Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Discussion Topic for Airplanes Performance.


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 =FB=VikS

=FB=VikS
  • Developer
  • Posts: 1246

Posted 18 June 2010 - 18:16

Here you can discuss Airplanes Performance Topic.
Source topic is HERE.
  • 0

#2 JG1_Butzzell

JG1_Butzzell
  • Posts: 1368

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:47

S! All

With regards to performance data posted on both the Sopwith Pup and triplane: what you see is what you get. The Profile Publication series was very thourough and compiled by some of the best aviation authorities, in this case J.M Bruce. The performance data listed for the Pup and Tripe is also listed in ( although edited ) Windsock Data file 22 for the Tripe, Sopwith Pup Windsock special and Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War by W.M Lamberton.

All these sources have the same data as to performance.The big question for the Pup is Climb vs. speed at alt. There really is very little diference. The main diference is in the endurance. Go with the 130 Gnome engine and you have to watch the fuel.

For the Pup, I say: Pick one spec! Build it! Do it now!

The triplane data looks like it has a lot of variations. These were tests done on early prototypes. Later there were some modifications to the tail. In the field mechanics did not diferentiate and pieces were matched or mismatched with little to no change in performance. The C.F.S test report with the 130 hp engine is really the production standard.

So fot the Tripe, same thing: Build it! Do it now!


btw, the Windsock Data file 22 has some very nice pictures of the Tripe in Detail or you could just visit the real thing at The Air Force Museum 141170 Monino, Moskovskii, Oblast.

S!
All
  • 0

sig9.png


#3 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 29 June 2010 - 22:23

Vati,

If we eliminate replica aircraft from the data, we will be leaving out an important source of data for NEOQB to build virtual airplanes. You are thinking "BUT it wont be 100% accurate!" I ask you, are they 100% accurate now? The best thing we can do here in supplying data is to have enough of it that we can take the average of all of the data and say "this is as close to the real thing as we can get".

May I ask what your aeronautical background is Vati? What is it you are concerned about in taking some data from replica airplanes?

Please dont take any offense to my questions! I just want to know if we are on the same page so that we can have a better understanding.
  • 0

#4 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 29 June 2010 - 22:26

Please cite sources for your scans in the data post. A few are missing…
  • 0

#5 von_Semmel

von_Semmel
  • Posts: 2707
  • LocationGermany / Munich

Posted 07 October 2010 - 16:21

Fokker d7was much netter in real Life. D7 rolled much better
  • 0

#6 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 07 October 2010 - 18:38

Rennsemmel,

What is your evidence for that?
  • 0

#7 von_Semmel

von_Semmel
  • Posts: 2707
  • LocationGermany / Munich

Posted 10 October 2010 - 09:50

Books… Internet… Experts…
  • 0

#8 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 10 October 2010 - 13:33

Im not saying the information isnt out there, but if you put the sources here in the forum, 777 can use the information to improve the planes. If you just say its wrong, it doesnt give them anything to work with to improve the models
  • 0

#9 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1501

Posted 03 February 2011 - 11:53

After someone flew the RoF Handley Page, AND the Gotha - does anyone believe the HP was really able to perform aerobatics, or loopings ?

Main speed 97/98 mph, after this breaking into pieces, from a flying manual for the 0/400, someone even posted this here at the RoF forum.

I have no evidence that a pilot ever said he did not fly a looping with his HP, or did not perform aerobatics, however … i somehow doubt it :lol:

Greetings,
Catfish
  • 0

#10 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 04 February 2011 - 10:39

My own thoughts (no real evidence other than the fact that DFW type airplanes were able to loop) are that the HP400 would be able to do limited aerobatics due to its low speed (very likely, low G) and high drag.

Consider this, a Piper Cub can do a loop with no problem…
  • 0

#11 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1501

Posted 04 February 2011 - 11:08

My own thoughts (no real evidence other than the fact that DFW type airplanes were able to loop) are that the HP400 would be able to do limited aerobatics due to its low speed (very likely, low G) and high drag.
Consider this, a Piper Cub can do a loop with no problem…


Hmm, i read about the Vimy bomber, and that it was utterly impossible to instantly pull the wheel towards you, because the controls were just too heavy. Even turning the wheel a bit for the ailerons was heavy work. The HP is not so big, but "aerobatics" ?

A Piper Cub is much more aerodynamic and streamlined, than the HP. As well it has much less air friction/drag just because of its smaller surface. How do you want to reach a speed with the HP, to successfully do a looping, if you lose control at 98 mph and the machine disintegrating at roughly 100 ? I do not know how much the Hp weighs, 10 tons ? I still think it's highly improbable.

Greetings,
Catfish
  • 0

#12 gottfried

gottfried
  • Posts: 92
  • LocationUSA

Posted 29 March 2011 - 01:43

I quite agree. The HP would shed its wings before it would ever loop. The wing span is what 100' ?
  • 0

AKA Kangaroo Jack


#13 Lormar

Lormar
  • Posts: 222

Posted 29 March 2011 - 02:11

Don’t be so quick to say a given aircraft can’t do a loop. The loop is basically the simplest and least stressful aerobatic trick in the book, a good pilot can loop with little change in G force, and a great pilot can loop and keep the airframe at one G the whole time. In the HP's case the bigger problem is probably having the speed to go around the top, but there is no evidence saying that at V-ne the aircraft won’t have the speed to do it. Consider this: A 747 is capable of preforming a deadstick loop. Is it easy? Hell no. Is it safe? Hell no. Do you have a great chance of ripping your wings off? Hell yes. Can it be done? Hell yes.
  • 0

#14 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 29 March 2011 - 02:52

A 1g loop? Are you sure?

My understanding is that to pull the nose up at the start and end of the loop more than 1g needs to be applied. When the plane is inverted at the top of the loop 1g can be applied - but when the plane is erect more than 1g is needed or it'll fly in a straight line.

My 1918 aeroplane structures book mentions that the wing spars on larger planes should be stressed to about 4g. This would be at a heavy weight, therefore a light HP may have enough wing strength to loop at light weights. However, some other part may break. Max dive speed and control forces are less clear…
  • 0

#15 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 29 March 2011 - 08:18

Looping (or any sloppy variation) a high drag airplane is easier since it doesnt build up as much speed on the down side of the loop, ie, G forces will lower as you try to prevent overspeed. So as long as you can reach 90 degrees vertical, you will do some kind of deformed loop.
  • 0

#16 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 18 April 2011 - 12:30

Can you please specify which FM models will be improved in the future ? at least the most urgent ones.

Somewhere there was a list of FMs which will be corrected but I lost it.

From my observations and game experience from other WWI sims throughout the time since 1991 I don't remember ever seeing the Pfalz D.III turning that tight.

Another question is Höhengas for D7F - turning it on at low altitude would cause the engine to almost explode or at least to be quickly damaged, didn't it ? now you can fly with 100% alt throttle non stop.
  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#17 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 19 April 2011 - 02:29

On the Fokker D7F, the RoF model is very good regarding Hohengas. It could be run full on at low altitude. I had a referrence for it for a while, but I dont know where it is now. If I find it, I'll post it here.
  • 0

#18 Heliocon

Heliocon
  • Posts: 93

Posted 14 May 2011 - 22:30

On the tv show "dogfights" they have a fight between Udet in a fokker dr.1 tri-plane and they say it did a "flat half spin" which is a 180 degree turn using just rudder. Did this actually happen/ is it possible? (tried it in game and it is not, probably because the lift on the inside wing drops too much…)/
  • 0

#19 Quax.

Quax.
  • Posts: 633
  • LocationGermany

Posted 28 May 2011 - 11:36

You think, it did fly backwards after that maneuver? I don´t think those film makers know too much about aerodynamics ;)
  • 0

#20 1PL-Sander-1Esk

1PL-Sander-1Esk
  • Posts: 94

Posted 19 June 2011 - 12:19

On the Fokker D7F, the RoF model is very good regarding Hohengas. It could be run full on at low altitude. I had a referrence for it for a while, but I dont know where it is now. If I find it, I'll post it here.

Hmm…, but then again, for some reason it was adviced by the manufacturer - as so is in the game - that one shouldn't engage the stuff below certain altitude. I can imagine that there was some safety margin, and one could successfully use it even on the deck for, lets say, couple of minutes. But for half an hour? If so it wasn't an altitude throttle then or even a boost. It was a regular throttle intended for use at all altitudes. Is it what you wanted to say Chill?

S!
  • 0

#21 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 19 June 2011 - 12:33

Hmm…, but then again, for some reason it was adviced by the manufacturer - as so is in the game - that one shouldn't engage the stuff below certain altitude. I can imagine that there was some safety margin, and one could successfully use it even on the deck for, lets say, couple of minutes. But for half an hour? If so it wasn't an altitude throttle then or even a boost. It was a regular throttle intended for use at all altitudes. Is it what you wanted to say Chill?

S!

You can brake BMW engine very fast at deck with full altitude throttle. There is no set time how long you can use it. I have damaged engine with less than 3min of use and then there are cases where I have used it ~10min and no damage at all. Also I have never used it as long as half an hour at deck (that ~10min is pretty much an record)

Also advices mainly were that it degraded engine total life (and you could destroy your engine at deck) and mechanics were not quite happy if you used it every altitude.
  • 0

#22 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 19 June 2011 - 13:34

Hmm i never manage in ROF to brake BMW engine at low alts even with full alt throttle during using it even for long time ( 5-10 minutes).
  • 0

#23 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 19 June 2011 - 13:37

It's standard operating procedure on the FF server for the D.VIIF pilots to open the altitude throttle at the beginning of a fight, and leave it there for the remainder of the sortie, pinging the engine the entire way. :lol:

Another thing I've noticed is that in RoF we can open the altitude throttle safely at lower altitudes than what was advised. IIRC, historically, the recommendation was:

2km: 1/3
3km: 2/3
4km: opened all the way

In RoF, we can be much more aggressive:

0.5km: 1/3
1.0km: 2/3
1.5km: opened all the way
  • 0

#24 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 19 June 2011 - 13:50

Made test just now (full atltitude throttel at deck). First engine damage at 4min mark (RPM needle started to jump little). Total breakdown at 5min 43s
  • 0

#25 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 03 August 2011 - 11:53

On the Fokker D7F, the RoF model is very good regarding Hohengas. It could be run full on at low altitude. I had a referrence for it for a while, but I dont know where it is now. If I find it, I'll post it here.

You probably mean this:

Jagdgeschwader Frhr. v. Richthofen O.U.2.8.1918
Br.Nr. 2053/II

Reports over the BMW IIIa engine.
…………………………………………
The BMW IIIa engine continues to perform splendidly. Apart from some small deficiencies, (which are already remedied), nothing has turned out to be unfavorable. Its superiority, as compared to the other engines, (also the enemy's), is proven daily. As a rule, the "over" gas throttle position is not used under 3000 meters. Not only have we been operating in the "over" gas throttle position almost constantly throughout aerial engagement, but also at low altitude, and without any damage to the engine; (only stronger vibrating becomes apparent). Recently a pilot, who was driven down by some Spads near a balloon and had lost his orientation, flew for over a half hour with the throttle in the "over" gas position and the motor at full revs (1500-1600rpm) at a height of 100 meters pursued by the Spads. It was superior in rate to the Spads. The engine had operated smoothly and had not suffered in the slightest. Again the Geschwader, (squadron), requests it for immediate and extensive delivery and asks for the immediate start of licensed production in as many factories as possible.
gez. Göring****************
Oblt. u. Geschwader-Kommandeur.

  • 0

#26 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 18 August 2011 - 18:36

There have been many interesting discussions on these forums involving the comparison of wing loadings and power loadings. I have found a couple of graphs in an aircraft design book which plot these figures for light aircraft. I have over-plotted data from the RoF store and hope that these may prove useful. Note that I have used maximum take off weight

The Design of the Aeroplane, Darrol Stinton

"Fig 6.13 shows a number of state-of-the-art combinations of wing and power Loadings for a selection of typical light aeroplanes, many of which were plotted in Fig 5.18a. Most lie between
two parallel lines represented by the following, worked in FPSR units:

W/P = 22 – 0.4 W / S (6-33)
W/P = 16 – 0.4 W / S (6-34)

The lower line marks the practical limit of liveliness that might be coupled with reasonable
Fuel-economy. The upper line is marked either by low drag (e.g. motor gliders), or not as much power as would be wished for most purposes.

Fig 6.13b shows a term BHP/S, the Rated power per unit wing area, which can be a useful indication of potential merit for high performance aeroplanes.

Power and thrust loading, W/P and W/F are useful indications of merit for comparing different aeroplanes. Their reciprocals, P/W and F/W, when multiplied by weight, tell how much power, or thrust, is needed to achieve a given rate of climb. But, the approach made here is crude, in the sense that we have not dealt with other important factors, lift lift/drag ratio, which affect induced drag. Aeroplanes with long wings climb better and achieve higher service
ceilings than those with short, for given power and wing loadings. "

Attached Files


  • 0

#27 Geronimo989

Geronimo989
  • Posts: 52

Posted 16 September 2011 - 16:55

This is just from a subjective experience when flying in the game, and I have no data to check it out, but I gotta ask you guys who know more about WW1 planes than I do:
The Albatros series in general feels somehow "less realistic" than other planes in game (I bought most of the single seaters). Especially the D II which doesn't even have the radiator control to worry about. It is just a matter of "ram up the throttle and go". All three are hard to stall and spin, and in a way feel like playing completely another game. Like "easy mode" turned on. The only thing pilot has to worry about is tearing it apart and overreving the engine. The flight feeling is much better when flying the spads, camel, triplane, Dr I… Fokker D VII is hard to stall too, but flying it feels more realistic than the albatros.
Then again, I only have like 10 minutes of steering a real airplane (hope its gonna change soon :))
This bothers me because I wanna play the german campaign right from the start, and most of it is about flying Albatros fighters.
What do you guys think, how realistic is the Albatros series compared to the real thing?
  • 0

#28 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 16 September 2011 - 17:30

I never fly Albatros IRL but i flew Bucker Jungmann biplane and i think that Albatros DIII is the one which fly the most natural way from all Albatros in game. DII is too arcadish for me.

Generally most German planes in ROF are too easy on stalls even these ones which got very thin wing profiles like EIII, Pfalz DIIIa and Albatros. Allied planes in stalls fly much more natural way. Lest hope it would be also fixed in comming FM revision.
  • 0

#29 OlBlindMan

OlBlindMan
  • Posts: 36

Posted 20 September 2011 - 17:58

I know that the game developers have gone through great pains to get the flight models correct for this game. I am a bit surprised that the Bristol can outmaneuver the likes of a Fokker D7f—I have had tremendous difficulties getting them off my tail….then again, I am not the best of pilots out there.

As far as a Fokker DR1 being able to do a flat turn…Voss did it in his last flight, and had near a half dozen British pilots witness and attest to it. Werner Voss was a great pilot and mechanic though, and spent hours fine tuning his own engine, and checking each round of ammo. He probably knew his plane more intimately than nearly any other fighter pilot of the war.

The flight models may not be perfect in this game, but they seem pretty darn good. I would venture to say it is impossible to get them perfect. Every single plane I am sure, had their own quirks….just as cars of the same model vary off the assembly line.
  • 0

#30 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 20 September 2011 - 18:09

I know that the game developers have gone through great pains to get the flight models correct for this game. I am a bit surprised that the Bristol can outmaneuver the likes of a Fokker D7f—I have had tremendous difficulties getting them off my tail….then again, I am not the best of pilots out there.

The F.2bs climb too well right now. If that ever gets fixed, you can expect to see their dogfighting ability significantly reduced.
  • 0

#31 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 20 September 2011 - 22:35

Yea Bristol is quite good dogfigher in ROF. You have to be really carefully in dogfight with it. Fast, good climb, good turn and connecting these with rear gunner and forward guns it make really dangerous plane to beat even for single seater fighter plane from 1918. Trying to outurn it is often not good tactic.
  • 0

#32 No48_Snoopy

No48_Snoopy
  • Posts: 115

Posted 12 October 2011 - 16:55

S! all. I must ask when the performance patch for the Ablatros D.Va is coming out. From what I hear from my fellow Jasta Boelcke pilots, her speed and performance are lower than the real thing. I'm not sure if this is true, however, it is said amongst those in our Jasta that the D.Va in RoF continues to be powered by that silly 160 horsepower D.III when it should be zipping about with an additional twenty. I would really love to know. THe Jasta 2 pilots and myself are getting quite anxious.
S! all,unt Prost!
-Voss
  • 0

#33 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 24 January 2012 - 06:16

I am looking forward to the increased performance of the Albatross fighters ingame as-well, not to mention the Pfalz D.III which currently is way too slow as-well.

Out of curiousity, did the Pfalz D.XII really suffer from the irrecoverable spins we see ingame atm in real life ?
  • 0

#34 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 24 January 2012 - 07:35

On the tv show "dogfights" they have a fight between Udet in a fokker dr.1 tri-plane and they say it did a "flat half spin" which is a 180 degree turn using just rudder. Did this actually happen/ is it possible? (tried it in game and it is not, probably because the lift on the inside wing drops too much…)/

you know, the show "dogfights" is not made by flyin people… just see this:

  • 0

#35 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 24 January 2012 - 07:36

Out of curiousity, did the Pfalz D.XII really suffer from the irrecoverable spins we see ingame atm in real life ?

:o You can get it into spin??? Lucky guy! :lol:
  • 0

#36 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 27 January 2012 - 10:05

Out of curiousity, did the Pfalz D.XII really suffer from the irrecoverable spins we see ingame atm in real life ?

:o You can get it into spin??? Lucky guy! :lol:


Extremely easily infact :)

It has this completely irrecoverable flat spin. I got into one at 3,500 m, and I litterally tried everything. I tried forward stick plus rudder to opposite direction of spin, then I tried foward stick plus rudder with direction of spin, then I tried both with the engine off. No result. Tried back stick plus rudder in both directions as-well.

I am curious as to wether the Pfalz D.XII actually got into such irrecoverable spins in real life when stalling out in sharp maneuvers.
  • 0

#37 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:26

Many if not most planes in ROF have unrealistic spin recovery method. In normal spin most of them should need standart recovery procedure - engine idle, opposite rudder and stick forward which is not a case in most ROF planes.

Well flat spin is different thing and even in real life need a lot of altitude and different ways to recovery.

I think that spins (expecially recovery methods) in ROF and some gyro effect are the most wrong modeled things in ROF flight model engine.
  • 0

#38 SC/JG_Ivank

SC/JG_Ivank
  • Posts: 108

Posted 15 February 2012 - 21:59

I quite agree. The HP would shed its wings before it would ever loop. The wing span is what 100' ?


My Father (now 92) who was an RAF engine fitter based in Northern India in a Squadron of Wapitis and a single Vickers Valancia they called "The Pig". The Valancia was a transport version of the Vickers Vimy. Just before it was to be struck of charge the pilots decided to see of they could loop it. On the appointed day the whole squadron assembled to watch this feat. It was successfully done over the airfield and was known as "The day they looped the Pig".
  • 0

#39 CODY614

CODY614
  • Posts: 79

Posted 15 February 2012 - 23:10

Out of curiousity, did the Pfalz D.XII really suffer from the irrecoverable spins we see ingame atm in real life ?

:o You can get it into spin??? Lucky guy! :lol:


Extremely easily infact :)

It has this completely irrecoverable flat spin. I got into one at 3,500 m, and I litterally tried everything. I tried forward stick plus rudder to opposite direction of spin, then I tried foward stick plus rudder with direction of spin, then I tried both with the engine off. No result. Tried back stick plus rudder in both directions as-well.

I am curious as to wether the Pfalz D.XII actually got into such irrecoverable spins in real life when stalling out in sharp maneuvers.

Panthera
I've have wondered if the conversation I had once with an instructor who flew and taught aerobatics would apply?
He always said…"Accelerate/Aggravate the spin, when all else fails, adding power and pro spin controls." His theory was to make sure the plane was "really spinning well" and then attempt the to recover…?

Piper
  • 0

#40 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 16 February 2012 - 16:10

SC/JG_Ivank, that is a wonderful story. I heard about a loop in a Sunderland flying boat bending the fuselage! Not sure if it is true.

The Vimy was stressed to 4g (at maximum weight)

http://riseofflight....27157&mode=view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">download/file.php?id=27157&mode=view

Assuming that the Valancia shared a common wing with the Vimy and was not much heavier when empty then it too might withstand 4g when heavy and more when light.

The link shows the HP 0/400 was stressed to the same load. So perhaps the wings would stay attached, at least from a loading point of view. The limiting factor might be whether it could be dived fast enough and if the pilots were strong enough to pull the stick back at that speed.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users