Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Current ROF Airplanes Flight Model Discussion Topic.


  • Please log in to reply
324 replies to this topic

#121 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 05 August 2010 - 04:04

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.

There's no such thing as factory specification for WW1 aircraft. Each one was different with its own unique quirks and flaws.

All of the performance data we read about was for one particular aircraft, on a particular day, with a particular pilot, etc., and we can be sure that other aircraft of the same type differed in significant ways.

Acknowledgment of the above calls into question the whole notion that matching numbers we find in historical documents makes an accurate WW1 flight simulation.
  • 0

#122 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 05 August 2010 - 09:43

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.

There's no such thing as factory specification for WW1 aircraft. Each one was different with its own unique quirks and flaws.

All of the performance data we read about was for one particular aircraft, on a particular day, with a particular pilot, etc., and we can be sure that other aircraft of the same type differed in significant ways.

Acknowledgment of the above calls into question the whole notion that matching numbers we find in historical documents makes an accurate WW1 flight simulation.

Agreed see my post here:

Flight Model Verification and Data Analysis 101
  • 0

#123 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 05 August 2010 - 09:46

Yes understood. I know pilots also requested different setups from the riggers and engine performance varied even in planes with identical engines due to tunning and maintinance.

But we need a starting point. I doubt that you would like it if the plane you purchased had lesser performance than the same plane i bought. In the career mode differing performance would be cool. Maybe you got a duff plane, maybe you got a good one?
  • 0

#124 VonHelton

VonHelton
  • Posts: 595

Posted 05 August 2010 - 09:51

Hmmmm……Being able to modify one's personal aircraft sounds great!

Also being able to select the type & amount of bombs & guns, and ammo would be awsm also!

:twisted:
  • 0

#125 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 05 August 2010 - 12:07

Agreed see my post here:

Flight Model Verification and Data Analysis 101

Absolutely. I loved that post.

But we need a starting point. I doubt that you would like it if the plane you purchased had lesser performance than the same plane i bought. In the career mode differing performance would be cool. Maybe you got a duff plane, maybe you got a good one?

You're putting out two different ideas here Squid. One the one hand you suggest that it would be very bad if I bought the, e.g. Sopwith Camel, and it was always a dud, and the Sopwith Camel you bought was always in great shape. Clearly, you are right about that.

But some kind of variability on the same user's install, as you suggest for career mode, seems like the path toward accuracy. I see no reason for why this could not be implemented in multiplayer, too.

Can you explain your idea of a starting point? My concern is that there is no starting point. To my mind, the only starting point would necessarily be a deliberate fiction.
  • 0

#126 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 05 August 2010 - 12:12

Well the starting point is what the performance is based on. Then add a "Maintinance" factor that will increase or decrease the performance from that initial starting point.

So if we use the published performance figures as they are now, perhap you could have a 5-10% variation on those figures.

The only problem that i see is that IIRC the FMs are not just a case of inputing numbers into a table of performance. If you change something it could have a knock on effect on another factor.
  • 0

#127 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 05 August 2010 - 17:07

There's no such thing as factory specification for WW1 aircraft. Each one was different with its own unique quirks and flaws.

True, but only up to a point. If your Eindecker outspeeds my SE5a, it's no defence to say that individual examples of aircraft were so different that there is no such thing as performance characteristics and I shouldn't be worried. I suspect the variation in (say) level speed between typical production aircraft was of order 3% at very most. WWI aircraft had very short service lives compared to modern aircraft and there simply wasn't time for them to accumulate the differences that one will find between modern examples of a particular design.

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#128 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 05 August 2010 - 17:27

Did anyone ever hear of "Berlin Subway" by TML-Studios? It is an U-Bahn sim. Well, in the sim, as you operated the Berlin Subway train, the train would incur wear and tear. You had to eventually send the train to a workshop for maintenance. The maintenance was tracked in real time. If we had progressive wear on planes, while we used the planes in career, campaign, and online, we would experience the need to maintain our planes or face the consequences of under performing and unreliable equipment. This would get players to try new planes, while their planes are in the shop, so it may encourage greater utilization of our growing plane sets.


p.s. Variability in plane performance seems like a real hit idea. It will add a lot of chills and thrills online. I can't wait to be there when Wolf 13's guns jam and his engine fails; I will still miss when I fire, but he will get a good scare! lol
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#129 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 06 August 2010 - 15:26

An underground train sim? I'm there - see you later Rise of Flight it's strictly straight lines in the dark for me from now on! :)

Did you have to have the graffiti cleaned off it as well? And clean the occasional "jumper" off the front of it?

Seriously thoughg progressive wear and tear and a dynamic campaign would be amazing.
  • 0

#130 VonHelton

VonHelton
  • Posts: 595

Posted 06 August 2010 - 23:26

So back on topic…

I have an idea. I need 3 portly gents to sit on my left wings so that I can get my Dr1 to turn LEFT!

Any volunteers?

:evil:

Yes, it's supposed to be difficult to turn a Dr1 left, but not IMPOSSIBLE! Even the autopilot cannot turn the Dr1 left!

:shock:

The auto pilot has killed me repeatedly if it tries to turn left.

I've tried cutting my throttle, using reverse rudder, every way I can think of, but it flat REFUSES to cooperate.

The release of the 1.04 patch (I think that's the name) makes no difference, either.

Now I'm still able to shoot down enemy planes, but I think I could do a bit better if I could follow them in a left turn once in awhile!

:evil:
  • 0

#131 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 08 August 2010 - 13:26

cannot turn the Dr1 left!

I'm not sure if you're kidding about this Helton but for your info in case you've got a setup problem (join the club) :) - I just tried to turn left in the Dr.I and it turns left with no problems at all.

You must dig your nose in before entering the turn though, or you will go into that scary zoom-climb

Ming
  • 0

#132 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 09 August 2010 - 19:38

cannot turn the Dr1 left!

I'm not sure if you're kidding about this Helton but for your info in case you've got a setup problem (join the club) :) - I just tried to turn left in the Dr.I and it turns left with no problems at all.

You must dig your nose in before entering the turn though, or you will go into that scary zoom-climb

Ming

Agreed and less throttle helps.
  • 0

#133 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 19:39

Agreed and less throttle helps.

Thats what your blip switch is for ;)
  • 0

#134 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 09 August 2010 - 19:42

Yep blip FTW.
  • 0

#135 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 09 August 2010 - 23:19

No you don't need to touch the throttle (boost?) or you'll lose momentum, blippings are for landings.

Balls-out full-on throttle at all times FTW. You never know when you might need to try to run away :)

Ming
  • 0

#136 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 09 August 2010 - 23:41

Balls-out full-on throttle at all times FTW. You never know when you might need to try to run away :)

Ming

That's my new motto for any situation in life!!
  • 0

#137 VonHelton

VonHelton
  • Posts: 595

Posted 10 August 2010 - 00:16

cannot turn the Dr1 left!

I'm not sure if you're kidding about this Helton but for your info in case you've got a setup problem (join the club) :) - I just tried to turn left in the Dr.I and it turns left with no problems at all.

You must dig your nose in before entering the turn though, or you will go into that scary zoom-climb

Ming

Ah……I'll clarify!

Yes, you can turn the plane left, which immediately results in a spin of death.

Have you ever let the auto pilot turn the plane left? It does the SAME THING.

….So it's not my setup.

:geek:
  • 0

#138 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 10 August 2010 - 00:34

The DR1 is not right…or the Camel is not right. But I think its the DR1 given that the N11, N17, N28, and Camel all fly in a very similar way with their rotaries. The DR1 is the only one that stands out with wild flight characteristics
  • 0

#139 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 10 August 2010 - 05:20

From what I have read about the Camel and the DR1, the DR1 should turn significantly better than the Camel, 2 to the Camel's 1 in a right hand turn, but the DR1 should bleed speed like a pig in a turn, not accelerate nearly as well as the Camel and be slower than the Camel, not by much, but by enough that the Camel could catch the DR1; if nothing else. The DR1 should be a lot more forgiving than the Camel, as far as handling goes. The DR1 should climb a lot better, but in no way shape or form catch a Camel in a dive….please. Even in straight and level flight the Red Baron had to shoot at May to induce May to S turn; so the Baron's DR1 could close on May.

So, if the ROF team deals with the extreme accuracy of distant shooting in ROF, makes the DR1 accelerate much slower than the Camel, makes the DR1 turn much tighter and faster than the Camel, makes the Camel perform like in the accounts (ie, only the DR1 should have a serious edge in a turn fight and everything and everyone else should be dead a a door nail….no more DIII roll rate advantage over the Camel nonsense…..what roll rate advantage? lol) then the DR1 and the Camel should be more like in the accounts.

I really hope that the ROF team does not give the other Central planes their speed advantage, they are entitled to, without stripping the rediculous roll rates and turn rates that they have now. The pfalz DIIIa pilots should be shot down in a turn fight every time….and skill or no skill…..the Albatros is what is for lunch…….lol
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#140 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:13

From what I have read about the Camel and the DR1, the DR1 should turn significantly better than the Camel, 2 to the Camel's 1 in a right hand turn,

Where did you read this? You're saying a DR1 turns TWICE as fast as a camel to the right? That statistic seems a little bit drastic.
  • 0

#141 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:24

It took me weeks to get flying the DR1 down. Even now unless Im flying it frequently I struggle. Its about knowing what the aircraft is going to do and countering before it does it. Get behind and it will stop responding or flip around its own axis.

The latter can actually be useful in combat, but if it happens unintentially leave you a sitting duck. The DR1 Turns left perfectly. Where it struggles is a left hand turn with the nose above the horizon. Wiley camel pilots will do just that. A looping left vertical turn. The DR1 cannot follow. If it tries it just wallows in the air. Again its a turkey shoot. The camel consequently posseses a huge advantage in this respect. It also retains its energy particually well. This is only countered by the DR1's superior instantaneous turning ablity (to the left or right).

This doesnt mean the DR1 is in anyway inferior. Its the perfect match for the Camel. It just means that its harder to master.
  • 0

#142 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:31

This doesnt mean the DR1 is in anyway inferior. Its the perfect match for the Camel. It just means that its harder to master.

Are you aware how ironic that sound? :D
  • 0

#143 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:38

No really mig. Put it this way. The DVa is easy to fly. A rookie will be able to fight in it adequately without much practice. A rookie in the camel will probably spin out until he learns how not too. Of course the camel is the better fighter, but only in the hands of the experianced.
  • 0

#144 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:39

Irony is in that Camel was historically described hard plane to fly. Dr.I was not ;)
  • 0

#145 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:46

Irony is in that Camel was historically described hard plane to fly. Dr.I was not ;)

And that proves nothing. I peed on grass once, as a kid, and nobody heared anything about that.

tbh we cant model every single thing….lets say rotaries and their effects on stability ans how plane "behaves" etc. Both DRI and camel had problems because of that….
  • 0

#146 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:49

And that proves nothing. I peed on grass once, as a kid, and nobody heared anything about that.

tbh we cant model every single thing….lets say rotaries and their effects on stability ans how plane "behaves" etc. Both DRI and camel had problems because of that….

Nothing except how ironical that quote is. That was my point. Now if I would provide quote where Dr.I is described easy to fly then things would be totally different… ;)
  • 0

#147 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 10 August 2010 - 14:10

Topic: SE5a Stall speed:

RoF data (confirmed by tests: 56 mph (90 kph) - 100% fuel, no ammo

real deal: 50 mph landing speed, 45 mph (max) touchdown speed.



(Thanks, Catfish ;) )

also:

The tail is raised and
within a few seconds a flying speed of around 50 to 55 mph is reached. The aircraft flies off
the ground with a will and settles into a natural climb at about 60 to 65 mph.
Both control power and harmonisation are good. The SE is very similar to the Tiger moth but
with higher roll rate and slightly heavier controls. There is also the absence of the inertia
caused by the Tiger‟s heavy centre section fuel tank. The climb is rapid and as briefed, slight
oil mist/smoke is seen to emit from the radiator area and the starboard side of the engine
cowl. After take off, the rpm are reduced to 1900 to reduce engine wear, and coolant
temperature and radiator flaps are monitored and regulated respectively.
An appropriate height for stalling is soon reached and the slow end of the flight envelope can
be essayed. First, engine management must be carried out and the radiator shutters are closed
as the throttle is retarded. The latter must be done slowly as fast engine modulation brings
unwanted stress on the engine and may lead to a damaging backfire. The stall break occurs at
about 45 mph
with more than adequate buffet as a warning and a wings level nose drop as an
indicator.

Roger ИDodge’ Bailey The Shuttleworth Collection Old Warden Aerodrome Biggleswade, Beds, UK (Original SE5a)

Next, slow flight and stalls are explored, a good
idea to check before landing…. again nothing unusual other than the fact that this airplane is rather
easy to fly. Adjusting the elevator trim allows the SE5a to be flown hands off something I’m not used
to in a WW1 fighter. A few more stalls are investigated and a power off stall speed of 43 mph is
noted.

(Vintage aviator - replica)

Bumping my own stuff:

I just got a very interesting reply from the Shuttleworth collection. Their SE5a is actually heavier than the wartime ones! :o

Dear Mr Gael
Our SE5A (Wolseley Viper engine) is some 100lbs heavier than the service
aircraft. This is because it was converted by Savage for sky-writing and
subsequently rebuilt at Farnborough in the late 50s when heavier materials
were used for some assemblies, for example the fuel and oil tanks.
According to "Windsock Datafile Special: SE5A", JM Bruce, Albatros, 1993,
the weights for a service SE5A with Wolseley Viper engine were:
Empty: 1531lbs
Loaded: 2048lbs; military load: 287lbs; fuel & oil: 230lbs

Best Regds
John Benjamin
Hon Librarian & Archivist

Shuttleworth Collection Library
Old Warden Aerodrome
BIGGLESWADE
SG18 9EP
UK

  • 0

#148 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 10 August 2010 - 14:19

Great stuff reflected - this is useful as they are not only providing data but highlighting where the aircraft used differs from the originals so allows some good estimates to be made.
  • 0

#149 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 10 August 2010 - 15:53

The Manoeuvres of Inverted Flight - Sopwith Camel

I found some more information:

Inverted Spin - impact of aileron

I therefore made tests on the standard Camel to investigate the influence of aileron. I first tried to induce an inverted spin by flying inverted, pushing the control stick forward without giving aileron and applying full rudder. The Camel did not appear to respond quite as readily as with aileron given against the sense of rotation, but fell into an inverted spin for about a turn and a half, threw itself violently out and began to gather speed. I then tried again by inducing an inverted spin with aileron against the sense of rotation and slowly moving the ailerons during the spin until they were fully over in the same sense as the rotation. The spin slowed up slightly and became less even, but still persisted until I made the movements for recovery. These tests showed that, for inverted spinning the position of the elevators and rudder was more important than that of the ailerons.
  • 0

#150 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 10 August 2010 - 15:59

Piecost again this is due to lateral movement translating into vertical and vice versa in a rotary engine -

Warplane - Rotary Engine Centrifugal Force

This supports as being correct the Camel spin recovery in game of pulling the stick aft or pushing forward depending on direction of the spin.
  • 0

#151 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:16

The Manoeuvres of Inverted Flight - SE5a

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 SE5a.


Half Loop into Inverted Flight

Before inverting himself by the half looping method Bulman tried a series' of normal loops, watching the airspeed indicator all the way round. Whether the loop was commenced at 100 mph or 120 mph the speed at the top did not exceed 50 mph. He finally commenced his half loops for inversion at 115 mph, waited till the aeroplane was just over the top of the loop, pushed the control stick right forward and throttled his engine down. The engine appeared to fire for 10 to 15 seconds after inversion; but if the inverted glide was prolonged the propeller stopped, even though the airspeed indicator showed 80 m.p.h. In any case the aeroplane stalled immediately on inversion, and the stick had to be held firmly forward while the nose dropped and the aeroplane gained speed. The greater the speed at the top of the loop, the less was the stalled drop; under average conditions the nose only fell 15° to 20° from the horizontal.


Half Roll into Inverted Flight

Bulman and Scholefield both performed the slow and quick half roll for inversion. They commenced the slow half roll at 75 to 85 mph at about half throttle, but throttled right down on inversion; for if the throttle was left open the engine restarted with a violent jerk during the recovery. Bullman gave rudder and aileron in the desired sense of rotation, and after the wings had passed, the vertical pushed the control stick fully forward. As he approached the inverted position he took off aileron and rudder. Schofield differed by pulling up the nose slightly at the commencement of the manoeuvre; and instead of continuously applying rudder until nearly inverted, gave rudder during the initial stages, centralised it as the wings passed through the vertical, and then gave it again in the same sense. He also found that he could apply it in the opposite sense after the wings had passed the vertical, which corresponds to Gerrard's experience on the Snipe. The aeroplane did not approach stalling at any time, and Bulman, though he experienced a small amount of sideslip, found remarkably little tendency to yaw off his course. ScholefieId however found that if he did not allow some yaw he experienced considerable sideslip. All the control movements in this manoeuvre, allowing for the firmness required with the SE5a, were comparatively slow and gentle (see Fig. IV.).

Bulman commenced the quick half roll in a similar way to the ordinary roll, by giving aileron and rudder in the desired sense of rotation and pulling the control stick back, with the exception that he made these control movements rather more gently. When nearing the inverted position he pushed forward the control stick, took off aileron and centralised the rudder. At the commencement of inverted flight he found that the aeroplane was as much stalled as when looping into the inverted position. This could be mitigated to some extent if the half roll could be commenced with no more backward movement of the control stick than was just necessary to induce the rolling motion. In manoeuvres such as the quick roll, which seem to involve auto-rotation, the elevator, in controlling the angle of incidence, is the important factor in governing the motion.


Half Loop out of Inverted Flight

During the half looping recovery the SE5a tends, if the pilot is not careful, to lose a considerable amount of height in the inverted dive. On the SE5a the pilot has the' control stick further forward to maintain inverted flight than on an unstable or neutral aeroplane. The necessary backward movement of the control stick is therefore considerably greater, for in all the types investigated, the final position of the control stick for swinging the aeroplane round is fully back.


Half Roll Out of Inverted Flight

Although the slow roll for recovery, if skilfully performed, need only involve a comparatively small loss of height, the nose of the SE5a tends to drop so much that the pilot may lose as much as 700ft in his initial efforts. When he is flying at low speeds inverted the control stick is nearly full forward. To commence the roll he pushes it along the dashboard to give aileron in the desired sense, and gives rudder in the usual way. As the wings pass the vertical the aeroplane will sideslip downwards, against its rudder. At this point the control stick must be pulled back along the side of the cockpit and, together with the rudder, finally centralised when the aeroplane has come round to normal flight. In unstable aeroplanes the corresponding control movement amounted to a circular sweep on one side of the cockpit; in the SE5a this sweep is elliptical, with its major axis fore and aft of the aeroplane. The difference in movement arises from the necessity of using the elevator more coarsely. After the wings have passed the vertical the aeroplane, in addition to side-slipping, wants to yaw against the rudder. In the case of a right-hand roll from the pilots point of view, it yaws to the left, and vice versa. The tendency of the SE5a to yaw in the slow half roll for recovery seems more marked that in that for the attainment of the inverted position. Bulman suggests that when rolling into the inverted position, the pilot has the advantage of the engine with its consequent slipstream effect on the rudder until the last moment, whereas during recovery the slipstream effect is absent. If, by allowing the nose to drop, the pilot gains sufficient speed to compensate for this, the symmetry of the manoeuvre is lost (see Fig. VI)


Inverted Flight

The important factor in settling these characteristics is the position of the C.G. relative to the wings. The more stable an aeroplane is in normal flight, the more difficult is the pilots task of maintaining the inverted position, and vice versa. It is therefore relatively easier to fly unstable aeroplanes like the Sopwith Camel and Snipe inverted than stable aeroplanes like the SE5a.

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.

For inverted flight on the SE5a, which is longitudinally stable in normal flight, the best position for the tail adjustment is two-thirds forward. Fully forward it would obviously do the maximum to assist inverted flight, but the excessive nose-heaviness that it causes in normal flight introduces an awkward condition at the commencement of inversion and during the final stages of recovery.

The Bat Bantam, due to its heavy loading, stalled inverted at as high a speed as 73 m.p.h., about 3 m.p.h. in excess of the SE5A

Contrary to expectation the SE5A proved relatively amenable to the controls in inverted flight; its main difference from the unstable types lay in the position (about three quarters way forward) in which the control stick had to be held to counteract its powerful self-righting properties. Scholefield found no difficulty in aileron technique to counteract a dropped wing, but was considerably puzzled by the use of aileron to carry out banked turns; As was explained previously, the bank necessary to produce an inverted turn is the reverse of that for a normal turn. Apart from this the controls had to be used as a whole more coarsely and vigorously on the SE5a, a feature that to some extent applies to its behaviour in normal flight. Although it was possible not only to fly the SE5a inverted, but even to stall it inverted, its self-righting properties were such that, as far as the investigation was able to show, no mishandling of the controls would result in the development of an inverted spin. If it be granted that the "Bat Bantam," with its extraordinary controllability, is an exception, the suppression of the risk of an involuntary inverted spin has generally to be paid for by a certain loss of ease in inverted manoeuvres and by the extra force which is necessary to keep the nose of the aeroplane from falling.

Bulman found that, with tail adjustment two-thirds forward, he could stall the SE5a inverted at 70 mph. Just prior to the stall it wobbled laterally, and, frequently dropped the right wing. Though my experience relates to a different example of this type, I found that it was more often the left wing that dropped. In both cases the aeroplanes were, as far as the pilot could tell, in correct lateral trim. With the tail adjustment in the above position the aeroplane felt nose heavy both in normal and inverted flight; and although in the inverted stall the characteristics of instability were searched for, they could not be detected, being masked perhaps by the lack of elevator control. It is interesting here to note the difference between the SE5a and the modified Camel; both of them longitudinally stable aeroplanes with powerful self-righting properties in inverted flight. The relatively long fuselage and effective elevator control of the SE5a enabled it to be stalled inverted in a similar way, apart from the greater control force necessary, to the unstable aeroplanes.


Inverted Spinning

Finally I tried an inverted spin on the SE5A. I set, the adjustable tail at its maximum incidence, thus producing considerable nose, heaviness in normal flight. I made the usual control movements and the aeroplane entered an inverted spin in much the same way as the modified "Camel." The rate of spin was less smooth, with a noticeable "kick". The SE5A showed no tendency to fall into the inverted spin; in fact the pilot had to be determined with the controls to produce it at all. Once produced it was, in spite of the "kicking", perfectly definite and consistent. The recovery-was more direct than on any other of the aeroplanes examined.

The conditions favourable to the inverted spin required that rudder should be applied when the control stick was in a far forward position, or conversely that the control stick should be pushed forward when the rudder was across. When carried out intentionally, the inverted spin had always been produced with control stick forward, rudder given in the desired sense of rotation and aileron against it, by analogy with the normal spin. In normal spinning, however, it has been found that the ailerons are the least important factor in exciting or governing the motion, and that aeroplanes cap readily be spun with ailerons neutral or given in instead of against the desired sense ,of rotation. It seemed natural that this should be true of the inverted spin.

Attached Files


  • 0

#152 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:23

From what I have read about the Camel and the DR1, the DR1 should turn significantly better than the Camel, 2 to the Camel's 1 in a right hand turn,

Where did you read this? You're saying a DR1 turns TWICE as fast as a camel to the right? That statistic seems a little bit drastic.

Norman Franks is the historian I can recall off the top of my head. He suggested that the Dr1 had the ability to turn two to the Camel's one in a right hand turn. There is a penalty, for such a tight fast turn will bleed off speed and rapidly slow the Dr1 to about 50 mph to 70 mph. This would not make the DR1 an uber plane by any stretch of the imagination. The Dr1 should also accelerate notably slower, compared to the Camel, be slightly slower in straight and level flight and not be able to catch a Camel in a dive. Camel should be able to catch a DR1 in a dive or in straight and level flight and the Dr1 should be able to get away by climbing. The DR1 is supposed to be a lot easier to fly than the Camel and the Camel should have all the left rudder quirkiness, etc. The DR1 should get out of spins and stalls remarkably quickly compared to a Camel too, most accounts suggest.

If the ROF team dealt with the sniper fire, and modeled the DR1 and the Camel the way most accounts of the Camel and Dr1 suggest, Camel pilots could ambush a DR1 and pull away, if the attack failed, with a reasonably good chance of getting away. Then again, if the Camel entered a turn fight with the Dr1, the DR1 would have the same edge over the Camel that the Camel should have over the Albatros Dva in a turn fight. That is if you support the prevailing historical accounts.
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#153 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:01

From what I have read about the Camel and the DR1, the DR1 should turn significantly better than the Camel, 2 to the Camel's 1 in a right hand turn,

Where did you read this? You're saying a DR1 turns TWICE as fast as a camel to the right? That statistic seems a little bit drastic.

Norman Franks is the historian I can recall off the top of my head. He suggested that the Dr1 had the ability to turn two to the Camel's one in a right hand turn. There is a penalty, for such a tight fast turn will bleed off speed and rapidly slow the Dr1 to about 50 mph to 70 mph. This would not make the DR1 an uber plane by any stretch of the imagination. The Dr1 should also accelerate notably slower, compared to the Camel, be slightly slower in straight and level flight and not be able to catch a Camel in a dive. Camel should be able to catch a DR1 in a dive or in straight and level flight and the Dr1 should be able to get away by climbing. The DR1 is supposed to be a lot easier to fly than the Camel and the Camel should have all the left rudder quirkiness, etc. The DR1 should get out of spins and stalls remarkably quickly compared to a Camel too, most accounts suggest.

If the ROF team dealt with the sniper fire, and modeled the DR1 and the Camel the way most accounts of the Camel and Dr1 suggest, Camel pilots could ambush a DR1 and pull away, if the attack failed, with a reasonably good chance of getting away. Then again, if the Camel entered a turn fight with the Dr1, the DR1 would have the same edge over the Camel that the Camel should have over the Albatros Dva in a turn fight. That is if you support the prevailing historical accounts.

Camel pilots were taught never to try and climb away from a DR1 so that is probably true if they continued the dive away (although shooting from a diving Camel was a bit hit and miss due to it's instability). Most accounts I've read state the camel could hold it's own in a turn fight.

There are questions about the skill and commitment of some of the German pilots 1917-18 - particularly that they usually made sure of much higher numbers before attacking camels- this makes 1 on 1 duels (or even 5 on 5) very rare.

Despite the popular history notion of these Knights in the Sky - this was very much a 1915-16 thing (I'd refer you to Peter Hart's excellent book "Aces Falling" which is the modern take (in an accessible form) of late war air combat using a lot of primary source material. It had very much become a numbers and large formation game by late 1917 and through 1918. Most Camels involved in a fight with DR1's or mixed scouts would have been outnumbered (the camel was too slow to catch and ambush German scouts very often) and so direct comparisons as if in a 1 on 1 combat are very flawed.

The Osprey books tend to be very popularist (think tabloid over broadsheet) and take quite a dated stance to the actual history - very good for illustrations and photos though. Franks has a very dated approach to WWI history- similar to what was taught in the 50s-60s.

If the average RFC/RAF pilot was caught by someone like Voss or MvR the Dr1 would probably win - I think pilot skill and experience counted for more than any slight differences in turn speed or max speed or anything else between these two similar planes.

All accounts state the Dr1 climbed a lot faster than the Camel though.
  • 0

#154 halsfury

halsfury
  • Posts: 75

Posted 15 August 2010 - 13:14

Hi

I was informed that the N17 turned faster to the left than the right in a post made on one of my 2 neiuport topics

when I checked this I found that it was in fact, true

I took this for granted as I completly smote 4 ace alb diii's offline without a problem using the knowlege of the faster turn and found that the speed retention of the plane is better in this direction in fact, while turning in this direction I can maintain altitude in a dogfight better

the reason?

I got an unconfirmed report that M. Delage increased the left lower wing's dihedral over the right to counteract the rotary engine torque

Therefore the left wing has a greater drag coeficent on a right hand turn

This is important to look out for when flying her
~Halsfury
  • 0

#155 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 15 August 2010 - 14:05

That is good info- halsfury and evidence of a solid flight model from the ROF team. Thanks.
  • 0

#156 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 20 August 2010 - 14:31

There doesn't seem to be a thread for the DR1 so i'm posting this data here.

It may not be of any use whatsoever…i'm no engineer, but i'll post it anyway.

Taken from 'THE FOKKER TRIPLANE' by ALEX IMRIE

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
  • 0

#157 WWIEAF-Puff

WWIEAF-Puff
  • Posts: 673

Posted 23 August 2010 - 09:47

I was flying the N17 last night and noticed that, when I tried to roll { no stick curves and no deadzone } the metal aileron joints next to the cockpit moved, but the actual aileron never moved till I had some amount of stick input applied. Could this 'delay' be the cause of the slow roll rate of the N17 compared to its earlier sibling N11.

PS, this was a roll to the right where the engine torque would help in the roll.
  • 0

#158 =BLW=P.Sniper

=BLW=P.Sniper
  • Posts: 178

Posted 23 August 2010 - 12:47

about Albatross D-V

Image

117mph or 188km/h at 1000m, in game "1000 m — 163" :(
  • 0

#159 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 24 August 2010 - 14:44

Yes albatross series is too slow. It will be very apparent (if it wasn't already) when the pup is released
  • 0

#160 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 24 August 2010 - 15:06

Actually for the Pup we have contemporary performance. But for late 1917 or early 1918 the D.III OAW and D.Va are too slow, imo.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users