Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

unrealistic speed of Camel


  • Please log in to reply
404 replies to this topic

#41 R_Suppards

R_Suppards
  • Posts: 598

Posted 26 December 2011 - 21:04

In a turn against the Pfalz I am on the edge of stall, sensing the preceding tremor yet still the Pfalz can match me. :o
The Camel outturns every plane, with the exception of the DR.I (in many situations atleast). That should be good enough.

If a D.IIIa outturns you, you should practice flying the Camel a bit more.
Firstly to start discussing the Pfalz v Camel turning circles will drag the thread OT. I only used the example to show I accept the planes as presented until such time as changes take place. Second I did not say the Pfalz outturns me, I said it matches my turn. In this I am not alone. In RL the Pfalz was not noted for it's manoeverability yet there are others besides me who find it a remarkable machine in ROF.
I bow to your undoubted expertise for you would not tell me to practice more unless you were superior to my poor attempts and merely ask you to present a video demonstrating your ability in the Camel against a Pfalz.
  • 0

#42 R_Suppards

R_Suppards
  • Posts: 598

Posted 26 December 2011 - 21:07

In a turn against the Pfalz I am on the edge of stall, sensing the preceding tremor yet still the Pfalz can match me. :o
The Camel outturns every plane, with the exception of the DR.I (in many situations atleast). That should be good enough.

If a D.IIIa outturns you, you should practice flying the Camel a bit more.
Firstly to start discussing the Pfalz v Camel turning circles will drag the thread OT. I only used the example to show I accept the planes as presented until such time as changes take place. Second I did not say the Pfalz outturns me, I said it matches my turn. In this I am not alone. In RL the Pfalz was not noted for it's manoeverability yet there are others besides me who find it a remarkable machine in ROF.
I bow to your undoubted expertise for you would not tell me to practice more unless you were superior to my poor attempts and merely ask you to present a video demonstrating your ability in the Camel against a Pfalz. I am always willing to learn when people show me my faults.
  • 0

#43 R_Suppards

R_Suppards
  • Posts: 598

Posted 26 December 2011 - 21:10

duplicate post deleted
  • 0

#44 R_Suppards

R_Suppards
  • Posts: 598

Posted 26 December 2011 - 21:14

duplicate post deleted. Not so. I am not crash hot with computers.

  • 0

#45 neuro

neuro
  • Posts: 1523

Posted 26 December 2011 - 21:17

@mustardguts: Actually, I fly mostly Dr1's against the Camel. And I still don't think it's all that 'uber'.
  • 0

#46 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 26 December 2011 - 21:24

You demand a change of the FM, so you want me to prove something? I hope you are not serious.

If your opponent managed to match your turn, he would've likely outturned you rather easily if you would've switched planes.

But regardless, demanding an improved Camel turnrate, because a Pfalz D.IIIa matched your turn, is a little bit onesided isn't it? Because as you do say correctly, the D.IIIa is probably more "remarkable" in ROF than it should be. Even though, there are enough reports that state that its maneuverability wasn't really its worst characteristic.

Also how much fuel did you and your opponent have?

they know the DR1 and Camel are radial engine and turn better than anything esp right,
They have rotary engines. And wether or not both (meaning the DR.I aswell) turned better to the right than to the left probably needs some further sources to proof it. I found no evidence supporting this about the DR.I yet.

Sorry for the nitpicking.
  • 0

#47 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 26 December 2011 - 21:26

In real life I think the Dr1 was slower than in this game, I totally agree with you.. but it does not have the climb of the Camel.. or Acceleration. not in this game.
The accerelation of the DR.I is almost the same as the Camel and the DR.I outclimbs the Camel.

Maybe you're not familiar with any plane yet. That would explain why you fly the D.VIIF at 2000 meters and don't use full altitude throttle. If you would've done that, you would've been 30 km/h faster than the Camel in level flight, obviously still much faster if the Camel is just flying a turn and needs to accelerate.

The Camel can practically never catch a D.VIIF at that altitude, which is not even that high anyway, especially not when you're sitting in a D.VIIF.

In a turn against the Pfalz I am on the edge of stall, sensing the preceding tremor yet still the Pfalz can match me. :o
The Camel outturns every plane, with the exception of the DR.I (in many situations atleast). That should be good enough.

If a D.IIIa outturns you, you should practice flying the Camel a bit more.

I did read many FM wishes in these forums, but now it's getting a bit ridiculous, with people asking for a better turning Camel.

Based on the recent FM revisions (SE5a, N17, N11), the devs seem to know how to fix the planes in question. So maybe it's better to wait and see.

+1

… very well said Matt

The Camel is very difficult to master in sense of flying it on the edge all time. You have to be very, very carefull - its predictable only if you invest many hours in learning its behaviour. If flown above 2k m it loses almost all of its assets thus a competent pilot on the other side can exploit it ruthlessly.

Unfortunetly 80% or more of RoF online fights take place around 1k m +/- 1k :) hence the wrong impression that Camel is uber - 1k m till on the deck is Camels territory like it should be historically. Anyway, some of the greatest and most even duels, dogfights can arise when Camels and Dr.1 meet at those hights.

I would be happy if those proportions would be kept alive even after the eventual FM revisions.

:S!:
  • 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


#48 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 26 December 2011 - 21:49

In real life I think the Dr1 was slower than in this game, I totally agree with you.. but it does not have the climb of the Camel.. or Acceleration. not in this game.
The accerelation of the DR.I is almost the same as the Camel and the DR.I outclimbs the Camel.

Maybe you're not familiar with any plane yet. That would explain why you fly the D.VIIF at 2000 meters and don't use full altitude throttle. If you would've done that, you would've been 30 km/h faster than the Camel in level flight, obviously still much faster if the Camel is just flying a turn and needs to accelerate.

The Camel can practically never catch a D.VIIF at that altitude, which is not even that high anyway, especially not when you're sitting in a D.VIIF.

In a turn against the Pfalz I am on the edge of stall, sensing the preceding tremor yet still the Pfalz can match me. :o
The Camel outturns every plane, with the exception of the DR.I (in many situations atleast). That should be good enough.

If a D.IIIa outturns you, you should practice flying the Camel a bit more.

I did read many FM wishes in these forums, but now it's getting a bit ridiculous, with people asking for a better turning Camel.

Based on the recent FM revisions (SE5a, N17, N11), the devs seem to know how to fix the planes in question. So maybe it's better to wait and see.

+1

… very well said Matt

The Camel is very difficult to master in sense of flying it on the edge all time. You have to be very, very carefull - its predictable only if you invest many hours in learning its behaviour. If flown above 2k m it loses almost all of its assets thus a competent pilot on the other side can exploit it ruthlessly.

Unfortunetly 80% or more of RoF online fights take place around 1k m +/- 1k :) hence the wrong impression that Camel is uber - 1k m till on the deck is Camels territory like it should be historically. Anyway, some of the greatest and most even duels, dogfights can arise when Camels and Dr.1 meet at those hights.

I would be happy if those proportions would be kept alive even after the eventual FM revisions.

:S!:

Some good points that i agree with BUT it is still too fast and doesn't exhibit the harsh rotary torque effect that nearly all (soon hopefully to be all after FM revisions) other rotary -engined aircraft in the game do.

The current dogfight altitudes DO make it seem better and coupled with the low fuel exploit than many camel-jocks blatantly make use of…it becomes uber online.

In RL it was a good plane and Central pilots would often avoid engaging (i'd like to see them try that online atm!) unless they had superior numbers. Currently it can catch ALL central aircraft except maybe the DVIIF and DXII.

Maybe it's not uber? but it is currently 5%+ too fast while some of it's central opponents are 5%+ too slow….a 10%+ difference.

Personally, I love the new ability for server hosts to lock fuel loads and wish that, at least, the low fuel exploit was countered in servers online.

Also, there ARE plenty of contemporary accounts from Entente Camel pilots saying it took up to twice as long to turn left as right…something (if you accept it was at least based on a real life tendency, if nothing else) which Central pilots could exploit when dogfighting it.

But, i guess the main thing is to have a Camel FM that is as close to reality as possible…I think that's what we all want (and the same thing with other questionable FM's, DR1 included)
  • 0

#49 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 26 December 2011 - 21:55

@mustardguts: Actually, I fly mostly Dr1's against the Camel. And I still don't think it's all that 'uber'.

Well, duh then. You're flying one over-modeled ride against another.
  • 0

#50 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 26 December 2011 - 22:13

I'd like to point out to Suppards without bringing my views into this at all that optimum turn speed and 'just above stall speed' are two very different things.

My views on ROFs Camel, Dr.1 and stationary German types are well expressed elsewhere so I shan't bother to air them again. Suffice to say that although I love the Camel in reality (and know a little about them) I rarely fly the ROF example and have never flown the Dr.1 although while flying Pfalz and Albatros fighters I have been over taken and left for dust by wingmen in them.
  • 0

#51 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

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

Posted 26 December 2011 - 23:41

Some good points that i agree with BUT it is still too fast and doesn't exhibit the harsh rotary torque effect that nearly all (soon hopefully to be all after FM revisions) other rotary -engined aircraft in the game do.

The current dogfight altitudes DO make it seem better and coupled with the low fuel exploit than many camel-jocks blatantly make use of…it becomes uber online.

In RL it was a good plane and Central pilots would often avoid engaging (i'd like to see them try that online atm!) unless they had superior numbers. Currently it can catch ALL central aircraft except maybe the DVIIF and DXII.

Maybe it's not uber? but it is currently 5%+ too fast while some of it's central opponents are 5%+ too slow….a 10%+ difference.

Personally, I love the new ability for server hosts to lock fuel loads and wish that, at least, the low fuel exploit was countered in servers online.

Also, there ARE plenty of contemporary accounts from Entente Camel pilots saying it took up to twice as long to turn left as right…something (if you accept it was at least based on a real life tendency, if nothing else) which Central pilots could exploit when dogfighting it.

But, i guess the main thing is to have a Camel FM that is as close to reality as possible…I think that's what we all want (and the same thing with other questionable FM's, DR1 included)

Comical, Para. You fly the Dr.I (which is also 5% or more too fast) whenever it's available. In fact, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've faced you in MP flying anything else when the Dr.I is an option. And you sit there with a straight face and whine about the Camel with barely a mention of the Dr.I. Hilarious. And Camel pilots are the only ones "abusing" the fuel load options available on most servers? Good story.

Anyway, the pending FM revisions will probably put all of this to bed.

:S!:
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#52 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:26

Some good points that i agree with BUT it is still too fast and doesn't exhibit the harsh rotary torque effect that nearly all (soon hopefully to be all after FM revisions) other rotary -engined aircraft in the game do.

The current dogfight altitudes DO make it seem better and coupled with the low fuel exploit than many camel-jocks blatantly make use of…it becomes uber online.

In RL it was a good plane and Central pilots would often avoid engaging (i'd like to see them try that online atm!) unless they had superior numbers. Currently it can catch ALL central aircraft except maybe the DVIIF and DXII.

Maybe it's not uber? but it is currently 5%+ too fast while some of it's central opponents are 5%+ too slow….a 10%+ difference.

Personally, I love the new ability for server hosts to lock fuel loads and wish that, at least, the low fuel exploit was countered in servers online.

Also, there ARE plenty of contemporary accounts from Entente Camel pilots saying it took up to twice as long to turn left as right…something (if you accept it was at least based on a real life tendency, if nothing else) which Central pilots could exploit when dogfighting it.

But, i guess the main thing is to have a Camel FM that is as close to reality as possible…I think that's what we all want (and the same thing with other questionable FM's, DR1 included)

Comical, Para. You fly the Dr.I (which is also 5% or more too fast) whenever it's available. In fact, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've faced you in MP flying anything else when the Dr.I is an option. And you sit there with a straight face and whine about the Camel with barely a mention of the Dr.I. Hilarious. And Camel pilots are the only ones "abusing" the fuel load options available on most servers? Good story.

Anyway, the pending FM revisions will probably put all of this to bed.

:S!:

That IS true Jay but i only fly in syndicate and hellequins (and occasionally oceanic) and the DR1 is not available most of the time.

The truth is that we have rarely come across each other in multiplayer in quite some time…you even had to point out in a previous thread that i was being unfair claiming you invariably flew the Camel..well the same is true for me, I hardly fly the DR1 these days.

Ask the people i fly against and with and you will see that your statement is just plain wrong these days…when i fly with my squad (which is 90 % of the time i fly online), we fly in every single central plane….albatrosses more often than not.

I don't know what your problem is? this discussion is about the Camel and I HAVE mentioned that the DR1 needs looking at too. It seems you will take any opportunity to attack me as a 'DR1 jock'…that may have been partly true in the past but it certainly isn't now.

Please don't put me in the same bracket as all the 1 horse pony pilots online…who will remain nameless…it's xmas after all!

It may seem like i pick on you in these threads but you make some frankly ridiculous statements imho and I feel that an alternative viewpoint is necessary for the sake of balance…I also remain civil until the mudslinging begins and even then, i don't resort to swearing in posts.

You don't agree with me? fine but don't misrepresent reality…I am rarely in a DR1 these days and am actually enjoying flying the other central aircraft.

As far as fuel abuse is concerned, yes it's abused by all sorts of aircraft and pilots including the DR1….THIS IS ABOUT THE CAMEL…but i believe fuel locked servers affect everyone? and that was the point i was trying to make earlier.

I find it amusing that i'm not the only poster to point out the bias in your opinions and conclusions and also the way you make your points…why aren't you attacking those people? or is it something personal with me?..frankly i don't really care but you really should consider your words and your position a bit more fully before responding in these threads imho.
  • 0

#53 R_Suppards

R_Suppards
  • Posts: 598

Posted 27 December 2011 - 06:12

Mustard, somehow though I could be wrong, I have the impression that you are unhappy with the Camel's performance. Well you are not alone. I am also. The Camel had a reputation of being unbeatably quick in a right hand turn whilst slow in the left turn. Then I come up against the Pfalz D IIIa. Now I have hundreds of hours logged flying a biplane in RL so I count myself competent. In a turn against the Pfalz I am on the edge of stall, sensing the preceding tremor yet still the Pfalz can match me. :o
I want the Camel changed. :evil:
My point is simple. As you say, ROF is a flight sim. The developers do the best they can and respond to input. We know there are faults and we fly to those faults. Find the plane that suits your style and enjoy it until something is changed. You may not have meant it, but to come in as you did with all guns blazing at the developers is not the best way.
MattM. I obviously owe you an apology. I was indulging in a form of humour that is obviously alien to you. It is called irony.
It is why I used emoticons.
I have posed my post as a quote to enable you to see the final comment which you may have missed. I was saying be happy with what you have.
But it is obvious you do have a problem at times with words as well. Twice you accused me of demanding. There is a difference between a demand and a request.
You told me I needed to improve my flying in the Camel. I am always willing to be shown the error of my ways. To make the comments you did means you were competent in handling both the Pfalz and Camel. What better way is there than to show me how to do things.
  • 0

#54 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 27 December 2011 - 06:18

This thread needs some comic relief. In the meantime I'll join catchov and wait for winger to show up.
  • 0

#55 R_Suppards

R_Suppards
  • Posts: 598

Posted 27 December 2011 - 06:32

T C, I am aware that optimum turn speed and just above stall are different. :S!:
Now correct me if I'm wrong. To increase optimum turn speed I would have to increase the radius of the turn and/or be at a lesser angle of bank.
  • 0

#56 neuro

neuro
  • Posts: 1523

Posted 27 December 2011 - 09:14

@mustardguts: Actually, I fly mostly Dr1's against the Camel. And I still don't think it's all that 'uber'.

Well, duh then. You're flying one over-modeled ride against another.

Maybe so. I'm all for making FMs as historically accurate as possible, but im kind of tired of all the incessant whining of some self-appointed WWI experts.
  • 0

#57 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:33

T C, I am aware that optimum turn speed and just above stall are different. :S!:
Now correct me if I'm wrong. To increase optimum turn speed I would have to increase the radius of the turn and/or be at a lesser angle of bank.

You are of course correct the radius is wider but the time to complete 360 degrees is less.
  • 0

#58 Happyhaddock

Happyhaddock
  • Posts: 403
  • LocationCloud cuckoo land

Posted 27 December 2011 - 13:33

This thread needs some comic relief. In the meantime I'll join catchov and wait for winger to show up.

Isn't it time we had a poll to see who wants the camel FM revised, that way half can vote yes and the other half can attack the very suggestion of needing another pointless poll that will achieve nothing, that way hopefully everyone will forget about moaning at each other at Christmas….
  • 0

#59 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 27 December 2011 - 13:44

Related if unrelated, I tend to agree with the OP the Camel is too fast if one is to go by original accounts, however, and I've said this some time ago, I wonder if (If there is indeed a problem) it is one of energy retention as opposed to overall speed for most aircraft.

It was instructive that when the SE5a FM revision came out (an aircraft for which I believe there is the most technical info, so a good yard stick by which to measure others) the SE5a was far less capable of retaining it's energy, despite, I believe, having the best power to weight ratio of any plane in the game. This maybe of course because the course pitch propeller is designed for altitude rather than low level but if the best power to weight plane in the sim has problems then it might indicate why some game play seems skewed towards turn and burn aircraft to the detriment of boom and zoom.

It will be interesting to see if the Alb is revised and possibly made faster, as some have suggested, it will also, like the SE5a, struggle to retain energy, or accelerate, in a protracted dogfight. If the Pflaz DIII also bled energy like a stuck pig and lost a lot of it's ability to point it's nose up at B&Z aircraft it might be felt that this aircraft also compared historically to it's real life, rather lack luster career.
  • 0

#60 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

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

Posted 27 December 2011 - 14:42

Related if unrelated, I tend to agree with the OP the Camel is too fast if one is to go by original accounts, however, and I've said this some time ago, I wonder if (If there is indeed a problem) it is one of energy retention as opposed to overall speed for most aircraft.

It was instructive that when the SE5a FM revision came out (an aircraft for which I believe there is the most technical info, so a good yard stick by which to measure others) the SE5a was far less capable of retaining it's energy, despite, I believe, having the best power to weight ratio of any plane in the game. This maybe of course because the course pitch propeller is designed for altitude rather than low level but if the best power to weight plane in the sim has problems then it might indicate why some game play seems skewed towards turn and burn aircraft to the detriment of boom and zoom.

It will be interesting to see if the Alb is revised and possibly made faster, as some have suggested, it will also, like the SE5a, struggle to retain energy, or accelerate, in a protracted dogfight. If the Pflaz DIII also bled energy like a stuck pig and lost a lot of it's ability to point it's nose up at B&Z aircraft it might be felt that this aircraft also compared historically to it's real life, rather lack luster career.

I agree with absolutely everything in your post, and hope for the same outcome for the Albatros and Pfalz. And, of course, the energy retention of the Camel and Dr.I should definitely be looked at when their FM review comes around.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#61 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 27 December 2011 - 14:51

@mustardguts: Actually, I fly mostly Dr1's against the Camel. And I still don't think it's all that 'uber'.

Well, duh then. You're flying one over-modeled ride against another.

Maybe so. I'm all for making FMs as historically accurate as possible, but im kind of tired of all the incessant whining of some self-appointed WWI experts.

Experts? Read 10 pages about the Camel or Dr1 and you will encounter a description of their slow airspeeds. If it bothers you when someone learns something by reading, then maybe the History channel would be more to your liking?
  • 0

#62 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 27 December 2011 - 17:31

I will whine until someone listens and addresses the problem. The Camel (and some other aircraft, but this IS about the Camel) needs a serious review of not just it's speed.

There is plenty of evidence in these forums that has been posted in various threads in an attempt to provide as much hard data as possible to effect a realistic FM for this aircraft AND there is almost universal agreement that it is currently too fast.

The Camel and DR1 are the two aircraft in multiplayer that unbalance the online experience more than any others (although there are, of course, other questionable FM's), especially with the generally unrealistic low-level fights we have online.

I question why some people are SO vocal about retaining the status quo…perhaps their motives need to be questioned?
  • 0

#63 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

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

Posted 27 December 2011 - 17:52

I hope you didn't think I was arguing for maintaining the status quo, Para. My issue with your contributions to this thread is that you chime in with "Yea that unrealistic Camel..etc etc", yet we all know what your favorite ride in the game is - whether you get to fly it as often as you'd like or not. To complain about the Camel without casting the same criticism on the Dr.I is being dishonest. The two were released as a matched pair, and most competent pilots will agree that in a 1-on-1, the Dr.I is the more competitive dogfighter. It's impossible to have an honest discussion about one's relative performance without including the other. The reason the Camel is "so good" is that it was released along with the Dr.I. I think the devs got a little carried away with the pair.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#64 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 27 December 2011 - 18:43

I hope you didn't think I was arguing for maintaining the status quo, Para. My issue with your contributions to this thread is that you chime in with "Yea that unrealistic Camel..etc etc", yet we all know what your favorite ride in the game is - whether you get to fly it as often as you'd like or not. To complain about the Camel without casting the same criticism on the Dr.I is being dishonest. The two were released as a matched pair, and most competent pilots will agree that in a 1-on-1, the Dr.I is the more competitive dogfighter. It's impossible to have an honest discussion about one's relative performance without including the other. The reason the Camel is "so good" is that it was released along with the Dr.I. I think the devs got a little carried away with the pair.

I give up…no point responding to you.
  • 0

#65 neuro

neuro
  • Posts: 1523

Posted 27 December 2011 - 18:49

@mustardguts: Actually, I fly mostly Dr1's against the Camel. And I still don't think it's all that 'uber'.

Well, duh then. You're flying one over-modeled ride against another.

Maybe so. I'm all for making FMs as historically accurate as possible, but im kind of tired of all the incessant whining of some self-appointed WWI experts.

Experts? Read 10 pages about the Camel or Dr1 and you will encounter a description of their slow airspeeds. If it bothers you when someone learns something by reading, then maybe the History channel would be more to your liking?

Sure. They know how stuff really happened. Ancient aliens and all.
  • 0

#66 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4150

Posted 28 December 2011 - 14:02

A word of warning here based on the Se5a re-work.

If you reduce (or increase) the top speed of an aircraft by changing the propeller pitch it also inversely affects acceleration. A slower aircraft will have better acceleration and climb-rate. This could prove be a big plus for the Camel.
  • 0

#67 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 28 December 2011 - 17:22

A word of warning here based on the Se5a re-work.

If you reduce (or increase) the top speed of an aircraft by changing the propeller pitch it also inversely affects acceleration. A slower aircraft will have better acceleration and climb-rate. This could prove be a big plus for the Camel.

But presumably lower top speed ?

If turning burnt more energy as a general rule then acceleration might be less problematic if it has to resume from a lower starting point and the maximum speed attainable is reduced.

I was simply wondering if the SE5a had suffered because it's propeller pitch was set to maximize performance at higher altitudes were the air is obviously thinner, which begs the question, did aircraft of the same type have differently pitched propellers fitted with regard to their job spec and therefore altitude they expected to operate at ?

How does the revised SE perform at altitude compared to down low or to it's former self ?
  • 0

#68 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4150

Posted 28 December 2011 - 18:19

A word of warning here based on the Se5a re-work.

If you reduce (or increase) the top speed of an aircraft by changing the propeller pitch it also inversely affects acceleration. A slower aircraft will have better acceleration and climb-rate. This could prove be a big plus for the Camel.

But presumably lower top speed ?

If turning burnt more energy as a general rule then acceleration might be less problematic if it has to resume from a lower starting point and the maximum speed attainable is reduced.

I was simply wondering if the SE5a had suffered because it's propeller pitch was set to maximize performance at higher altitudes were the air is obviously thinner, which begs the question, did aircraft of the same type have differently pitched propellers fitted with regard to their job spec and therefore altitude they expected to operate at ?

How does the revised SE perform at altitude compared to down low or to it's former self ?

Yes - you're right. The maximum speed would be lower because a fine-pitch popeller is akin to a low gear in a car; it will take off like a rocket but reaches maximum speed sooner. A coarse- pitch propeller is like a high gear and takes bigger 'bites' of air with each revolution, so it is slower out of the blocks but will eventually reach a higher top speed; very handy at high altitude.

Acceleration is more important than top speed up to your opponents maximum speed. In other words, if you find a plane gaining on you below you're maximum speed it is because he has better acceleration. It is only when you pass his maximum airspeed that you will begin to pull away.
  • 0

#69 R_Suppards

R_Suppards
  • Posts: 598

Posted 28 December 2011 - 22:17

T C, I am aware that optimum turn speed and just above stall are different. :S!:
Now correct me if I'm wrong. To increase optimum turn speed I would have to increase the radius of the turn and/or be at a lesser angle of bank.

You are of course correct the radius is wider but the time to complete 360 degrees is less.
So the Pfalz is still able to turn inside my Camel and avoid my being on his tail.
Actually in dogfights I rarely spend time in tight turns. My normal method is to maintain airspeed and do a climbing turn to get above my opponent. However the Pfalz in ROF is vastly different to contemporary reports. It is capable of very tight turns and in general has a manoeverabilty that is hard to match although I am flying what was considered a very manoeverable aircraft.
  • 0

#70 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 28 December 2011 - 22:53

A camel should beat a Pfalz most of the time unless it is more than one on one and the Pfalz's work together.

In my experience if you meet a relatively competent Camel flier online while in the Pfalz you are usually toast.

It's close but the Camel will turn inside it if flown well. Are you talking online?

I've flown the Pfalz a fair bit when I was online and although not a good dogfighter (me - not the plane) could hold my own for a bit but when you get caught with 0 'E' you are dead - same as the standard D.VII.


If the Pfalz gets into a floating/stalled turn just operate vertically and fry him - after all it's nearly a stationary target.

(Not saying the Pfalz is right by the way - just that the Camel is still better in a turn fight)
  • 0

#71 R_Suppards

R_Suppards
  • Posts: 598

Posted 28 December 2011 - 23:23

I was talking of SP experiences. OK Tom so it's back to figuring out why I went wrong; why I could only match that turn. Yhe Pfalz was staying just at a point above my sights,throughout the turn. As I said earlier, I'm always willing to learn, even at my advanced age.
I assume by 0 "E" you mean zero energy.
  • 0

#72 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 29 December 2011 - 00:08

At which altitude was the fight ? how much fuel did you have ? two important things when "throwing" the Camel.
  • 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


#73 R_Suppards

R_Suppards
  • Posts: 598

Posted 29 December 2011 - 00:21

In career I never fly below 50% fuel.. In this case my estimate was 60% and altitude around 1500 to 1000 feet.
  • 0

#74 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 29 December 2011 - 00:30

hmmm, then it changes a lot … with 60% fuel it could be really close I guess (especially vs an amazing turning Pfalz where fuel capacity is less of a factor) - have to try it myself but still vs. AI Pfalz it ought to be doable. 60% Camel is a different aircraft compared to a 20% Camel with the current FM that we have in RoF.

… in other words … if you had problems turning with Pfalz under those conditions I can very well understand you.

:S!:
  • 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


#75 Mustardguts

Mustardguts
  • Posts: 11

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:11

Sure. They know how stuff really happened. Ancient aliens and all.


You re sure into aliens and all that, I'll bet you have claimed to have been captured, and the Aliens told you that in 1918, the Camel was a 120mph rocket climbing tight turning machine of invincibility. So we are just whiners who know nothing- LOL

The Camel is pretty much uber, the DR1 if flown right can match it IF the Camel pilot is mediocre, a Camel in ROF with it's 300hp engine can turn as good as the DR1 and climb while doing so, it's Acceleration and climb with low fuel is VERY unrealistic, at 20% fuel it's like taking the Camel weight and then taking 2/3 rds of the weight off. at least in the now ROF flight model.
It doesn't seem to effect AI pilots in the Camel.

Multilayer without the Camel and DR!, dogfights are still hard, but you can be competitive.
it is a whole different experience. when you die it is totally because the pilots out flew or out smarted you.. happened to me often.

with the Camel noobs in this rocket look like pros. all they need do is practice the quirks of the flight model to know it stall characteristics, and they are almost invincible! put them in ANY other plane and they are normal or sub par to most other pilots.. Guaranteed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

in Servers with Calels-
The 240 mph dive from 700 meters in my D7F on a Camel at 100 meters and have him turn a 180 and accelerate like a rocket to match my speeds is totally unrealistic.. the D7f should outrun a camel at ANY altitude esp if you have energy built up. yet in ROF they can catch me at 1500 meters in a long chase. Might as well forget about energy management vs camels.

People say fight at 2000+ meters??

So what if the D7F can perform better at 2000 meters, no one online flies up that high, and if you catch a camel at 2000m once in a blue moon, all he does is dive to 1500 meters where he can turn better, climb better, accelerate better and is FASTER and tear you up, if you dare to engage him in his invincible 0-2000 meter range. your only hope is a the 1st or maybe 2nd head on pass.

take care
  • 0

#76 ZaltysZ

ZaltysZ
  • Posts: 1638

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:34

Mustardguts,

can you prove with controlled test that Camel is faster than DVII.F? If not, then it is just a whine.
  • 0

#77 neuro

neuro
  • Posts: 1523

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:16

I never thought it was necessary when I first read about the idea, but now I'm beginning to think that a "sarcasm point" (or mark)* would be necessary.


*(I mean a 'point' in interrogation point, exclamation point, etc.)
  • 0

#78 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:58

Anyone considered Mustardguts might be "Winger" in disguise ?

I'm always a bit dubious of people who claim the DR 1 is no match for a Camel, I agree it's not easy to fly, but once mastered.

Regardless of scenario, this sim favors turn and burn over boom and zoom, if the Camel and DR 1 are removed from the equation, then it simply drops down a notch to the next tightest turning aircraft, sure people still get shot down making noob mistakes in T&B aircraft, like not watching their tail, but once a boom and zoom aircraft is spotted, if the T&B pilot isn't a crack shot then the advantage lies with the turner who can make several shots from a stall turn, keeping the boom and zoomer too far away to capitalize on an enemy aircraft that's doing this.
  • 0

#79 No43_Moggy

No43_Moggy
  • Posts: 483

Posted 29 December 2011 - 13:12

Just saw an interesting inteview with Gene Demarco, he said in the engine manual (I presume he means for the Gnome rotary) it states the engine should not exceed 1300 RPM for fear of rupture and bursting.
  • 0

#80 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4150

Posted 29 December 2011 - 13:30

Anyone considered Mustardguts might be "Winger" in disguise ?
:lol:
If you're taking bets I'll have a tenner on the nose!
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users