Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Albatross D.2


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#121 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 01 September 2010 - 18:21

Strike One!
  • 0

#122 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 01 September 2010 - 22:32

D.II Maneuverability

Reposting this info on the D.II

The2ndBigBang wrote:
Drag

A biplane is a fixed-wing aircraft with two main wings. The Wright brothers' Wright Flyer used a biplane design, as did most aircraft in the early years of aviation. While a biplane wing structure has a structural advantage, it produces more drag than a similar monoplane wing. Improved structural techniques and materials and the need for greater speed made the biplane configuration obsolete for most purposes by the late 1930s.

Variations on the biplane include the sesquiplane, where one wing (usually the lower) is significantly smaller than the other, either in span, chord, or both. Sometimes the lower wing is only large enough to support the bracing struts for the upper wing. The name means "one-and-a-half wings." This significantly reduces interference drag while retaining the structural advantages of a biplane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biplane" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biplane


This is to explain why a sesquiplane has a better performance envelope than a standard biplane. Sesquiplanes produce less drag


The2ndBigBang wrote:
Albatros D.I

Known to Allied aviators as the German “Spad,” the Albatros D.I, Appearing in 1916, is a high-speed type of machine, technically termed a destroyer and armed with two machine guns. The one shown in Fig. 48 was shot down in the British lines. It is a conglomerate copy of the French Nieuport and Moräne and the British Sopwith types, though equipped with a much heavier motor and lacking in the speed range of these machines. (History of Airplanes)http://acepilots.com...an/albatros-di/

The D.I had a relatively high wing loading for its time, and was not particularly manoeuvrable. This was compensated by its superior speed and firepower,[2] and it quickly proved the best all-round fighter available.

A total of 50 pre-series and series D.I aircraft were in service by November 1916, replacing the early Fokker and Halberstadt D types, giving real "teeth" to the Luftstreitkräfte's new Jagdstaffeln (fighter squadrons). Further production of D.Is was not undertaken, however; instead, a reduction in the gap between the top and bottom planes in order to improve the pilot's forward and upward vision resulted in the otherwise identical Albatros D.II,[1] which became Albatros' first major production fighter.http://en.wikipedia....ki/Albatros_D.I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia....ki/Albatros_D.I

Albatros D.II

Albatros designers Thelen, Schubert and Gnädig produced the D.II in response to pilot complaints about poor upward vision in the Albatros D.I. The solution was to reposition the upper wing 36 cm (14 in) closer to the fuselage and stagger it forward slightly. Rearrangement of the cabane struts also improved forward view. The D.II otherwise retained the same fuselage, engine installation, and armament as the D.I.[1] Basic performance was unchanged. Idflieg ordered an initial batch of 100 D.II aircraft in August 1916.

D.IIs formed part of the initial equipment of Jagdstaffel 2, the first specialized fighter
squadron in the German air service. Famous pilots included Oswald Boelcke and Manfred von Richthofen. With its high speed and heavy armament, the D.II won back air superiority from Allied fighter types such as the Airco DH.2 and Nieuport 11. http://en.wikipedia....i/Albatros_D.II" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia....i/Albatros_D.II
This is to explain the progression of the albatross from the D.I to the D.II. There were some small adjustments but it maintained very similar handling characteristics. The albatross had a “high wing loading for its time, and was not particularly maneuverable.”

The Albatros was more maneuverable than the Halberstadt and Eindecker, but when compared to planes like the Nieuport, it is not very maneuverable. It’s two advantages were speed and firepower


The2ndBigBang wrote:
Albatros DIII


Work on the prototype D.III started in late July or early August 1916.[1] The date of the maiden flight is unknown, but is believed to have occurred in late August or early September.[1] Following on the successful Albatros D.I and D.II series, the D.III utilized the same semi-monocoque, plywood-skinned fuselage. At the request of the Idflieg (Inspectorate of Flying Troops), however, the D.III adopted a sesquiplane wing arrangement broadly similar to the French Nieuport 11.

The D.III entered squadron service in December 1916, and was immediately acclaimed by German aircrews for its maneuverability and rate of climb.[3] Two faults with the new aircraft were soon identified. Like the D.II, early D.IIIs featured a Teves und Braun airfoil shaped radiator in the center of the upper wing, where it tended to scald the pilot if punctured. From the 290th D.III onward, the radiator was offset to the right.http://en.wikipedia..../Albatros_D.III" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia..../Albatros_D.III

As a sesquiplane biplane (the lower wings shorter than the upper (a practical design feature pulled from the French-made Nieuport 11 fighters), the D.III was a slight departure from the previous Albatros offerings. This also provided some new challenges in the Albatros design as it was soon found that failures of the leading edge and lower wing ribs were becoming all too common - leading to cracks and outright failures.

Nevertheless, the D.III proved some worth and remained an aircraft of choice for a time. In subtle ways noticed mostly by her pilots, the D.III was an improvement over the preceding D-series designs. Her maneuverability and rate-of-climb (vital to any dogfighter worth her weight) were noted assets as were the changes to improve pilot protection and visibility http://www.militaryf...aircraft_id=201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.militaryf...ry.com/aircraft … aft_id=201


This explains that the D.III is a sesquiplane and German pilots liked it for it’s “Maneuverability and rate of climb.” However, like the Nieuport planes, it should have a weak lower wing.

The D.II is a biplane, its lower wing will produce more drag and turbulence than the lower wing of the D.III because of the added surface area. The D.II should bleed more airspeed in its turn. The D.II has both less lift and has more drag than the D.III. It also has a weaker engine 20hp. It should not handle as elegantly as it does.

Reasons Alb D.II should perform worse in a turn than the Albatros D.III

-Not a Sesquiplane (More Drag)
-Less Powerful Engine -20hp (Less Thrust)
-Slower Rate of Climb (Less Lift)
-13kg heavier (More Weight)
  • 0

#123 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 01 September 2010 - 22:45

Nice post ;)
  • 0

#124 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 01 September 2010 - 23:00

Thanks for that post!

What strikes me as conflicting, is that the DII went from not a very manoeuvrable plane at all, to a plane where supposedly manoeuvrability was one of its main assets. I see where the DIII would be more manoeuvrable, but enough to constitute that?

Of course, the DIII is LESS manoeuvrable in ROF, so that's WAY off, regardless of the above question.

Also, according to your sources, it is STILL supposed to be more manoeuvrable than the Fokker EIII, and neither should be as manoeuvrable as the Nieuport.

In ROF, the differences aren't all that pronounced, with the EIII having a very bad rollrate but turning on a dime, and the N11 hardly being any better than the DII, if at all.
  • 0

#125 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 01 September 2010 - 23:21

Thanks for that post!

What strikes me as conflicting, is that the DII went from not a very manoeuvrable plane at all, to a plane where supposedly manoeuvrability was one of its main assets. I see where the DIII would be more manoeuvrable, but enough to constitute that?

Of course, the DIII is LESS manoeuvrable in ROF, so that's WAY off, regardless of the above question.

Also, according to your sources, it is STILL supposed to be more manoeuvrable than the Fokker EIII, and neither should be as manoeuvrable as the Nieuport.

In ROF, the differences aren't all that pronounced, with the EIII having a very bad rollrate but turning on a dime, and the N11 hardly being any better than the DII, if at all.

It has to be taken into perspective.

The E.III was a highly maneuverable plane… against lumbering two seaters. The E.III was driven out of the skies by the arriving entente single seat aircraft.

The interum plane was the Halberstadt which was maneuverable… when compared to the E.III but not maneuverable when compared to the Nieuport and DH2.

Finally the Germans get the D.II, which was fast, well armed, and sturdy. Again.. compare it to the Halberstadt, and it is very maneuverable. Compare it to the Nieuport, it was not too maneuverable.

By the time Bloody April rolled around, Germans had the D.III, which was faster, better armed, and more maneuverable than most Entente planes.

I just think there should be more of a difference between the D.2 and the D.3. I'm not going to nit-pick and try to compare it against the DH2 or Nieuport 17 because they are completely different designs and their top speeds are wrong in game (especially the DH2 which is 20kph too slow).
  • 0

#126 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 02 September 2010 - 10:04

So to not talk about apples and oranges… we need to know what is your definition of maneuverability The2ndBigBang.
  • 0

#127 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 02 September 2010 - 10:10

Thanks for that post!

What strikes me as conflicting, is that the DII went from not a very manoeuvrable plane at all, to a plane where supposedly manoeuvrability was one of its main assets. I see where the DIII would be more manoeuvrable, but enough to constitute that?

Of course, the DIII is LESS manoeuvrable in ROF, so that's WAY off, regardless of the above question.

Also, according to your sources, it is STILL supposed to be more manoeuvrable than the Fokker EIII, and neither should be as manoeuvrable as the Nieuport.

In ROF, the differences aren't all that pronounced, with the EIII having a very bad rollrate but turning on a dime, and the N11 hardly being any better than the DII, if at all.

It has to be taken into perspective.

The E.III was a highly maneuverable plane… against lumbering two seaters. The E.III was driven out of the skies by the arriving entente single seat aircraft.

The interum plane was the Halberstadt which was maneuverable… when compared to the E.III but not maneuverable when compared to the Nieuport and DH2.

Finally the Germans get the D.II, which was fast, well armed, and sturdy. Again.. compare it to the Halberstadt, and it is very maneuverable. Compare it to the Nieuport, it was not too maneuverable.

By the time Bloody April rolled around, Germans had the D.III, which was faster, better armed, and more maneuverable than most Entente planes.

I just think there should be more of a difference between the D.2 and the D.3. I'm not going to nit-pick and try to compare it against the DH2 or Nieuport 17 because they are completely different designs and their top speeds are wrong in game (especially the DH2 which is 20kph too slow).

I'm just comparing your statements to RoF, and see a large difference between the two.

(that doesn't mean I'm adding more value to either)
  • 0

#128 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 02 September 2010 - 10:36

What is manoeuvrability, turn, roll rate, rudder response…?

Hmmm, so the thiner lower wing on the D3 creates less drag, so more speed for less power. But presumably it also produces less lift so would compromise turning ability. Its probably more complicated than that though.

Like I've said before I'd like to have the earlier faster and lighter DH2 to fight the D2 in. The current DH2 flies like a tank, you "can't" fight the D2 in it.
  • 0

#129 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 02 September 2010 - 12:43

One thing I dont understand (and all I am doing is asking for is enlightenment) is that if the DH2 is slower and heavier due to its larger petrol tank. Why is it still lumbering with a low fuel load?

Squirrel, do you have any data about the DH2's top speed? (Again just asking).
  • 0

#130 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 02 September 2010 - 12:49

So to not talk about apples and oranges… we need to know what is your definition of maneuverability The2ndBigBang.

maybe hes talkin about "stall intention or stall tendency" (sry couldnt find a beter terms in my "english)" in turns…or constant turn without stall….although Dh2 was maneuverable (that means fast on roll, able to do tight turns, very responsive controls etc.) it had a nasty tendency to stall….or Im wrong?
  • 0

#131 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 02 September 2010 - 12:51

I belive it had a nasty tendency to spin with the centre of gravity being slap bang in the centre (if you know what i mean). Wasnt it called the spinning incinerator?
  • 0

#132 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 02 September 2010 - 12:54

I belive it had a nasty tendency to spin with the centre of gravity being slap bang in the centre (if you know what i mean). Wasnt it called the spinning incinerator?

yes…but its not the DH2 but Alb D2 which is a bit wrong imho…currently D2 is better than D3 in all aspects….and much, much better than DH2…I know we have the heavier DH2 and that D2 was better than DH2 but online you have no chance in DH2 vs D2…is that how it was in WW1?
  • 0

#133 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 02 September 2010 - 14:44

currently D2 is better than D3 in all aspects…

That's not true. If you use a climbing turn in the DIII you will most certainly end out on top. Problem is, before you get that far, the DII still has a chance to point its nose up and shoot you down.

But when it comes to climbing, the DII is very much inferior to the DIII.
  • 0

#134 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 02 September 2010 - 14:54

currently D2 is better than D3 in all aspects…

That's not true. If you use a climbing turn in the DIII you will most certainly end out on top. Problem is, before you get that far, the DII still has a chance to point its nose up and shoot you down.

But when it comes to climbing, the DII is very much inferior to the DIII.


ahh yes in a climb is a bit better…ur right…however if I need to choose between the two I will choose D2 for D2 vs D3 dogfight…
  • 0

#135 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 02 September 2010 - 14:56

And I'd be right with ya :)

(edit: but in the real air war climbrate was even more important than it is in ROF)
  • 0

#136 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 02 September 2010 - 16:42

So to not talk about apples and oranges… we need to know what is your definition of maneuverability The2ndBigBang.

With the D.II I am speaking about the general performance in a banked turn and its ability to snap roll without losing the same amount of airspeed and lift as the D.III.

The D.III is fairly forgiving, but it behaves more like I would expect from a plane than the D.II. The D.III will slowly sink to the ground in a steep banked turn. The D.II, however, is less prone to loosing altitude in its turn.

Yes, the D.III can currently out climb the D.II and I would prefer it over the D.II in any dogfight, but because these two planes have such a similar design, I would expect the D.III's better lift, drag, weight, and speed to translate into a banked turn as well. To put it another way, try notching down the power in the D.III's engine to match the RPMs delivered by the D.II's 160 hp engine and note the drop in performance.
  • 0

#137 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 04 September 2010 - 16:37

I must have too much time on my hands.

I've just done a few experiments trying to gaugue the different levels of engine torque present in the different ROF aircraft. I set up a QMB scramble and tried to get airborne without using my pedals so rudder centred feet panted on the floor. Results……


Camel - Couldn't get off the ground, torque pulls aircraft in a big circle.

SE5a - Much less pull on takeoff than the Camel or Spad, mild pull to left(?), got off the ground but the old girl hates turning without rudder input, anything less than a very shallow bank has the nose pitching up and the stall shaker coming on.

Albatros 2 - No discernable torque, no pull to left or right, take off as normal, in the air steeply banked turns possible without stalling.

Albatros DVa - Similar to Albators 2 but a very slight pull to the left on the takeoff run. Doesn't like turning without the rudder quite as much as the D2 but there's still no aggressive stall behavior.

Spad 13 - Couldn't get off the ground, loads of torque, tight right (?) circle.

Fokker D7 - Less torque than Spad but pulls stongly straight after going full throttle. Crashed into hangar while driving in a circle trying to take off :)

Nieuport 11 - Loads of torque… Tight circle on takeoff, nearly rolled over.

The obvious question is where's the torque in the Albatros FM, its there in the Fokker D7 which has the same engine as the Albatros D5, yes. Also, the SE5a doesn't require much rudder on takeoff compared to the Spad, althought the Viper is very different to the Hisso engine.
  • 0

#138 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 05 September 2010 - 23:34

Nice tests…would love to hear a reply from those who know more about this kind of thing.
  • 0

#139 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 06 September 2010 - 06:57

I flew a bit of singleplayer with the D.VII the past week and I noticed that the D.VII goes way beyond 1500RPM in a level flight with good engine temp, can somebody confirm whether or not the D.Va does this as well? I don't recall every seeing the Mercedes exceed 1400 RPM other than in a dive.
  • 0

#140 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 06 September 2010 - 14:49

All Albatros (i think all german inline engine planes except the D.II) have a normal RPM of about 1500 at ground-level.
  • 0

#141 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 06 September 2010 - 15:20

Well mine was going 1530-1550, I guess one does not spend much time flying straight but I recall always being short of 1500 when flying them online.
  • 0

#142 SJK

SJK
  • Posts: 164

Posted 09 September 2010 - 19:56

One thing I don't get is why the dh2 was plugged into the flight model, but when in beta testing was proclaimed to be to good, it was toned down. But the D2 was allowed to come out better than the d3? If the the d2 was so good why did German high command want the n17 copied so badly? A sim should at least play by it's own rules if nothing else. I want the original ROF dh2.
  • 0

#143 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 09 September 2010 - 22:03

Welcome in the hollywoodrofairquakeworld KarlMarxman so :P
  • 0

#144 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 09 September 2010 - 22:08

Welcome in the hollywoodrofairquakeworld KarlMarxman so :P

with such stupid posts you are loosing your credibility ;)
  • 0

#145 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 10 September 2010 - 14:09

One thing I don't get is why the dh2 was plugged into the flight model, but when in beta testing was proclaimed to be to good, it was toned down. But the D2 was allowed to come out better than the d3? If the the d2 was so good why did German high command want the n17 copied so badly? A sim should at least play by it's own rules if nothing else. I want the original ROF dh2.

This is a good point- they shouldn't balance the planes like it's classes in call of duty.

If onewas better thananother it should be better in the game. Real life wasn't balanced it was a seesaw of progress every improvement you opponent made forced you to make another.
  • 0

#146 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 10 September 2010 - 14:20

[sarcasm] Oh, nice! There is nothing as good as good conspiracy theory. [/sarcasm]

Truth is more simple (and boring). They just did find some bug/wrong data in DH2 flight model and corrected it.
  • 0

#147 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 10 September 2010 - 14:54

Maby after 1000 thousend topics they will at least find that something is not right with manouverbility of Albatros DII, N11, N17 and some others?
  • 0

#148 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 10 September 2010 - 15:31

I dont think that number of topics have anything to do with it…
  • 0

#149 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 10 September 2010 - 15:32

I think having 1000 topics on the same subjects achieves the contrary..
  • 0

#150 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 10 September 2010 - 15:43

Yea i forgot to turn "sarcasm mode" on
  • 0

#151 SJK

SJK
  • Posts: 164

Posted 11 September 2010 - 03:26

If the pup doesn't out turn the d2 I'm going to have Tantrum :lol:
  • 0

#152 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 11 September 2010 - 13:14

It'll probably out turn the D2 but as with the Camel that level of performance will require quite a bit of skill to achieve.
  • 0

#153 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 11 September 2010 - 13:17

I don't think so- it has none of the reputation of the camel, much more stable.

It was meant to be a joy to fly and a pilot's friend (same as the Tripe- although less flimsy. I don't think I've read anything other than positive reports of the pup. It's only flaw is it was only armed with one gun.

Having said that though twitchiness is what makes the Camel deadly.
  • 0

#154 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 11 September 2010 - 13:41

I mean in ROF terms, that's how I expect it to be modelled.

The Pup, and Triplane, are reputed to be a nice flyers but they can't really be easier to fly than the ROF D2 can they? If they model any noticeable torque effects it'll be more difficult to handle than the ROF D2. The D2 has no noticeable engine torque effects on takeoff and I can't find any in flight tbh.
  • 0

#155 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 21 September 2010 - 03:01

I've been meaning to do this for a while, take the different Albs up to compete and compare. I've mostly been interested in the D.II vs the other Albs because I had a suspicion that the D.II turned better than the D.V and D.III.

End results-

My final impression is that the D.II handles extraordinarily well when compared to the D.V and D.III. It has excellent energy retention. I get the sense that the D.III has more resistance when you pull back and it takes a little bit longer to recover in a stall than the D.II. The D.V is pretty much the same speed as the D.II and although its rate of climb is also slightly better, it's very hard to get on a D.II's tail. The D.II fairly closely matches the performance of the PfalzD.IIIa, in fact I would say it turns 'slightly' better, however it does not have the climb rate.

I also noticed the D.II has weak wings when compared to the Albatros D.III and D.Va, which is odd because it was supposed to be a very safe plane. The biplane design should provide better support.

Turning Track D.III vs D.II

Note about the testing: We were interrupted a few times because we did this on an open server. I think at the beginning of the track we are bounced by a Pfalz D.III and a Fokker DVII. Neither plane was hit, so we went on with the testing. Now I realize pilot skill has a lot to do with this turning, we both took up the planes and turned circles with each other. I had an easier time turning on Capt. Darling than he did me. Climbing turns worked slightly, but the D.III and D.Va couldn't maintain the energy to keep up with the D.II enough to get their guns on it.

I hope the D.II flight model can be tweaked, it doesn't fit what I've read about the plane. It should be stronger, and less maneuverable than it currently is. Its energy retention is a but too good, it should produce a little more drag in its turns because of the larger lower wing.

More drag, less lift, more weight, and weaker engine should translate into a lesser performance, but the plane remains an anomaly.
  • 0

#156 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 21 September 2010 - 03:55

I seriously feel bad fighting N.11's and N.17's in the D2. You don't even have to try.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#157 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 21 September 2010 - 07:29

I read recently that the (DI) DII and DIII were designed and built simultaneously.

The first Albatri shipment to reach the front in late june 1916 were 12 D types (10 DI's 1 DII and 1 DIII).

One of the first encounters was against No 24 Squadron flying DH2's. Capt J O Andrews reports.

"At 1210 hrs, three HA (hostile aircraft) near Ginchy attacked Captain Andrews and Lt Glew. They were a new type. Extremely fast and climbing quickly. Biplane with streamline propeller boss, apparently single seater. The Tailplane was very large and rounded, not a fish tail. The HA kept above the de H's, diving, firing and climbing again. The encounter lasted 30 minutes, during which time Capt Andrews and Lt Glew were only able to fire a few shots owing to their inferior position underneath and their inability to outclimb the hostile machines. At 1240 hrs the HA turned away east".

When the first real shipment of DIIIs arived at the front they were warmly received.

Ltn Rudolf Nebel of Jasta 5 wrote "The DIII ws faster than the DII and much better in a climb. This is all the more remarkable because the Albatros DII is already superior to all enemy types".
  • 0

#158 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 21 September 2010 - 11:49

Still the same paradox, RL vs online dogfight. IRL Speed, climb and dive were key, online people primarily looks for sustained turn…

Does turn rate matter? No. This sunday 1.PL and hq had a match, 6on6. The planes were Dolphin/S.E.5a/Spad vs D.XII/D.VII/D.Va/D.IIIa. Consequently it was a big BnZ fight with the Germans trapped over their airfield most of the time, apart from the very first start.

The entente won both rounds (one round was won by 1, one by 6 kills, or 12-11 and 13-7 respectively).
  • 0

#159 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 21 September 2010 - 11:54

Still the same paradox, RL vs online dogfight. IRL Speed, climb and dive were key, online people primarily looks for sustained turn…

Does turn rate matter? No. This sunday 1.PL and hq had a match, 6on6. The planes were Dolphin/S.E.5a/Spad vs D.XII/D.VII/D.Va/D.IIIa. Consequently it was a big BnZ fight with the Germans trapped over their airfield most of the time, apart from the very first start.

The entente won both rounds (one round was won by 1, one by 6 kills, or 12-11 and 13-7 respectively).

Nope, we won as centrals too, by only 23 points though ;)
  • 0

#160 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 21 September 2010 - 12:50

It'll probably out turn the D2 but as with the Camel that level of performance will require quite a bit of skill to achieve.

I'm no Camel jock, but my first multiplayer fight was in a Camel vs the D.II, and I out-turned that D.II with the speed of a hot blond turning to catch her reflection in a passing store front window. :lol:

The Camel vs. any of the Albatrosses is one of the most lopsided matchups in the game.

Still the same paradox, RL vs online dogfight. IRL Speed, climb and dive were key, online people primarily looks for sustained turn…

Imp, I prefer speed, climb, and dive, and I only dogfight on the internet. :)
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users