.

Also it easy to see why Albatros pilots were taught not to turn fight with Camels. If Albatros were behind Camel, Camel would simply evade to right and you could not follow. If Camel were behind Albatros, Albatros could not evade by turning left as Camel could match Albatros turn.
  • 0

#97 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:46

btw Central pilots were taught not to turn fight the Camel, they weren't taught to turn to the left against the Camel. This would lend credence to the argument that there was no in plane Albatros turn that a Camel could not put the snack down on by using the Camel's right hand turn. (Source Norman Franks)

But there is evidence that contradicts that: IE Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr.I book mentions that Dr.I pilots were taught to turn fight with Camel to right. And that was Camels faster turn ;) Anyway in this game both aircrafts can outturn each other depending on sitatuation. And that is pretty much how I see it was.

Also it easy to see why Albatros pilots were taught not to turn fight with Camels. If Albatros were behind Camel, Camel would simply evade to right and you could not follow. If Camel were behind Albatros, Albatros could not evade by turning left as Camel could match Albatros turn.

Ah, I meant that the in line engine pilots were taught to not turn fight a Camel Mig. Thank you for pointing out the DR 1. The ROF Camel and Dr1 are not bad machines, but no where as agressive as the anecdotal evidence suggests. For instance, the DR1 should be able to turn three turns to the Camel's two and some people are reporting that at below 30% fuel settings the Camel is out turning the DR 1. Anyone see evidence that a DR1 should be outturned by a Camel?
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#98 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:51

It is my hope that the Camel and DR1 will both be looked at by the ROF team. I do believe that the Camel and the DR1 should be very aggressive and tricky machines to fly. The Dr 1 and the Camel, in game, seem very tame and easy to fly compared to the anecdotal evidence. I want the outright monsters that are reported by the pilots! Our machines are good, but the historical counterparts, according to the anecdotal evidence of both machines, are much better..
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#99 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:53

Camel Turn Rates

I am skeptical that the Camel had wildly different turn rates to one side or the other. Physically and aerodynamically, it doesnt make sense…

The main factor that I would consider in the Camels "turn rate" would be engine torque.

Engine torque creates a rolling tendency in all propellor driven airplanes. The rolling tendency will be opposite the propellor rotation. This means that when an airplane rolls against the rotation of the propellor, it rolls slightly faster than when it rolls with the propellor.

The only way I can envision a Camel turning 3 times as fast in one direction as the other would be due to the ease with which the pilot can keep his airspeed up with a nose low turn.

This makes sense if you consider the gyroscopic forces from a Camel's engine. The gyro forces are pushing the nose toward the ground, which means that all the pilot really has to do is roll right and pull since gravity will help him keep airspeed (and subsequently available G)

In a left turn, the pilot has to conciously keep the nose down by using left rudder. If he lets off the rudder, the nose will rise and airspeed will bleed off which leads to a stall.

Given that information, I can imagine that a pilot, especially a young one, would find that his plane turns faster in one direction than the other.
  • 0

#100 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 26 July 2010 - 01:28

In a left turn, the pilot has to conciously keep the nose down by using left rudder. If he lets off the rudder, the nose will rise and airspeed will bleed off which leads to a stall.

And that is precisely my experience in the Camel. And top rudder in a right turn to avoid the flick spin developing. Note …. this is for SHARP, STEEPLY BANKED turns initiated with rudder, not lazier "bank and pull" turns.
  • 0

#101 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 26 July 2010 - 05:19

Camel Turn Rates

I am skeptical that the Camel had wildly different turn rates to one side or the other. Physically and aerodynamically, it doesnt make sense…

Wings generate same amount of lift regardless what way you are turning. Now how plane flies in different turns changes in Camel.

The main factor that I would consider in the Camels "turn rate" would be engine torque.

Again, I agree. But it Ill add that it was torgue and engine gyro effect as both turned same direction.

Engine torque creates a rolling tendency in all propellor driven airplanes. The rolling tendency will be opposite the propellor rotation. This means that when an airplane rolls against the rotation of the propellor, it rolls slightly faster than when it rolls with the propellor.

The only way I can envision a Camel turning 3 times as fast in one direction as the other would be due to the ease with which the pilot can keep his airspeed up with a nose low turn.

This makes sense if you consider the gyroscopic forces from a Camel's engine. The gyro forces are pushing the nose toward the ground, which means that all the pilot really has to do is roll right and pull since gravity will help him keep airspeed (and subsequently available G)

Yep.

In a left turn, the pilot has to conciously keep the nose down by using left rudder. If he lets off the rudder, the nose will rise and airspeed will bleed off which leads to a stall.

Given that information, I can imagine that a pilot, especially a young one, would find that his plane turns faster in one direction than the other.

Now, there are many anecdotal (and atleast one "hard" evidence) evidence that suggest Camel had poor rudder efficiency. More and more you read you notice pattern that Camel rudder simply was not enough to keep nose down in hard left turn and thats why it was slower. You simply could not pull that hard without stalling/entering spin.

Add to that current in game Camel does exactly that if you reduce rudder authority IE to 30% -> You cannot turn as fast to left than to right.

Now what I think is wrong in camel is:

1) too efficient rudder
2) too weak Gyro/torgue effect


Camel problems comes from either of those or combination of each.
  • 0

#102 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 26 July 2010 - 18:01

Mig, How do you reduce rudder authority by 30%. I use saitek rudder pedals? Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Best,
MJ
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#103 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 26 July 2010 - 18:22

Mig, How do you reduce rudder authority by 30%. I use saitek rudder pedals? Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Best,
MJ

I use logitech profiler and set there max rudder authority to 30% -> full rudder = 30% rudder in game.
  • 0

#104 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 26 July 2010 - 22:28

So, I saw a slider called "sensitivity", for my rudder. Is that the same thing you are writing about or am I just confusing two different things? BTW, thank you for the help. There is no way to adjust the plane profile further, to make the Camel handle more "historically correct?"
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#105 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:15

In logitech profile setting is called "range". I dont know what Saitek uses. You can do this in a way in game settings aswell (not as good tought as it always gives you full range). BTW Im not saying that 30% rudder authority is correct, but I just used it to test that rudder efficiency does affect even ingame Camel left turn -> Mostly likely reason why real life Camel also turned slower to left.
  • 0

#106 PP_Nobody96

PP_Nobody96
  • Posts: 180

Posted 27 July 2010 - 10:41

Well, 2 cents regarding the rotary engine effects. The problem isn't that is should roll you plane. That would be the fact if it would grip in the air like a propeller does but it doesn't and therefore torque and gyro effect doesn't work in the same direction. The gyro effect should prevent the plane form changing directions like its happening with a gyroscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope). Therefore if you change directions it pulls up or down. This won't have an effect on turn rates but you have to compensate for the effect by rudder input and therefore the turn rate would be limited by the rudder. As MiG-77 explored, the turn rates would match anectotical evidence if the camel really had its uneffective rudder, which was mentioned somewhere else.

Also a nice application for the gyro effect, aside from being able to ride a bicycle or building an INS, is for annoying hippies whey they swing their sticks or bands of stuff alike. Just ask them if they can rotate their stick in the right hand while rotating counterclockwise ;)

so long
Mathias
  • 0

#107 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 29 July 2010 - 16:41

Regarding the Camel's topspeed:

http://www.australia...comparison.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.australia...ingcorps.com/20 … rison.html

It is worth reviewing the Sopwith Camel's published speed results. The trials for the Sopwith Camel was done with an 150 hp Bentley of which only the Royal Naval Air Service squadrons were equipped. The RAF, AFC and USAS squadrons equipped with the Sopwith Camel had 130 or 140 hp Clergets. The Bentley trials gave the Camel a top speed of 114 mph at 15,000 feet while the Snipe at the same height had a speed of 113 mph

and

The Sopwith Camel in particular was known for it's lack of speed.

If that does not clearly show whats wrong, I dont know.
  • 0

#108 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 29 July 2010 - 16:46

And what do you mean? I honestly don't get it. The source claims that a Bentley powered Camel can reach 114 mph at 15,000 feet.

The Camel in ROF (130 HP Clerget) reaches ~102 mph at 15,000 feet. So do you think it's too fast or too slow? I think it's alright.
  • 0

#109 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 29 July 2010 - 16:59

And what do you mean? I honestly don't get it. The source claims that a Bentley powered Camel can reach 114 mph at 15,000 feet.

The Camel in ROF (130 HP Clerget) reaches ~102 mph at 15,000 feet. So do you think it's too fast or too slow? I think it's alright.

I think he means that Camel is too fast if compared to anecdotal evidence. It is too fast if you look it as an average frontline fighter, but not as an brand new aircraft (As seen on those test speeds). Same can be said also about Dr.I. Relatively both aircrafts should be quite close each other in speed (Camel being slightly faster).
  • 0

#110 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 29 July 2010 - 17:14

Exactly and right now the DR.I is actually faster above 3500 meters.

Problem is that most other german planes are too slow (because most of them have a worse engine installed then they should have, especially the D.Va and D.VII). But the Camel speed is OK.

Of course, we could argue about giving it a speed more close to a "used" plane, but if we do that (and i would certainly like that), this has to be true for all other rotary-engined planes aswell.

But going ahead and say that the Camel is too fast for a non-factory-fresh plane doesn't make sense with all the other (too fast) planes like the DR.I around.
  • 0

#111 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 29 July 2010 - 18:41

Who knows, maybe in career mode at some point in the future we could get planes that suffer from diminishing performance. Until then (if ever) planes should be released at factory spec. IF the camels speed is correct and we pretty much know that the DVa and DVII have the wrong engines the fix is obvious to me. Obviously there maybe higher priorities and also I have no idea how difficult to produce the said engines in the aircraft would be.
  • 0

#112 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 01 August 2010 - 12:27

Am I doing sth wrong? The AI camel always outturns me in my Alb2li
  • 0

#113 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 02 August 2010 - 01:57

Do you think the Albatros D.II should out turn a Camel?
  • 0

#114 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 03 August 2010 - 02:57

Am I doing sth wrong? The AI camel always outturns me in my Alb2li

no the only thing doing something wrong is the camel's FM. ;)
  • 0

#115 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 03 August 2010 - 18:37

The Manoeuvres of Inverted Flight - Sopwith Camel

Find below extracts of a lecture documented in the proceedings of the 59th session of the Royal Aeronautical Society 1928. This details the first systematic investigation into inverted flight, manoeuvring into/out of inverted flight and inverted spinning. Flight tests were performed on an SE5a, Sopwith Camel, modified Sopwith Camel, Sopwith Snipe and BAT Bantam.

I have extracted sections relevant to the Camel.

Half Loop into Inverted Flight

Inversion by the half loop is attended by the difficulties arising from the gyroscopic effect of the engine, accentuated by the very small rudder. In the second quadrant of an ordinary loop, full left rudder is needed to keep this aeroplane from yawing to the right. The rudder moment, which is then just sufficient to hold the yaw in check induces a skid to the right. If a loop on a Camel is observed by another aeroplane from behind, the Camel, when held straight by its pilot, is seen to skid bodily sideways. The skid is not, however, appreciated by the pilot in the Camel

the Camel, being rigged tail heavy, behaves sweetly in the first half of a loop. The pilot is merely concerned in releasing his pressure on the control stick and allowing the nose to rise up. By the time he is inverted the control stick is fully back, and the rudder is full across to the left. To commence inverted flight, it is sufficient to exert a gentle forward pressure on the control stick. At this moment the gyroscopic effect disappears suddenly, and, if the rudder is not centralised at once, the aeroplane will slew rapidly to the left. To perform this manoeuvre correctly the pilot has to ensure that he has enough' speed on top of the loop to prevent an immediate stall, and to co-ordinate his elevator and rudder movements sensitively.

Half Roll

The above difficulties are reduced if inversion is attained by a half roll. The slow half roll seems most adapted to, the flying qualities of the Camel -In this manoeuvre the pilot cannot, unless he sideslips severely, avoid yawing off his course; as however he yaws the other way in the half roll for recovery, he regains his initial direction of flight. The gyroscopic effect of the engine asserts itself, but is not so difficult to deal with; if the pilot rolls to the right, the nose is forced down; if to the left, it is forced up. As the rudder is so small, a right-hand roll is easier; for it is better that the nose should drop rather than rise if the limit of rudder control is exceeded. Again, the pilot has greater control over the speed than at the top of the half loop. A convenient speed at which to commence the half roll is 'between 70 and go m.p.h. at half throttle.

In half rolling to the right the pilot gently but firmly applies right rudder and right aileron. The Camel begins to roll over and-to turn to the right. In anticipation of the gyroscopic effect the pilot has previously lifted the nose slightly; as soon, however, as the rudder and elevator interchange functions, he commences to push the control stick forward and turning ceases. As the wings pass the vertical he maintains right aileron, gradually takes off right rudder, and pushes the control stick more forward, until as he approaches the inverted position he takes off right aileron completely and finishes with the control stick slightly forward of the central position. The movement of the control stick amounts to an anti-clockwise circular sweep in the right-hand side of the cockpit. Bulman found that he was able in half rolling to push the control stick forward at an earlier stage, and thus to keep on his course better. When I tried this I induced a severe Sideslip. As however Bulman usually rolls to the left and I to the right it is conceivable that the pilot's instinctive allowance for the gyroscopic 'effect forms a habit which tends to persist even when the roll is made in the reverse sense to that which is customary. In this connection, it is interesting to note that pearly all pilots are right or left-handed, and that few experience the same ease in performing a complicated manoeuvre to the left and right.

Half Loop out of Inverted Flight

To resume normal flight on the Camel by means of a half loop the pilot is compelled to lose some height, probably a minimum of 300ft. As explained before, he can make a quick recovery only by swinging the aeroplane round without allowing it to gather speed in an inverted dive. The Camel tends to go into this high speed inverted dive less easily than more heavily loaded or less unstable types. If, however, the inverted dive gains headway, the pilot may lose 1,OOO to 2,000ft before he has resumed normal flight. In my opinion it was the pilot's failure to appreciate the characteristics of this inverted dive that led to many accidents and concurrent reports that the controls were ineffective, or the elevator "blanketed". The aeroplane loses height so rapidly, and the elevator control feels so uneven in swinging the aeroplane round that it was natural for pilots to blame the control. The pilot has undoubtedly to learn what practically amounts to a trick in using the control; and if he is flying below 2,000ft. He may, if inexperienced, quite easily strike the ground in this inverted dive. The behaviour of the aeroplane appears inconsistent; under some conditions it may need a firm deliberate elevator movement and under others a series of gentle ones. The Camel itself is more likely to come round in a series of jerks than to plunge into the high-speed inverted dive. These jerks the pilot is inclined to check too violently, because in the various attitudes through which the aeroplane passes towards recovery the sensitivity of the elevator control varies, and he cannot easily foresee what effect his control movements are going to have. He may overdo the checking movements, in which case the aeroplane will start trying to re-invert itself, and he will lose a great deal of time and height in pulling it round to normal flight. In short, if the rapid low speed recovery is made, all is well; but if it fails, the pilot will meet difficulties that can only be overcome by practice.

Half Roll Out of Inverted Flight

An experienced pilot can resume normal flight by means of a slow half roll without losing more than 100 to 200ft of height. He should not commence the manoeuvre too near the inverted stalling speed; on the Camel a favourable speed is 80 m.p.h. He gives aileron and rudder in the desired sense of roll and pushes the control stick slightly forward. As mentioned before, Bulman was able to use a further forward position of the control stick than I was. Just after the wings have passed the vertical the pilot has to be careful with his rudder. Its use is determined by his effort to keep the nose of the aeroplane as far as possible in the direction in which the half roll was commenced. The aeroplane will inevitably sideslip and yaw slightly off its course. As soon as the wings 'are past the vertical the pilot can pull the control stick back to keep the nose up and gently or rapidly take off aileron, depending on how fast the aeroplane is 'coming round. If, however, he has lost too much speed, the aeroplane may swing round violently and the ailerons become useless. The motion can then be damped only by pushing the control stick forward again and allowing the nose to drop. To maintain an even rate of roll from start to finish the pilot must use good judgment in timing the control movements.

Inverted Flight

The pilot will probably discover that the most comfortable speeds for inverted flight lie between 70 and 100 m.p.h.

The Clerget engine of a Sopwith Camel will continue to run for, half a minute on petrol contained in the pipes between the tank and the engine

If the engine is off the gliding angle is relatively poor and the aeroplane loses height more rapidly than he expects. Added to this the aeroplane stalls inverted at a higher speed, sometimes as, much as 30 percent in excess of its stalling speed in normal flight.

During his initial efforts at inverted flight he may also find it helpful to go up on a day with a well-defined cloud layer at about 4,000ft.

I flew the standard Sopwith Camel inverted and found that although it answered less sensitively to the elevator than in normal flight, the difference was less than I expected. I was unable to fly it slower than 65 mph inverted, at which speed it stalled. To fly inverted at any given speed the position of the control stick is slightly forward of that for the corresponding speed in normal flight; at 75 mph, inverted the control stick is just forward of the central position. As far as I could detect, at low speeds the lateral control disappeared first, and near stalling the aeroplane showed a strong tendency to drop the right wing when inverted. If I could not check this dropping at an early stage the aeroplane frequently fell out from the inverted position in a half roll with severe sideslip. I found it quite possible to watch the airspeed indicator when inverted and fly steadily at a given speed.

The tendency of the right wing to drop was particularly noticeable just after the half roll to become inverted. I attempted to examine the stability characteristics inverted with engine off. The aeroplane was tail heavy in normal flight, and seemed to have a stable trimming speed at about 90 mph in inverted flight with engine off. This I investigated by abandoning the control stick when inverted, meanwhile steering with the rudder. The aeroplane settled down to what appeared to be a steady glide at 90 mph. with "hands off." This observation, however, should be accepted with the greatest caution, owing to the shortness of the period during which the aeroplane could be allowed to glide while the trimming speed was under observation. The trimming speed was observed by producing an artificial disturbance in the neighbourhood of the supposed attitude of balance and investigating the nature of the oscillation set up. During inverted flight this is not an easy matter, as it is a physical strain to remain inverted for a sufficiently long time. It seemed however that if the control stick were pushed forward and released the speed tended to rise again towards 90 mph and what is more important, if the control stick were pulled slightly back and released the speed tended to drop and the nose to rise; in other words the aeroplane actually wanted to remain inverted. Nevertheless the control force required to upset this condition was very small, and the Camel is not highly stable inverted. The inverted stall is a matter of interest. If the Camel is stalled in the inverted position, it drops its nose quite definitely and shows the stalling characteristics associated with longitudinal stability; whereas in normal flight its stall shows the characteristics associated with instability, and is of a delayed and gradual character.

Inverted Spinning

The normal method of inducing a right-hand inverted spin from the pilot's point of view is to push the control stick fully forward into the left-hand corner of the cockpit and to give full tight rudder, which means that rudder is given in the desired sense of rotation and aileron against it.

For a left-hand inverted spin, the control movements are, reversed.

In the Camels previously flown by Gerrard the consequent motion of the aeroplane was as follows: The aeroplane did a flat turn inverted, dropped its nose and commenced to spin on its back, in a somewhat similar way to a normal spin.

Gerrard described the recovery as not essentially abnormal, except that the controls had to be used with the greatest gentleness to prevent, the aeroplane coming out with a violent jerk, and that the height loss exceeded that in the recovery from the normal spin.

It is best to check the spinning, in the case of a right-hand inverted spin, 'by moving the, control stick across from the front left-hand corner of the cockpit towards the centre of the dashboard (taking off aileron), and by centralising the rudder gradually. The aeroplane may then be eased out of the resultant inverted dive by gently pulling the control stick back.

In the case of a left hand inverted spin, the control movements for recovery are made in the opposite sense. In a good recovery the height loss should not exceed that from a normal spin by more than 20 percent. In a bad recovery it may run into thousands of feet (see,Fig. VII).

The Camel on which Bulman had been experimenting showed a strong tendency at low speeds to drop the right wing inverted. Gerrard flew it and considered that this tendency was more marked than in the Camels which he had previously flown. It was this individual peculiarity that seems to have confused Bulman in his initial attempts at inverted spinning. Gerrard found that when the control movements for the inverted spin were made this aeroplane instead of flat turning on its back and sliding into a spin immediately, tended to drop the right wing and roll round the right way. If the controls were still held over it rolled over again on to its back and commenced an inverted spin, by which time the nose had dropped to about 45 deg. with the horizontal. In attempting the inverted spin Bulman, finding that the aeroplane rolled round right away, immediately straightened it out in the belief that he had failed, and never guessed that if he persisted an inverted spin would result. Nevertheless when I tried the inverted spin on this aeroplane, in no case did I experience the tendency to roll out before the spin had commenced, which must have been due to a slight difference in handling the controls. Bulman lays emphasis on the extraordinary smoothness of the inverted spin. There is no suggestion of "kicking" round, a frequent feature of the normal spin on the Camel. He also noticed that by taking off rudder slowly he could decrease, the rate of rotation.

Although in, my initial attempts at inverted flight on the Sopwith Camel I had several times mishandled the controls, it so happened that I had not, as a result, commenced an involuntary inverted spin. As I was anxious to gain experience of the manoeuvre I carried out a considerable number of inverted spins. I judged that it would be a matter of considerable difficulty to read the instruments in this condition; in any case I was compelled to concentrate on reading one at a time. In ordinary inverted flying it is possible to read even two: or three instruments at once. Having previously shut off the engine and petrol, I commenced inverted spinning by half rolling gently on to my back at 5,000ft and producing an inverted glide. I steadied the airspeed to 80 mph. and then gently eased the control stick forward and to my left, and gave full right rudder: 'The aeroplane showed no hesitation in answering. It did a flat turn to the right, and started spinning inverted with the nose fairly well down, in a roughly similar attitude, except for the inversion, to that of a normal spin.

I agree with Bulman that the inverted spin is unlike the characteristic Camel spin; it seems both smoother and slower, and there is no "kicking" noticeable. As soon as the spin commenced I felt the negative acceleration increase, and the belt stretched a little. I was able, however, to read the airspeed, which settled down to 90 mph. The pitot head is mounted on the starboard wing strut, which would be the inner one in the spin, Its reading in an inverted spin would possibly be subject to a considerable correction.

After spinning for 1,500ft I gently eased the control stick towards the centre of the dashboard and then backwards, simultaneously centralising the rudder. After what seemed like one to one and a half turns the rotation slowed up, started again momentarily, and then ceased; after which I emerged in an inverted dive. In this dive I attained a considerable speed, over 160 mph being reluctant to handle the aeroplane roughly and flatten out too violently. This procedure, however, involved the sacrifice of about 1,500ft of height, and my nose crosses the horizon at 2,000ft.

Just as in the half-looping recovery from the inverted position the speed in the inverted dive tends to rise very rapidly, and it is essential aim at the low speed recovery. In such dives I have more than once attained speeds in the neighbourhood of 200 in.p.h. During the inverted spin proper the pilot, though subject to violent negative acceleration, is quite able to realise where he is and visualise his attitude; during the recovery and consequent reversal of the sign of apparent gravity, he tends to feel dizzy for a few moments.

One of the most important things to discover about the inverted spin was at least an approximate notion of the loads imposed on the wings, and hence the margin of strength. I was therefore anxious if possible to measure the acceleration in the spin, and had a simple type of spring accelerometer (non-recording), fitted between the guns so that it was close to my face and easy to read. This accelerometer was used by Lindeman in his early spinning experiments. I Commenced inverted spinning at 5,000ft in the same way as before. The indicator of
the accelerometer appeared to rise steadily but quickly to -2G, and to remain there for as long as I was able to watch it. At about 3,500ft. I had intended to make the control movements for recovery. I was, however, beginning to be confused, and, think that while centralising the rudder I may have kept the control stick forward or have failed to pull it back enough. When I next appreciated what was happening I was gliding fast on my back at about 120 mph side-slipping with my right wing down. It took me a few moments to decide whether I was inverted or not, as, having been subjected to large unusual accelerations, my sense of feel seemed partially paralysed. On realising the position I gently eased the aeroplane into an inverted dive and recovered normal flight at just under 2,000ft. I subsequently read the accelerometer in a straight inverted glide, and its reading was approximately. -1G.
Up to that time it had been an open question whether it was possible to pass direct from an inverted spin to inverted flight, the normal recovery being an inverted dive. That I did so unintentionally proves the possibility of it; indeed the manoeuvre virtually amounts to the first phase of an inverted loop. It was unfortunate that I was unable to control myself sufficiently during this period to read the accelerometer, as the reading should have been of interest. The fact that I passed direct into the inverted position in trying to recover from an inverted spin, seems to point to the persistence of habit formed during normal spinning. The recovery from which requites the control stick forward. Although I had clearly thought out the whole manoeuvre beforehand, yet when the time came for recovery I failed to make the subconscious effort to pull the control stick back.

I carried out another right hand inverted spin and was able to watch the spring accelerometer more carefully. During the spin the indicator oscillated between. -1.8 and -2.2 G., the period of the oscillation being approximately in phase with the rotation of the aeroplane. Bulman then carried out two left hand inverted spins and observed a similar oscillation between -1.6 and -2.4 G. Later on a recording accelerometer was fitted up and a record that I obtained in a right hand inverted spin is shown diagrammatically in Fig. VIII For purposes of comparison a record of a straight inverted glide is shown in Fig. IX. The maximum force on the wings during the inverted spin is seen to be -1.7 G., a figure lower than that obtained from the non-recording spring accelerometer. Taking into account the conditions under which the latter had to be observed by the pilot, great reliance cannot be placed on the readings taken from it.

Attached Files


  • 0

#116 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 03 August 2010 - 23:12

In the Camels previously flown by Gerrard the consequent motion of the aeroplane was as follows: The aeroplane did a flat turn inverted, dropped its nose and commenced to spin on its back, in a somewhat similar way to a normal spin.

Our Camel does that, confirmed and reported 'This can't be right' :)

Rather unpleasant

It is best to check the spinning, in the case of a right-hand inverted spin, 'by moving the, control stick across from the front left-hand corner of the cockpit towards the centre of the dashboard (taking off aileron), and by centralising the rudder gradually. The aeroplane may then be eased out of the resultant inverted dive by gently pulling the control stick back.

Now he tells me :)

Ming
  • 0

#117 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 04 August 2010 - 00:09

MiG! it seems you are right about the rudder effectiveness! Reading PieCost post, that seems to be the most significant aspect in controlling the Camel and which is lacking in RoF
  • 0

#118 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 04 August 2010 - 19:38

@beta testers- We all want the most accurate Camel FM, so is there any way that the beta testers could persuade the FM designer to take a second look at the Camel; given the availability of compelling historical information, in this and other threads? I suppose that it is too late to get this addressed in 1.14, huh?
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#119 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:21

Newguy, beta testing doesn quite work like that :) although it would be nice if it did sometimes! All indications from NEOQB are that one day they will look at it. Hard to say when, but they did say it wont be in this next patch and given what they are working on, probably not the next either. Eventually, they will have to look at it in my opinion. The Camel in game does not fly like the Camel you read about…there are other issues with other planes too that should be addressed. I think it will all be done in due time…
  • 0

#120 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:30

Sounds good Chill. Whenever they get around to it. I guess it is best that they investigate all of the FMs at once. I just want the Camel from the books. I like the ROF Camel, but the Camel in the books definitely sounds more challenging, but better!
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users