Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

You asked for proof: the Albatros D.Va


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#41 Uwe_W.

Uwe_W.
  • Posts: 143
  • LocationFresno, CA

Posted 12 February 2013 - 05:14

Ya I always hate getting the bounce on someone in the DV, only to have to break off for fear of the wings ripping off.
But hey, seems that was a problem in reality to good stuff!

Great post OP, hope something comes of it.
Oh and for the record Id buy different props, and even engines for all the aircraft.
Heck, Id buy just about anything from yall.
  • 0

#42 flapping-brown

flapping-brown
  • Posts: 337

Posted 12 February 2013 - 12:56

WOW I i am really impressed with all that research,i never thought it was looked as so deeply.
as a young boy all i remember was that the v strutter was supposed to shed its struts when pressed in a dive and as such was a weakness.
but i liked the look of it and the pfalz d3 probably because of its rounded fuselage.
well i was very young and had my grandfathers ww1 huge books with all the pictures of the horror which left its impression in my mind for all these years.

flapping brown
  • 0

#43 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1501

Posted 17 February 2013 - 13:09

Well researched, now all we need is one of the RoF team to read it.
And react in any way …
  • 0

#44 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 17 February 2013 - 14:05

Neither the lower wings on the Albatri (D.Va + D.III) tear off in a fast dive nor do they in the N17, unfortunately. As I remember correctly in RBII 3D it was modelled quite realistically though. Instead the D.II loses its wings after only a few shots … but we already get used to it, didn't we ? The greatest asset of the D.IIIa was that it could withstand almost a full engine dive thatswhy some of the germans preferred it over the Albis, If they were smart enough they could always get away and fight another day.

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


#45 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1501

Posted 17 February 2013 - 14:26

^^

The Albatri losing their lower wings is not only modelled right in RB3d, but also in OFF, also the ailerons do not part from the wing in a dive.

Man when i remember how the devs of those sims were pounded because of much smaller errors … seems from users to developers, they always have to re-invent the wheel :|
  • 0

#46 Wolfstrike

Wolfstrike
  • Posts: 185

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:29

Gavagi,what have you started in me!?!Now I am also a D.Va FM upset customer.I was just calmly looking at all the planes stats on this site and I stumbled onto the post I linked below somehow.If you look at the link below it shows a customer named Eldur posting on how he can't get the D.Va past 165km/h.But more importantly he writes that the ROF site itself has the DVa's topspeed at sea level at 186km/h.This seemed off to me and when I went to recheck what I just read the ROF site now says 170 km/h at sea level for the D.Va.

Albatros D.Va performance

This is from Eldur's post from 2009…………

""First off, I hadn't even noticed this issue before trying ot those simple gauges as I wanted to check the planes' performances. By doing so I've seen that the Albatros D.Va's top speed on the deck is somewhere around 160 - maybe 165 km/h. Isn't that a little slow? Several online sources tend to tell it's 186 or 187 km/h and even the ingame information about the plane and the RoF website ( http://riseofflight....batros_DVa.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://riseofflight....batros_DVa.aspx ) do so.""


I have since started investigating and found that the D.Va received the D.IIIAu to offset its weight increase caused by the engineers strengthening the frame(adding 50 pounds).200hp is what a D.Va should have IMO but only above a certain altitude as shown here….

D.IIIaü
An unofficial designation, (ü for über), for D.IIIa engines with domed pistons, operating "over-compressed", (at a higher compression ratio). These engines were not able to operate at full throttle at sea level, utilising a self compensating carburettor. 180/200 hp



If the plane we have now is actually the Albatros D.V then it should keep the engine it has BUT lighten the weight as it was an upgrade of the D.III.70 pounds lighter actually.

""In April 1917, Albatros received an order from the Idflieg (Inspektion der Fliegertruppen) for an improved version of the D.III. The resulting D.V prototype flew later that month.

The D.V closely resembled the D.III and used the same 127 kW (170 hp) Mercedes D.IIIa engine. The most notable difference was a new fuselage which was 32 kg (70 lb) lighter than that of the D.III.[1]


It seems that either way the D.V variant is screwed in ROF.Either give it the 180/200hp variant and keep its name D.Va or reduce its weight by 70 pounds/rename it Albatros D.V and end the charade….. :?
  • 0

#47 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:16

What is the source for the 186km/h figure?
  • 0

#48 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:55

Jason on FM changes

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=35760&start=70
  • 0

#49 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:03

What is the source for the 186km/h figure?

The first Adlershof fighter competition, January-February 1918.
  • 0

#50 Wolfstrike

Wolfstrike
  • Posts: 185

Posted 18 February 2013 - 18:24

What is the source for the 186km/h figure?

The source is that ROF originally had the D.Va at 186km/h. :o :lol:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Albatros_D.V" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia....ki/Albatros_D.V

Seriously though my point was that the D.Va is in limbo.The devs got mixed up somewhere and it is clearly showing in the description of the D.III and the D.Va.The description of the D.Va in ROF is below….

Fighter squadrons received the Albatros D.V in May 1917. Several months of combat testing showed that lower wing problem was not solved. Engineers decided to move the aileron control wire back to the lower wing and strengthen the attach point of the V-shaped strut that connected the lower spar to the fuselage. For insurance they also added an additional strut to the lower wing spar. A more powerful Mercedes D. IIIa engine was installed. With these changes the plane received the classification of Albatros D. Va.

In ROF though the D.III already has the 180hp D.IIIa engine upgraded from the 160hp D.III which is historically correct.But you guys have the D.Va running a Mercedes D.IIIa also while the D.Va had in fact actually gotten the high compression Mercedes 200hp D.IIIau upgrade.I seriously doubt that the Imperial German Air Force would ask for upgrades to a plane to keep their pilots alive and then accept a 50 pound heavier plane with no change to its engine to compensate.
  • 0

#51 WhoCares

WhoCares
  • Posts: 254

Posted 18 February 2013 - 22:12

From two posts by Dan San Abbott on theaerodrome.com

Albatros D.V and D.Va performance (with sources):
I have the Idflieg forms that the Albatros Werke completed for the Alb. D.Va. It states the maximum airspeed is 165 km/hr. This is with the 160 Ps Mercedes D.III engine. Further it states the engines vary from 160 to 175 Ps. Thus it includes the 170 Ps mercedes D.IIIa and the 175 Ps Mercedes D.IIIaü.
Another factor is the propeller. The Baubeschreibung für DVa Flugzeug lists the
Axial 278 cm dia. 220 cm pitch.
Garuda " " " 200 " ".
Heine " " 205 " ".
The Axial would produce the most airspeed and the Garuda the least.
Another source , which I have relied on is,"Die deutschen Militär-flugzeug 1910-1918" by G.Kroschel and H.Stützer, Verlag Lohse-Eissing,Willhelmshaven. It states the performance of the Alb. D.Va with the 170 Ps Mercedes D.IIIa engine is:
187 Km/hr @ sea level climb:
188 " @ 1000 meters (3280 ft). 4' 0".
165 " @ 3000 meters (9840 ft). 17'8".
maximum altitude is: 6250 meters (20500 ft.).
The airspeeds of the Alb. D.V are the same as the D.Va. Rates of climb are faster, to 1000 m.
4'20", to 3000 meters, 14'30". Maximum altitude is 6500 meters, (21320 ft.).
I believe that the authors are getting their information from official German data. The numbers coincide with the Baubeschreibung data sheets for the various aircraft.

And as we also discussed the propellers, Albatros D.V and D.Va propellers:
The Albatros D.V used several different propellers. for different versions of the Mercedes D.IIIa or D.IIIaü engine.
On the original production Alb.D.V, they used the Axial propeller 2780 mm in diameter and 2050 mm pitch. With the later production the Albatros Werke used thw Wolff Propeller, 2750 diameter and 1800 mm pitch. The third propeller was the Heine Propeller, 2780 mm in diameter. Unfortunately,I do not have the pitch.
[and from Greybeard further down: Pitch was 2000 mm according to Jane's WWI aircrafts (1990 reprint - see Pfalz DXII technical description).]

Something I noticed on the two french tests:
If I am not mistaken, the two values below the total weight (Poids total) are the wing load (Weight/Surface, PI/S) and the power loading (Weight/Power, PI/To).
Crosschecking the first, the results are correct.
Back-calulating the latter:
D.V: 890kg / 5.5 = 161.8 (insert unit of choice, HP, PS?)
D.Va: 914.5 / 5.58 = 163.9 (but that could also be 914.5/5.8 = 157.7! there might be two errors in that line, maybe corrections shining through again in a copy process, or it is a classic carbon copy)

For the first one that might be a rounding issue, 890 / 160 = 5.5[625], for the latter the numbers do not come quite together, 914.5 / 160 = 5.7[15625].
Sloppy calculation/documentation?
Could it be that they measured the power output?! But then why wouldn't they list the result on that page? Could the engine data be on the backside/page two? Do we have other french tests, also of other planes, to check this?!
  • 0

#52 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 19 February 2013 - 00:15

Thanks! :)
  • 0

#53 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 19 February 2013 - 00:38

Really good find! BUT you (and anyone else whocares <–heh :) need to save this data on your PC and be ready with it in say 18 months or so.

BOS is king in the world of 777 since the WW2 fan base is probably double or triple the WW1 fan base. Gotta get that $$ in the bank. EVENTUALLY, I think FMs will get some attention again. Its good discussion and research like this that make those changes possible in the future.
  • 0

#54 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 19 February 2013 - 00:45

Whocares,

I think it is very consistent with what I've been saying that Dan San said the Garuda produced the least airspeed, and the Axial the most.

However, the airspeed and ceiling figures he states are practically impossible. Assuming 187km/h @sealevel, 188km/h @1km, and 165km/h @3km, and a 6250m ceiling, this is what the airspeed curve would look like:

Attached File  crazy1.png   44.23KB   205 downloads

Kind of silly, no? My belief is that 165km/h @3km is the figure from the French test of the D.V. If you read the thread I linked, you'll learn that the French test became the tacit source for numerous publications that just mixed and matched data willy-nilly.
  • 0

#55 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 19 February 2013 - 00:55

I've been doing a lot of extra reading lately in order to conduct flight tests on the Dr1 this summer, and based on that reading, I'd say that graph is impossible. The only way to make that work would be to get a lot of extra air to the engine above 3km.
  • 0

#56 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:06

Also, notice that the climb times Dan San quotes from the German source are the same as the French D.V test (rounded up slightly). They are far from being "official German data."
  • 0

#57 Wolfstrike

Wolfstrike
  • Posts: 185

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:19

Gavagi,am I way off in thinking that the cure for the D.Va is just to give it the D.IIIau.That pops out in a few places I look yet the talk here is about props and french D.V tests.When I start up the D.V and go full throttle the plane just seems to be low horsepower IMO.Most likely I am making a fool of myself here.;)
  • 0

#58 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:59

No, I don't think that's the solution. First, it seems inexorable that our Albatros D.Va is not a D.Va, but a D.V with a 160 PS Mercedes D.III engine. It should have the 170 PS Mercedes D.IIIa engine (British rated 180hp) because that is the engine it was delivered with in Fall 1917.

Production of the D.IIIau engine did not start until April 1918, and Fokker D.VIIs were not being delivered with it in significant numbers until June 1918. How likely is it that they diverted the engine to the Albatros D.Va over the Fokker D.VII? Not very likely. We can speculate that some Albatrosses used the engine, but it's not important once the Fokker D.VII is on the scene.

Anyway, this thread is moribund. Reading Jason's post in the other thread, we have to conclude that it doesn't matter what we can prove about the Albatros D.Va. They're not going to fix it.
  • 0

#59 Wolfstrike

Wolfstrike
  • Posts: 185

Posted 19 February 2013 - 21:18

From what I gather though the D.IIIau was entered into service in late 1917 which ties in with the first order of D.Va's in august 1917.

Albatros responded with the D.Va, which featured stronger wing spars, heavier wing ribs, and a reinforced fuselage.[6] These modifications made the D.Va 23 kg (50 lb) heavier than the D.III, while failing to entirely cure the structural problems of the type. Use of the high-compression 130 kW (180 hp) Mercedes D.IIIaü engine offset the increased weight of the D.Va. Idflieg placed orders for 262 D.Va aircraft in August 1917, followed by additional orders for 250 in September and 550 in October.[6] Ostdeutsche Albatros Werke, which had been engaged in production of the D.III, received orders for 600 D.Va aircraft in October.[6]


A more "radical" upgrade was the 180/200 hp D.IIIaü, introduced in late 1917, the D.IIIaü was a standardized refinement of the D.III and D.IIIa design and the ü designation was never official. This engine changed the pistons again, this time to a domed profile that further increased the maximum compression – the ü was for "über", meaning "overcompressed". Additionally, a new altitude-compensating carburetor was added, which improved performance at higher altitudes. To support operations at these altitudes, water from the radiator was used to heat the air intake and prevent icing in the carburetor. The aü model, which included upgraded D.III and D.IIIa engine blocks, was the most prolific German fighter engine of 1918 and designed into most fighter designs from late 1917 on. This included most of the entries in the First Fighter Competition at Adlershof in January 1918, notably the famed Fokker D.VII. In British post war evaluation the D.IIIaü demonstrated 200 hp according to the British standards.
  • 0

#60 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 19 February 2013 - 21:49

No, you're quoting wikipedia.

Here are the production numbers for Mercedes D.III engines:
DIII
1914 9 total

1915 1165 total

1916 2379 total

1917 1696(other sources say 1604) total
January 193
February 256
March 371
April 344
May 324
June 169
July 20
August 10
September 7
October 2
November 0
December 0

1918 1


DIIIa
1917 2644 total
June 45
July 330
August 420
September 441
October 483
November 457
December 468

1918 4044 total
January 428 (D.IIIa)
February 328 (D.IIIa)
March 283 (D.IIIa)
April 370 (min.200-D.IIIa/max.170-D.IIIaü)
May 405 (min.110-D.IIIa/max.295-D.IIIaü)
June 413 (min.22-D.IIIa/max.391-D.IIIaü)
July 498 (1-D.IIIa/497-D.IIIaü)
August 495 (D.IIIaü)
September 480 (D.IIIaü)
October 229 (D.IIIaü)
November 100 (D.IIIaü)
December 15 (D.IIIaü)

  • 0

#61 Browning

Browning
  • Posts: 635

Posted 19 February 2013 - 23:07

I would think production numbers show too few later models as some engines where refitted to later standards, right?
  • 0

#62 Wolfstrike

Wolfstrike
  • Posts: 185

Posted 19 February 2013 - 23:16

I see what you mean.Still I say that since this is simulating 1917/1918 that just for gaming reasons we should get the D.IIIau engine installed to give it a fighting chance against the camels…..not that it would really matter since 186kmh is not gonna win against same speed plane that handles like a wet dream.Either way,as you pointed out it seems that FM revisions have left the building in ROF.I shudder to think of the FM debates that will ensue in BOS.
  • 0

#63 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 19 February 2013 - 23:35

I would think production numbers show too few later models as some engines where refitted to later standards, right?

Yes, you are right. Dave Watts apparently has records of the engine serial numbers for delivered Fokker D.VII scouts. Someone has to go through them one-by-one to find the old serial numbers and identify the upgraded engines.
  • 0

#64 Lieste

Lieste
  • Posts: 226

Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:39

Whocares,

I think it is very consistent with what I've been saying that Dan San said the Garuda produced the least airspeed, and the Axial the most.

However, the airspeed and ceiling figures he states are practically impossible. Assuming 187km/h @sealevel, 188km/h @1km, and 165km/h @3km, and a 6250m ceiling, this is what the airspeed curve would look like:

How does a misreading of 165>185 fit with the known behaviour of the height throttle, and the velocity change from there to the ceiling? To me a curve fit looks reasonable with a maximum near to 2km, and then a 'normal' fall off from there. Alternatively 165 could be the 'rated' rpm at 3km also, rather than the maximum, i.e. at a partial throttle position.
  • 0

#65 belfastman2

belfastman2
  • Posts: 66

Posted 20 February 2013 - 03:17

There are a lot of the German planes that need looking into they do not perform like accounts of them I have read.Good work!
  • 0

#66 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 20 February 2013 - 03:25

Whocares,

I think it is very consistent with what I've been saying that Dan San said the Garuda produced the least airspeed, and the Axial the most.

However, the airspeed and ceiling figures he states are practically impossible. Assuming 187km/h @sealevel, 188km/h @1km, and 165km/h @3km, and a 6250m ceiling, this is what the airspeed curve would look like:

How does a misreading of 165>185 fit with the known behaviour of the height throttle, and the velocity change from there to the ceiling? To me a curve fit looks reasonable with a maximum near to 2km, and then a 'normal' fall off from there. Alternatively 165 could be the 'rated' rpm at 3km also, rather than the maximum, i.e. at a partial throttle position.

Hmmmmmm. What do you think of my claim that 165km/h @3km is really just the French data for the Albatros D.V? Others have mixed the 188km/h @1km and the 154km/h @4km from the French data, too.

Here is what I think a believable curve would be. The 6250m ceiling seems overly optimistic, so I'm assuming a maximum of ~5700m.

Attached File  Albatros D.Va.png   51.47KB   335 downloads
  • 0

#67 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 20 February 2013 - 04:23

There are equations which can give us an accurate curve, ie no guess work. We just need accurate parameters for an initial point on the curve. I"ll get it put together in excel but it won't be for a couple of weeks.
  • 0

#68 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 20 February 2013 - 04:34

So, would you assume the 2050mm or 2200mm pitch for the initial point?
  • 0

#69 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 20 February 2013 - 15:26

I'm not aware of any performance equations that use pitch explicitly. Instead you will use coefficient of power, coefficient of thrust, and prop efficiency. Even petrovich does this in rof it seems. Those parameters are part of other equations use to predict performance. Once I get it plugged into excel sheet you can see it.
  • 0

#70 Tiger27

Tiger27
  • Posts: 256

Posted 25 February 2013 - 08:15

So, that is my summary. I hope you enjoyed it. I really and truly hope this results in some changes for our dead-horse Albatros D.Va.

Quote edited to avoid cluttering the thread.

I really hope this is the nail in the coffin to fixing the Albatros D.Va. I would love to actually be better equipped to give Camels a run for their money other than having to catch them napping! :x :lol:


As usual though, my hat off to you. Thank you for all your work! :S!:

Some nice research.

Not stirring the pot, but if some of these fixes could stop the constant Camel whine(I am not saying it is not correct, just annoying)then I am all for it, I would love all planes to have at least one last review before the team fully move to BOS, it would be a nice reward for those of us that have stuck with ROF right from the start.
  • 0

#71 J2_Wallenberg

J2_Wallenberg
  • Posts: 1600

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:54

If somebody can decipher the bottom right corner of page 31 of this PDF scanned document, I think there is some info on the performance of the D types.

For the life of me I can't read this scan.
  • 0

#72 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 27 February 2013 - 14:14

On the x axis it says "Climbing results of D airplanes with stationary engines."

Above that, within the graph:

* Special Stationary Altitude
engine
St Stationary Engine

But I can't read the graph labels.
  • 0

#73 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 27 February 2013 - 16:33

So, that is my summary. I hope you enjoyed it. I really and truly hope this results in some changes for our dead-horse Albatros D.Va.

Quote edited to avoid cluttering the thread.

I really hope this is the nail in the coffin to fixing the Albatros D.Va. I would love to actually be better equipped to give Camels a run for their money other than having to catch them napping! :x :lol:


As usual though, my hat off to you. Thank you for all your work! :S!:

Some nice research.

Not stirring the pot, but if some of these fixes could stop the constant Camel whine(I am not saying it is not correct, just annoying)then I am all for it, I would love all planes to have at least one last review before the team fully move to BOS, it would be a nice reward for those of us that have stuck with ROF right from the start.

Sorry to disappoint but the Camel will always be king of treetop height online fights, as it should be.

As much as I'd like to see the changes suggested in this thread I really don't see them stopping the Camel moaning. They would remove the technical background though, which would be good.
  • 0

#74 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 27 February 2013 - 16:53

Sorry to disappoint but the Camel will always be king of treetop height online fights, as it should be.

As much as I'd like to see the changes suggested in this thread I really don't see them stopping the Camel moaning. They would remove the technical background though, which would be good.

The difference would be that only the people who are losing fights would be complaining, not the people who generally have a very high K/D.

Both the Camel and Dr1 have provable errors in their modeling that, if addressed, would make them a bit less dangerous to other aircraft. But, as I indicated earlier, this is a dead thread because Jason has told us in so many words that no amount of evidence is going to bring about FM work this year.
  • 0

#75 Waxworks

Waxworks
  • Posts: 630

Posted 27 February 2013 - 17:34

Well perhaps there might be FM improvements in August 2014 then…

Hopefully a rework of the D.Va FM would also be a chance to introduce the D.V, there are significant differences to the model but an entirely new model would not be required. The D.V would be very useful to have. Also it would be useful to have two Camels, an earlier and later version, there seems little doubt that the engines were upgraded in the service life of the machine?

Is there evidence for a Pup with a higher ceiling and lower performance? The Pfalz DIIIa and Nieuports 11 and 28, all merit similar threads as well. It is good to have a detailed FM thread in the FM section, rather than just constant sniping in general discussion. Please don't stop.
  • 0

#76 volatile_void

volatile_void
  • Posts: 55

Posted 27 February 2013 - 20:02

On the x axis it says "Climbing results of D airplanes with stationary engines."

Above that, within the graph:

* Special Stationary Altitude
engine
St Stationary Engine

But I can't read the graph labels.

I read the graph labels as:

D ( 180 St ) *
D ( 160 St ) * [the asterisk is quite off]
D ( 120 St ) [unsure]

But there are 4 curves and only 3 labels. Since the '*' on the second label is quite off, maybe the caption D ( 160 St ) belongs to both adjacent curves, while the '*' only applies to the upper one?

x axis is denoted 0 - 45 min in 5 min steps.
y axis is denoted 0 - 8 [km?]

Also, why do the lines start as solid lines and then change to dashed lines?
  • 0

#77 WhoCares

WhoCares
  • Posts: 254

Posted 27 February 2013 - 20:08

If somebody can decipher the bottom right corner of page 31 of this PDF scanned document, I think there is some info on the performance of the D types.

For the life of me I can't read this scan.
Gavagai already did some of the work, but there is some more I can add.

The four plots on the bottom right give the climbing results for different plane types and engines, Fig. 34 B, C and Cl types, Fig. 35 G and J, Fig. 36 E and D with rotary engine and Fig. 37 D with stationary engine. x axis is the time in minutes, y-axis must be altitude in km (can't really read it, but anything else doesn't make sense). Each individually plotted line stands for an engine, at the end stands the ceiling (maybe the dashed lines indicate just a projected ceiling).
Focussing on the D-types, I can ready two engine types, one plot for D180ST* and two for D160 ST, one with "*". As gav already said, the "*" indicates special altitude engines. I can only guess the D180ST* is the BMW reaching 8km altitude, the D160ST* (assuming DIIIaü) with 7km ceiling, the D160ST (DIIIa?) reaching 6km.

The graphs on the left give the number of planes on the front. x-axis are the years and month of the war, y-axis is the number of planes. The upper graph for E, D and Dr type of planes, the bottom one for G types. The single lines seem to be more or less per group of planes and engine types, but don't ask me to map nay to individual lines :roll:

Interesting is the graph in the middle top of that page, giving the altitudes for different missions. In the middle of it are plane types qualified by engines, e.g. G 260 St(ationary). On the left is the climb time to the respective altitudes.
Regarding the utilization, I read Infantry flights (altitude should be ground, but can't see it), Bombing and Artillery flights (~3km), Defensive(?) flights and Long distance Scouting (~5-6km); can't read the missiontha reaches the 8km altitude.
  • 0

#78 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 27 February 2013 - 21:58

Also it would be useful to have two Camels, an earlier and later version, there seems little doubt that the engines were upgraded in the service life of the machine?

What would be good is to have a Bentley-powered Camel, which is what the naval squadrons used. It was decidedly superior to the Clerget.
  • 0

#79 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:50

The Bentley wasn't a later engine - although I believe they updated it with a longer stroke and higher compression in its service life. The Bentley, Le Rhone and Clerget 9b were all available from the start of service.

The 9bf was a later - slightly higher compression version.

They also modified the undercarriage and fuel pump system later in its life and considered rudder improvements since its rudder was too small and relatively ineffective..
  • 0

#80 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:18

This belongs in another thread now, but I am curious about the stated performance figures for the BR1 Camel. In my mind I think it would be like the Camel we have now, but then I read 121mph @10,000ft, which is ~12km/h slower than the Viper powered SE5a. It's a similar story for the 114.5mph @15,000ft figure, which is faster than the Sopwith Snipe that was supposed to replace it.

Tom or Waxworks, any comments? I know the BR1 engine was reliable and did not suffer the immediate loss of power of the Clerget.

Here is Guttman:

Attached File  guttman.png   107.92KB   208 downloads
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users