Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Albatross D.2


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#41 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:31

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

Yes, to make them more effective. I have posted info about them here: Current ROF Airplanes Flight Model Data Topic.

Also I think shorter lowerwing were made so that they dont disturp airfolw to airelons. But that is just a quess.
  • 0

#42 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:52

We are going OT here but I was curious so I searched for test flights in replicas.

I found this…

I soon noted that although the Fokker had adequate aileron for flight, it did not have the crisp rolling qualities that were paramount in the fighters with which I was acquainted. The rudder and elevator had a smooth, positive feel. I then remembered that Fokker pilots got directly behind their adversaries and sprayed their targets with lead by using the Fokker's very sensitive and positive rudder motions. German D.VII pilots never developed the curved-approach, lead-pursuit gunnery runs that were popular among WW II pilots. This required much greater rolling power.

I flew many stalls to explore the Fokker's behavior with various incorrect aileron, rudder and elevator inputs. I wanted to see how the airplane would perform in the hands of a clumsy student pilot, and I was pleased and amazed to find that it hadn't any wing-dropping tendencies at all. Stall occurred at a low 38mph indicated airspeed. Just before it stalled, there was adequate warning buffeting, and the nose slowly dropped to the horizon for a quick and easy recovery. Accelerated stalls showed that the wing design was perfect. I could see the great benefits of its gentle, low stall-speed and handling characteristics from the highly cambered airfoil on the tips of the upper and lower wings. Few WW I fighter aircraft knew such gentle stalling characteristics. I could easily see how novice pilots could mistreat the forgiving Fokker D.VII and yet keep their landing rolls well within the confines of the small fields from which they operated. I immediately felt at home in the Fokker. I could have readily changed my name to Korwin Heinrich Meier and shot down Allied fighters, too!

You can read the whole article here > http://findarticles....ag=content;col1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://findarticles....p/articles/mi_q … ntent;col1
  • 0

#43 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:58

Squid, he is comparing roll rate to WWII and jetfighters ("The jet fighters I had been flying had wing loading of more than 100 pounds per square foot."). Not other WWI crates. (For WWI standart D.VII was fast roller) ;)
  • 0

#44 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 10:10

Yes I know its compared to his experiance with WWII fighters but its all relative. It just struck me that out of all its flight characteristics the only one he critised was its roll. He describes it as climbing like a elevator. Im sure it couldnt match a WWII plane for climb, but he praises it. :)
  • 0

#45 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 09 August 2010 - 10:12

Yes I know its compared to his experiance with WWII fighters but its all relative. It just struck me that out of all its flight characteristics the only one he critised was its roll. He describes it as climbing like a elevator. Im sure it couldnt match a WWII plane for climb, but he praises it. :)

Because those did roll twices as fast as fastest WWI plane? :D BTW, there is also replica pilot quote where D.VII is compared to SE5a and it is said to be faster in roll. But this is getting way offtopic… ;)
  • 0

#46 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 10:14

Your right, we should continue in another thread lol. Sorry I love discussing these planes.
  • 0

#47 JFM

JFM
  • Posts: 153
  • LocationNaples, FL, USA

Posted 09 August 2010 - 13:45

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.

Seems that during the turn portion of their battle, neither Hawker nor Richthofen could bring their guns to bear and neither man fired. After Hawker went through his series of defensive aerobatics and began his retreat for the lines is when MvR did all his firing; i.e., the latter minutes of their encounter. MvR recounted he "fired continually" and it would seem so during that chase. Perhaps this continual firing caused his gun jams? Nobody knows. Perhaps other pilots would have disengaged at that point but Hawker's misfortune was Richthofen was behind him. He was an enormously tenacious pilot once his fangs were out and often times chased planes at low levels and/or across the lines; 21 April 1918 wasn't the first time he had done so.

Anyway, I mean not to steer this discussion away from performance.
  • 0

#48 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 09 August 2010 - 18:16

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

Huh? If you mean a DIII vs DII fight, then the result is: DII wins. We have tested this.
As MiG said, it doesn't seem to be right.
  • 0

#49 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 18:20

actually the DII can turn about as fast as a DIII but not sustatianed. Instantanous turning is useful for breaking ect, but its the sustained turn thats going to win the fight.
  • 0

#50 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 09 August 2010 - 18:27

Well perhaps you can't. But, and perhaps I'll think about posting tracks, the DII can outturn the DIII, sustained turns or not.
  • 0

#51 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 18:28

The best test would be to fight in the DII against a DIII with another human pilot in it.
  • 0

#52 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 09 August 2010 - 18:32

Yeah yeah, of course. We've tested it human vs human. But as I see, you'll not take my word for granted. So I will try to do some tracks.
  • 0

#53 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 09 August 2010 - 18:33

Great JJ would love to see them, im poo-pooing what your saying, just that it goes against my experiance of how the planes handle.
  • 0

#54 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 10 August 2010 - 20:07

In his theoretical minimum turn radius chart Leon Benett has the D2 turning tighter than the D3 and much tighter than the D5.

The D2 has the least power though so sustained turn rate will be less I suppose.
  • 0

#55 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 11 August 2010 - 06:20

Leon Benett did that chart only using wingloading. It is very inaccurate(especially in biplanes/triplanes) way to comapre turn perfomance.
  • 0

#56 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:12

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.

Seems that during the turn portion of their battle, neither Hawker nor Richthofen could bring their guns to bear and neither man fired. After Hawker went through his series of defensive aerobatics and began his retreat for the lines is when MvR did all his firing; i.e., the latter minutes of their encounter. MvR recounted he "fired continually" and it would seem so during that chase. Perhaps this continual firing caused his gun jams? Nobody knows. Perhaps other pilots would have disengaged at that point but Hawker's misfortune was Richthofen was behind him. He was an enormously tenacious pilot once his fangs were out and often times chased planes at low levels and/or across the lines; 21 April 1918 wasn't the first time he had done so.

Anyway, I mean not to steer this discussion away from performance.

Even 8 minutes is a hell of a long time for a dogfight with neither pilot gaining an advantage during the turning phase…that just doesn't stack up with my experience of DII vs DH2 turning fights.

I'm an abysmal pilot in the dh2 but it seems it can only handle something like 30 degree bank without stalling or rolling and the Albatross DII is all over it in no time. One, or both, FM's seem questionable imo.

I was part of the open beta test for the DH2 and in it's first incarnation it was much more stable and could turn much much faster than the one we have now…so much so that we reported this to neoqb and suggested it's performance was too good.

I personally estimated that it was about 10% too good (not exactly a scientific analysis but one that I stick by even now).

The pre-release version we tested was like a different aircraft, it's performance had been reduced by (imo a ridiculous amount) my estimate (again hardly scientific) 30-50%.

By performance, I am referring to sustained turn rate and we were testing it against the DII during this process.

I feel that the DH2 should perform on average about 25% better than we have and the DII seems to perform better than it should as well.

I realise that my unscientific opinions will hold little weight with neoqb but i'm not the only one that is of these opinions.
  • 0

#57 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:22

Perhaps Para. I know the DH2 was an unpopular plane with the chaps in the RFC (According to James Mccudden at least). Although he could do a fair bit with it.

Thinking out loud if we put ourselves in Hawkers and Richtofens places in ROF then I can see that Hawker sees MVR diving down and performs a break turn to get out of the way. If we do tight turns in the ROF DH2 we have to lose altitude (your right about that 30-40 degree bank). MVR follows also in a tight turn.

As long as the DH2 has altitude to spend it can turn pretty tightly and MVR would have a hard time getting an advantage. Its only its sustained turn rate thats poor.

Once its got to the deck though its way out of options In ROF the DII will eat it up easily.

So I suppose it could be right. I agree its a really hard plane to fight in effectively (the hardest I think) but its better than the E.III. I do think that the DII is a bit too good. Maybe the DH2 is a bit too bad, but they arent that far off.
  • 0

#58 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:25

Perhaps Para. I know the DH2 was an unpopular plane with the chaps in the RFC (According to James Mccudden at least). Although he could do a fair bit with it.

Thinking out loud if we put ourselves in Hawkers and Richtofens places in ROF then I can see that Hawker sees MVR diving down and performs a break turn to get out of the way. If we do tight turns in the ROF DH2 we have to lose altitude (your right about that 30-40 degree bank). MVR follows also in a tight turn.

As long as the DH2 has altitude to spend it can turn pretty tightly and MVR would have a hard time getting an advantage. Its only its sustained turn rate thats poor.

Once its got to the deck though its way out of options In ROF the DII will eat it up easily.

So I suppose it could be right. I agree its a really hard plane to fight in effectively (the hardest I think) but its better than the E.III. I do think that the DII is a bit too good. Maybe the DH2 is a bit too bad, but they arent that far off.

I would say DH2 is just fine since we have the worst version in game…E3 too to some extent…but Alb DII is too good….Im able to kill more opponents online than in any other Albie. And you know Im not a noob.
  • 0

#59 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:29

Here's the "old" (beta) DH2…doing pretty well against my DVIIF in horizontal turns (mind you, pilot wasn't too bad):



Parazaine: if there are people who agree with your 10% and 50% please let them speak up. Maybe together you can build a stronger argument. Personally, if neoqb says they stay within set margins (5%) of their sources, I believe them. Although that will say little about manoeuvrability.
  • 0

#60 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:33

Perhaps the disadvantages of the biplane design, especially in the case of the D.II, are not sufficiently implemented. As I understand it (in layman's terms basically) the D.II has a long wing chord and a relatively narrow wing gap as well as no wing staggering which would severely decrease the effective lift since the bottom surface of the top wing and the top surface of the bottom wing are canceling each other out, possibly explains why the D.II was called "the german spad".
The same issues is also very much present with the S.E.5a, Pfalz D.XII and Spad XIII, but all biplanes should be affected by this. The sesquiplane design on the other hand, with it's narrow lower wing, reduces the issues of the wings canceling each other out and also reduces the overall drag.
Consequently the D.III might have aproximately a similar effective lift due to the sequiplane design with a lot less drag and way better power loading, especially since we have the lighter OAW version. Yet both planes have the same turn rate.


Somebody with more engineering knowledge will probably step in and correct me but hopefully this is somewhat correct ;)
  • 0

#61 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:33

Here's the old DH2…doing pretty well against my DVIIF in horizontal turns (mind you, pilot wasn't too bad):



Parazaine: if there are people who agree with your 10% and 50% please let them speak up. Maybe together you can build a stronger argument. Personally, if neoqb says they stay within set margins (5%) of their sources, I believe them. Although that will say little about manoeuvrability.

I didn't mean they agreed with my figures exactly….perhaps some open beta testers could at least confirm the difference between the two versions we tested and just how different they were…if neoqb stay within 5% of their sources why were the two versions tested so different?

Look at the angle of bank that DH2 can achieve without stalling and compare it to what we have now!
  • 0

#62 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:35

My guess would be that the first one was off? It was, after all, a beta.

I'm not sure what its old specs were, maybe they just changed the way it could turn (however way they would do that) and I doubt they have much sources on that.

But never mind really, this is all complete speculation. I don't think we should look at the old DH2 at all raelly, what we have now is what matters.
  • 0

#63 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:37

My guess would be that the first one was off? It was, after all, a beta.

I'm not sure what its old specs were, maybe they just changed the way it could turn (however way they would do that) and I doubt they have much sources on that.

But never mind really, this is all complete speculation. I don't think we should look at the old DH2 at all raelly, what we have now is what matters.

almost everyone agreed it was off, myself included….what's in dispute is by how much.

Something must have made them model it that way? Was it based on performance figures or built from scratch from their engine data as they have stated they do? or a mixture of both? and why is the current version SO DIFFERENT?

Great track btw, goes some of the way towards describing what i'm talking about. Good job we don't have a NDA as open testers.
  • 0

#64 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:43

This topic is about the D.II and it's relative performance and imo the D.II is the one off, not the DH2, especially when you compare it to the D.III (OAW). See my previous post on page 6 for details.

The DH2 fits really well in with the E.III and N11 so changing the DH2 would also require changing those two. Repeating myself here imo the D.II is the one off, as well as the N17 roll rate.
  • 0

#65 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:46

This topic is about the D.II and it's relative performance and imo the D.II is the one off, not the DH2, especially when you compare it to the D.III (OAW). See my previous post on page 6 for details.

I completely agree with Imp
  • 0

#66 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 11 August 2010 - 13:50

I agree with Imp. It owns not only the DH2, but the Nieuports as well. It's almost as good, or better (more agile and forgiving) than the DIII. How could anybody stand for 8 minutes against a DII piloted by MvR himself flying a DH2….I have no clue… wait, I do: the DII wasn't such an UFO in real life :lol:

All in all, the DII is definitely off judged by its relative performance to other aircrafts in game.
  • 0

#67 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 11 August 2010 - 14:19

The way you beta testers talk, it almost sounds like the developers ask for your flight-model blessing before they release a new aircraft. I mean, was the DH2 flight model really changed based on beta-tester suggestion?
  • 0

#68 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 11 August 2010 - 14:24

I doubt it actually gavagai, I am pretty sure it was changed because the Devs felt it was too good, not because some of us said so :)
  • 0

#69 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 11 August 2010 - 14:28

Perhaps the disadvantages of the biplane design, especially in the case of the D.II, are not sufficiently implemented. As I understand it (in layman's terms basically) the D.II has a long wing chord and a relatively narrow wing gap as well as no wing staggering which would severely decrease the effective lift since the bottom surface of the top wing and the top surface of the bottom wing are canceling each other out, possibly explains why the D.II was called "the german spad".
The same issues is also very much present with the S.E.5a, Pfalz D.XII and Spad XIII, but all biplanes should be affected by this. The sesquiplane design on the other hand, with it's narrow lower wing, reduces the issues of the wings canceling each other out and also reduces the overall drag.
Consequently the D.III might have aproximately a similar effective lift due to the sequiplane design with a lot less drag and way better power loading, especially since we have the lighter OAW version. Yet both planes have the same turn rate.


Somebody with more engineering knowledge will probably step in and correct me but hopefully this is somewhat correct ;)


Actually that was very well explained. Only that Albatros D.II wings had small stagger ;)
  • 0

#70 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 11 August 2010 - 15:08

The D.II shouldn't turn as well or better then the D.III or any of the sesquiplane Nieuports (and most likely DH2), but it does. End of story.



BTW, talking about the D.II, take a look at the ingame model and some old photos of that plane.

Maybe something is wrong with my eyes, but the gap between the wings seems extremely huge on the ROF D.II. It looks more like a D.I to me. Maybe they also programmed the wrong gap for the flightmodel and it does turn better because of this?
  • 0

#71 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 11 August 2010 - 15:51

This topic is about the D.II and it's relative performance and imo the D.II is the one off, not the DH2, especially when you compare it to the D.III (OAW). See my previous post on page 6 for details.

I completely agree with Imp

The way you beta testers talk, it almost sounds like the developers ask for your flight-model blessing before they release a new aircraft. I mean, was the DH2 flight model really changed based on beta-tester suggestion?

My comments about the DH2 were specifically related to the DII performance…read my posts!

You can't describe the DII's performance without reference to other aircraft and posters have used both Entente and Central aircraft comparisons hence an analysis of the DH2, DII, EIII and DIII are all valid for this purpose.

@ Gavagai…I would like to think that neoqb listen to the beta testers otherwise what are we bothering for? Open Beta-testers like myself are providing input and testing for no pay and because we want to influence this simulation positively. That said, I don't 'expect' them to listen and realise they have access to data etc that we do not.

I reiterate, why were the two DH2 versions so different? and back on topic..the DII does indeed seem a little too good (all very scientific lol)

My reasoning came from the Hawker/MvR engagement, especially the turning portion of that fight where neither pilot could gain an advantage. This implies very similar turning performance for both aircraft which is not what we have…which aircraft is suspect is debatable, perhaps both?

and before someone cites the hawker engine failure myth…please read through the prior posts carefully.
  • 0

#72 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 11 August 2010 - 16:23

My reasoning came from the Hawker/MvR engagement, especially the turning portion of that fight where neither pilot could gain an advantage. This implies very similar turning performance for both aircraft which is not what we have…
Or MvR was boom&zooming vs. Hawker and Hawker managed to evade his B&Z attacks because of the higher manouverability of his DH2.

Anyway, this is what MvR said about this fight:
He was traveling in a machine which turned beautifully. However, my own was better at rising than his, and I succeeded at last in getting above and beyond my English waltzing partner.

  • 0

#73 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 11 August 2010 - 16:41

Less bottom wing area means less interference. But it's still less wing area and while the extra wing area of the DII may be very inefficient, does it go as far as to actually have a negative effect on lift?
  • 0

#74 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 11 August 2010 - 16:51

Less bottom wing area means less interference. But it's still less wing area and while the extra wing area of the DII may be very inefficient, does it go as far as to actually have a negative effect on lift?

90% of 6 is more than 50% of 10 ;)


P.S. These numbers have nothing to do with planes, but just to illustrate the point.
  • 0

#75 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 11 August 2010 - 18:22

My reasoning came from the Hawker/MvR engagement, especially the turning portion of that fight where neither pilot could gain an advantage. This implies very similar turning performance for both aircraft which is not what we have…
Or MvR was boom&zooming vs. Hawker and Hawker managed to evade his B&Z attacks because of the higher manouverability of his DH2.

Anyway, this is what MvR said about this fight:
He was traveling in a machine which turned beautifully. However, my own was better at rising than his, and I succeeded at last in getting above and beyond my English waltzing partner.

That quote from MvR just backs up my argument…it implies the DH2 turned at least as well and MvR 'succeeded at last in getting above and beyond my english waltzing partner' which I read into meaning he eventually outclimbed his opponent but not without some effort.

That does NOT sound like boom and zooming to me.

@ Mig 77 zero difference in turn rate = zero difference in turn rate (more or less lol)
  • 0

#76 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 11 August 2010 - 18:45

Based on wing loading, Leon Bennett, an aeronautical engineer, claims that the theoretical minimum turning radius of an Albatros D2 is @ 142 feet and the minumum theoretical turning radius of a dh2 is @105 feet. (Source, Gunning for the Red Baron)I do not have figures on turn rate, etc, so sorry.

p.s. He claims that the theoretical minimum turning radius of a DR1 is @ 122 feet.
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#77 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 11 August 2010 - 20:01

Doesn't mean a lot without also knowing theoretical turn rate to go along with those radii.
  • 0

#78 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 11 August 2010 - 21:01

That does NOT sound like boom and zooming to me.
It does sound like high-yoyos though, which usually only are necessary, when you are behind a plane with a better sustained turnrate.

Similar to fighting an Albatros with an SE5. The Albatros has the better sustained turnrate but hte SE5 can keep up with it by using yoyos.
  • 0

#79 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 12 August 2010 - 02:18

That does NOT sound like boom and zooming to me.
It does sound like high-yoyos though, which usually only are necessary, when you are behind a plane with a better sustained turnrate.

Similar to fighting an Albatros with an SE5. The Albatros has the better sustained turnrate but hte SE5 can keep up with it by using yoyos.

I fail to follow your argument….are you saying the DH2 had a better turn rate than the DII but the DII could be piloted like an se5 with high yo-yo's due to a higher climb rate?

Hence the DH2 could out-turn the DII by your logic…all i'm saying is that it could turn at least as well and high yo-yo's are definitely not the same as booming and zooming but imply a significant energy advantage for the DII….why did they maneuver for 8 mins without either gaining advantage then?

Sorry, your argument doesn't make sense to me.
  • 0

#80 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 12 August 2010 - 11:39

That does NOT sound like boom and zooming to me.
It does sound like high-yoyos though, which usually only are necessary, when you are behind a plane with a better sustained turnrate.
Eh? high-yoyo has nothing to do with who has better sustained turn rate. No wonder you folks are shot down so much.

Theorizing how these two pilots fought is fruitless and wont lead to anything conclusive. However what we can say for sure is that Hawker got shot down and was always in defensive. ROF while far from perfect, mirrors that when similar start conditions are met.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users