Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Albatross D.2


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#1 SJK

SJK
  • Posts: 164

Posted 24 June 2010 - 03:20

Hello I would like to call to attention the maneuverability of the Albatross D.2.
I tested the Airco D.H.2 against all aircraft in the game and found I was able to turn well with most planes, (even the Fokker dr.1 and Camel) at least to the point were I could survive and get in shots. All except the albatrosses and Phaltz d.3a. These planes tend to stick like glue in all turns.

here are some references as to why I believe the d.2 to be incorrectly maneuverable:

from aircraft in action, albatross fighters

page 4. "Thelen decided to concentrate on speed, power, and armament, at the expense
of maneuverability. " on alb d.1

page 4 "the d.1 immediately made every other fighter at the front obsolete, although less
maneuverable than the nieuport 11 or the D.H.2, the albatross was faster, stronger
and had twice the firepower with it's two guns.

(i know that was about d.1 but…)
page 10 "the d.2 showed no real increase in performance over d.1. In fact, its climb to
1000 meters took 50 secconds longer,"

Page 13 top line "The albatross d.3 was an attempt to improve the maneuverability of the d.2"

Windsock datafile d.h.2

page 4. "initially, the new enemy scouts made little headway against the well
seasoned DH2 pilots who soon found, despite their inferior speed and rate of climb,
they could out maneuver the german machines.

windsock datafile albatross d.2
"easy to fly and although not as maneuverable as the lighter halberstadt fighters,
it's heavier twin gun armament and superior diving capabilities made it a much more
effective combat weapon.

Bolke develops tactics of hit and run and forms his dicta Bolke, final flight is in d.2
accident while diving on two d.h.2's.

And now my dear Watson I purpose that
albatross fighters are in fact boom and zoom planes and not turn and burn fighters.
I plan on buying the D.2. when it becomes more like it was in history.
thank you.
  • 0

#2 SC/JG_Oesau

SC/JG_Oesau
  • Posts: 2024

Posted 24 June 2010 - 03:56

What do you mean "maneuverable", and what are other people referring to when they say it wasn't as maneuverable?

I'm not just throwing that back at you, it's a relevant question when discussing topics like this. I know of some short comings in certain FM, but interested in what you are referring to.
  • 0

#3 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 24 June 2010 - 12:28

I've posted a few times recently that the ROF Albatros series appear to roll too well, I think that's a big part in their easy fly character in game.

There's plenty of anecdotal WW1 (Dallas, Lewis, McCudden) and contemporary (Gene DeMarco) evidence from replica's where pilots remark about the poor aileron response, that's not the aircraft we have in ROF.
  • 0

#4 SJK

SJK
  • Posts: 164

Posted 24 June 2010 - 12:30

Turning ability is what I mean. I believe that because of the limitations of ww1 craft I.e. a steep dive being considered a great feat of acrobatics, that when they speak of maneuverability it is in reference to how well an aircraft may out turn it's opponent. I don't think they were speaking of loops and barrel rolls, as stunting was frowned upon. I doubt they were saying at the albatross factory " She can't loop as well as the DH2, but at least it has two guns." although someone may have said that, lol.

But the glaring evidence is the fact that in dh2 I can turn more closely with dr.1 than the d.2.
Surely a stable mount like the d.2 can't turn as well as an unstable rotary aircraft.
But I will search for more clear evidence.
thanks
  • 0

#5 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 24 June 2010 - 12:36

But the glaring evidence is the fact that in dh2 I can turn more closely with dr.1 :shock:

Since when?
  • 0

#6 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 24 June 2010 - 12:42

Were you "testing" the planes against AI by any chance? ;)
  • 0

#7 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 24 June 2010 - 12:43

Roll rate figures for WW1 aircraft seem to be very hard to come by, but numbers are what Neoqb request. Roll lets you stay with a turning aircraft, banking rapidley then using elevator to keep in the turn. If your target rolls faster then you can't get your guns on them in a turning fight, as the D7 fans complain ;)

Then there's the stability thing. The Vintage Aviator DVa doesn't sound particularly stable in pitch, Gene DeMarco talks about elevator being overly sensitive.
  • 0

#8 SC/JG_Oesau

SC/JG_Oesau
  • Posts: 2024

Posted 24 June 2010 - 21:32

Roll rates in a lot of sims are overdone when compared to RL, balance thing, or just guesses as roll rate figures are very difficult (if not impossible) to come by unless you ask someone who flies a rep.
  • 0

#9 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 24 June 2010 - 21:51

Interesting statements, Karl. And though I can understand that they can be interpreted as that the d2 should turn less well than the dh it is not directly stated. They are still open to interpretation.
  • 0

#10 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 24 June 2010 - 23:48

I did suggest that the Albatros roll rate get added to the current flight model discussion thread, but no response as yet.
  • 0

#11 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 25 June 2010 - 01:02

I've posted a few times recently that the ROF Albatros series appear to roll too well, I think that's a big part in their easy fly character in game.

There's plenty of anecdotal WW1 (Dallas, Lewis, McCudden) and contemporary (Gene DeMarco) evidence from replica's where pilots remark about the poor aileron response, that's not the aircraft we have in ROF.

Surprisingly Vati disagrees :lol:
  • 0

#12 J5_Ben

J5_Ben
  • Posts: 51

Posted 25 June 2010 - 01:40

agreed Karl. also Richthofen had to turn with hawker about 60 times in order to get on his six, where in the game I can outturn an ace dh2 in less than a turn.
  • 0

#13 JFM

JFM
  • Posts: 153
  • LocationNaples, FL, USA

Posted 25 June 2010 - 03:04

It is known the Albatros D fighters were built for speed and twin-gun firepower, but they were not sleds. As J5_Ben said, Hawker in a D.H.2 could not outturn Richthofen in a D.II for five minutes (their entire fight was about eight minutes–not the 30 minutes often bandied about–but the turning portion was about five) and it was only after Hawker ostensibly realized he could not outfly his opponent in that fashion and began a series of evasive aerobatic maneuvers that he bolted for the lines, which enabled Richthofen to overtake him and shoot him down. Hawker was a master of the D.H.2 and yet could not outturn Richthofen in his Alb D.II–but neither could Richthofen outturn Hawker, so outturning an ace D.H.2 pilot in one turn seems a bit much.

Still, remember that Richthofen fought McCudden in a D.H.2 27 December 1916 and forced McCudden down to some 800 feet before being chased off by anti-aircraft fire. As McCudden wrote, "I had been chased absolutely out of the sky from 10,000 feet to 800 by a Boche." McCudden had initially spun out of the fight due to a gun jam but every time he leveled off, there was Richthofen ("…I immediately half-rolled again, but still the Hun stayed there…"). BTW, Richthofen was credited for this "victory"–his 15th–but McCudden made it back home. At least his maneuvering had served him well because McCudden had avoided all of Richthofen's fire.

Also, the week before, Richthofen (in an Alb D.II) fought eight-victory ace Gerald Knight flying a D.H.2 and they too were involved in a turning skirmish during which they lost 1,500 meters. Richthofen got the better of him and shot him down for his 13th victory. So, one turn might be a bit quick for an Alb D.II to overtake a D.H.2 but in capable hands it could be done.
  • 0

#14 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 25 June 2010 - 04:03

As J5_Ben said, Hawker in a D.H.2 could not outturn Richthofen in a D.II for five minutes ….

JFM, I don't see J5_Ben saying that. As I read it, Richtofen had to be patient because he could not outturn the DH2 and it took him "60 turns" before he could finally get a bead on the tiring Hawker. But all he had to do was wait, not maneuver turn for turn. And that's what I believe he did. Hawker could not get away. And Richtofen was nothing if not a patient target fixated callous bastard. And that, and his overblown ego, was what killed him in the end. His mates couldn't protect him that time.

In-game, DII outturns DH2 in less than a turn as J5_Ben states. If Richtofens DII had that super ability in reality, Hawker would have been dead in 2 seconds.

…. also Richthofen had to turn with hawker about 60 times in order to get on his six, where in the game I can outturn an ace dh2 in less than a turn.

  • 0

#15 J5_Ben

J5_Ben
  • Posts: 51

Posted 25 June 2010 - 04:42

In-game, DII outturns DH2 in less than a turn as J5_Ben states. If Richtofens DII had that super ability in reality, Hawker would have been dead in 2 seconds.

my point exactly catchov.If the d2 was that good of a turner in reality, there wouldnt have been a 5 minute turn war, the d2 would perform like it does in the game, which is make a turn or 2 and be right on the dh2s six.
  • 0

#16 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 25 June 2010 - 08:26

Agreed…or Lanoe must have been a helluva pilot :shock: ;)

Right now a Dh2 vs DII feels like a N17 vs Fokker DVIIF (I've tried both sides…)

I wonder why didn't the Entente capitulate immediately after teh DII came out :P
  • 0

#17 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 25 June 2010 - 09:18

I wonder why didn't the Entente capitulate immediately after teh DII came out

And i wonder too why the germans lost time making other planes… :roll:
They could keep it till 1939 :mrgreen:
  • 0

#18 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 25 June 2010 - 10:15

Oooh look, data ;)

From Leon Bennetts Gunning for the Red Baron. Theoretical turn circles, based on wing loading. Check out the D5 :shock: Oink.

Entente data from NASM archives, Central from Flugsport 1919.

Image

Bennett suggests that Hawkers Gnome was going bad after 40 mins of hard running, Hawker had had poor engine performance with his aircraft over the couple of weeks before Manfred shot him down.
  • 0

#19 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 25 June 2010 - 10:31

:shock:

Isn't it the other way around in RoF? :P
(DH2 vs DII)
  • 0

#20 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 25 June 2010 - 10:41

Also look at the D5 and SE5a though…………..

It explains why the German pilots liked the D7 so much if the D5 could be out turned by the SE5.
  • 0

#21 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 25 June 2010 - 10:54

Also look at the D5 and SE5a though…………..

It explains why the German pilots liked the D7 so much if the D5 could be out turned by the SE5.

That might have something to do with the fact that the stall speed of the RoF SE5a is 56 mph while the real one stalled at 45 mph, but let's not take this off topic ;)
  • 0

#22 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 25 June 2010 - 12:48

Oooh look, data ;)


Calculating turn radius based on wing-loading alone isn't useful. That's why the picture says "theoretical."

As Yogi Berra said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." :mrgreen:
  • 0

#23 JFM

JFM
  • Posts: 153
  • LocationNaples, FL, USA

Posted 25 June 2010 - 15:55

Hello, Gents.

Nice discussion!

Please know I didn’t mean to misrepresent what J5_Ben said. My point is it went both ways: neither man could out-turn the other. I agree that an Alb D.II shouldn't turn inside a D.H.2 within a 360 or two, but it's wasn't automatic that a D.H.2 could out-turn a D.II in WW1. Again, it goes both ways: if the D.H.2 was such a great turner, why couldn’t Hawker get on Richthofen’s tail within a turn or two? Or Knight? Or McCudden? Or the other two D.H.2s Richthofen shot down? Of course, a large reason is they were fighting a man of enormous determination and tenacity, but Richthofen wasn’t up there just flapping his arms. He was in a helluva airplane that in the fall/early winter of 1916 gave the D.H.2s what for, regardless of how well they turned.

It's funny how people say Hawker's engine was going bad and use that as an excuse for Hawker's defeat–nobody can possibly know the state of his engine, because the only witness to its performance died (although the No. 24 Squadron Record Books do indicate a rash of engine problems for all their machines, and although Crutch suffered engine problems and eventually had to land just before No. 24’s encounter with Jasta 2, neither Andrews nor Saundby reported engine trouble on that sortie—i.e., engine trouble was frequent but not an absolute), but overlook Hawker performed a series of low-altitude aerobatics after turning with MvR for five minutes. If Hawker's engine ran so poorly during the turns, how was he able to perform a series of low altitude loops etc. afterwards? The biggest reason for Hawker's defeat is he suffered target fixation on German two-seaters and ostensibly did not see Jasta 2 diving to attack he, Andrews and Saundby. (Either that or Hawker thought Albatros D.IIs diving on him weren’t a threat, and having researched the man for some time I will opine that he wasn’t an idiot.) The other men saw the approaching Germans and turned to evade but Hawker continued his pursuit of the two-seaters. Andrews and Saundby thus rejoined Hawker so as to not leave him at the mercy of Jasta 2 which then fell on all of them, shooting up Andrews who was FTL and killing Hawker. Simply, Richthofen had the advantage from the beginning. It’s been misrepresented (including in MvR’s book, written six months and 41 victories later) that No. 24 attacked Jasta 2 but I’ve researched this battle at length and based on the combat reports of the surviving participants, they all agree that Jasta 2 attacked No. 24.

I own two of Leon Bennett's books and have enjoyed them but, respectfully, his account of the Hawker/Richthofen fight, which has been repeated over and over before and after his book, is inaccurate in several regards. The fight was NOT 35 minutes, so Bennett’s contention that “the 35-minute fight, all at peak revolutions, came as too much of a burden for Hawker’s Monosoupape rotary engine” is conjecture based on error. Furthermore, to back his thesis of engine problem as the root of Hawker’s defeat, he points to Hawker’s brother (Tyrrel) writing that “engine malfunction [was] claimed as known to Lanoe Hawker just before the battle occurred.” I’ve found nothing to indicate such in No. 24 Squadron’s Combat Reports, Squadron Records Books, official squadron history or personal accounts. Following Bennett’s endnote to Tyrrel’s book Hawker V.C. to corroborate this claim, one finds the only mention of “defect” in the sentence “…after [Hawker adjusted] the petrol valve for a few moments he realized that through some defect his engine would not give full revolutions.” I challenge all to explain how anybody on earth knows Hawker’s thoughts or the state of his engine performance during a sortie from which he—the only person who could reveal these things—never returned.

As an aside, the D.H.2 Hawker flew was not “his.” D.H.2 5964 is called "Hawker's," but the No. 24 Squadron Record Books reveal 2nd Lt. Roche Kelly flew it most often, at least between 30 September and 23 November 1916. In that period, here's the breakdown of who flew 5964 and how many times:

2nd Lt. Roche Kelly: 15
2nd Lt. S.E. Cowan: 1
2nd Lt. J.H. Crutch: 1
2nd Lt. R.H.M.S. Saundby: 1
Capt. S.H. Long: 1
2nd Lt. K. Crawford: 1
Maj. L.G. Hawker: 1

Of course, its final flight forever linked it with Hawker.

Regarding MvR being “callous,” callousness is an important factor that enables men to kill each other in war. “Chivalry" is mostly the stuff of pulp fiction. Still, did Hawker’s pursuit of the two-seaters in the face of Jasta 2 on his neck make him a “patient target fixated callous bastard?” Or McCudden’s stalking of two-seaters? Nope. Like Richthofen, they were doing what fighter pilots are supposed to do and, like all humans, they made mistakes.

Turning to MvR's death, all aviation events contain several links in the chain but Richthofen's low altitude is the biggest link as regards what led to his death. I agree he should have disengaged well before he did, considering his weapons problems, but being at 10,000 feet two or three miles behind the lines (which, in an airplane, is nothing, and it certainly wasn’t MvR’s first venture over the lines chasing an enemy, despite the inaccuracies claiming otherwise) is a whole different world than being at treetop level two or three miles behind the lines. At that altitude one didn’t have to be beyond the lines to be in peril; even low altitude near or above the lines was deadly. Look at Mannock. Put Mannock at 10,000 feet over the lines and machine gun that shot him down couldn’t touch him.

Strayed a bit from RoF, haven’t I? Forgive my passion.
  • 0

#24 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 25 June 2010 - 16:09

Very nice post :)

In regards to the theoretical turn performance on the previous page planes need to have an engine that can actually provide enough thrust to sustain these turns. The DH2 is relatively heavy for a rotary aircraft and 100hp is not very impressive, the Nieuports and the Dr.I/Camel have a better thrust/weight ratio and the poor climb rate of the DH2 confirms that it did not have much excessive power to boot, so while the initial turn rate and the low stall speed might have been good, the sustain turn rate was probably rather poor.

I wonder how experienced MvR was by the time he met hawker? Maybe it was only down to pilot experience (and lack thereof) that Hawker did manage to put up such a fight?
  • 0

#25 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 25 June 2010 - 16:29

Very nice post :)

In regards to the theoretical turn performance on the previous page planes need to have an engine that can actually provide enough thrust to sustain these turns. The DH2 is relatively heavy for a rotary aircraft and 100hp is not very impressive, the Nieuports and the Dr.I/Camel have a better thrust/weight ratio and the poor climb rate of the DH2 confirms that it did not have much excessive power to boot, so while the initial turn rate and the low stall speed might have been good, the sustain turn rate was probably rather poor.

Don't forget thrust:drag.
  • 0

#26 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 27 June 2010 - 20:57

Nice post JFM, interesting stuff.

Anyway, I've just been trying to get some turn figures of my own for the ROF DH2 and Albatros 2.

Early Albatros 2 - 7.8secs
DH2 - left turn 10.6secs
DH2 - right turn 9.4secs

This was with 25% fuel for both aircraft, entering the turn level at fast cruise, 100% throttle. 100m alt or so.

I'm happy to admit I'm not a great pilot, I'm quite convinced I got close to max turn performance with the Albatros, its easy, haul the stick back in the turn and off you go. With the DH2 its much more of a balancing act, pull back on the stick too far and it'll stall out or at worst spin. Getting a tight turn at all is a bit of a fight, especially to the left.

Can anyone do better with the DH2?
  • 0

#27 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 27 June 2010 - 22:11

Nice find, Mogs!

Turn rate (degrees/second just above stall speed) info is what is really missing. But it never was tested in WWI.

Turn radius is a valid comparison, though, and "theoretical" is better than "no data".

Hard to believe the Curtis Jenny could out-turn them all :lol:

Yes, the Alb II is much too agile and defies all historical descriptions.

Makes ya wonder what "data" was used by neoqb in building the model :shock:

JFM, your passion is understandable. I've lived most of my adult life in Arizona and how many versions are there of "The Gunfight at the OK Corral"? Some events never can be adequately recreated…

S!

HT
  • 0

#28 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 28 June 2010 - 10:44

As others have said theoretical wing load/turn radius isn't the whole story but it is a large part surely.

I'm not sure that Neoqb actually use data, I think they plug the physical aircraft stats into their model and go from there. A bit like X-plane I think.

I don't want to see the Albatros series nerfed, they were capable aircraft. I just want to see them brought more in line with historical accounts and reports from current replicas. Flying the ROF Albatros 2 and DH2 back to back really beings home just how capable and how easy max performance is to attain in the ROF Albatros.

Anyone else try the stopwatch test with the Albatros and DH2?
  • 0

#29 SJK

SJK
  • Posts: 164

Posted 30 June 2010 - 01:34

Thank you for your data Mogster, I appreciate it very much. I feel this theoretical data is very useful. With ww1 information one has to be a history detective unfortunately. Luckily there is enough information out there to put two and two together. Bottom line is The n. 11-17 and dh2 are supposed to be more maneuverable than albatross d2. In what way does rof model this advantage? I for the life of me can't find it.
  • 0

#30 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 08 August 2010 - 23:56

Basically FM design is a case of pulling numbers out of a hat and then going down the pub.

Seriously every effort is taken to get FM's as close to reality (depending on whos you belive) right. The DII does feel very good. I struggle to best it in anything but a N17. But isnt that right? From what ive read it turned the tide back in favour of the germans. Perhaps others in the know can pour more light on the matter.

JFM a great post about Hawker and ricthofen. Do you have any sources that mention the true duration of the fight? 35 mins seems a very long time. My guess (a pure guess mind you) is that Hawker was the better pilot, Richtofen a shadow of his latter excellence, however MVR duped hawker into a fight he couldnt win. The end result a foregone conclusion bar the shouting.

I know that James mccudden was impressed with the DIIs performance, and from what ive read it was a far superior aircraft to the contemporay allied planes.

What I also belive is often missed out is that a pilot with a new model of aircraft is often unaware of its limits, I for one would fly one carefully, gently pushing to find its limits, just as one does when one drives a unfamiliar car. Once you learn what it can do it acheives its true potential.

Thankfully in ROF we have a fly again option, something the real pilots didnt have.
  • 0

#31 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 09 August 2010 - 00:28

Yes, Albatros DII was a good plane, but it was due especially to its speed, armament, and to a correct climbing speed, or turning. Currently, the Albatros DII we have, with "normal" wings, turns much better than the DIII (OAW) with sesquiplans wings.
Yet, the DIII is said to have been the best turner of the Albatros serie. So I don"t understand why the DII turns this much better than the DIII.

However, sure the Ni 17 should have a bad time against it, but perhaps now it is "too much" bad.
  • 0

#32 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 00:32

Take the DII up against a human controlled DII. Then youll see which is the best ;)
  • 0

#33 JFM

JFM
  • Posts: 153
  • LocationNaples, FL, USA

Posted 09 August 2010 - 02:03

Hi, J2-squid,

Yes, this book covers the Hawker/Richthofen fight in accurate detail: www.airpowereditions.com/our-books-red-baron.html

This article details exactly why and how the fight was not 35 minutes but ca. 8 minutes: www.overthefront.com/Over-the-Front-2006-Issues.php It's the summer issue, second from top.

My view is MvR did not dupe Hawker into a fight. MvR saw the D.H.2s below him and dived to attack; pretty straight-forward. We'll never know but based on his subsequent inaction, Hawker didn't see the Albs diving upon him until they were all over them and thereafter never could shake MvR. I agree Hawker was the better pilot in terms of experience but consider that as squadron commander his flying time was far less than it had been in No. 6 Squadron when he was flying around BE2s, FE2s and the Bristol Scout in 1915. Hawker's combat time in 1916 was sporadic, and he had no victories (before fighting MvR his last victory had been nearly 15 months previous). Conversely, Richthofen had flown combat sorties constantly since March 1916 (LVG CII, LFG Roland C.II, and Alb. CIII with Kasta 8 until September, then the Alb D.I and D.II with Jasta 2) and by late November had more total victories than Hawker and had well discovered/developed the trick of the trade. It's no fluke that the man who bested Hawker went on to receive credit for 80 victories.
  • 0

#34 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 08:34

Thanks JFM.

Id forgotten about your book. I will certainly have to pick up a copy.

~8 minutes, quite a difference to 35! Leon Bennets account always worried me.
I couldnt understand why he described the DH2's performance as almost equal to the DII's.

During that 8 or so minutes MVR must of had Hawker in his sights a fair bit to get through 900 rounds. Seems it wasnt as even as I thought.
  • 0

#35 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 09 August 2010 - 08:50

I made sustained turn test between Albatros D.III and Albatros D.II (ten turns to right and then calculated average). Both turn about same in game (11,5s for single turn). Corner speed seems to be 110km/h in both planes. Infact it seems that Albatrod D.II is just slower and worse climbing D.III and that is wrong. D.II probalby was one of the worst turners in whole albtros series (too small gap between wings and almost none stagger at all)
  • 0

#36 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 08:51

To me its the absence of excess power. The intital turn rate of the DII is great, but it cant hold it for long without dropping a wing.
  • 0

#37 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 09 August 2010 - 08:54

To me its the absence of excess power. The intital turn rate of the DII is great, but it cant hold it for long without dropping a wing.

Like I said, I made sustained turn test ;) It turns just as fast as an albatros D.III.

BTW, that 11,5s for one circle makes it one of the best turners in game (only Camel/Dr.I are clearly faster).
  • 0

#38 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:08

Yes sorry mig of course you mentioned it was sustained.

The DII/and DIII do turn well but shouldnt they? I know both had a big impact on their debut. The DIII design was really never bettered (in that the DV was worse in terms of manuverablity).
  • 0

#39 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:15

Yes sorry mig of course you mentioned it was sustained.

The DII/and DIII do turn well but shouldnt they? I know both had a big impact on their debut. The DIII design was really never bettered (in that the DV was worse in terms of manuverablity).

What Im quite sure is that D.II is too fast in sustained turn (It should be more closer to DH2 which, btw is currently slowest in sustained turn with full fuel. Yes, even N28 beats it ;) ). Now even D.III turns faster than IE Fokker D.VII so I dont think that is right either. Difference is quite small tought and there actually is no excact turn test from WWI. Fokker D.VII was said to be "manouverable", but that can mean its roll rate too (which imho is incorrect in current game D.VII)
  • 0

#40 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:22

Yes I have wondered about the DVIIs roll rate. Does anyone know why its so slow? Its difficult though. In 1918 i would of thought the majority of the attacks would of been of boom n zoom nature. I doubt many of the germans wanted to mix it up chasing tails. So perhaps the more rugged aircraft was more useful? Im pretty sure that the DVII of legend was the F version rather than the mercedes. But even so after the DR1 and DV/a it must of seemed like a dream.

Does anyone know what the extended airelons on the DVII were for?
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users