Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

SE5a FM - review & fixes!


  • Please log in to reply
331 replies to this topic

#1 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 14 August 2011 - 16:51

Not a huge difference, but the Viper SE5a was a little bit faster and retained more performance at altitude.

Speed at Altitude (Hispano/Viper):

6500ft: 119mph/120mph
10000ft: 114/116
15000ft: 98/105

Climb to altitude:
6500ft: 8:00/7:50
10000ft: 14:15/13:42
15000ft: 29:30/28:12

From Guttman's SE5a vs Albatros DV

And, btw, our SE5a blows both of those figures out of the water in climb time to 10,000ft.

Those figures are pretty bad though. An Albatros D.III has roughly the same climbtime to 3000 m /10,000 ft).

But then i wouldn't use the duel series as a source for that (even though i own all of those WW1 duel books).

But i also have a hard time finding anything that supports the climb performance of the SE5a in ROF. Most figures say a bit less than 11 minutes to 10,000 ft.

Right, and the N17 supposedly climbed better to 10,000ft, which was one of the reasons why Ball preferred it.

I just did an in-game test:

5:36 to 6,500ft
9:38 to 10,000ft

Anyone have good SE5a data that is closer to the one we have in the game?
  • 0

#2 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 14 August 2011 - 18:41

Right, and the N17 supposedly climbed better to 10,000ft, which was one of the reasons why Ball preferred it.
He preferred it to the SE5 though, the SE5a was not avaliable yet.

I attached performance data from Profile Publications No.01 SE5a.

Attached Files

  • Attached File  PP01.jpg   104.41KB   2868 downloads

  • 0

#3 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 14 August 2011 - 18:48

Nice chart. It makes the case for having an earlier SE5a, too. (As for Ball, I thought he outright refused to fly the SE5. He continued to fly the N17 even after an SE5a was available, isn't that right?)

So, 9:38 in the game, vs 10:50 for the data. That's an 11% difference, which is well over the threshold of supposedly acceptable error.
  • 0

#4 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 14 August 2011 - 19:37

He continued to fly the N17 even after an SE5a was available, isn't that right?)

Nope. He died in May 1917, first SE5a were not seen in France till late summer 1917.
  • 0

#5 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 14 August 2011 - 21:10

Good to know, thanks!
  • 0

#6 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 14 August 2011 - 21:27

I've a magazine on the way that has flight tests on a replica SE5a.

Not sure if will be any good yet, since I don't know what replica they used and what kind of tests they did - but I'm still curious ;).
  • 0

#7 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 14 August 2011 - 22:11

Comparative Performance of Various Airscrews for SE5a with Wolseley Viper Engine

Reports & Memoranda No. 704

Attached Files


  • 0

#8 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 14 August 2011 - 22:13

Comparative Performance of Various Airscrews for SE5a with Wolseley Viper Engine

Reports & Memoranda No. 704

…continued

Attached Files


  • 0

#9 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 14 August 2011 - 22:14

Comparative Performance of Various Airscrews for SE5a with Wolseley Viper Engine

Reports & Memoranda No. 704

…continued

Attached Files


  • 0

#10 navair2

navair2
  • Posts: 1467
  • LocationIllinois, USA

Posted 14 August 2011 - 22:31

He continued to fly the N17 even after an SE5a was available, isn't that right?)

Nope. He died in May 1917, first SE5a were not seen in France till late summer 1917.

So I guess these pictures I'm seeing on the web and this article are wrong?

Link: http://albertball.ho.../Biography.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://albertball.ho.../Biography.html

This clearly says he flew S.E.5 A4850 on at least two occasions.

EDIT: Ahhh…I see now, he preferred his Nieuport over the SE5's that were available in Spring, 1917…the "A" model did not enter service until later….my mistake.
  • 0

Case: Corsair 650D Motherboard: AsRock Z77 Extreme4 PSU: Antec TruePower New 750 Blue CPU: Intel i5-2500K ( Socket 1155 )

CPU Cooler: ZalMan CNPS9500A LED GPU: EVGA GTX 580 MEM: 8 GB G.Skill PC12800 DDR3 1600
Soundcard: Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Monitor: Samsung 2343 BWX 23"@ 2048 x 1152 OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit


#11 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 16 August 2011 - 07:02

So, 9:38 in the game, vs 10:50 for the data. That's an 11% difference, which is well over the threshold of supposedly acceptable error.


Too good SE5a climb perfomance has been known long time…
  • 0

#12 borntoolate

borntoolate
  • Posts: 332

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:04


Link: http://albertball.ho.../Biography.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://albertball.ho.../Biography.html
This clearly says he flew S.E.5 A4850 on at least two occasions.

Albert Ball is known to have definitely flown the following S.E.5:
A8907, A4850 (in which he scored victories 33-36, April 23, 26 and 28 1917), A8898 (victories 37 and 38, and 41-43), and A4855 (victories 39 and 40).
After scoring his 44th kill in Nieuport B1522, he died the following day (May 7) while flying S.E.5 A4850.

One can only wonder what he might have achieved, had he lived to fly the S.E.5a.
  • 0

"We had a strict code of honor: you didn't shoot down a cripple and you kept it a fair fight." Wilfrid May


#13 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 16 August 2011 - 12:18

So, 9:38 in the game, vs 10:50 for the data. That's an 11% difference, which is well over the threshold of supposedly acceptable error.

Too good SE5a climb perfomance has been known long time…

Awesome. If you know all of these errors, why not post them yourself? :S!:
  • 0

#14 Greywing2

Greywing2
  • Posts: 433

Posted 16 August 2011 - 12:28

So, 9:38 in the game, vs 10:50 for the data. That's an 11% difference, which is well over the threshold of supposedly acceptable error.

Too good SE5a climb perfomance has been known long time…

Awesome. If you know all of these errors, why not post them yourself? :S!:

I believe he reported this to the team on beta forum….now all they need is to accept or reject :D
  • 0

#15 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 16 August 2011 - 13:47

Awesome. If you know all of these errors, why not post them yourself? :S!:

Errors are reported on beta boards :) Anyway SE5a climb was discussed even before I was in beta.
  • 0

#16 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 16 August 2011 - 13:57

Awesome. If you know all of these errors, why not post them yourself? :S!:

Errors are reported on beta boards :) Anyway SE5a climb was discussed even before I was in beta.

Attached File  index.jpg   5.92KB   642 downloads
  • 0

#17 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 16 August 2011 - 14:38

Im not sure what to think about that red X…
  • 0

#18 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 16 August 2011 - 15:14

There you go, works now. ;)
  • 0

#19 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 16 August 2011 - 15:59

There you go, works now. ;)

Same basic question still stands ;)
  • 0

#20 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 16 August 2011 - 17:16

Awesome. If you know all of these errors, why not post them yourself? :S!:

Errors are reported on beta boards :) Anyway SE5a climb was discussed even before I was in beta.

So basicly from what I uderstand from this statement. Is Beta tester are deciding what the flight models are. These forums are a waist of time. :?
  • 0

#21 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 16 August 2011 - 17:25

So basicly from what I uderstand from this statement. Is Beta tester are deciding what the flight models are. These forums are a waist of time. :?

Huh? Beta testers report errors on beta board. Normal players report errors in topic like this. I fail to see your logic in there.
  • 0

#22 RAF74_Winger

RAF74_Winger
  • Posts: 245

Posted 17 August 2011 - 01:03

Speed seems a bit off too, I can't recall ever getting 130ish out of the SE5a at 10,000ft, let alone 120mph at 15,000ft.

Perhaps my recollection is a bit hazy, I'll check it out again in a bit.

edit: Is the airspeed given indicated or true? There's no clue in the chart. Normally I'd expect TAS.

W.
  • 0

#23 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 17 August 2011 - 04:27

Speed seems a bit off too, I can't recall ever getting 130ish out of the SE5a at 10,000ft, let alone 120mph at 15,000ft.

Perhaps my recollection is a bit hazy, I'll check it out again in a bit.

edit: Is the airspeed given indicated or true? There's no clue in the chart. Normally I'd expect TAS.

W.


TAS in all the charts. IAS in simple and plane own gauges.

There is no problem in SE5a speed. At 9800ft(3km) SE5a IAS is 113mph -> ~131mph TAS.

Attached File  SE5a.jpg   399.39KB   907 downloads
  • 0

#24 An.Petrovich

An.Petrovich
  • Posts: 565

Posted 31 August 2011 - 15:55

Hi guys,
just want to say: now it's time for fix some bugs of SE5a performances in RoF! :)

I've already spent several days for research and analysis all sources we have, including docs from this thread, and of course, I’ve read the report from forum members (Mozza, Reflected, Gisbod, Mig-77, Catchov, HotTom, Pigsty) created in June 2010, thank you guys for your research!

After some additional tests in RoF I must say, that actually there are some errors in airscrew performances for SE5a (wrong blade aerodynamic polar diagram), and I'm also going to review some performances of Viper and SE5a aerodynamics.

Unfortunaly, I'm not sure about real performances of SE5a yet, because as usual many contradictions in different sources. F.e. Reports & Memoranda No. 704 gives us about 100-104mph IAS at 10'000ft for different airscrews, it's about 116-121mph TAS, but Profile Publications says about 130mph, and some other sources says about 126mph (I don't believe them because it's impossible to have 138mph at sea level, 126mph at 10'000ft, and 123mph at 15'000 - it's a wrong curve in this case; 130mph at 10’000ft looks right, especially according on data for other versions of SE5 & SE5a, equipped other engines ). Moreover, I have 2 different power curves for Viper, and I don’t know which is true (the difference is about 5-8 BHP).

Anyway, work in progress, and I think you’ll get SE5a as a good diver :) soon. Some performances (climb, speed, maneuverability etc.) will be also corrected, I think. But, don’t disturb about it, it will only make SE5a in RoF closely to the real airplane.

Sincerely,
  • 0

#25 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 31 August 2011 - 16:01

Petrovich, I can't thank you enough!

Wonderful news!

:S!: :S!: :S!: :S!: :S!:

HT
  • 0

#26 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 31 August 2011 - 16:09

Nice to see you posting again Andrey :D

[quote="An.Petrovich"][…] Moreover, I have 2 different power curves for Viper, and I don’t know which is true (the difference is about 5-8 BHP).[…]

I recently read that the compression of the Viper was reduced at some point, maybe that explains the 5-8BHP difference?

here it is:
Due largely to the commercial interests of the Shell company, the Entente therefore lost the opportunity in early 1917 to produce an aromatic rich or benzol-petrol blend of aviation fuel that would have supported the development of much higher compression aero engines, effectively condemning Allied aero-engine designers to a maximum compression ratio of no more than 5.3:1. It is known, for example, that the compression ratio of the SE5a's Wolseley 'Viper', originally raised to 5.68:1, had to be reduced back to 5.3:1 (Bruce)
sauce: http://www.theaerodr...4095-post3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...4095-post3.html
  • 0

#27 An.Petrovich

An.Petrovich
  • Posts: 565

Posted 31 August 2011 - 16:46

Hi, ImPeRaToR :)

I recently read that the compression of the Viper was reduced at some point, maybe that explains the 5-8BHP difference?

Good idea, thank you!
I've checked it right now, and actually if increase the compression from 5.3 to 5.68 it gives a really very closely result to the other curve! (error less than 1.4 BHP, 0.72% for 1400-1800 RPM)

Bravo! :S!:
  • 0

#28 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 31 August 2011 - 17:40

Nice to hear that some FM flaws are being worked on :) … is it only SE5a ? or are the other planes' FM issues also in progress ?
  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#29 swissdragon

swissdragon
  • Posts: 144

Posted 31 August 2011 - 17:54

THX Andrey! Great to hear that some FM get reworked.

Can you tell us the specific FM's that are on your check list?
  • 0

#30 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 31 August 2011 - 18:57

Hi guys,
just want to say: now it's time for fix some bugs of SE5a performances in RoF! :)

I've already spent several days for research and analysis all sources we have, including docs from this thread, and of course, I’ve read the report from forum members (Mozza, Reflected, Gisbod, Mig-77, Catchov, HotTom, Pigsty) created in June 2010, thank you guys for your research!

After some additional tests in RoF I must say, that actually there are some errors in airscrew performances for SE5a (wrong blade aerodynamic polar diagram), and I'm also going to review some performances of Viper and SE5a aerodynamics.

Unfortunaly, I'm not sure about real performances of SE5a yet, because as usual many contradictions in different sources. F.e. Reports & Memoranda No. 704 gives us about 100-104mph IAS at 10'000ft for different airscrews, it's about 116-121mph TAS, but Profile Publications says about 130mph, and some other sources says about 126mph (I don't believe them because it's impossible to have 138mph at sea level, 126mph at 10'000ft, and 123mph at 15'000 - it's a wrong curve in this case; 130mph at 10’000ft looks right, especially according on data for other versions of SE5 & SE5a, equipped other engines ). Moreover, I have 2 different power curves for Viper, and I don’t know which is true (the difference is about 5-8 BHP).

Anyway, work in progress, and I think you’ll get SE5a as a good diver :) soon. Some performances (climb, speed, maneuverability etc.) will be also corrected, I think. But, don’t disturb about it, it will only make SE5a in RoF closely to the real airplane.

Sincerely,

Awesome! I really can't wait! :S!:
  • 0

#31 SirFreddie

SirFreddie
  • Posts: 1398

Posted 31 August 2011 - 19:27

Andrei has just become my favourite 777 pinup… 'What a guy!' :S!:

:D :D :D
  • 0

#32 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 31 August 2011 - 21:29

Thank you so much for attending to the SE5a!
  • 0

#33 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 31 August 2011 - 21:46

Definitely great news for SE addicted! :mrgreen:
  • 0

#34 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 4166
  • LocationQld, Australia

Posted 01 September 2011 - 00:50

Hi guys,
just want to say: now it's time for fix some bugs of SE5a performances in RoF! :)

:0o: :0o: :0o: Yeah baby ! :x Thank you Andrey. :)
  • 0

#35 O_Taipan

O_Taipan
  • Posts: 2291

Posted 01 September 2011 - 01:06

Hi guys,
just want to say: now it's time for fix some bugs of SE5a performances in RoF! :)

I've already spent several days for research and analysis all sources we have, including docs from this thread, and of course, I’ve read the report from forum members (Mozza, Reflected, Gisbod, Mig-77, Catchov, HotTom, Pigsty) created in June 2010, thank you guys for your research!

After some additional tests in RoF I must say, that actually there are some errors in airscrew performances for SE5a (wrong blade aerodynamic polar diagram), and I'm also going to review some performances of Viper and SE5a aerodynamics.

Unfortunaly, I'm not sure about real performances of SE5a yet, because as usual many contradictions in different sources. F.e. Reports & Memoranda No. 704 gives us about 100-104mph IAS at 10'000ft for different airscrews, it's about 116-121mph TAS, but Profile Publications says about 130mph, and some other sources says about 126mph (I don't believe them because it's impossible to have 138mph at sea level, 126mph at 10'000ft, and 123mph at 15'000 - it's a wrong curve in this case; 130mph at 10’000ft looks right, especially according on data for other versions of SE5 & SE5a, equipped other engines ). Moreover, I have 2 different power curves for Viper, and I don’t know which is true (the difference is about 5-8 BHP).

Anyway, work in progress, and I think you’ll get SE5a as a good diver :) soon. Some performances (climb, speed, maneuverability etc.) will be also corrected, I think. But, don’t disturb about it, it will only make SE5a in RoF closely to the real airplane.

Sincerely,

Wow this made my day!! :)

:D

:D

:D
  • 0

#36 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 01 September 2011 - 01:24

…and next the Nieuport 17, Albatros series, Sopwith Camel, etc. :D
  • 0

#37 O_Taipan

O_Taipan
  • Posts: 2291

Posted 01 September 2011 - 01:29

…and next the Nieuport 17, Albatros series, Sopwith Camel, etc. :D

Not yet, focus is SE5a thank you. :lol: More focus = more correct though to be honest. One at a time..
  • 0

#38 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 01 September 2011 - 05:55

Although I agree that the SE5a climbs a bit too well in game, there is somethnig I'd like to point out.

MIG-77 does his climb tests starting from a full speed level flight, but IMO it's wrong as it's not climb rate but sheer elan at the beginning. Doing the climb tests from the ground, taking off at optimal climbing speed gives results that are much closer to real figures - but still too good, I must admit.

Then again, I don't know how real tests were carried out, I'm only saying that we should be careful with test results as they can be misleading.
  • 0

#39 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 01 September 2011 - 05:59

Also, look here:

http://www.theaerodr...climb-rate.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/forum/aircr … -rate.html

Viper:

Various test reports summarized by J. M. Bruce (Aeroplane Monthly, Nov 1977) give time to height for Wolseley Viper engined S.E.5a as follows.

0 >> 6500 feet : 6 min 20 sec to 7 min 20 sec;
0 > 10000 feet : 10 min 50 sec to 12 min 55 sec;
0 > 15000 feet : 19 min 40 sec to 26 min 20 sec.

Best values were recorded on B 4862 in September 1917.

Regards,
Yavor

P.S. Other sources (the same author).
Flight Magazine, 17 July 1953
The S.E.5a, Profile Publications, Number 1 (no date, about 1966)

Not the Viper, but:

Hi Reflected,
British Aeroplanes, 1914-1918, by J.M.Bruce, page 455 Performance table has the following data with a takeoff weight 1940 lbs.
Max. airspeed, ground level: 137.8mph. @10000 ft., 126 mph, @ 15000Ft., 123mph. Climb to 5000ft.: 4'55"; to 10000ft., 11'0"; to 15000ft., 19'55".
Best data is with the 200 hp Hispano-Suiza 8Ba geared engine and T.28096 4 bladed propeller. Takeoff weight, 1953 lbs.: to 5000ft., 6'0"; to 10000ft. 10'20"; to 15000ft., 18'50". airspeed @ 15000',121 mph. ceiling, 22,000 ft.
The 200hp Wolseley Adder geared engine, T.28096 prop 4 bladed propeller, Takeoff weight, 2034lbs. Airspeeds @ 6500', 132mph; @ 10000', 128 mph; @ 15000', 115.5mph. Climb to: to 6500' 6'0"; to 10000', 11'20'; to 15000', 22'55".
A Comment.
What we see is the 200 hp Wolsley Adder did not give the altitude performance of the French built 200 hp Hispano-Suiza 8Ba engine. The French built 200hp Hispano-Suiza 8Ba gave better performance than the 200hp Wolsley Viper, however the Wolsley Viper did not have the maintenance problems of the French Hispano-Suiza 8Ba gearedengine.
The S.E.5a with the geared Hispano-Suiza engines continued in production into the end of the war.
Blue skies Reflected,
Dan-San

  • 0

#40 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 01 September 2011 - 06:36

Although I agree that the SE5a climbs a bit too well in game, there is somethnig I'd like to point out.

MIG-77 does his climb tests starting from a full speed level flight, but IMO it's wrong as it's not climb rate but sheer elan at the beginning. Doing the climb tests from the ground, taking off at optimal climbing speed gives results that are much closer to real figures - but still too good, I must admit.

Then again, I don't know how real tests were carried out, I'm only saying that we should be careful with test results as they can be misleading.


I dont start my climb test from full speed. I start them when wheels leave ground (I accelerate plane to optimal climb speed on ground tought). Also test are done outside of map area so simple gauges and plane own gauges can be used (wind and turbulence off so that they dont affect test results).

My 9min 51s for SE5a climb to 10 000ft is timed when wheels leave ground and so SE5a is ~1min too fast to 10 000ft.

SE5a climb test done in 1.015:
1000ft 0:00:47
2000ft 0:01:34
3000ft 0:02:24
4000ft 0:03:21
5000ft 0:04:18
6000ft 0:05:17
7000ft 0:06:16
8000ft 0:07:18
9000ft 0:08:36
10000ft 0:09:51
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users