Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Triplane Pilot: Mikael Carlson


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 14 October 2010 - 01:46

After some searching, I found the post! Originally posted by SC/JG Ivank.

I will edit it in green where I feel extra comments are required.


I had the opportunity to spend half an hour on the phone with Mikael Carlson the builder and owner of a number of vintage aeroplanes including a replica Fokker DR1 powered by a genuine Rotary engine (The engine in his DrI is an original 110 HP Le Rhone with an Axial propeller). This aircraft has been set up as per original design and rigging documents. This phone conversation was specifically to discuss WWI aircraft flying characteristics and how ROF depicts them.

See here:

http://www.aerodrome.se/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.aerodrome.se/


We discussed a number of things with the aim of trying to apply these as standards for Rise of flight. The main points of discussion were:

COCKPIT NOISE
IN TRIM SPEEDS
GYROSCOPIC EFFECTS
ENGINE HANDLING
SLIP/SKID



COCKPIT NOISE
This was a revelation in Mikael's own words he said "The dreidekker is like being in an inferno.. " Basically he said the aerodynamic noise was so bad that he couldn't even hear his own engine. He indicated that frequent reference to the RPM gauge was required to check on engine operation, it can not to be done by ear.

RoF reduces these engine sounds for your enjoyment. If they were absolutely real, you would be done playing in about 20 minutes and be purchasing fancy new hearing aids.

IN TRIM SPEEDS
We had a long discussion here. As he said his DR1 is set up exactly in accordance with the relevant assembly and rigging manuals. He did say that some adjustment to tailplane incidence was required using washers or spacers to achieve the required incidence. This results in his DR1 being in trim at 160Kmh IAS at lower altitudes.

Washers and spacers is in fact how pilots back in the day would "trim" their aircraft.

GYROSCOPIC EFFECTS AND GENERAL HANDLING
The great majority of the conversation was on this subject. I indicated that the general observation most of us testers have had is that in the rotaries the gyroscopic effects we feel we believe is underdone and doesn't conform to the various articles we have read like pilots needing Full Left rudder in both turns to the right and left.

In general Mikael did not agree with this generally perceived view of Rotaries and precession particularly in normal flight speeds. He did say that at very very slow speeds Gyro torque could not be controlled by rudder. this can be seen in the video referenced later at the 4:11 mark over the top of a loop. In fact he described trying to do a good "display" loop over a display line to be a very demanding manoeuvre.

He did state that on most occasions he felt he was flying sideways and in fact believed he was always flying with slip or skid. The whole nature of the aeroplane and the forces acting on it was that you were forever trying to find the balance condition, but could never really ever achieve as any control input lead to a change in the state of play. In his words you never stop putting control inputs in on the DR1.

He said the DR1 was easy to side slip and could easily be held in Full slide slip with reduced power.

He discusses this video:

http://www.youtube.c...atch?v=yMBZgmiY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"> … edded#t=52 This link is broken, I will try to fix it later when I have some more time

In this video (the event occurs at 0:53) he was performing a roll and wanted to see if he could increase the rate of roll by using little more pro roll rudder, In this occasion he said he suddenly found himself flying sideways. This is clearly evident in the video and goes to show the extreme rudder authority of the DR1. As he describes it, this event caught him a little by surprise.

He also indicated that with the thick aerofoil section the aircraft had exceptional handling at the stall with almost no wing drop (power off). He also indicted that in his belief no WWI pilot ever pulled more than 4G in combat, this being a function of design.

He also indicated that the DR1 was an exceptionally clean or slippery aeroplane in straight and level flight and on the approach. He said it was quite unlike any of the other WWI aircraft festooned with rigging wires he had flown. In the conventionally rigged aircraft he said there was so much drag from the rigging that airspeed reduced quickly as soon as power was reduced. The DR1 on the other hand didn't do that. So much so that on his early approaches he had difficulty in getting the aircraft speed down as it caught him a little bit by surprise.

ENGINE HANDLING
He was quite adamant that in the DR1 Negative G was an absolute no no. in fact he went further saying that even just lowering the nose has to be done with care since with an unpressurized fuel system (it being totally gravity feed in the DR1) it was very easy to instantly starve the engine of fuel.

Note here that NEGATIVE G is LESS than 0 Gs. Any G from 0 to 5 is still positive G and you will maintain fuel flow. You can get a very nice nose track down at 0 G (0G is the same change on the airplane as from 1 to 2Gs, so you can have some perspective on what it means to be at 0G.

We discussed the use of blipping. This he described as an almost an art form and not a simple matter of just pressing and letting go the blip switch. It was only ever done at low power settings and then in a specific method that entailed combinations of throttle setting and exact phase of flight … liking going into the flare and immediately post flare depending on how much float was present, and also immediately after touchdown to get some slipstream over the fin and rudder to assist in directional control.

Blipping a Le Rhone or Clerget at full power is NOT the way those engines are meant to be run and can cause damage which we dont see in RoF. The real engines use a form of throttle and mixture control to get the full range of RPM where RoF gives us a little more control for playbility.

The findings I take away from the conversation for the improvement of ROF:

[Edit: I removed some of IvanKs findings since they are out of date as this is a VERY old article (maybe version 1.04?)]

On the subject of gyroscopics torque etc I came away with the distinct impression that this was not quite the bogey man we have come to believe. Mikael was not that overawed by it. Not forgetting we are talking here about a reasonably short coupled Fokker DR1 renowned for its agility. Now this makes (puts Helmet on) me think that perhaps what we are seeing in ROF is reasonably representative of the real thing. We by way of what we have read have developed the idea that Gyroscopic torque is a knife edge type thing just waiting to kill you. Putting this into perspective Mikael is a highly experienced aviator with a lot of experience in a huge number of aircraft types. Our average WWI aviator on the other hand was not. He arrived in his high performance fighter with no dual time and limited total time in relatively sedate stable training types. He then finds himself in a powerful 'relatively heavy' fighting machine with very different handling characteristics. This then I suggest might be the origin of the over exaggeration of the rotary gyroscopics. It certainly doesn't come across as a big deal to a modern experienced aviator like Mikael Carlson

When you carefully look at the video you see conventional rudder usage. There are no extreme rudder angles used to control nose position in steep turns or even in rapid roll reversals.
You don't see the famed "full left rudder in both left and right hand turns" a phrase that is regularly quoted in discussions of this subject.


I post this for educational and conversational purposes. Its a great article and has some eye opening information if you havent read it before.
  • 0

#2 Jonathan

Jonathan
  • Posts: 469

Posted 14 October 2010 - 02:01

Great find! Should be stickied! I'm looking forward to reading the discussion it brings.
  • 0

#3 Feathered_IV

Feathered_IV
  • Posts: 1575

Posted 14 October 2010 - 02:04

Fascinating stuff. Thank you!
I recall a similar interview where Carlson described the Dr1 rudder authority as "hysterical". Always remembered that.
  • 0

#4 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 14 October 2010 - 02:24

Very interesting indeed!
May those articles help for ROF improvement…
  • 0

#5 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 14 October 2010 - 04:03

Absolutely fantastic.
  • 0

#6 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 14 October 2010 - 06:38

Very interesting, thank you. The comments about gyroscopic forces not being as strong as common opinion has them is particularly striking. I'd always wondered about those "full left rudder" accounts. I think WF2 made similar remarks about the D.VIII she flew.
  • 0

#7 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 14 October 2010 - 07:03

Fantstic! Very…illuminating! Especially the part about gyroscopic effects. Thanks for posting.
  • 0

#8 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 14 October 2010 - 07:25

Thanks for finding this and posting it on the public forums!
Doesn't the "full left rudder" thing usually come into play with the Camel which has a way smaller rudder?
  • 0

#9 SYN_MrWolf

SYN_MrWolf
  • Posts: 807

Posted 14 October 2010 - 07:51

A good read! Thanks
  • 0

#10 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 14 October 2010 - 07:53

It's interesting what he says about feeling like it's constantly slipping. I spent the day yesterday in the imperial war museum archive for my thesis and (although it was not specifically what I was looking for) read some archived interviews with camel pilots and they talk (in several different interviews) of it not flying in the direction you point it and this making it hard to hit by the Germans as they use the wrong deflection shot.

Wilfred May eludes to this as the reason why MvR couldn't hit him- something like "I didn't know what I was doing so he couldn't either" and Yeates mentions something similar about constant slipping when flying the camel.

Great interview - thanks for posting it!
  • 0

#11 =FB=Chapay

=FB=Chapay
  • Posts: 637

Posted 14 October 2010 - 11:01

надо маркетологам дать задачу, чтоб для каждого самолёта была характеристика от летавших пилотов в виде двух трех фраз - (для примера Mikael Carlson) и поместить в интернет магазин! Thank you all!
  • 0

#12 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 14 October 2010 - 14:24

After reading Mikael Carlson observations im only more sure that gyroscopic effect in DR1 is too great expecially in intializing left turn banking. In ROF there is need plenty of rudder before you will start to bank left - if you will not push left rudder you will be not able to make left roll and gyroscopic effect will stop you roll and would try to move your nose in opposite direction. These is really much overdone.

Michael Carlson and videos with his DR1 flying confirmed clearly that gyroscopic effect wasnt such problem in these plane. At least no like it is in ROF.

I think and Micheal cofirm these also the more problem is with rudder sensivity and directional stability of these plane. These plane dont have vertical stabilizer or rather its vertical stabilizer is moving rudder area.

According to his "famous" spin during roll in airshow i think the problem was with too slow speed in inverted position in roll and too much rudder when he was tried to make faster roll. Gyroscopic effect had not soo much reson of his spin.

I think DR1 in ROF need dumping down gyroscopic effect expecially when you try to initializing left bank. I always say these.
  • 0

#13 Jonathan

Jonathan
  • Posts: 469

Posted 14 October 2010 - 14:35

I don't know if the Fokker DR.1's gyroscopic forces are overdone or not. But it seems fine to me. The engine isn't yanking me around or anything, and I have no issues at all turning left, even without the use of rudder (I posted a video testing this on another topic, do a search and I'm sure you'll find it). You just have to go easy on her, and she'll do what you tell her to do.

I would imagine it would be difficult to change how much torque the engine creates because Rise of Flight uses lots and lots of math to calculate it. They would probably have to reduce the mass of the engine or something, but that would undoubtably cause more problems with the center of gravity and other things.

-Jonathan-
  • 0

#14 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 14 October 2010 - 16:13

After reading Mikael Carlson observations im only more sure that gyroscopic effect in DR1 is too great expecially in intializing left turn banking. In ROF there is need plenty of rudder before you will start to bank left - if you will not push left rudder you will be not able to make left roll and gyroscopic effect will stop you roll and would try to move your nose in opposite direction. These is really much overdone.

[shakes head] He did not say you don't need to use plenty of rudder before you will start to bank left. Nor did he say that the gyroscopic effect in R.o.F. is overdone. These are your words, not his.

Michael Carlson and videos with his DR1 flying confirmed clearly that gyroscopic effect wasnt such problem in these plane.
At least no like it is in ROF.

That's subjective and unprovable. It's entirely possible that he would consider the R.o.F. gyro effect to also be "not much of a problem." That is, he considers the real Dr.I's gyro effect quite manageable, but he might also consider the R.o.F. Dr.I's gyro effect quite manageable. Just because he doesn't have a problem managing the real Dr.I and you have a problem managing the R.o.F. Dr.I does not mean that the two are modelled differently from each other.

The only way to know with reasonable certainty would be for Mr. Carlson to use R.o.F. long enough to get used to the limitations of a P.C. simulator (such as small P.C. monitors and short gaming joysticks, and all the unrealistic problems caused by these) which would affect his perception of the virtual Dr.I's flight characteristics, and afterward announce his findings on the similarities and dissimilarities between the real and virtual Dr.I. Which, unfortunately, won't happen, as he's a very busy guy.
  • 0

#15 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 14 October 2010 - 19:29

After reading Mikael Carlson observations im only more sure that gyroscopic effect in DR1 is too great expecially in intializing left turn banking. In ROF there is need plenty of rudder before you will start to bank left - if you will not push left rudder you will be not able to make left roll and gyroscopic effect will stop you roll and would try to move your nose in opposite direction. These is really much overdone.

[shakes head] He did not say you don't need to use plenty of rudder before you will start to bank left. Nor did he say that the gyroscopic effect in R.o.F. is overdone. These are your words, not his.

Michael Carlson and videos with his DR1 flying confirmed clearly that gyroscopic effect wasnt such problem in these plane.
At least no like it is in ROF.

That's subjective and unprovable. It's entirely possible that he would consider the R.o.F. gyro effect to also be "not much of a problem." That is, he considers the real Dr.I's gyro effect quite manageable, but he might also consider the R.o.F. Dr.I's gyro effect quite manageable. Just because he doesn't have a problem managing the real Dr.I and you have a problem managing the R.o.F. Dr.I does not mean that the two are modelled differently from each other.

The only way to know with reasonable certainty would be for Mr. Carlson to use R.o.F. long enough to get used to the limitations of a P.C. simulator (such as small P.C. monitors and short gaming joysticks, and all the unrealistic problems caused by these) which would affect his perception of the virtual Dr.I's flight characteristics, and afterward announce his findings on the similarities and dissimilarities between the real and virtual Dr.I. Which, unfortunately, won't happen, as he's a very busy guy.

Watch the video's of him flying and the control inputs (rudder deflection and ailerons) and especially when he turns or banks left.

I rest my case…(i'm sure you can guess what 'my case' is lol)

It IS interesting what he says about slipping…our DR1 and Camel seem to be TOO STABLE.
  • 0

#16 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 14 October 2010 - 19:42

Watch the video's of him flying and the control inputs (rudder deflection and ailerons) and especially when he turns or banks left.
I rest my case…(i'm sure you can guess what 'my case' is lol)

No, I'm confused. The format of your post appears to be contradicting mine but the content seems to imply agreement.

It IS interesting what he says about slipping…our DR1 and Camel seem to be TOO STABLE.

I disagree. I've said the same thing about the virtual Dr.I as Mr. Carlson said about the real one, and I said it before I heard him say it. I always seem to be slipping or skidding at all times. Without a slip-skid indicator, I can't fly coordinated. Once more, my experience in the sim matches his description of his experiences in the real deal. Y.R.M.V., but people need to stop saying stuff like, "See, the real pilot said the real plane was fast, and I think the virtual plane is slow, so his statement proves me right." Can anyone not see the problem with statements like that? (And yes, on the other side of the coin, it would also be wrong to say, "The real pilot said the real plane was fast, and I think the virtual plane is fast, so his statement proves me right.")
  • 0

#17 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 14 October 2010 - 20:57

Watch the video's of him flying and the control inputs (rudder deflection and ailerons) and especially when he turns or banks left.

I rest my case…(i'm sure you can guess what 'my case' is lol)

It IS interesting what he says about slipping…our DR1 and Camel seem to be TOO STABLE.

Exacly watching on flying Michale's Dr1 video it is clearly seen that he had no problem to turn left ( bank left) at any speed and used only small rudder input. Michael confrimed that gyro effect do not bother as much as directional instability of Dr1. In ROF there is opposite situation where gyro had much more effect than directional instability of these plane. It look really that gyro effect ( expecially during left bank) is overlarged in ROF comparing to real thing, the same directional stability is too good in ROF.

Of course Dr1 would be much more directionaly unstable comparing to Camel beacuse Camel had vertical stabiliser ( when Dr1 had only movable rudder area) and had much longer wings.
  • 0

#18 Jonathan

Jonathan
  • Posts: 469

Posted 14 October 2010 - 21:51

Below is my video and post I was talking about. It was posted in another thread about Mikael Carlson's plane, and its RoF counterpart. Basically someone posted a video of Mikael flying around in his DR.1 and implied it was nearly impossible to pull off the same maneuvers in RoF. I created this video in an attempt to show that it is infact very possible, and not that hard. I am a novice pilot, and at the time the video was made, I had almost no experience in the DR.1.

Here is a link to the original topic and post.

What is up with the Dr1?.1+left+turn#p113391



I apologize in advance for the lack of audio, I couldn't get it to work properly.

I made a video of me flying the DR.1. I took a full fuel load since I didn't know how much fuel was in the real DR.1 you showed us. Again, I am not very experienced with the triplane. I've only flown it about 10-12 times. But even then, I found that most of the maneuvers done in these videos were fairly easily done in RoF. So I don't understand why everyone is so worked up over it.

I take off in a straight line, and I found that you don't need to use a lot of rudder to stay straight if you slowly increase throttle as you start to roll down the airfield. If you suddenly crank the throttle down, it will swing you around for sure.

After I take off, I attempt the same type of climb that Micheal Carlson does in his DR.1. No problems. We can't tell exactly what angle Micheal Carlson is climbing at, but I managed to climb pretty easily at about 30-35 degrees for over 16 seconds (the length of time Micheal climbs in his video) with full fuel.

I turn right with no rudder, and level out. I then initiate a left turn with no rudder and found that although it was a little more difficult than a right turn, I didn't run into any major issues. I sustain the turn for quite some time, too.

After the left turn, I immediately climb at nearly 45 degrees from 2:50 to 3:03. No problems there, either.

After I level out, I try one of the left side "wingover" maneuvers that Micheal does. I first attempt it with no rudder at all, and found that it wasn't very stable. I then climb and do a series of 4 left side wingovers in a row with a small amount of left rudder, and found it to be very easy to do. I didn't do it quite as fast as Micheal, but almost. I wasn't pushing the aircraft at all though.

When I land the aircraft, I almost lose it :P. I am not used to landing the DR.1. I am able to land the N17 and N28 without any issues, even when wounded. To me they are easier to land, but this is more than likely because I have flown them more.

So to conclude, if a very inexperienced pilot like myself can do those maneuvers than I find it hard to believe that anyone has a hard time turning and rolling left. From what I've seen for myself, everything Micheal does in his videos is very possible in RoF…

-Jonathan-
  • 0

#19 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 14 October 2010 - 22:10

Do the left turn a bit quicker like you would in a dogfight and then tell me if you still don't run into problems. Watching you banking I thought this clip was in slow motion :)

If you roll her this way in a dogfight your plane's gonna be mince meat … :D

(edit for spelling corrections …)
  • 0

#20 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 14 October 2010 - 23:02

Jonathan you should firstly turn on realistic FM physic in your ROF settings.

I tried bankig right and left in DR1 without rudder input and in right side is not problem but when try to bank left (initializig left turn) gyro effect is so big that just stop your left rotation and try to roll plane in opposite direction (right side) and making him stall. These is what we are talking about.
  • 0

#21 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 14 October 2010 - 23:20

when try to bank left (initializig left turn) gyro effect is so big that just stop your left rotation and try to roll plane in opposite direction (right side) and making him stall. These is what we are talking about.

BTW it's almost as hard with Triplane ;)
  • 0

#22 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 14 October 2010 - 23:38

Exacly watching on flying Michale's Dr1 video it is clearly seen that he had no problem to turn left ( bank left) at any speed and used only small rudder input.

Mr. Carlson was not pulling nearly as much angle of attack as we do in our virtual dogfights. The yaw from gyro effect, I.R.L. and in the sim, does not occur when A.o.A. is neutral; it only occurs when you have a positive A.o.A. The greater the A.o.A., the greater the yaw. So, if you simply roll on your side (I.R.L. and in R.o.F.), you won't feel any yaw from gyro (and just a bit of adverse yaw from the ailerons) because A.o.A. is still low. But then if you gently pull back on the stick, giving a little bit of rudder, you'll get a little bit of gyro yaw from the positive A.o.A., but not so much that the little bit of rudder can't handle. This is what Mr. Carlson did in his turns (which are awesome to watch because they're bolder than anything anyone else pulls in real warbirds, but not nearly as extreme as the crazy stuff we pull in our virtual aircraft). Now if you, at this point, pull back a lot harder on the stick, you'll suddenly have a much higher A.o.A. and thus much more gyro yaw, and will need a much greater (perhaps even maximum) deflection of rudder to counter the yaw. As I said, I don't see any discrepancy between the reality and the sim. I doubt that Mr. Carlson has pulled max-alpha turns in his Dr.I, and if he has I'll bet he'd say that those ones needed quite a bit more rudder.
  • 0

#23 Jonathan

Jonathan
  • Posts: 469

Posted 15 October 2010 - 00:09

Jonathan you should firstly turn on realistic FM physic in your ROF settings.

Are you freaking kidding me!? Thanks for the laugh man, I needed it! Everything is done with full real settings. What on earth would I have to gain by spending a bunch of time testing left turns without realistic flight physics enabled? You seem to think I'm biased or something. Wrong. I simply did the test to find out what everyone was so up in arms about, and the video simply illustrates my findings.

Once again. LOL!

Do the left turn a bit quicker like you would in a dogfight and then tell me if you still don't run into problems. Watching you banking I thought this clip was in slow motion :)

If you roll her this way in a dogfight your plane's gonna be mince meat … :D

And my video was not to illustrate "dogfight" conditions. My video was to see if I could pull off the same moves that were shown in Mikaels video, as that is what was in question in the topic I originally posted in. And to be fair, Mikael is not pushing the DR.1 to its limits in "dogfight conditions". So really, using Mikael's video for an argument about how the plane should perform in those conditions is completely useless. Watch his videos, then watch mine again. I do things at nearly the same speed as he does. That was my point to begin with.

I tried bankig right and left in DR1 without rudder input and in right side is not problem but when try to bank left (initializig left turn) gyro effect is so big that just stop your left rotation and try to roll plane in opposite direction (right side) and making him stall. These is what we are talking about.

I know exactly what you guys are talking about. I know that its harder to BANK left in the DR.1 than it is to BANK to the right. But, it IS possible without rudder, you just have to go a little easy on her. Mikael was going pretty easy on his plane, and I was simply showing that if you fly it the way HE does, banking to the left is not really a big problem.

-Jonathan-
  • 0

#24 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 15 October 2010 - 02:24

Well said.
  • 0

#25 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 15 October 2010 - 02:53

Gyro forces are not created by AoA itself.

AoA is generated by high acceleration forces in the pitch axis by pulling or pushing on the flight controls. This same pitching that is creating the AoA is also displacing the gyroscope (the engine) which reacts to the applied force. While they do occur simultaneously, the AoA is not MAKING the gyro effects.

AoA will help exagerate gyro effects since high positive AoA occurs under 2 conditions: 1. Slow speed with positive Gs and 2. with high acceleration forces (high Gs). In the first case, slow speed, your controls will not be as effective as they are at higher speed, so they will generate less force to counteract gyroscopic forces for a given setting.

The reason you cant do the same maneuver in RoF that Mikael Carlson did in his DrI is due to the gyro and torque effects of the DrI in RoF. High AoA in the RoF DrI produces a pronounced torque roll (not even really gyroscopic) that you cant counter. Please feel free to try and replicate it.
  • 0

#26 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 15 October 2010 - 02:57

Gyro forces are not created by AoA itself.
AoA is generated by high acceleration forces in the pitch axis by pulling or pushing on the flight controls. This same pitching that is creating the AoA is also displacing the gyroscope (the engine) which reacts to the applied force. While they do occur simultaneously, the AoA is not MAKING the gyro effects.

Thanks for the correction. Yes, I should have said A.o.A. acceleration and not A.o.A. itself. So it's an acceleration of pitch.

The reason you cant do the same maneuver in RoF that Mikael Carlson did in his DrI is due to the gyro and torque effects of the DrI in RoF. High AoA in the RoF DrI produces a pronounced torque roll (not even really gyroscopic) that you cant counter. Please feel free to try and replicate it.

Which maneuver are you talking about?
  • 0

#27 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 15 October 2010 - 03:05

The messed up roll maneuver
  • 0

#28 MouseOne

MouseOne
  • Posts: 324

Posted 15 October 2010 - 03:25

Exacly watching on flying Michale's Dr1 video it is clearly seen that he had no problem to turn left ( bank left) at any speed and used only small rudder input.

Mr. Carlson was not pulling nearly as much angle of attack as we do in our virtual dogfights. The yaw from gyro effect, I.R.L. and in the sim, does not occur when A.o.A. is neutral; it only occurs when you have a positive A.o.A.


I think you're confusing P-factor and gyroscopic precession. The former is pretty much like any regular airplane, the latter is more pronounced with (but not unique to) rotary engines. Precession occurs when the engine/prop is moving. For example, when you power up the Camel, you need left rudder because Brits don't know which way God intended propellors to turn. That's from the P-factor creating a yaw moment to the right– high AoA. If you shove the nose down on takeoff, there will be an opposite moment to the left from the engine/prop moving downwards– that force is redirected 90 degrees in the direction of rotation. Note that this is more pronounced if you move the engine rapidly.

And before anyone says it, yeah, I'm leaving spiraling slipstream and rolling moments out of the discussion.


Edit: looks like Chili beat me to the punch.

As an aside, a MAJOR advantage a RL pilot has is seat of the pants feel. I dunno about other RL pilots here, but I hardly ever look at the ball. I like to look outside, because I hate flying into things. I just let my butt cheeks do the work for me (…might want to rephrase that…) I can't think of a good way to simulate that in a non-clunky way (unless you want to build a three axis tilt a whirl to play ROF in)(actually, that does sound kinda cool)


FWIW, I've been trying to get my DR1 owning friend to play this game. It's not a rotary equipped plane, but it was built using the plans from the Smithsonian. Things like adverse yaw and P-factor issues ought be somewhat akin to the original. He tells me its a slug when it comes to rolling, and yeah, you do end up using the rudder a bunch to get it to turn. And that's a guy with a butt load of tailwheel, antique and glider time, so when he says it needs rudder, I believe him.
  • 0

#29 WW1Addict

WW1Addict
  • Posts: 600

Posted 15 October 2010 - 03:33

I have seen a Triplane hang on its propeller, too. In fact, I have read the Baron loved to kill two-seaters that way, but I have not been able to do the same thing in RoF. Of course, I still have minimal time in the Dr.1.

I thought everyone knew the Dr.1 was flown (turned) primarily with rudder? :mrgreen:
  • 0

#30 MouseOne

MouseOne
  • Posts: 324

Posted 15 October 2010 - 04:07

I have seen a Triplane hang on its propeller, too. In fact, I have read the Baron loved to kill two-seaters that way, but I have not been able to do the same thing in RoF. Of course, I still have minimal time in the Dr.1.


Look at yourself
Look at Manfred von Richtofen
Look at yourself
Now back to Manfred von Richtofen
Unfortunately, you are not Manfred von Richtofen
But you can LOOK like Manfred von Richtofen with 777 Studio's ROF Historical Paint Schemes
Look at my hand.
It's got the unlock code to that…plane you like
Anything is possible with Rise of Flight
I'm in a triplane
  • 0

#31 WW1Addict

WW1Addict
  • Posts: 600

Posted 15 October 2010 - 05:15

Well, with time I will unlock it myself, thanks. But, I think you missed my point.

Like my attempt to hang on the propeller (I don't know how Richthofen did it), we cannot tell from the ground view (where the video camera was) precisely what the pilot is doing. Nor, does the camera reveal all the details from it's solitary position.

I wasn't implying the game is off, but instead that the devil is in the details. Get it? :mrgreen:
  • 0

#32 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 4221
  • LocationQld, Australia

Posted 15 October 2010 - 05:36

I have seen a Triplane hang on its propeller, too. In fact, I have read the Baron loved to kill two-seaters that way

I know the D7 was renowned for being able to "hang onto its prop" in a sustained fashion but never heard this about the DR1. Surely the real DR1 was too under-powered for a sustained "hang" ?
  • 0

#33 MouseOne

MouseOne
  • Posts: 324

Posted 15 October 2010 - 06:55

Well, with time I will unlock it myself, thanks. But, I think you missed my point.


Nah, just saw the opportunity for a gratuitous use of the Old Spice Guy meme.
  • 0

#34 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 15 October 2010 - 16:40

Exacly watching on flying Michale's Dr1 video it is clearly seen that he had no problem to turn left ( bank left) at any speed and used only small rudder input.

Mr. Carlson was not pulling nearly as much angle of attack as we do in our virtual dogfights. The yaw from gyro effect, I.R.L. and in the sim, does not occur when A.o.A. is neutral; it only occurs when you have a positive A.o.A. The greater the A.o.A., the greater the yaw. So, if you simply roll on your side (I.R.L. and in R.o.F.), you won't feel any yaw from gyro (and just a bit of adverse yaw from the ailerons) because A.o.A. is still low. But then if you gently pull back on the stick, giving a little bit of rudder, you'll get a little bit of gyro yaw from the positive A.o.A., but not so much that the little bit of rudder can't handle. This is what Mr. Carlson did in his turns (which are awesome to watch because they're bolder than anything anyone else pulls in real warbirds, but not nearly as extreme as the crazy stuff we pull in our virtual aircraft). Now if you, at this point, pull back a lot harder on the stick, you'll suddenly have a much higher A.o.A. and thus much more gyro yaw, and will need a much greater (perhaps even maximum) deflection of rudder to counter the yaw. As I said, I don't see any discrepancy between the reality and the sim. I doubt that Mr. Carlson has pulled max-alpha turns in his Dr.I, and if he has I'll bet he'd say that those ones needed quite a bit more rudder.

I must say that I am quite impressed. I hardly can tell the amount of angle of attack I pull in my plane. Even less when watching planes.
  • 0

#35 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 15 October 2010 - 16:43

I found this video of Mikael Carlson's Dreidecker that is showing even clearer that you hardly need big rudder deflection for a decent quick left bank manoeuver:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=vvE8oWzmKPQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">

And he is even pulling some amount of AoA to climb in his left turn …
  • 0

#36 WF2

WF2
  • Posts: 1485

Posted 15 October 2010 - 17:09

None of these planes in Real Life could "Hang on there Prop" in away you picture a Helicopter does. This term came from the very low stall speed and the large efficient prop these Fokker's had which, by zooming up from a slight dive one could climb, or point the nose, up and hold it there just about to "0" airspeed then stall off into level flight. This looks from the ground or another plane that it is hanging in the air.

BTW …. what Carlson states is very similar to the D.v III I flew. With one big longer wing she was a little less on the gyro effect then the Dr.1, but not much.
  • 0

#37 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 15 October 2010 - 17:55

Another video (which is a bit shakey sometimes) that also shows how little Mikael uses rudder when banking: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=mWIELN0sppE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">
  • 0

#38 MouseOne

MouseOne
  • Posts: 324

Posted 15 October 2010 - 18:06

Looks like he (shock, shock) uses it when rolling into the bank, then doesn't need much after that. In other words, it's an airplane.
  • 0

#39 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 15 October 2010 - 18:09

Looks like he (shock, shock) uses it when rolling into the bank, then doesn't need much after that. In other words, it's an airplane.
:lol:

Then they ran out of film but I have it on good authority that he did a complete 180 with no bank and aileron and flew off in the other direction without losing any altitude or even speed.
  • 0

#40 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 15 October 2010 - 18:09

@Mouse: You see more than me. For me it looks as if he uses almost none or very little (unlike one needs to in Rof) to initiate a roll either to the left or the right.

Of course one needs a bit of rudder. The point here is, if you have missed it, Mouse, that in Rof one needs so MUCH more for the Dreidecker than shown in any of the videos I have seen of Mikael Carlson's DR1.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users