Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A request for the Fokker DVII with DIIIaü engine...


  • Please log in to reply
494 replies to this topic

#161 El_Marta

El_Marta
  • Posts: 57

Posted 15 October 2012 - 17:38

I support this petition.
  • 0

#162 FlyingShark

FlyingShark
  • Posts: 1941

Posted 15 October 2012 - 18:34

I support this petition.
Thanks, I hope some more people will do so.

:S!:
  • 0

You can vote my post up by clicking the green arrow on the right.


#163 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 15 October 2012 - 20:13

How is it possible, that there is no data from the Adlershof competition?

Lots of documentation was lost during WWII.
  • 0

#164 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:29

Any word on if we might actually see the D.IIIau engine in the D.VII? I survived a fight against a Camel at 3km in the D.VII tonight in multiplayer, but only because I was able to dive away. Other than that, my opponent could easily outclimb the D.VII and had about the same top speed (with better acceleration). Of course, I was the only one dumb enough to be in a D.VII. Most CP pilots were in the Dr1.
  • 0

#165 J99Hasso

J99Hasso
  • Posts: 434

Posted 16 October 2012 - 06:15

an engine mod would make a lot of interesting guys RoF.
  • 0

#166 tvrtko

tvrtko
  • Posts: 745

Posted 16 October 2012 - 07:01

Any word on if we might actually see the D.IIIau engine in the D.VII? I survived a fight against a Camel at 3km in the D.VII tonight in multiplayer, but only because I was able to dive away. Other than that, my opponent could easily outclimb the D.VII and had about the same top speed (with better acceleration). Of course, I was the only one dumb enough to be in a D.VII. Most CP pilots were in the Dr1.
:?
I thought… D.VII is better
in all fields compared to Dr.1.
Ecxept in climbing rate (on high
altitudes) and tight turns. Maybe.
  • 0

#167 SYN_Kollwitz

SYN_Kollwitz
  • Posts: 298

Posted 16 October 2012 - 16:12

an engine mod would make a lot of interesting guys RoF.

I would prefer a separate plane (compare SPAD 7) instead of engine mods as the weapon/field mods. This way mission builders can tweak the planesets to provide a better mission experience. If engine varieties will be introduced as mods, any sane person would take the most potent variety. There is no disadvantage with the more potent engine as there is in the weapon mods (no extra drag, slower climb speed etc).

Now if the fine gentlemen in Moscow devise a way to lock mods (engine, weapon and field) independently and per plane, then sure, it is just another fine option.

cheers,
Kollwitz
  • 0

#168 DKoor

DKoor
  • Posts: 179

Posted 16 October 2012 - 17:17

Any word on if we might actually see the D.IIIau engine in the D.VII? I survived a fight against a Camel at 3km in the D.VII tonight in multiplayer, but only because I was able to dive away. Other than that, my opponent could easily outclimb the D.VII and had about the same top speed (with better acceleration). Of course, I was the only one dumb enough to be in a D.VII. Most CP pilots were in the Dr1.
:?
I thought… D.VII is better
in all fields compared to Dr.1.
Ecxept in climbing rate (on high
altitudes) and tight turns. Maybe.
Hey not sure what those other fields may be :) .
Climb rate is highly important to me, only topped by top speed.
As I see it now, D7 is better in top speed, while Dr1 holds other 2 key features, climbing and turn rate.

I feel this game is actually quite less balanced than IL-2 for example.

For example I could take Bf-109 and I know when I meet P-51 that I need to slow him down and that is pretty much the end of story for him. Vice versa, if he drags me in high speed combat I'm dead meat as 109 tops only Boeing 747 in high speed maneuverability (not exactly sure of that one either). :xx:
Long story short, all sides hold some aces in their sleeves.

In this game as long as I meet well flown Camel I know I can't do anything to top him in any axis plane. In all honesty I was expecting to see that Pfalz D12 and Fokker D7 can actually hold its ground vs Camel but I don't think it's possible.

However as I'm quite newbie (still) with this game there may be some stuff that I'm overlooking as I don't have some excessive experience, but this kinda settles the story for me:

-Camel is as fast as fastest axis
-turns better than any axis

This is about late war, early/mid period may be different story I'm still exploring that 8-) .
  • 0

#169 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 16 October 2012 - 17:30

Well, for starters dkoor, there's no axis in WW1. ;)

Second, the Dr1 can furball with the Camel very well, but that's about it. The real rub, as you point out, is that aircraft that were historically faster than the Camel are not faster in Rise of Flight, and it's been that way for three years. As you compare it to Il-2, imagine if the A6M2 were able to run-down the F4u. So long as there is no movement on the D.IIIau engine for the D.VII, that is the way it will stay. :?
  • 0

#170 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 16 October 2012 - 19:54

I feel this game is actually quite less balanced than IL-2 for example.

For example I could take Bf-109 and I know when I meet P-51 that I need to slow him down and that is pretty much the end of story for him. Vice versa, if he drags me in high speed combat I'm dead meat […]

Long story short, all sides hold some aces in their sleeves.

In this game as long as I meet well flown Camel I know I can't do anything to top him in any axis plane.
Well, if you meet a well flown P-51 you can't do anything either when flying a BF-109. He gets to choose when to fight.

Against a well flown Camel below 1000m, you don't have much in the way of options other than to extend and climb above him. If you are flying a D.VII of P.DXII, you can extend from the Camel and climb above him when he tires of chasing you. A D.VIIf can extend and climb above him. You are better off choosing to fight Camels at 2000m and above though. Once above them, you can boom and zoom them, but you need to keep the fight at altitude. And, given they are well flown, it will likely be a stalemate anyhow.
  • 0

#171 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 16 October 2012 - 20:11

The real rub, as you point out, is that aircraft that were historically faster than the Camel are not faster in Rise of Flight, and it's been that way for three years. As you compare it to Il-2, imagine if the A6M2 were able to run-down the F4u. So long as there is no movement on the D.IIIau engine for the D.VII, that is the way it will stay. :?

This.

And it's getting a bit annoying because it is not a hard fix. C'mon 777! Do the right thing!
  • 0

#172 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 16 October 2012 - 21:18

Its not a simple fix. If it was a simple fix then I really think it'd be done already.

I did think when the Halby shipped with the Diiiau we were well on the road though…
  • 0

#173 DKoor

DKoor
  • Posts: 179

Posted 16 October 2012 - 21:24

Well, for starters dkoor, there's no axis in WW1. ;)

Second, the Dr1 can furball with the Camel very well, but that's about it. The real rub, as you point out, is that aircraft that were historically faster than the Camel are not faster in Rise of Flight, and it's been that way for three years. As you compare it to Il-2, imagine if the A6M2 were able to run-down the F4u. So long as there is no movement on the D.IIIau engine for the D.VII, that is the way it will stay. :?
Funny, all I can say about it… the purpose of playing games is that people playing a game have fun. In this case even history seems to be working in our favour but for some extra odd reason it already didn't happened. OK. I've seen much worse with IL-2. Not that this is of any consolation here.

I feel this game is actually quite less balanced than IL-2 for example.

For example I could take Bf-109 and I know when I meet P-51 that I need to slow him down and that is pretty much the end of story for him. Vice versa, if he drags me in high speed combat I'm dead meat […]

Long story short, all sides hold some aces in their sleeves.

In this game as long as I meet well flown Camel I know I can't do anything to top him in any axis plane.
Well, if you meet a well flown P-51 you can't do anything either when flying a BF-109. He gets to choose when to fight.

Against a well flown Camel below 1000m, you don't have much in the way of options other than to extend and climb above him. If you are flying a D.VII of P.DXII, you can extend from the Camel and climb above him when he tires of chasing you. A D.VIIf can extend and climb above him. You are better off choosing to fight Camels at 2000m and above though. Once above them, you can boom and zoom them, but you need to keep the fight at altitude. And, given they are well flown, it will likely be a stalemate anyhow.
If you allow, WW2 is whole another world compared to WW1.
In this game you can count on rather low speed differences.
In WW2 that was much more pronounced.
I understand what you are saying but I can't see something I can really count on or rely on… on machines evenly matched speed wise as these are… by the time you are out of effective gun range more agile fighter will have sufficient time to inflict some/heavy damage.

Point of the whole story… while in IL-2 pure speed is no.1 by far in ROF due to close matched speeds you can expect most potent online fighters in really to be those of highest maneuverability and turn rate. Flown right they will rule the skies no doubt about that… (2-3-4-5km/h speed diff effectively means nothing.)
Precisely as you said: P-51 gets to choose when to fight.
Now we can only imagine what it would be like if that P-51 also outturned 109 Spitfire style.
That's about how the situation with Camel seems to me right now.

About 109 not having a chance vs P-51 that's true but in one particular case.
In all honesty and reality of 10 years of intensive playing and several years online it was - in fair fight one mistake and P-51 is history vs 109. P-51 has the luxury of fleeing but that's about it… it can't outclimb nor outturn 109 except on high speeds.
51s work best when paired same like FWs then they are truly fearsome and their victims get that resistance is futile feeling.

In my experience any kind of prolonged fights only benefit more maneuverable fighters which can retain their energy much better and are usually more efficient low speed climbers.
That's why lone wulf folks on serious servers with realistic-like settings usually make one pass on target and are always on 500+km/h at combat zone etc. etc.
  • 0

#174 DKoor

DKoor
  • Posts: 179

Posted 16 October 2012 - 21:32

Its not a simple fix. If it was a simple fix then I really think it'd be done already.

I did think when the Halby shipped with the Diiiau we were well on the road though…
Not that I'm some kind of grammar nazi, but as I understand it this is not a "fix".
But new aircraft, or am I missing something?
  • 0

#175 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 16 October 2012 - 21:32

Its not a simple fix. If it was a simple fix then I really think it'd be done already.

I did think when the Halby shipped with the Diiiau we were well on the road though…

When was the Halby released? I thought we'd see the engine in the D.VII a few weeks later. Must be months now.

However, I think it's a simple fix. They haven't done it because they direct limited staff time to developing new product rather than fixing faults with the old. Sound short/medium-term business sense, but undermining in the long run because eventually long-standing customers get hacked off and new ones notice that half the forum threads are about one or two simple FM fixes that are long overdue.

I am turning into Gav ;)
  • 0

#176 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 16 October 2012 - 21:50

Point of the whole story… while in IL-2 pure speed is no.1 by far in ROF due to close matched speeds you can expect most potent online fighters in really to be those of highest maneuverability and turn rate. Flown right they will rule the skies no doubt about that… (2-3-4-5km/h speed diff effectively means nothing.)

When I first started flying RoF I had similar thoughts. Once I retrained myself away from WW2 tactics, however, it became very apparent that faster and better climbing still wins over quick turning. For example, the best scout in the game is arguably the Spad 13, and it is not known for its turning ability. Anyone would be sorely mistaken to think that the Spad is only an attack and run away plane (though it is very good at that).
  • 0

#177 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 16 October 2012 - 22:16

If you allow, WW2 is whole another world compared to WW1.
In this game you can count on rather low speed differences.
In WW2 that was much more pronounced.
I understand what you are saying but I can't see something I can really count on or rely on… on machines evenly matched speed wise as these are… by the time you are out of effective gun range more agile fighter will have sufficient time to inflict some/heavy damage.
I agree that the speed differences are less pronounced, which can leave you in guns range uncomfortably long if you are just trying to extend in a straight line. But there are better options.

Start with an altitude advantage. Engage at an altitude more favorable to your aircraft. Boom and zoom in WW1 will usually require a turning zoom. You want to maintain vertical separation more than horizontal separation, so try to stay above your opponent. Directly above if possible. Even better turning scouts will struggle with both turning and raising their noses to get off a pot shot. If you are too close/co-equal on E, you need to dive and evade to make yourself hard to hit until you have reached a safe extension.

However, I do admit that all of this is harder in a vanilla D.VII and is much harder, if not futile, in an Albatros. Then again, the Camel was a formidable fighter and Albs had few options other than to run away - something you can't do in RoF (cue: Gavagai).
  • 0

#178 DKoor

DKoor
  • Posts: 179

Posted 16 October 2012 - 22:26

an attack and run away plane (though it is very good at that).
I'm for the most part interested ONLY in that when flying scouts…
That is the real air combat, for me at least.

Someone could frown upon such style but I don't care :S!: .

Don't wanna infest the topic with my further inquiries about S.E.5a, one of my fav planes, but I somehow think it must be very much alike S.P.A.D.13.
  • 0

#179 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 16 October 2012 - 23:26

SSSSSHHHHH. Whatever you do…. don't mention the fast French scout that starts with "S". This thread might turn into another annoying one like the Siemens Schuckert thread. :lol:

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAD SPAM SPAM SPAD SPAD SPAD SPAM
  • 0

#180 belfastman2

belfastman2
  • Posts: 66

Posted 17 October 2012 - 01:13

SAME HERE LOVE TO HAVE IT
  • 0

#181 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 17 October 2012 - 02:15

Its not a simple fix. If it was a simple fix then I really think it'd be done already.

I did think when the Halby shipped with the Diiiau we were well on the road though…
Not that I'm some kind of grammar nazi, but as I understand it this is not a "fix".
But new aircraft, or am I missing something?

If we're still using the Camel as an example, neoqb modeled it according to the performance data of the prototype and not a production aircraft. So it is a bit faster than the 130hp Clerget Camels from 1917. The engine also runs 200rpm faster than it should (compare it to the Sopwith Tripe), so there are "fixes" in the normal sense of the word that could be made to improve the accuracy of the simulation.

The impossible-to-stall and slow-as-molasses Albatrosses and Pfalz D.IIIa are also popular choices for fixes.
  • 0

#182 DKoor

DKoor
  • Posts: 179

Posted 17 October 2012 - 14:18

Its not a simple fix. If it was a simple fix then I really think it'd be done already.

I did think when the Halby shipped with the Diiiau we were well on the road though…
Not that I'm some kind of grammar nazi, but as I understand it this is not a "fix".
But new aircraft, or am I missing something?

If we're still using the Camel as an example, neoqb modeled it according to the performance data of the prototype and not a production aircraft. So it is a bit faster than the 130hp Clerget Camels from 1917. The engine also runs 200rpm faster than it should (compare it to the Sopwith Tripe), so there are "fixes" in the normal sense of the word that could be made to improve the accuracy of the simulation.

The impossible-to-stall and slow-as-molasses Albatrosses and Pfalz D.IIIa are also popular choices for fixes.
I completely understand, that was the situation (albeit a bit different) with the LA-5FN in IL-2, because it was proved that aircraft never really existed IRL… that coming from "Soviet" or "Russian" sources (Yefim Gordon's book I bought because I liked Lavochkin fighters and wanted to knew more about them). Long story short that LA-5FN has more than optimistic FM, and was also partially modelled after prototype (it's even better than prototype!)etc. In that regard it is apparently similar to a Camel.

Regarding my post there, I was thinking this way:
If we mount new DIIIaü engine into existing D7 airframe that would make a new aircraft wouldn't it?
So in a way this doesn't really belong into "fixing things" category?
Fixing would mean that existing vanilla D7 or F are wrongly modelled (Mercedes DIIIa and BMWIIIa)?
  • 0

#183 Stick-95

Stick-95
  • Posts: 1024

Posted 17 October 2012 - 18:27

I hope that this is not off topic.

There are flying actual restored and reproduction WWI aircraft. When I say reproduction I mean made by period means with period materials with historic engine types, not ones with substitutes of engines, etc. There must be actual flight data on these aircraft that, due to more modern instrumentation, is more accurate and consistent than period data. Obviously, not all current WWI flyables are available for the aircraft available in ROF. The question then is, is the data on these aircraft available and, if so, could it be used to form a set of baselines that could be compared to historic data to extrapolate better FM data for use in ROF for all its aircraft available?

You may now proceed with the throwing of brickbats at me.
  • 0

#184 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 17 October 2012 - 20:27

Reproduction / restored aircraft are typically built with lighter / more efficient materials that were available during the war, so they aren't an accurate gauge for determining FM data. That, and very few - if any - owners of these planes are going to put them to the limit for the sake of satisfying FM nerds on a video game forum.
  • 0

#185 Scott_Steiner

Scott_Steiner
  • Posts: 789
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 17 October 2012 - 23:22

I completely understand, that was the situation (albeit a bit different) with the LA-5FN in IL-2, because it was proved that aircraft never really existed IRL… that coming from "Soviet" or "Russian" sources (S.Yefimov book I bought because I liked Lavochkin fighters and wanted to knew more about them). Long story short that LA-5FN has more than optimistic FM, and was also partially modelled after prototype (it's even better than prototype!)etc. In that regard it is apparently similar to a Camel.

I was a fan of the MiG-3 U myself.. Earlier in the original IL-2's life span, one day I found out there were only about 6 of them made if I recall correctly.. but it was still one of the earlier flyable aircraft in the game when there wasn't a lot to choose from.

At least with IL-2 later on, there were so many aircraft variants that were eventually made flyable, you could issolate most of the oddballs on your server that you didn't think were historical and still have a very complete plane list. Not that I am saying ROF isn't filling out the hangar quick enough.. The quality of aircraft far exceeds what was made for IL-2, no ill will towards former 3rd party modelers that visit this forum of course.

At least ROF has all aircraft that were prototypes or actually flew in some form.. Lerche anyone? :D
  • 0

#186 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 18 October 2012 - 00:39

Reproduction / restored aircraft are typically built with lighter / more efficient materials that were available during the war

Luke, please elaborate. Which materials and why?
  • 0

#187 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 18 October 2012 - 00:49

I guess he means other wood quality (not necessarily same wood) as well as different metal parts, and soldering could be of better quality too…
Modern area assembly might be quite different from what it was in WW1 and modern knowledge of building things differt from 80 years ago.
  • 0

#188 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:49

What Fifi said. For instance, the replica machine guns used in these planes are built from a much lighter metal.
  • 0

#189 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:31

Ok I can accept that. But guns and ammo aside, how much of a difference would things like solder make? I realize that there are replicas out there that ARE much lighter but also I heard that, for example, Mikael Carlson's D7 is very, very close (within a few Kg) of the original. Even back then there would have be inconsistencies with the density of wood so one Pfalz D3 wouldn't be exactly the same weight as another and so on. Achim Engels was quite meticulous in that he used the proper materials for his aircraft and made, I'm assuming from reading his postings, reproductions that are almost identical to the originals. Besides the guns and ammo or course.

I feel that if there were reports on the performance of a few selected reproduction aircraft, ones that are excellent reproductions and not replicas, they should not be discounted.
  • 0

#190 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:49

Adam,

I think an assumption that you and some others are making is that a replica built to within very tight approximation of an original could serve as an objective testbed for performance data. However, what we know about WW1 aviation says that there was no such thing as a standard type. All scouts had slight differences that could vary from day to day or week to week. In some cases the performance difference between two 'identical' scouts could be so enormous that one had to be written off entirely. Which of these we would get with a replica is anyone's guess, and which of these were used for performance tests in 1918 is also anyone's guess. That is the fundamental reason for why WW1 performance data will always be problematic as a sole source of information for making a flight model.
  • 0

#191 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:11

I realize that, Gav but in game we have no differences between two airplanes of the same type. To me it would make more sense to base data on current reproductions rather than guess at the old data. At least you'd have a solid base from which one could add a smudge factor to make up for things like engine wear. Don't we already have a Camel that is based on a factory fresh one?

Anyway this is all a mute topic anyway seeing as it will most likely never happen. I digress.
  • 0

#192 Spoon

Spoon
  • Posts: 94

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:34

Gavagai said,
"If we're still using the Camel as an example, neoqb modeled it according to the performance data of the prototype and not a production aircraft."

According to the information released by 777, they don't use flight data in setting parameters, only for the final polishing.

In IL2, aircraft performance was directly related to the performance data entered by the designers. The Spitfire V for instance was based on Russian data and was 20mph slower than the English variant (The Merlin require very high grades of fuel to run properly. Fine in England, crap in Russia). The IL2 crew, could and sometime did change parameters to make the game match historical records.

In ROF it’s very different. Right from the very start, we were told that performance would by dynamically derived by creating a aerodynamical model (this is completely separate from the visual model), applying a known power to it, and then subjecting this to advance mathematical modelling to calculate how the aircraft should be performing at any point in time. The Camel isn't too fast because crappy data was used. It’s too fast because the state of the art mathematical models when analysing the aerodynamical model/power output, calculate it as being to fast. 777 can and do tweak the aerodynamical model to try and match performance data but the changes they can make are only small.

When it comes to the rotaries in ROF, I believe the problem is ROF has not taken into account the drag effects of the spinning Rotary engine. Aircraft engines WITHOUT constant speed props slow down during turn and climbs. When the aircraft straightens out, the engine accelerates back to full speed but in a Rotary, it not only has to increase the propeller to full speed but the entire 200kg engine as well while fighting not just prop drag but the drag of the engine spinning against the airstream. That drag is so substantial that no rotary could ever be designed to exceed 1400rpm in level flight as after this point the exponential increase in drag from spinning the motor consumes all excess energy. Rotaries weren't slow. There's plenty of flight test data to show that once they picked up their skirts, they could run fast. Their problem was their slow acceleration. This was particularly magnified in a dive, where an inline (like the Albatros), can gain hundreds of extra rpm in its dive, while the engine of the Camel is going to accelerate slower and slower as it hits the 1400rpm barrier. Net result; the Albatros easily dives away from the Camel despite both have historically close top speeds.

The Spitfire IX was often complained about in IL2 for being too fast, often catching much faster late model Bf109's. It wasn't it maximum speed that was the issue (it was the correct historical 408mph) but it high acceleration that allowed it to catch Bf109's before their higher speed carried them away. It made it feel Иfast’ when it wasn’t. It’s the same sort of issue we’re having in ROF. If the Camel/DRI/Pup had low acceleration, they’d feel Иslow’ even if had their correct maximum speeds and would match historical accounts.

For LukeFF,
TLDR – Drag from the spinning engine should give rotaries poor acceleration.
  • 0

#193 SirFreddie

SirFreddie
  • Posts: 1398

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:14

Just do it 777 … like you did for the Se5a! (Not perfect but 'better' FM)

You know it's not the right machine for the sim. (DVII)

And (perhaps more importantly) while you're at it sort out the Albatros… These are in the the top 5 WW1 planes in your sim that attract new flightsimwise players…

Who thinks 'I fancy a go in a Halberstadt ClII' before buying into this sim?

:S!:
  • 0

#194 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:16

Gavagai said,
"If we're still using the Camel as an example, neoqb modeled it according to the performance data of the prototype and not a production aircraft."

According to the information released by 777, they don't use flight data in setting parameters, only for the final polishing.

That's the whole point spoon. They tweaked its airspeed and climb to match a prototype's performance data. Was I really that unclear?

In all cases 777/neoqb's self-stated goal is to be within 5% error of published data. They don't just plug things into the physics model and let the chips fall where they may. Notice the drastic change we got in the Nieuport 17 and SE5a after flight model review. These models are highly plastic and open to interpretation.

P.S. If you want to talk engine RPMs, compare the Camel and the Tripe. The Clerget's maximum RPM was 1200-1250 or so.
  • 0

#195 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1501

Posted 18 October 2012 - 08:13

[…] In IL2, aircraft performance was directly related to the performance data entered by the designers. The Spitfire V for instance was based on Russian data and was 20mph slower than the English variant (The Merlin require very high grades of fuel to run properly. Fine in England, crap in Russia). The IL2 crew, could and sometime did change parameters to make the game match historical records.

Hear hear ! Like the german high-octane 'Fliegerbenzin' in WW1 - testing those engines with lower-standard british fuels gave lower performance as well.
Which is what we read as official numbers in the reports now.
  • 0

#196 2Lt_Joch

2Lt_Joch
  • Posts: 184
  • Locationcanada

Posted 18 October 2012 - 13:06

When it comes to the rotaries in ROF, I believe the problem is ROF has not taken into account the drag effects of the spinning Rotary engine. Aircraft engines WITHOUT constant speed props slow down during turn and climbs. When the aircraft straightens out, the engine accelerates back to full speed but in a Rotary, it not only has to increase the propeller to full speed but the entire 200kg engine as well while fighting not just prop drag but the drag of the engine spinning against the airstream. That drag is so substantial that no rotary could ever be designed to exceed 1400rpm in level flight as after this point the exponential increase in drag from spinning the motor consumes all excess energy. Rotaries weren't slow. There's plenty of flight test data to show that once they picked up their skirts, they could run fast. Their problem was their slow acceleration. This was particularly magnified in a dive, where an inline (like the Albatros), can gain hundreds of extra rpm in its dive, while the engine of the Camel is going to accelerate slower and slower as it hits the 1400rpm barrier. Net result; the Albatros easily dives away from the Camel despite both have historically close top speeds.

It's not that clear. Rotary engines were largely abandoned after WW1, so little serious studies have been done about their performance and much is still unknown.

Whether there is any HP loss through drag is not clear. Some have said it could as high as 30%, some have argued it is negligible, no one seems to know for sure. The 1500 rpm limit is more a function of the centrifugal forces created by the engine. Once you go much past 1500 rpm, a WW1 rotary would literally tear itself apart, although modern Rotaries like the Rotec seem to have no problem going up to 3600 rpm.

One thing which is not clear with a Rotary is how much effective torque it generates. Remember that in a WW1 engine, the propeller has a fixed pitch and develops its best performance at a fixed RPM, usually somewhere between 1000-1400 rpm. Going past this fixed rpm yielded no significant benefit and could actually degrade performance. The name of the game was keeping the propeller spinning at its best RPM. Engines like the Falcon and Hispano-Suiza which had an effective RPM range up to 2000-2200 rpm, had reduction gears installed to lower the propeller RPM down to its rated speed. When you are in the 1000-1400 RPM range, how much torque an engine generates is more important than the HP.

In a normal engine, torque is a function of HP/RPM and the torque curve is well known. In a Rotary, it appears the engine may generate proportionally more torque or at least retain and use its generated torque more effectively than a normal engine. The Rotary engine spinning around its crankshaft can represent up to 25% of the weight of the aircraft and the inertia of its mass should allow it to retain more of its torque in all circumstances than a normal engine. I would not be surprised if a Rotary engine showed a fairly flat torque curve.

If you compare two well known engine, the 110 hp Le Rhône and the Mercedes D.IIIa, the Le Rhône which generated 125-130 hp would appear to be much weaker than the 180 hp D.IIIa.

However, when you look at other factors which influence torque, like displacement:

D.IIIa: 15 liters
Le Rhône: 15 liters

or compression ratio:

D.IIIa: 4.64:1
Le Rhône: 5.00:1

the HP figures appear to be out of whack.

Nieuport 17s, Sopwith Triplanes, Sopwith Camels, Fokker Dr.1s and Fokker DVIIIs, equipped with 110 HP Le Rhône, all recorded 0-3000 meters climb times in the 9 minute range while D.IIIa equipped planes were all in the 12-14 minute range, even though the lb/hp ratio is similar. This would seem to indicate that Rotaries are making better use of their generated torque.
  • 0

#197 tvrtko

tvrtko
  • Posts: 745

Posted 18 October 2012 - 13:08

….Net result; the Albatros easily dives away from the Camel despite both have historically close top speeds…
Not so fast !!! :mrgreen:

It's not so "easy" mate, remember Albatros
III & V lower wing instability in a steep dive ? :)
  • 0

#198 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 18 October 2012 - 14:08

The Camel had its own problems in steep dives. The little prop that pressurizes the fuel tank would vibrate and sometimes crack the strut. Worse, it could over-pressurize the fuel tank and break the glass gauge inside the cockpit, spraying the pilot with fuel.

Nieuport 17s, Sopwith Triplanes, Sopwith Camels, Fokker Dr.1s and Fokker DVIIIs, equipped with 110 HP Le Rhône, all recorded 0-3000 meters climb times in the 9 minute range while D.IIIa equipped planes were all in the 12-14 minute range, even though the lb/hp ratio is similar. This would seem to indicate that Rotaries are making better use of their generated torque.

They should, but the more obvious thing is that climb is not only a function of powerloading.
  • 0

#199 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 18 October 2012 - 15:13

Ok I can accept that. But guns and ammo aside, how much of a difference would things like solder make? I realize that there are replicas out there that ARE much lighter but also I heard that, for example, Mikael Carlson's D7 is very, very close (within a few Kg) of the original. Even back then there would have be inconsistencies with the density of wood so one Pfalz D3 wouldn't be exactly the same weight as another and so on. Achim Engels was quite meticulous in that he used the proper materials for his aircraft and made, I'm assuming from reading his postings, reproductions that are almost identical to the originals. Besides the guns and ammo or course.

I feel that if there were reports on the performance of a few selected reproduction aircraft, ones that are excellent reproductions and not replicas, they should not be discounted.

Apparently most replica Camels have a small fuel tank in the ammo bay rather than the huge one behind the pilot. That must make a huge difference to the handling but you never see it mentioned. WF2 I think mentioned that modern DVII replicas are made from heavier tube steel than the originals for greater structural strength. There are other examples, things are often changed for modern safety requirements. Then there's the issue of the performance data you really need, with the engine at 110%…

Data from replicas would be more flawed than the old stuff.
  • 0

#200 FlyingShark

FlyingShark
  • Posts: 1941

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:54

To get back on topic, I really hope that the DVII with aü engine is part of the 2013 planes list. And rather for the beginning of 2013 (2012 is also fine for me ;) ).

:S!:
  • 0

You can vote my post up by clicking the green arrow on the right.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users