Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Albatross D.2


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#81 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 12 August 2010 - 11:48

Haha, have you guys seen the "How I met your mother" episode when everyone imitated a farting sound when Ted was acting like a smarty pants? :D

Imagine me doing that now :lol:
  • 0

#82 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 12 August 2010 - 12:14

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.

Our job is to find bugs and mistakes in FM and DM etc. They have lawyers. Let me tell you one thing. Take 2 aces (human) pilots. Let them fight 10 dogfights. One in Alb DIII and other in DII. After 5 dogfights let them change planes. What do you think, in which plane they will achieve more victories? In DII. You know why? Because is considerably better than DIII in all aspects. In game. Is that how it should be? Lets do our job. so put your "papers" down and lets make such test which will reveal things more than anything else.
The sesquiplane arrangement in DIII offered improved climb, maneuverability, and downward visibility compared to the D.II. but resulted in wing failures; lower wings often "cracked" in some conditions. We dont see that in game. Neither of that.
Btw as you know, early nieuports can easily crack its wings due to their sesquiplane design but I cant see this happenin (or happenin so easily and often) in Alb DIII.
  • 0

#83 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 12 August 2010 - 12:48

The sesquiplane arrangement in DIII offered improved climb, maneuverability, and downward visibility compared to the D.II. but resulted in wing failures; lower wings often "cracked" in some conditions. We dont see that in game. Neither of that.
Btw as you know, early nieuports can easily crack its wings due to their sesquiplane design but I cant see this happenin (or happenin so easily and often) in Alb DIII.
The reason is that there is no wing flutter simulated in ROF. Not a bug, but a lack of feature.
Over a year ago I pointed this out and all it came out of it that it is planned sometime in the future.
  • 0

#84 PeterGrozni

PeterGrozni
  • Posts: 152

Posted 12 August 2010 - 13:01

Haha, have you guys seen the "How I met your mother" episode when everyone imitated a farting sound when Ted was acting like a smarty pants? :D

Imagine me doing that now :lol:

Your humor is almost as good as your flying.
  • 0

#85 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 12 August 2010 - 13:05

The sesquiplane arrangement in DIII offered improved climb, maneuverability, and downward visibility compared to the D.II. but resulted in wing failures; lower wings often "cracked" in some conditions. We dont see that in game. Neither of that.
Btw as you know, early nieuports can easily crack its wings due to their sesquiplane design but I cant see this happenin (or happenin so easily and often) in Alb DIII.
The reason is that there is no wing flutter simulated in ROF. Not a bug, but a lack of feature.
Over a year ago I pointed this out and all it came out of it that it is planned sometime in the future.

Interesting. In the meantime, the Albatros loses ailerons in hard maneuvers more quickly than any other type.
  • 0

#86 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 12 August 2010 - 13:48

Interesting. In the meantime, the Albatros loses ailerons in hard maneuvers more quickly than any other type.
Yes, flutter of flight control surfaces is simulated, tho not completely correctly IMHO.
  • 0

#87 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 12 August 2010 - 13:55

Haha, have you guys seen the "How I met your mother" episode when everyone imitated a farting sound when Ted was acting like a smarty pants? :D

Imagine me doing that now :lol:

Your humor is almost as good as your flying.

You're too kind :D Unfortunately, humour is not something I could teach you :P
  • 0

#88 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 12 August 2010 - 14:05

Eh? high-yoyo has nothing to do with who has better sustained turn rate.
It's a manouver to turn with a plane that has better sustained turn rate. Try to fly the SE5 vs. a D.VII or Albatros and you'll see what i mean.
  • 0

#89 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 12 August 2010 - 16:32

Eh? high-yoyo has nothing to do with who has better sustained turn rate.
It's a manouver to turn with a plane that has better sustained turn rate. Try to fly the SE5 vs. a D.VII or Albatros and you'll see what i mean.
As I said, it has nothing to do with sustained turn rates. The point of hi yoyo is to solve the high rate closure by preventing overshoot with trading excessive speed for altitude and so staying inside the opponent turn. Its use is to counter break turn and scissors. It works no matter what kind of aircraft you fly if the prerequisites are met. Just trying to pull nose up because you are in plane which has worse sustained turn rate at improper prerequisites will be your doom.
  • 0

#90 PeterGrozni

PeterGrozni
  • Posts: 152

Posted 12 August 2010 - 16:39

You're too kind :D Unfortunately, humour is not something I could teach you :P

No worries, I already know you can't teach.
  • 0

#91 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 12 August 2010 - 16:41

Please get a room or something, this has nothing to do with the Albatros D.II.
  • 0

#92 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 15 August 2010 - 20:03

I've just been flying some DH2, Albatros D2 matchups in QMB.

The poor DH2 even with ace AI set has absolutely no chance against the Albatros D2, even with me flying the D2. When I'm flying the DH2 in the weeds I'm always thinking "don't stall" as a stall at that hight is death, its continually scary as the low speed handling is so horrid. There seems to be no advantage you can use versus the Albatros, the thing that keeps me alive is that the AI can't shoot straight, the old sniper AI would have nailed me in seconds.

Switch to the Albatros and its a completely calm experience, you have speed, sharp aieleron response, stability and no sense that your stressing the airframe. low down there's no chance of a problem stall, you can just concentrate on turning as tight as possible and bringing your guns to bear, its almost dull.
  • 0

#93 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 16 August 2010 - 17:43

I don't think the problem is when you compare the D2 vs the DH2. I don't even think there is a problem when you compare it to the N11 or N17.

But when you compare its flight performance against the D3 and it can out turn it in a tight bank, or snap roll without loosing as much E, I can't get behind that. The D.II is very wrong in that respect, especially considering it is heavier, has a weaker Mercedes D.II engine, and is not a sesquiplane.
  • 0

#94 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 17 August 2010 - 11:12

But the D2 isn't just better its just hugely superior to the DH2, there's no contest.

Of course it should be better but by as much as we see in game? Its faster, dives well, rolls smartly, is built like a tank and has much easier low speed handling, its idiot proof. In rl Its hard to see how anyone flying a ROF DH2 could have survived more than a few seconds against a half decent pilot in the ROF Albatros D2 but in the rl aircraft they did. The DH2's performance was nerfed in beta, I can't believe that no one questioned the flight character of the Albatros although it was very early days I suppose.
  • 0

#95 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 17 August 2010 - 11:36

I can only comment on the open beta but we did, especially The2ndBigBang but we had no decisive data to convince Han. And back then we only had the N.11 and N.17 to compare it to, well and the D.III. So it was apparent but the superiority against the DH2 wasn't, and it wasn't nerfed, it was made more accurate because it was ridiculously good forcing some central pilots to fly Dr.Is ;) I still don't think it was made too weak, the pusher design is not really efficient so expecting anything beyond the E.III would be too much.
  • 0

#96 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 17 August 2010 - 12:00

I don't have a problem with the DH2, after reading contemporary reports it compares quite well. I think it performs as you'd expect in historical matchups against the Fokker E3 and NP11, but there's other threads about that.

Its the Albatros series that bug me, mostly the behaviour around a stall compared to the other aircraft in ROF. Its hard to quantify though, difficult to provide data for, as is the aileron response and roll rate.
  • 0

#97 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 22 August 2010 - 02:10

oh yeah shes a rocketship alright. I had a 1.7 K/d flying against 1918 planes. :?
  • 0

#98 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 22 August 2010 - 02:29

Its the Albatros series that bug me, mostly the behaviour around a stall compared to the other aircraft in ROF. Its hard to quantify though, difficult to provide data for, as is the aileron response and roll rate.

I wouldn't point fingers at the Albatros' roll rate and response when compared to the Pfalz D.IIIa.
  • 0

#99 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 22 August 2010 - 20:46

I thought the Pfalz D3a model had been confirmed as having the wrong shape wing or something, has it ever been fixed? The current Pflaz D3a FM seems to have been programmed on the same Friday afternoon as the Albatros :?

Tbh I have my doubts about the roll rates of several planes in game. No one seems to be able to answer why similar looking aircraft have such completely different roll rates, I mean not just a bit of difference but a massive difference.

I'd be happy if Neoqb said they were looking again at the handling of certain aircraft, rather than just its too fast or too slow.
  • 0

#100 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 22 August 2010 - 23:01

Ive been reading about the DII's appearance on the front, once pilots got used to it they reported shooting down the enemy for fun.

Check "Albatros Aces 2" plenty of references there.

Anyway back to ROF, and having played the historical 1916 mission today, the DII didnt own all by any means.

Fill it full of gas and try it. Its a great plane but comparable to the N17.

It should be an easy plane to get kills in against its peers. It was arguably the best of the albatros scouts. I still havent found a way to beat it in the DH2, but then again, WW1 avaiation was more than just plane performance. Its was about tactics too…
  • 0

#101 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 23 August 2010 - 16:52

I agree about the D2 being the best of the Albatros series, later they made them faster but less effective as a turn fighter, so MVR seems to have thought.

Like the DH2 The N17 has a very hard time against the D2, I'm not sure how you can describe them as comparable. The D2 is faster, stronger in a dive and handles much easier close to a stall. The only things the N17 has going for it are its climb near stall and a rapid defensive snap roll to avoid bullets. One of the tough things is manouvering with the D2 and keeping the control surfaces on the N17, reverse sides and I find AI N17s such easy meat its sad.

Anyhow I don't want to turn this into a N17 thread :)
  • 0

#102 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 23 August 2010 - 17:32

I agree about the D2 being the best of the Albatros series, later they made them faster but less effective as a turn fighter, so MVR seems to have thought.

It's funny that you say that, because I'm not always impressed with MVR's opinions about fighter aircraft. He wouldn't be the first Ace not to grasp the evolution of the fighter, where speed and firepower became demonstrably superior to sustained turn rate.
  • 0

#103 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 23 August 2010 - 17:34

Well mogster i think that comparing the D2 to its contemporarys is a good way to judge its FM.

Dont get me wrong, its hard in a N17 against a D2, but you can out climb it. So using BnZ tactics you can dictate the fight. Its tough though because of its slow roll you will struggle to hit a evasive target.

But that said if you keep your energy high you can dictate the fight. Of course if you fight the D2 on its own terms you will die horribly. Having that initative is a great boon. You can disengage, just stall for time or even get the kill if your skilled and lucky.

Ive even been in situations where a N11 has simply circle climbed out of the way. Sure he couldnt get me but I couldnt get him. Eventually some pals turned up and turned the fight.

Remember the real pilots would of appreciated this in the real plane. Being able to get out of dodge is a healthy asset in any plane.

But as I said I think the D2's dominance is historically correct. On another side note, it would be nice to have a Halberstadt DII to give some midway between the E.III and D2.
  • 0

#104 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 23 August 2010 - 18:20

I just have this difficulty with the ROF Albatros being a great turn fighter. You read accounts of it being used in what we'd now call BNZ because it couldn't turn with the DH2 and Nieuports, Albatros tended to dive through RFC formations making slashing attacks.

Maybe things will change when the Pup and Triplane arrive. The RFC will have superior turners then and true early 1917 opponents for the Albatros, they might even match the Albatros in easy fly terms…. :shock:

I agree about the Halberstadt for 1916, maybe also an early Fokker for a bit of mid 1916 variety.
  • 0

#105 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 23 August 2010 - 20:22

It makes sense to boom n zoom, regardless of the plane your in. It means you keep the initative. Dogfighting for real is pretty much the last thing you what to do in real life.

It wasnt just the DII though, the tactics employed had a lot to do with its dominance. I dunno, the DII as it
is atm makes sense. I would love to see an early fokker though as well. And yes I think the pup and tripehound should really even things out. But then again they will have to contend with the D.III. :)
  • 0

#106 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 25 August 2010 - 10:28

It looks like that ROF interepretation of some planes in turn rate characteristic looks very dubfull.

Here is a test of performacne ROF planes by MIG-77 including turn rate:

RoF test flight data

So we have such comparison: From best turning to the worst

Albatros DII - Albatros DIII < Albatros DVa < N17 < N11 - Fokker E III < Airco DH2


And what i expect to should be:

N-11- N17-Albatros DIII < Airco DH2 < Albatros DII - Albatros DVa - Fokker E III

Actually i think ROF is far off with some planes turn rate and it doesnt match RL opinions but also technical data.
  • 0

#107 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 25 August 2010 - 10:38

It looks like that ROF interepretation of some planes in turn rate characteristic looks very dubfull.

Here is a test of performacne ROF planes by MIG-77 including turn rate:

RoF test flight data

So we have such comparison: From best turning to the worst

Albatros DII - Albatros DIII < Albatros DVa < N17 < N11 - Fokker E III < Airco DH2


And what i expect to should be:

N-11- N17-Albatros DIII < Airco DH2 < Albatros DII - Albatros DVa - Fokker E III

Actually i think ROF is far off with some planes turn rate and it doesnt match RL opinions but also technical data.

I agree! The Alb DII should turn worse than the DIII (sesquiplane vs normal wings) and according to "Gunning for the Red Baron" the DH2 should outturn the DII.
  • 0

#108 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 25 August 2010 - 11:44

"Gunning for the Red Baron" never really states that. Plus the author is trying really hard to come with ideas how 35min (which is BS) dogfight could happen.
That book, while an overall nice try to present problems pilots faced in air combat, should be read very carefully as to not come out with such skewed interpretation as one can read on forum :)

Regarding sesquiplane vs biplane.. if it would only been that simple :)
  • 0

#109 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 25 August 2010 - 12:39

Yep, that table in GFTRB is based soley on wingloading. It got me too Ref but notice the same chart has the FEB2 as one of the best turners in the war, thats clearly wrong.
  • 0

#110 SYN_Bandy

SYN_Bandy
  • Posts: 2599
  • LocationWishing I was in the La Cloche

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:42

Mogster and J2Squid's last comments need to considered together, i.e. was the DII a good turn fighter and the undeniable fact that you're better off B'n'Zing whenever you can in any aerial combat.

IMHO over the course of a particular aircraft's frontline service life, as its opponents evolve and change, the tactics employed by its pilots would also have to change. In other words, a technologically advanced aircraft, such as DII in late 1916 and early 1917 with arguable dominance of the sky, can decide the time and place for engagement (unless surprised of course). Also some/most/all the German pilots were being versed with the Dicta Boelcke, so they should be handling their crates accordingly.

Therefore, the DII would have been flown B'n'Z against lessor opponents, and only later flown as a turn fighter when outclassed by the next generation of Entente buses. Of course this is a grand generalization, since the DII certainly did have to T'n'B dogfight.

The question is whether the DII, and other Central A/C, are holding their own too much for too long against changing Entente aircraft. Many say they are and I do not think it involves sour grapes on their part.
  • 0

#111 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 01 September 2010 - 10:16

I agree about the D2 being the best of the Albatros series, later they made them faster but less effective as a turn fighter, so MVR seems to have thought.

It's funny that you say that, because I'm not always impressed with MVR's opinions about fighter aircraft. He wouldn't be the first Ace not to grasp the evolution of the fighter, where speed and firepower became demonstrably superior to sustained turn rate.

Whatever his tactical vision was MVR's comments point at the later Albatros series being poor turners.

MVR like Albert Ball seems to have wanted the best turn fighter he could get his hands on. Something he could turn tightly in without losing much altitude and stand on its nose if needed to get a shot at a climbing enemy. Its not surprising then that MVR favoured the DR1 over the Albatros and Ball liked the N17 so much.
  • 0

#112 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 01 September 2010 - 14:01

Poor turning relative to what? A Sopwith Pup? I should hope so. In addition to failing to grasp the evolution of the fighter, MvR's comments are hopelessly vague. :) Combat pilots seem to be divisible into two camps: those who always believe their aircraft is bettter, and those who always believe their aircraft is worse. MvR is definitely in the latter camp.

It's not surprising that both MvR and Ball were shot down and killed, and that the highest scoring Ace who survived was a Frenchman in a Spad.
  • 0

#113 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 01 September 2010 - 14:41

It's not surprising that both MvR and Ball were shot down and killed, and that the highest scoring Ace who survived was a Frenchman in a Spad.

I think both played the numbers game. As much skill as there is in any one pilot the amount of time these two spent on the Western Front and engaged in combat was bound to mean sooner or later they made a mistake/lapse in judgement/moment of bad luck.

When you consider the average life expectancy was about 3 weeks they were living on borrowed time (even accounting for accrued experience, combat smarts and skill). Ball often came back shot to hell and was lucky not to have died a lot of times before and MvR was shot in the head, crashed and survived.

Even if they hadn't been fighting, aircraft were so unreliable and fragile that they were lucky to survive that long just putting the hours in, let alone fighting their planes.

It's nothing to do with TnB vs BnZ it's a numbers/statistics game- you roll the dice too many times and you lose.
  • 0

#114 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 01 September 2010 - 14:44

It's not surprising that both MvR and Ball were shot down and killed, and that the highest scoring Ace who survived was a Frenchman in a Spad.
Are you competing for dunce hat?
  • 0

#115 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 01 September 2010 - 15:13

It's not surprising that both MvR and Ball were shot down and killed, and that the highest scoring Ace who survived was a Frenchman in a Spad.
Are you competing for dunce hat?
No. It's impossible to compete with you.
  • 0

#116 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 01 September 2010 - 15:17

It's not surprising that both MvR and Ball were shot down and killed, and that the highest scoring Ace who survived was a Frenchman in a Spad.
Are you competing for dunce hat?

Forum rules:
-Hostility towards other forum members, as well as offensive language, is strictly prohibited. Don’t make your posts personal.

  • 0

#117 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 01 September 2010 - 15:18

It's not surprising that both MvR and Ball were shot down and killed, and that the highest scoring Ace who survived was a Frenchman in a Spad.
Are you competing for dunce hat?

Forum rules:
-Hostility towards other forum members, as well as offensive language, is strictly prohibited. Don’t make your posts personal.

It's also a violation of the duty to rational argument. Personal attacks are pseudo-reasoning.
  • 0

#118 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 01 September 2010 - 17:48

Gavagai, it is not my fault that you are ignorant on WW1 pilots. Claiming such nonsense and then being offended by someone pointing that out really does not help you change the fact :)
  • 0

#119 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 01 September 2010 - 18:06

Get this thread back on track without the bickering. Ive yet to see anything much constructive in this entire thread.
  • 0

#120 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 01 September 2010 - 18:16

Gavagai, it is not my fault that you are ignorant on WW1 pilots. Claiming such nonsense and then being offended by someone pointing that out really does not help you change the fact :)

Your conviction is not an argument, and neither is your bombast.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users