Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Aircraft in need of a speed boost


  • Please log in to reply
245 replies to this topic

#81 flapping-brown

flapping-brown
  • Posts: 337

Posted 17 March 2012 - 12:30

thinks….it doesnt matter most of us dont fly well enough or spend enough time experimenting with a single type to get to find out these perfectionist details lol
true though if you have appalling broadband speeds like a lot of us in rural areas then it soon becomes apparent you are at a disadvantage anyway.
the times i fly formation and the rest go into overdrive and go off into the distance or i do it is common….same when someone on my 6 appears so darn fast it makes the speed difference mean he was doing 500mph ….hey the wings didnt fall off hmmmmm
well yes i see some planes seem slower than i would expect but is it the game or the broadband?
soldier on old fellah ,stop moaning and realise you wont ever be much good at this game eyes like a bat barn doors aint big enough and use ears to hear them coming ….
flapping brown
  • 0

#82 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 17 March 2012 - 16:15

Made a few test flights with the Fokker DVII, DVIIF & SPAD XIII to test out max SL speed.

I achieved the following racing as close to the ground as possible:

DVII = 186 km/h
DVIIF = 192 km/h (no alt throttle)
SPAD XIII = 218 km/h

Changing radiator grill deflection didn't seem to have any impact.

By comparison the real aircraft could achieve the following:

Fokker DVII (Merc DIII aü 200 hp) = 200 km/h
Fokker DVIIF (BMW IIIa 210-250 hp) = 205 km/h to ~225 km/h
SPAD XIII (Hisp Suiza 8Be 220 hp) = 222 km/h

Your SPAD XIII is a little faster than mine, then! :lol: Still, I like your basic argument, Panthera. I think that the DVIIf should be, based on the info you provided, as fast as the 220 hp SPAD XIII. I tend to like your Goering account. I personally think that Goering would, in all likelihood, tell the truth and that he did outrun two SPAD XIIIs. Given that SPAD pilots considered the DVIIf as fast as a 220 hp SPAD XIII, but not faster than the 220 hp, in straight and level flight, I would guess that Goering outran two 200 hp SPAD XIIIs. When the team gets around to making the Fokker DVII (Merc DIII aü 200 hp) and the two late war SPAD XIIIs, they should really adjust the DVIIf, so that, when using full over-gas, she is as faster than the 200 hp SPAD XIII, as fast as the 220 hp SPAD XIII and slower than the 235 hp SPAD XIII.

Right now, the DVIIf must stand in for the most common DVII and the 200 hp SPAD XIII must stand in for the 220 hp and the 235 hp, so this would not be a great time to adjust the speed of the DVIIf. In any event, the DVIIf is faster than any Allied plane, at high altitudes and the DVIIf is not really a ground attack plane, so the DVIIf pilots have nothing to worry about, unless they are obsessed with staying really low to the ground. The DXII is another great machine, at or above 2 km to 3 km, so Central has plenty to throw at the Allies, until the other late war machines are added. :S!: MJ
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#83 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 17 March 2012 - 17:28

Removed, I need to organize this a bit… =)
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#84 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 17 March 2012 - 18:32

If Rof starts mucking around with and producing the best variants in tip top condition and with perfect performance, even if those planes represented a very limited overall number, then they should only be implemented with some restrictions.

The sim knows what plane you flew last and what skin you used, it tracks various stats on your performance. That being the case then it could be argued that it wouldn't be impossible to allocate an aircraft to a player.

For example: Pilot chooses a Fokker D VIIf. Unfortunately he is a bit hard on his aircraft, but he doesn't care, over-stressing the engine makes no odds , using the altitude throttle indiscriminately, all that is important is that he has an advantage now.

Now what if the game tracked his aircraft and degraded his aircraft's performance, the more he abuses it the quicker it degrades, this would be part of the pilots online profile and not server side stats. After a certain length of time the engine would be replaced or refurbished (if he lived that long). Abusing engines to the point of destruction might also restrict a player possible choices for replaning, possibly being restricted to vanilla D VII's until theoretical new engines become available or high command has forgiven him sufficiently to allow him to use one of their scarce high performance engines.

It might also make online dogfights more interesting too. No longer are you just facing a vanilla aircraft, but maybe a good aircraft with substandard performance that doesn't quite dominate the fight as it might do if it was in tip top condition. The pilots ability at management becoming another facet of a planes performance rather than simply it's speed or turn ability.
  • 0

#85 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 17 March 2012 - 18:51

You know, if it were possible to add something like that in it would be fantastic.

I'll not hold my breath though.
  • 0

#86 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 17 March 2012 - 19:18

You might even take it a step further and record the damage to a combat damaged engine. The longer and harder it is run in a damaged condition the more difficult it is to repair, this affects it's overall performance once it has been repaired until that is such time as a new, replacement engine, becomes available. This would hopefully encourage players with damaged engines to try and disengage and nurse their engines home with a little more care rather than continue fighting on and on until the very end.

The more damage an engine receives, the more occasions it might be unavailable because it's in the workshop being repaired thus requiring you to use another, maybe lesser aircraft. The problem is you have no way of telling whether the remount is fresh as a daisy or a worn out hack that's seen better days.
  • 0

#87 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 17 March 2012 - 20:34

If Rof starts mucking around with and producing the best variants in tip top condition and with perfect performance, even if those planes represented a very limited overall number, then they should only be implemented with some restrictions.

The sim knows what plane you flew last and what skin you used, it tracks various stats on your performance. That being the case then it could be argued that it wouldn't be impossible to allocate an aircraft to a player.

For example: Pilot chooses a Fokker D VIIf. Unfortunately he is a bit hard on his aircraft, but he doesn't care, over-stressing the engine makes no odds , using the altitude throttle indiscriminately, all that is important is that he has an advantage now.

Now what if the game tracked his aircraft and degraded his aircraft's performance, the more he abuses it the quicker it degrades, this would be part of the pilots online profile and not server side stats. After a certain length of time the engine would be replaced or refurbished (if he lived that long). Abusing engines to the point of destruction might also restrict a player possible choices for replaning, possibly being restricted to vanilla D VII's until theoretical new engines become available or high command has forgiven him sufficiently to allow him to use one of their scarce high performance engines.

It might also make online dogfights more interesting too. No longer are you just facing a vanilla aircraft, but maybe a good aircraft with substandard performance that doesn't quite dominate the fight as it might do if it was in tip top condition. The pilots ability at management becoming another facet of a planes performance rather than simply it's speed or turn ability.

+1 This sounds like a great idea! :S!: MJ
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#88 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 17 March 2012 - 21:02

It will be wonderful, for ROF, to find that there is evidence of the DVIIf being faster than the 200 hp, as fast as the 220 hp and being slightly slower than the 235 hp, at combat altitudes and that is what it seems to be, given the SPAD pilots opinion, of the match up, between DVII and SPAD 220 hp, an opinion that did not make distinction between make of DVII or give weight or special regard to altitude exceptions. BTW, that does not mean that the Mercedes version DVII was just as fast as the SPAD 220 hp, right? So, the fastest the DVII series could go, when faced, so frequently, by these SPAD pilots, was as fast as a 220 hp SPAD, that is all we know, that is the fastest forward speed observed that the fastest DVII, encountered by these pilots, could go. I mean, where is the 220 hp SPAD pilot commentary that the DVIIf could overhaul them, at combat altitude? We do hear that the SPAD pilots noted how the DVII could perform acrobatics, at 5 km to 5.5 km! Well, At what altitude are these SPAD pilots when encountering the DVII, when these 220 hp SPADs are just as fast as the DVII, when they are observing all of this acrobatics at 5 km and 5. 5 km? Are they at grass top altitude or are they at combat altitude, when the SPAD pilots so frequently encounter the DVII? Is sea level a common combat altitude, for a French HOP or a DOP? (I am referring to the SPAD pilot opinion offered by Panthera)

Wow! Just think about the balance! Matching the DVIIf with the 220 hp or 235 hp would ensure that the DVIIf never faced a 220 hp that could overhaul it, in straight and level flight, barring damage. When up against the 235 hp, the DVIIf could out climb the 235 hp, even if the DVIIf is slower in forward speed, yet the 235 could outdive the DVIIf or pull away, slowly, in straight and level flight. The DVIIf could always obtain an altitude advantage, above 6,200 meters or so, that the entire SPAD series could not reach, but the SPADs could outdive a DVIIf, if above and in pursuit of the SPADs. A couple of real great match ups, for ROF! Tactics and situational awareness would just about totally determine the outcome of a fight. :S!: MJ
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#89 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 18 March 2012 - 02:06

MJ,

To achieve the 218 km/h top speed in the SPAD XIII ingame I was running with a very high fuel mixture, about 90%, and 50% radiator grill delfection. (The latter didn't really seem to matter though) Could hold it steady at ~215 km/h for a long time, wheels nearly touching the ground.

Fuel load for all three aircraft was set at 50%.

I also tried using full altitude throttle in the DVIIF and could just about reach 200 km/h.

So obvious conclusion is that all three aircraft are too slow atm, the Fokker more noticably so however.

Here again is the real life performance of the aircraft for comparison, this time I added the 235 hp SPAD for comparison, which I agree would be an interesting late war addition to the game:

Fokker DVII (Merc DIIIaü 200 bhp): 200 km/h
Fokker DVIIF (BMW IIIa 210 bhp to 235 bhp): 205 km/h to ~225 km/h
SPAD XIII (Hisp Suiza 8Be 220 bhp): 222 km/h
SPAD XIII (Hisp Suiza 8Be 235 bhp) ~233 km/h

According to Mr. Kacey the ~225 km/h top speed of the DVIIF was achieved applying 2/3rds alt throttle at SL, yielding 235 bhp for safe use over long periods of time when using Flieger Benzin.

Full altitude throttle would yield ~250 bhp, however it is likely that the engine would only be able to sustain this for a short period of time.
  • 0

#90 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 19 March 2012 - 05:44

If Rof starts mucking around with and producing the best variants in tip top condition and with perfect performance, even if those planes represented a very limited overall number, then…

Eh? This has already happened, years ago.
  • 0

#91 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:18

If Rof starts mucking around with and producing the best variants in tip top condition and with perfect performance, even if those planes represented a very limited overall number, then…

Eh? This has already happened, years ago.


Not quite.

There are several uprated "improved" versions of planes that could be made available,as you well know.

The problem is, obviously, that unless fliers are some sort of macho b'stards, they tend to opt for the best version rather than the one allocated by the powers that be, but that's stating the bleeding obvious.

It might be worth starting a new thread to see if personal plane allocation and wear might be an idea worth pursuing in it's own right as this thread seems pretty worked out ?
  • 0

#92 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 19 March 2012 - 14:20

It would be a cool feature for the career mode…

But, regardless, RoF has used factory-fresh data for many of the Entente aircraft, and data from captured aircraft for most of the German aircraft.
  • 0

#93 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 19 March 2012 - 15:28

I fly the SE5a mostly but recently I've been flying the DVIIa in Vander's St Mihel campaign.

The stock DVII really is a serious chugger. At 3K I'm struggling to catch the Breguets that the Yanks are sending to bomb my airfield. The AI are having even more of a problem, they just can't engage.

The lack of the Diiiau is a historical and gameplay problem.
  • 0

#94 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 19 March 2012 - 20:00

I fly the SE5a mostly but recently I've been flying the DVIIa in Vander's St Mihel campaign.

The stock DVII really is a serious chugger. At 3K I'm struggling to catch the Breguets that the Yanks are sending to bomb my airfield. The AI are having even more of a problem, they just can't engage.

The lack of the Diiiau is a historical and gameplay problem.

That and the fact that they are obviously using incorrect drag & lift data for the DVII airframe, seeing as the ingame DVIIF only barely reaches 200 km/h at 232 hp, where'as the real thing was pushing 225 km/h at that power, and over 200 km/h at 200 hp.

And the same applies to the Albatros series.
  • 0

#95 Tom.Cundall

Tom.Cundall
  • Posts: 6

Posted 19 March 2012 - 20:48

.
  • 0

#96 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 03 April 2012 - 07:44

That and the fact that they are obviously using incorrect drag & lift data for the DVII airframe, seeing as the ingame DVIIF only barely reaches 200 km/h at 232 hp, where'as the real thing was pushing 225 km/h at that power, and over 200 km/h at 200 hp.

And the same applies to the Albatros series.

Hi Pamthera! :S!:

Much of what you write seems to make sense about speeding up these German fighters.

BTW have you read these?

http://www.archive.o...19930081084.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.archive.o...ownload/nasa_te … 081084.pdf

http://www.archive.o...19930080929.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.archive.o...ownload/nasa_te … 080929.pdf

http://www.archive.o...19930081023.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.archive.o...ownload/nasa_te … 081023.pdf

http://www.archive.o...19930081070.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.archive.o...ownload/nasa_te … 081070.pdf


Hi Smasheupalb,

Read through the the docs you provided, and I have read atleast one of them before, the one about the streamlined RAF wires. Good food for thought in those docs :)
  • 0

#97 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:00

We really do need a fix for the Albatros series FM soon, atm the Germans really are helpless on the maps where only the Albatros is available.

The ingame Albatros is at the moment being outrun by the Sopwith Pup, Tripe, Bristol & even the RE.8, and it really is a big immersion breaker. Furthermore the climb rate is also too low, namely for the DIII & DVa.

I am hoping that eventually we will see an Albatros series ingame with performance similar to this:

Albatros DIII
Top Speed = 183 km/h
Climb to 2 km = 6 min 52 sec

Albatros DVa
Top Speed = 190 km/h
Climb to 2 km = 6 min 35 sec
  • 0

#98 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:14

Panthera, keep in mind that we have a 180hp OAW Albatros D.III. The airspeed you show would be more appropriate for the Johannisthal D.III.
  • 0

#99 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 04 April 2012 - 09:55

Panthera, keep in mind that we have a 180hp OAW Albatros D.III. The airspeed you show would be more appropriate for the Johannisthal D.III.

Not sure the Johannisthal would've been capable of more than 180 km/h, where'as the OAW probably could push 190 km/h. As for the D.Va perhaps 195 km/h is more appropiate for this aircraft, considering the lower drag airframe.
  • 0

#100 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 04 April 2012 - 10:07

I thought the 'streamlined' airframe of the D.Va had a reverse effect, and it actually provided more drag?
  • 0

#101 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 04 April 2012 - 10:16

I thought the 'streamlined' airframe of the D.Va had a reverse effect, and it actually provided more drag?

No, that kind of wouldn't make much sense. The D.Va was heavier than the D.III however because of all the strengthening done to the wing structure though, so maneuverability didn't improve and the gains in climb rate were kept small.
  • 0

#102 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 04 April 2012 - 10:18

Makes sense to me. The D.Va looks slick, but all they did was increase the number of nooks and crannies.

Im not sure about it, but you shouldnt jump to an opposite xonclusion either.
  • 0

#103 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 04 April 2012 - 10:29

Examining the D.Va airframe in detail it could only have been faster than the D.III in my opinion, by how much is then the question though. However the D.Va airframe is as you mention much more slick, and importantly also smaller, so there's less wetted area drag.
  • 0

#104 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:02

I've read somewhere that it wasn't.

I don'know where and I don't really care, but you shouldn't jump to conclusions like that if you want to be taken seriously, when you say something about the airspeeds of WWI planes.
  • 0

#105 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 04 April 2012 - 12:05

DVa wing gap is smaller than the DIII, therefore the struts and wires are shorter. That feature should be less draggy, but I don't know either way about the fuselage.

If the fuselage is more draggy on the D.Va it is not because of nooks and crannies, but because of the elliptical shape. What looks the least draggy isn't always so. The box shape of the DIII might have been better.
  • 0

#106 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 04 April 2012 - 12:40

Jorri's not going mad I'd read that somewhere as well.

I'd also seen interesting info about how little effect a prop-boss or spinner had sometimes actually degrading performance!
  • 0

#107 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 04 April 2012 - 12:42

If the fuselage is more draggy on the D.Va it is not because of nooks and crannies, but because of the elliptical shape. What looks the least draggy isn't always so. The box shape of the DIII might have been better.

That's pretty much what I meant - the space created between the top of the lower wings, and the elliptical fuselage. Didn't find the words for it, though :P. Thanks!
  • 0

#108 =BLW=P.Sniper

=BLW=P.Sniper
  • Posts: 179

Posted 04 April 2012 - 13:53

I believe it is obvious that the following aircraft are in need of an increase to their maximum speeds:


Fokker D.VIIF (200+ km/h reported, likely ~210 km/h at full regular throttle [230 hp] and as much as 220 km/h @ SL using full alt throttle [~250 hp + reports of catching SPADs on the deck])
Fokker D.VII (With the Merc IIIaü engine around 195 km/h [climb rate then needs attention aswell])
Fokker D.VIII (~204 km/h reported, likely around 200 km/h @ SL)
Fokker Dr.1 (~165 km/h reported at 4 km, likely around 185 km/h @ SL)
Albatros D.II (~180 km/h reported)
Albatros D.III (~185 km/h reported, likely 185 km/h)
Albatros D.Va (~187 km/h reported, likely 190 km/h)
Pfalz D.III (~180 km/h reported)
Nieuport 17 (~175 km/h reported)


In short the Fokker DVII(F), VIII & Albatros D.Va are the aircraft most in need of an increase in speed ingame.


+1 :S!:
  • 0

#109 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 04 April 2012 - 19:34

If the fuselage is more draggy on the D.Va it is not because of nooks and crannies, but because of the elliptical shape. What looks the least draggy isn't always so. The box shape of the DIII might have been better.

That's pretty much what I meant - the space created between the top of the lower wings, and the elliptical fuselage. Didn't find the words for it, though :P. Thanks!

With my limited knowledge of aerodynamics I know that less drag will produced when a wing is attached at 90 degrees to the fuselage or for that matter, any part attached at 90 degrees (struts etc). So, given that, with the curvature of the DVa's fuselage, there would be a bit more drag created where the lower wing attaches as opposed to the DIII where the fuselage is 90 degrees to the lower wing due to the flat sides of the fuselage.
  • 0

#110 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 04 April 2012 - 19:42

.
  • 0

#111 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 04 April 2012 - 20:44

Jorri's not going mad I'd read that somewhere as well.

I'd also seen interesting info about how little effect a prop-boss or spinner had sometimes actually degrading performance!

Tom,
The info on the spinner was probably related to a document discussing the Albatros D.III Oeffag series 153. I am pretty sure, Tom, but not certain, that there was a noticeable improvement in speed, when the spinner was removed from the Oeffag series 153. I hope that helps. I wish I could remember where I read that, but I can't remember, at the moment. :S!: MJ
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#112 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 05 April 2012 - 05:52

I've read somewhere that it wasn't.

I don'know where and I don't really care, but you shouldn't jump to conclusions like that if you want to be taken seriously, when you say something about the airspeeds of WWI planes.

I didn't jump to any conclusion yet, but based on the size and shape of the D.Va airframe vs the D.III it seems certain that the D.Va airframe did improve speed in my opinion, if not because of shape then because of size.

I believe what you once read was really about the std. D.III and the Austrian Oeffag D.III, where the removal of the propeller hub and narrowing of the nose actually lowered the drag on the Oeffag vs the Std. D.III.
  • 0

#113 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 05 April 2012 - 06:08

I asked myself why there is so much discussion and uncertainty about the performance of these planes, also amongst aviation historians and physicists..while we have someone here on the forums who can perfectly tell us how fast they were and how well they could turn. But however much I would like to believe you, and I appreciate your efforts, you don't manage to come across as very credible. Sorry.

I didn't jump to any conclusion yet

but

it seems certain

in my opinion

if not (…), then

I believe

  • 0

#114 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 05 April 2012 - 07:33

Panther, I'm not sure I follow you on this. Why do you suggest a slightly larger wingspan and increased weight would increase speed?

Also, if anything the rounded fuselage, as I said in my previous post, would have increased drag at the lower wing root.

Please explain.

DVa
Height (mm): 2900
Length (mm): 7330
Wing span (mm): 9050
Wing surface (sq.m.): 21.2
Empty weight (kg): 680
Takeoff weight (kg): 915

DIII
Height (mm): 2900
Length (mm): 7330
Wing span (mm): 9000
Wing surface (sq.m.): 20.54
Empty weight (kg): 660
Takeoff weight (kg): 885
  • 0

#115 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 05 April 2012 - 10:49

I think he meant that the volume of the D.Va fuselage is smaller, or, perhaps, that it has a smaller frontal cross section. I don't know if either is true.
  • 0

#116 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 07 April 2012 - 19:44

I was talking in particular about the wetted area of the aircraft, i.o.w. the volume, relating to skin friction & form drag. And not only is the D.Va fuselage smaller in size compared to the D.III fuselage, it is also narrower, which helps lower the drag.

Panther, I'm not sure I follow you on this. Why do you suggest a slightly larger wingspan and increased weight would increase speed?

Also, if anything the rounded fuselage, as I said in my previous post, would have increased drag at the lower wing root.

Please explain.

The explanation I gave above applies here as-well, but I'd like to add that you seem to be seriously overestimating the amount of drag generated by the angle between the wing root & fuselage on the D.Va. It isn't quite as serious as you make it out to be, esp. not at the airspeeds of these old birds.
  • 0

#117 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 07 April 2012 - 19:51

I asked myself why there is so much discussion and uncertainty about the performance of these planes, also amongst aviation historians and physicists..while we have someone here on the forums who can perfectly tell us how fast they were and how well they could turn. But however much I would like to believe you, and I appreciate your efforts, you don't manage to come across as very credible. Sorry.

No problem, you are ofcourse free to believe in who'ever or what'ever you wish :)
  • 0

#118 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 08 April 2012 - 00:07

I was talking in particular about the wetted area of the aircraft, i.o.w. the volume, relating to skin friction & form drag. And not only is the D.Va fuselage smaller in size compared to the D.III fuselage, it is also narrower, which helps lower the drag.

Panther, I'm not sure I follow you on this. Why do you suggest a slightly larger wingspan and increased weight would increase speed?


Also, if anything the rounded fuselage, as I said in my previous post, would have increased drag at the lower wing root.

Please explain.

The explanation I gave above applies here as-well, but I'd like to add that you seem to be seriously overestimating the amount of drag generated by the angle between the wing root & fuselage on the D.Va. It isn't quite as serious as you make it out to be, esp. not at the airspeeds of these old birds.

OK thanks on point #1.
True enough on point #2. Lower speeds….less drag.
  • 0

#119 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 09 April 2012 - 18:13

Based on the information available so far I estimated speed of each aircraft to be approx. as follows, and I believe the figures come across as quite believable based on period pilot accounts & aircraft data.

Albatros D.II (160 hp Merc III): 175 km/h
Albatros D.III (170 hp Merc IIIa): 183 km/h
Albatros D.Va (185 hp Merc IIIaü): 190 km/h
Fokker Dr.1 (110 hp UR IIa): 180 km/h
Fokker D.VII (185 hp Merc IIIaü): 195 km/h
Fokker D.VIIF (200 hp BMW IIIa): 205 km/h [228 km/h @ 232 hp w. 2/3rds alt throttle]
Fokker D.VIII (110 hp UR IIa): 200 km/h
Nieuport 11 (80 hp LRhone 9C): 155 km/h
Nieuport 17 (110 hp LRhone 9Ja): 175 km/h
Nieuport 28 (140 hp Gnome 9N): 205 km/h
RAF SE5a (220 hp W.4A Viper): 222 km/h
Sopwith Camel (130 hp Clerget 9B): 182 km/h
Sopwith Triplane (130 hp Clerget 9B): 180 km/h
Sopwith Pup (80 hp LRhone 9C): 172 km/h
SPAD VII (180 hp HS 8Ab): 217 km/h
SPAD XIII (220 hp HS 8Bb): 225 km/h [235 km/h @ 235 hp]

Note: This is by no means a 100% accurate list, and its up for debate ofcourse.
  • 0

#120 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 09 April 2012 - 21:11

Don't hold your breath. FM revisions seem to have taken a back seat to new content, again. We've been waiting 2.5 years for Camel, Dr.1, and D.Va airspeed revisions.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users